goldisheavy

Keep in mind that the title of your submission is "What are the limits of the physical body?" I am assuming that the idea is for all us to wonder if we can become giants without the negative health implications associated with gigantism. If the answer is "yes we can all become huge but we're going to pay for it" then why do we want it? Also, why would we want to be huge anyway? What is the benefit? I don't see the benefit. I'd rather be small like a chimp and strong like a chimp, and smart like 10 smartest humans put together, but that's just me. Go to images.google.com and try "chimpanzee hairless" for a search. Chimps are stupid strong and they look it too, once you get the fur off. This to me is a better evidence of the body abilities than size alone. Even then, a much better post would be about strongmen or other people who are just like us but who exceed body limitations through training. Can you become a giant through training? No, right? Then why post about it? There are many reasons not to post about giants (or midgets or any other thing like that). Well, you have trouble coming up with an impartial source for one, and two, you kind of have a posting history that leans toward supporting intelligent design and creationism. I mean, if this was a one-off kind of thing, it would be different. But you're pretty consistent. It's as if you work in some creationist/id think tank marketing department.

OK, so can we say you cling to freedom from clinging then? Why aren't you happy to let people cling? I'm not being completely serious here, but I hope you see my point. That seems like a good entrance into wisdom though. Even if you can't go on with such a simple mindset all the way to the "end", it's still a useful desire in many circumstances. What I am saying here is that some kinds of clinging are at least provisionally good. So for example, you can cling to wisdom, but is that a problem? Well, maybe once you reach the apex of sagacity it starts being a problem, but it's probably not a problem for a very long time. Well, you've probably seen this sort of thing in yourself and that's why (and how) you know it. I think what you're talking about is a fair warning. At the same time, why do you think Xabir is exactly like you? Do you interact with Xabir personally once a week for 3 years straight? The same words that are evidence of a flaw in you can be evidence of right thinking in someone else. Or do you believe that words have inherent meaning and that if they mean something for you they mean the same thing for everyone and in every circumstance?

I agree with this. I think what happens is that as we become more insightful the chance to make an error is reduced. Probably the errors that get eliminated by wisdom the most are the gross errors, the low-hanging fruit, so to speak. That gets picked up first. There are subtler errors that are harder to pick up. And generally I agree that wisdom as something we describe and strive toward is not something flat, it is dependent and it fluctuates. At the same time wisdom as something beyond striving is not dependent on anything. From this point of view, mistakes are meaningful and useful. Mistakes have a function. Think of it this way too. If wisdom was completely perishable, then there would be no transformation of ignorance into wisdom. It's just like even in the blackest darkness there is some tiny degree of light. We call this "potential", but if you understand the principle of uncertainty, you can take it literally, which is to say, due to uncertainty of perception there is no such thing as "perfect" darkness. All perceptions are uncertain to an extent. Thus even the darkest darkness has some measure of light in it, and vice versa. So in this sense, there is a measure of wisdom in ignorance. You can think of it as potential, or you can think of it as a literally true statement if you understand the implication of the principle of uncertainty.

I would say that emptiness is not an object of perception, to be perfectly technical. It's not something you see. It's a recognition. It's like a person looking in the mirror and recognizing the face in the mirror as oneself. Or it's like a person looking at one's uncle and recognizing the uncle (vs not recognizing the uncle). What you see is the same, either your own face in the first example, or the uncle's face in the second example, but you either recognize it or fail to recognize it. You can argue that recognition is also a kind of seeing, but it would be better for the sake of ease of discussion to differentiate between seeing and recognition. For example, you may see a strange bug crawling on the ground, and due to your lack of knowledge fail to recognize what kind of bug it is (and thus you fail to know how it lives its life). You can still see the bug even if you don't recognize it. That's why it's useful to distinguish seeing from recognition.

I agree. But to go from understanding this to psychoanalysis is really a huge, huge leap. Clinging is a state of mind and when it comes to subtle clinging, the degree of clinging is not whatsoever obvious from how the person talks or behaves. My point is, unless the person presents a grossly obvious kind of clinging to you, there is no point in blaming the person personally. You can still talk about clinging in general terms, but don't make it personal unless the flaw is grossly evident and coarse. Xabir does not have a gross flaw, in my opinion. If he has flaws, they are pretty subtle ones and thus not subject to psychoanalysis. He has to figure things out for himself. Give him some space. My only beef with Xabir is how narrowly he's focused on just a few people whom he quotes constantly. I worry he can't think for himself anymore and that he's become a dittohead. But I don't know this for sure because I don't live in Xabir's mind. Also, you seem to be obsessed on clinging when aversion is just as bad as clinging. Aversion is always mentioned in the same breath as clinging in order to have a balanced perspective. If you only ever talk about clinging and forget aversion, you become a nihilist. I agree with this based on personal experience, but it also happens to be a doctrinal point in Buddhism. Your not just cynical. You probably don't believe a person can be free from clinging to begin with. I bet you believe everyone clings like crazy and just makes excuses about it on forums to sound good. That's worse than mere cynicism.

