goldisheavy

He rejected assumptions necessary for science. Further, besides his prior two Gurus and his own asceticism, the Buddha had no instruction. So the Buddha, as far as I know, wasn't trained in conventional sciences, never cared for them to advance any of these conventional sciences himself, and basically had an attitude of renunciation toward such sciences, the same way Buddha would relate to all other conventional phenomena.

Haha... this is so silly. I had no idea Namdrol was now preaching Vedantic fatalism as Buddha Dharma. Lord Buddha has definitely denied what Namdrol is saying here, which is that the past solely determines the present. Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html BTW, correct understanding is present+past determine present+future. In other words, there is a role for free will to play.

So if you think about it, all of pre-modern history, starting with the Buddha himself, people who thought they were practicing Buddha Dharma in actuality were practicing Pseudobuddhism? And only now, roughly 2500 years after Buddha first preached pseudobuddhism, we now finally have real Buddhism thanks to modern science? What you say makes sense only from the perspective of one who is committed to humanity (and therefore, human identity and all that's implied by it). Scientific practice presently maintains retentions of objectivity, even if its true nature is intersubjective. I never wanted to say that science is devoid of all value. Scientific point of view has pros and cons, as does my view, as does Buddha Dharma, and so on. There no single view or approach that is pure win, an approach that doesn't require the giving up of something to gain something. The things that science gives up are too valuable to give up for me personally.

OK, religious vs non-religious Buddhism. Or Pseudobuddhism vs religious Buddhism? But you were denigrating magical thinking, so maybe I jumped to conclusion here thinking you were promoting science as an alternative to magical thinking.

So it looks like you don't want to be public about the differences between what you call "scientific Buddhism" and "religious Buddhism." Do you mind sending me a PM with some detailed differences? What are the grounds of the so-called "scientific Buddhism"? What are its authorities? What are its tenets, goals, practices, maxims? I would like to know.

Simple_Jack, I agree with your above three posts. Ralis, I was thinking about what you asked recently and I have come up with a different way to answer your question. You might like this one better. Your question was about whether an ideological adherence to neutrality or quiescence was something I considered a mistake, if I understand correctly. So here's a different way I can answer: Remember how I was talking about burning up the blueprints for phenomenal reality? (note: phenomenal reality is not ultimate reality, but phenomenal reality is the familiar patterns of appearances that we trust, expect, and take seriously). OK, there is a difference between burning up all blueprints, and installing a blueprint of a reliably neutral and reliably quiescent experience. The former is chaotic. The latter is highly ordered. And still I claim there is no objective way to say which approach is superior. Also, ideologies are driven by deeper needs that beings have. So ideologies are not "just ideologies." People commit to ideologies because they are perceived to answer some perceived needs. This process can be confused, but even in the middle of confusion there is some element of truth/authenticity there. So I still think some beings need to actualize quiescence while others need to labor on paths with greater creativity and effort than just seeking a glorious repose.

It's not just a translation issue. The real issue is that there are two ways people interpret what the Buddha said. 1. No self exists at all, period. 2. Seeing is inconstant, stressful, so isn't fit to be called self. Hearing, smelling, feeling, consciousness, etc. Buddha has only and ever preached #2 and never #1, but weirdly most people actually think #1 is the correct understanding of the Buddha Dharma. Meanwhile Buddha has also explained that there is something that isn't subject to inconstancy, and this is also routinely ignored by a lot of people. It's not just a translation issue as I see it. We have two radically different ways of interpreting what the Buddha has said. And they can't both be right, imo. The implications that flow from #1 contradict a lot of stuff that flows from #2.

That wasn't the worst quote, imo. It was short enough for me to get his point: The Buddha never said "I don't exist" is the right view. This similar topic is discussed in "No-self or Not-self?", which I think is a great article that should be read by anyone interested in the not-self doctrine. Lots of people confuse not-self with no-self, but Buddha never denied self as such. Buddha has only ever denied that the various categories of specific phenomena are self. The Buddha hasn't denied some abstract isolated beyond-phenomenal self. He only called that which is inconstant as unfit to be called "self." But then Buddha also mentioned something that wasn't inconstant, but stopped short of encouraging people to call it self without ever prohibiting it either, basically leaving the topic purposefully ambiguous and purposefully open. I do dislike it when Simple_Jack posts enormous wall of text quotes without any of his own thoughts attached. When this happens I automatically just ignore them. I came to this forum to communicate with people rather than books. I can read the books on my own outside the forum. So providing a link to a book is one thing, but spamming pages or chapters out of a book is another. The only exception I'd make is if the book is secret, then spamming chapters from it would be OK in order to break the secrecy.