Really? I am disappointed to hear that. I don't gain respect for people based on their superficial perfections, such as the ability to adhere to linguistic conventions. I respect the English language conventions to a large extent, but there is no way such conventions can be the grounds for proper respect. The role of all language conventions is purely utilitarian. I would even say the English language should be reformed in order to move it closer to a phonetic language. The spelling inconsistencies in the English language are atrocious. I ask people to write more clearly all the time, but I do so not so that I may respect them more, but so that my eyes don't bleed so much. It's for my own utility.

What matters is the quality of life. If someone has a good quality of life while clinging to all sorts of things, there is no point in changing anything. If you're ostensibly not clinging to anything and yet suffer, then something is wrong. It makes no sense to criticize people who are happy with what they have, because these people are not looking for a fix. Do you go around the streets handing out aspirin to everyone, whether the complain of headaches or not?

You can become deluded if you want to be. Everything is reversible. You're not stuck. Think about it. You didn't become enlightened despite your intention, right? Rather you became enlightened in accordance with your intention. You can move back if that's what you want. It's up to you. No kidding? It's nice to see someone appreciates that sutra.

It could be honest misunderstanding too. For example, I don't think I have a huge tendency to view things as solid objects, and yet you chided me for viewing things in that manner. I admit there must be some of that tendency left over from my earlier days, but at the same time, I think you selected a poor example of those substantialist tendencies in my post. You picked precisely those posts where I am not so substantialist to call me out on my substantialism, so your criticism did not sound authentic to me. It was like hit and miss. That doesn't mean you're completely wrong, but you have to catch me in my weakest moment, in a moment when I am obviously relating to things as if they were substantial in the most crass and offensive manner possible (for me). Then you might have something. I think xabir honestly believes he holds no position, just like Nagarjuna, so when you tell him about his tendencies being a sort of a position, he's not going to agree with you. He thinks positions are only things you argue about and not mental constructs deep in the psyche (which is what they really are). Since he's not arguing for a specific position, he thinks he has no position. This is a kind of superficial behavioral liberation, which is better than nothing, but still it's shallow. Because if you really understand the voidness of positions, then you'll have no trouble taking a position from time to time. If you are very consistent in refusing to take a position no matter what, well... that's hypocritical, isn't it? Because the words say "no position" but the behavior says otherwise. But none of this means xabir wants to deceive us on purpose. It's just how he thinks and we can't help it. If Thusness or Namdrol told xabir that he's stuck in a position, he would listen, but even then he wouldn't really understand because he'd just be slavishly following trusted advisors instead of independently understanding things for himself. It's just our luck that he's slavishly following Thusness and not Osama bin Laden or some such.

I don't think so. Almost every time xabir appears he posts long posts full of quotes and he's constantly going on "thusness this, Namdrol that, etc." He's always quoting someone or something. He's not behaving like someone with a realization because he can't speak plainly, from his own person, in his own words, to the point, etc. He's just ranting. Of course just as I said in the beginning, that's simply my impression, that's how xabir appears to me. It's not an absolute estimate of xabir. For all I know he's enlightened 100%, but his behavior and topics of conversation are not helpful or inspiring to me. Well, I can guarantee you that if you met historical Buddha and told him this, he'd tell you to get lost. Buddha was very proud from all the accounts we have of him. In fact, I remember reading when he met his 4 (or was it 5?) friends after a long absence, he insisted that they stop calling him "Gotama" and call him "Lord" instead. There are other accounts of Buddha's haughty behavior in the Suttas. If you read lots of Suttas you'll find them. Anyway, don't worry about other people's subtle hang-ups too much. Just worry about your own. If you disagree, it's best to disagree on something more gross and thus more obvious, like logic, or things that bring about social ills, etc... there is no point to dig at subtle fears and whatnot. It's a waste of time.

You'll never get xabir to admit to having preferences. He wants to be seen as perfect. So just give up. Yes, of course we prefer certain ideas to others. For example, Buddha preferred to eat once a day at noon instead of 3 times and so on. Everyone has countless preferences. One time Buddha got tired of living together with the monks and nuns and finding them annoying, ran away to the forest to be by himself. Etc. Everyone has preferences. If you equate preferences with clinging (which is not entirely unreasonable) then everyone experiences clinging, even the historical Buddha as we know him. Even the wisest person is going to be an idiot from a certain point of view, but you'll never get free admissions of this from people. So why waste your time asking more than a few times? If you ask twice and fail to get an admission, forget about it. Just imagine how miserable you'd be if you walked up to Buddha Gotama and asked him to admit to some flaws. He'd never admit to anything of the sort. Not only that, but thousands of monks in his attendance would scorn you as well, since they are all his groupies.

Ah ha!! We got you red handed! Please put away your Buddha card and step away from the desk. Slowly. Security will be right with you. Your possession will be packed into boxes and mailed to you at home. Being a Buddha is a very serious business, doncha know.

Blessings are not physical objects or energy. They can't leave you this way. My suggestion is to relax, eat well, exercise, sleep well, and ignore this turmoil. It will pass. It's just your mind playing tricks on you. There is nothing special in your chest to begin with. Relax. The body is not where you really are anyway. The body is like your place in the world, but it's not where you are and it's not who you are. Don't get obsessed on storing things in the body or worry overmuch if things seem to leave it. Fill your heart with love and compassion for all beings. Do this every day and be patient. Next time, don't be so obsessed on accumulating things, even if those things are of spiritual nature. Let go and let be.

On the contrary. Delusion comes in degrees. You can be more grossly deluded or more subtly deluded. Enlightenment is not an all or nothing phenomenon and nor is its onset sudden. Enlightenment represents a profound change in how we view ourselves and the world, and that change is not something sudden. Enlightenment is only "sudden" in the sense that it occurs now, because now is the only time we have. So it's sudden in a kind of mystical sense, but not in a practical day to day sense. In a practical day to day sense enlightenment develops over the years or even lifetimes. You can say whatever you want once enlightened. Enlightenment strips limitations instead of endowing one with limitations. The mind is most definitely capable of knowing Truth, and in fact, since the mind is the seat of knowledge, if you ever know Truth, it will be your mind that will know it and not your foot or chair.

Emptiness in the Buddhist sense is most definitely not a specific experience and it's most definitely not a state of mind. It is said all phenomena are empty, which is to say, all experience without exception bears the mark of emptiness. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

I wouldn't say that. I think you were spot on here: But how? Since in your view there is no continuity from moment A to moment B? And from those moments to the moment where the mind is able to compare two moments and discern their differences? If anything, I am less concise.

Alright, I sense some confusion and doubts still remain. Suppose there is a series of discrete moments: A, B, C, D, and so on. I asked you a question: how can you tell the difference between the two moments? That question was important. If you cognize the difference between moment A and moment B during moment A, then you have no basis for making a comparison because moment B has not yet occurred and you have nothing to compare moment A with. If you cognize the difference between moment A and moment B during moment B, then the moment A is completely past and there is nothing to compare B with. The same reasoning will apply to all other discrete moments. The only way to cognize a difference between moments A and B is to have both moments present in your mind during the moment of comparison, but that is absurd if you still maintain that moments are discrete and discontinuous entities.

I think that's partly true. I don't require that identity be self-powered. In fact, I would even say that a self-powered identity is a meaningless one. Only a relational identity is meaningful and a relational identity is never extreme because it's always expressed in terms of similarities and dissimilarities instead of extreme ideas such as sameness or differences.

Extreme labels do not apply. Labels like "same" and "different" are both extreme labels. How about labels like "similar" and "dissimilar"? Clearly these kinds of labels still apply!

Ah, so you don't see the symmetry. It's simple. When you think of those two black shirts again, one with a tag cut off and a letter on the front, they are similar but not the same. The exact same state of affairs can be described in different words. We can say that these two black shirts are somewhat dissimilar. Right? Now, as the shirts get more and more similar, we can say they get less and less dissimilar. Every similarity is also a kind of dissimilarity. This should be obvious by now. The reverse is also true. Every dissimilarity is a kind of similarity. Why is that? It's the same exact statement put into different words.

Thank heavens for that. If you can see this, you are halfway there. Now you need to see the corollary: Difference is also purely conventional. There are no two things that are truly different. There is only dissimilitude. Just like things can be more similar and less similar, things can be more dissimilar and less dissimilar. And just like similitude never reaches the extreme of sameness, dissimilitude also never reaches the extreme of difference. What I am saying about differences is simply the flip side of the coin of what I say about sameness. Both sameness and differences do not ultimately exist.

They are the same for most intents and purposes. That's all there is to it. The word "same" is a conventional designator. There is nothing in reality that is utterly the same. But at the same time, if you jump to a conclusion that because nothing is utterly the same everything is utterly different, that's a huge, huge error. Your error is that you fall into an extremism of sorts, which is dishonest. It's the nature of all extremist modalities of thought: they are all dishonest because reality is not extremist at all. When you examine life as it is in an honest manner, you can see how wrong you are. Even then they would only be so similar that conventionally we'd consider them the same. These two shirts would be more similar than the previous two. The first moment of consciousness would not continue forever because you have to consider the entire universe of perception, if you want to be honest. You fail to see that shirt is only a shirt in context. The context is everything else in the universe of perception. So there is no way to honestly consider even so much as a blade of grass unless you consider everything at once. Why do we perceive things as similar? When something has changed, how do you know it changed? This last question I've asked many times now and each time you've ignored it.

It's the only real identity. That's a naive view of those who've never investigated identity.

It's not quite correct. The correct thing to say is that my mind is somewhat different from moment to moment. Not at all. Identity is not that inflexible. A thing only needs to be similar to be recognized as the same. In other words, "same" is a conventional expression for "it's so similar that we shouldn't dwell on the differences that do exist." Let's have a citation of this denial then.