I like this. Ah, now that's one hell of a clever answer. So your lack of control has the properties of being in control, because you intend to be out of control deliberately, so this is your will, and because you seem to be cognizant of this fact, it is controlled. I am quite different from you in my current phase. I bring chaos and destruction upon the world because I no longer enjoy it. I detest humanity and renounce it even in myself, never mind elsewhere. My view is still one of compassion because I believe we're all tired of this game and can't suffer it any longer. We need a change. Those of us who want change and those of us who want everything to remain the same will have a fight, and I will defeat them at the head of beings who want change. I'm in it for a long haul. I think in terms of aeons, not even lifetimes.

OK, no problem at all. Yes. I am changing day to day, hour by hour. Mostly my current change amounts to continual stabilization in my view. I used to be plagued by doubts and indecision before. These doubts and hesitancy are decreasing, and I am experiencing more peace as a result. At the same time, I am gradually (slowly) opening up to more tantric kind of experiences which would have been too upsetting before. If you don't control yourself, someone else or something else will.

OK, so I got a partial admission that easily? So now you put me in "religious Buddhism" box? What can you tell me about non-religious Buddhism? How is non-religious Buddhism different from Buddhism and why is it still called "Buddhism" at that point?

OK, can you please give me one example where English is inadequate? I've been exploring consciousness for aeons, for many, many prior births. So now that I speak English I can convey everything I've learned up till now. And in my next birth I'll speak Flurobian language, and then I'll express everything I've learned in this life in Flurobian.

I was going to ask how this seer is separate. If the seer is separate from the act of seeing, then there should be unique properties of the seer that do not apply to seeing, and vice versa. Can you identify what are the unique properties of the seer and then explain to me how those properties lose their unique distinction from the properties of seeing during samadhi? I see. So your seer appears to have some concrete parameters. It's not just the brain, but you even managed to localize it inside the brain. I personally deny that kind of seer. So for me your idea of samadhi is not even possible, since I can't merge my thalamus with the act of seeing (as opposed to them being distinct during non-samadhi). How can there be awareness without at least one object of cognition? Even the void is a distinct, unique and quite recognizable object of cognition. I am sure. I appreciate your warning. I am cognizant of the risks and I have chosen to embrace all what comes as a result of my unique commitment. I won't tell you how to live. I appreciate your sincere expression.

For a long answer start here, and for a short skip to "short answer here." It's interesting how you called it infinite capacity. I usually call mind a primordial capacity to know, to experience and to will. All three avenues of the mind's capacity are actually one whole, but I provisionally split them into those three aspects for easy understanding. I could as well say that mind is a primordial capacity of cognition, period, but that would be too obscure. Then you have to know what cognition is really like, which most people do not. The three avenues of knowing, experiencing and willing are hopelessly interdependent. Along all three avenues there is a sense of selectivity. So for example, you know X, but you could have known Y or Z or B. You're experiencing X, but you could have been experiencing Y or Z or W. And you're willing X, but could have been willing something else as well. Knowing is mutable but also stable. Knowing in my view has nothing to do with "correct knowing." Any kind of assumptions and information you lean on for support is what I call "knowing" regardless of whether such information is considered good or bad, skillful or not. Experience is highly mutable if you look at it moment by moment, but is also very stable if you look at it from the longer view of bigger patterns which are recognizably repeating in a stable manner. And volition is the most tricky one to understand. Volition is one whole. Volition is basically goal orientation. Goals can be concrete or abstract or even mysterious (impossible to convey in words). Goals do not have to be stable. Goals can change over time, but they can also be stable for a time. Volition has depth and thickness to it, but not substance. Most volition is spent in maintaining prior commitments. "Commitment" is a kind way of describing what less kind people might call "habit" or "attachment." Compare: "I am committed to the Buddhist path." "I am attached to the Buddhist path." "I crave the Buddhist path." It's the same dynamic, but in the first case it is described approvingly, and in the latter two disparagingly, but the essence beyond value judgement is the same. Is one committed to playing a violin or addicted to it? Because we tend to socially approve of violin playing, we'd choose "committed" as the word. Now what I tend to do is reverse some of the value judgements. So for example, I like to speak of a commitment to humanity instead of attachment to humanity. I do this with people who are attached to humanity in order to avoid insulting them, if that's what I want at the time. So the aspect of volition that's dedicated to maintaining a habit is not available for free movement. Example: you decide to play hockey. That's your commitment. Once you start playing hockey, you are limited to skating around and swinging your hockey stick. So you still have freedom of will, but your freedom of will becomes narrowed down by your commitment to play a clean game of hockey (as if there is such a thing). So the restriction of having to always use a hockey stick to play is a voluntary one, but if you played hockey for 3 long aeons, and you forgot that you could be playing other games, you might start thinking that hockey sticks are imposed by rules of the universe itself. This is what we can call "othering" of intent. It means you take what used to be your own intent, and you disown it. Once disowned, you no longer have a ready way to control that disowned aspect of intent. There is some inherent instability in volition. This is what the Buddhists call impermanence. It's possible to stabilize some commitments/attachments/habits, but eventually even the most stable and the most entrenched commitments will become itchy and intolerable, and you'll begin desiring to change them. So for example, you might think who in their right mind would want to stop being human, but such beings exist. Or take that neutrality/stillness as a goal. It can be very blissful and enjoyable, but will it remain blissful and enjoyable forever, eternally? Or will it eventually become dull and boring? I maintain that eventually everything does become boring, and hence, change continues as it always has. That doesn't mean I believe people who chase after neutrality are wasting time though. That's because neutrality can be fun for an arbitrary length of time for some beings. So if it's enjoyable for 3 billion years for some, then why not? After they've had their fill, they'll know what to do next, and so there is no point in worrying about it ahead of time. So if someone thinks stillness/neutrality/quiescence is a good idea, it's fine to pursue it. And if someone thinks psychic powers are a good idea, then it's fine to pursue that as well. Ultimately will cannot be restrained anyway. Other beings in society have only that power over our minds which we give them voluntarily. If society or others become sufficiently annoying, they can be summarily ejected from the mind's present experience and consideration. This is hard or impossible to do for those who are attached to humanity, but those folks are attached for a good reason to begin with, and for them it's worth it to tolerate the pain of disapproval to stay close to humanity. Short answer here: So, there is no objective way of answering it. For some beings quiescence/neutrality is something they need to actualize. For others it's a distraction.

Can I have some links to shit tons of reasonable discussion please?

I saw those. Personally I find those videos to be quite pretentious and not awesome at all. I see how science benefited from interaction with Buddhism because it were Buddhists who encouraged the discovery of brain plasticity. But science only brings garbage thinking into Buddhism. Most scientists are Ucchedavadins. And they carry their Ucchedavada with them everywhere they go, even now.

You've never refuted anything I said. Ever. All you ever do is drop labels and names. Your presence on this forum adds no value at all because you actually do not engage in discussion. Name and label dropping is not engagement. You were initially dropping Vedanta on me as a label, and the only reason I suggested Kashmir Shaivism is to show you how sloppy you are. Of course my view is not Kashmir Shaivism either. I haven't studied Kashmir Shaivism except in passing. But you happily switched to dropping Kashmir Shaivism label on me now. Basically you don't give a fuck. You just want to drop some label, any label that will discount what I say and in your mind separate it from Buddhism. From now on any post whose contents do not go beyond name and label dropping I will report to moderation team. Every single post. So no more easy one-liner name droppings for you, friend. If you want to engage, engage. Otherwise be silent. If you want to argue that Lonchenpa refutes my view, then quote Longchenpa in a way that shows a direct disagreement. I've read some of Longchenpa's texts myself. I've studied tons of Dzogchen and Buddhist texts. I've never been able to discover a tension between my view and theirs. I just use different and in my opinion superior wording to convey my view compared to Buddhists. But the meaning and intent is exactly the same. You'd think if I thought my view was quite distinct from Buddhist, and Dzogchen views, I'd find points of unhappiness, because I really do so easily become unhappy with other people's views. All you ever do is put people down without any effort and without any elucidation or clarification. It's always just "no, no, no" and no other content. It's also patently ridiculous how you never speak for yourself, but always speak for Longchenpa, Dzogchen, Buddhism and so on. Why don't you speak about what your own view is? If you claim your view is a mirror copy of the above, then you are deluded. Everyone has their own understanding. That's why it's crucial to talk in your own words to show what your view is really like, not just to us, but to yourself as well. That way you can actually contemplate.

Oh boy... magical thinking is what Buddhism is all about to begin with.

It looks like here we have complete mutual understanding then. Here I disagree. Here I think you are appropriating Buddha for your own ideological use. The Buddha Dharma by necessity denies that which conventional science needs to proceed forward, such as signs and marks, for example. No matter what the Dalai Lama does, the Buddha Dharma will never be reconciled with science as science currently exists. If the Buddha was here, he'd laugh at science.

This specific arrangement of the eyes is peculiar to the individual. I'm sure some bodhisattvas will experience them in the way as described. But it's not necessary for those eyes to be in the forehead. They can be anywhere. You can put those eyes in your fingers or your butt or outside your human body, it makes no difference. And you can consolidate some of the eyes, or make for yourself seven eyes instead of five. Further, the injunction against talking about your eyes is only valid if you take yourself seriously and talk about your attainment with a great sense of self-importance. If you talk about it like it's no big deal and like it doesn't matter, nothing bad will happen to you. The eyes described there draw their power from you being beyond convention. So if you talk about your eyes to your peers seriously, it means you intend to re-establish yourself within convention and you intend to strengthen the influence of conventional mentation on your mind. This will, indeed, weaken the special eyes because those eyes depend on being removed from convention for their power.

No, I understand exactly what your point of view is. I know what you intend to say. I get you. I just don't agree with you. I 100% get your perspective. Of course you don't have to trust me if you don't want. You can feel free and quiz me about your perspective to see if I get it right. I am sure I'll pass your quiz, because I do get what you're saying. Science carries with it a lot of assumptions. And science cannot reach into every domain of experience. In fact, science has nothing to say about subjectivity. According to science colors, tastes, and other qualia don't even exist. The language of science is barren when it comes to personal experience. And the assumptions of science are very restrictive. You can't really call me "anti-Buddha" and then when I point out how I am talking in line with the Buddha Dharma you say, "wait, I never cared about Buddhism anyway... it's all science for me." You should have called me anti-science or something. Don't hijack Buddha's name.

Longchenpa says you're wrong. Dirty Vedantin! Just kidding.

I understand exactly what you mean. However, what you call "objective reality" is precisely the self-hypnosis that you accuse me of engaging. The difference between us is that I know I am hypnotized and I am manipulating my hypnotic content. You assume that you're in touch with objective reality. So that means you don't realize you're hypnotized. Therefore, you cannot alter the hypnotic content in any way that isn't allowed by that content itself. That leaves you a slave to all the suggestions present in suggestive appearances. I wouldn't say "anti-Buddha." I mean, Buddha himself said that conceit meant any sort of comparing of yourself and other. How would you establish what you call "objective reality" without comparing notes? So what happens to laws of physics after your human body dies and you are reborn in a different realm? Why would Buddha say something like this: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html Yea, you definitely will not have an easy time arguing Buddhism with me.

Similar meditation exercises are advocated by Zhuangzi. He called it "mind fast" and there are at least two mentions I can think of. In one case a clueless student asks one of the adepts "what's the point of trying to make yourself like dead ashes?" In another case they talk about Confucious' student Yan Hui, I think, doing mind fasting.

I am not using analogies. I am trying to describe the space of experiential possibility. In other words, since I am describing an ultimate definitive view which subsumes and includes all other possible views into itself as possible alternatives, the view I am describing actually has no analogy. It is unique. There is nothing else that's like it. So for example, I can't compare the mind to a mirror, etc. There is no example in the phenomenal world of what I am describing. This only becomes evident in the third movie and only if you pay attention. Otherwise the Matrix does exist as a mediating machine into which the brains are plugged in. And this appears to be true in the first two movies until in the last movie Neo can see outside of Matrix as if he were in the Matrix still, etc. My memory is fuzzy, but I think this happens shortly before Neo gets his eyeballs destroyed, or around the same time, and he says something like "I can feel them" (referring to those flying bots) even though he's no longer looking at them with the eyeballs. So in this scenario Neo is not plugged into the Matrix, but he's still using Matrix powers (although a weaker version). I strongly reject this view. We do have freedom. We are not automations at all. And the view you describe is not in line with Daodejing, Zhuangzi, Liezi, etc. I want you to quote something from Zhaungzi or Daodejing that talks of automation.