How would you counter this hypothesis to the ‘Enlightenment’ idea?

[thelerner]

2 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

 

But really I’m not too sure what you’re getting at. You seem to be putting words in my mouth like I said we need to self-flagellate or something to be happy. 

 

??  I didn't write anything about self-flagellating.  I don't think I put any words in your mouth, just stating my thoughts on the matter.  My belief we don't need suffering to experience happiness or rather we don't need pain to appreciate the beauty in the world.  To this extent I'm more in the Taoist camp then Buddhist. 

 

Take the classic picture the Vinegar Tasters (https://www.shortform.com/blog/the-three-vinegar-tasters/).  The vinegar (life) isn't bad, it doesn't make the wine sweeter rather you have to enjoy it properly, use it for what it is.  Accept the vinegar as vinegar.

  

I like the sun, I like the dark, I enjoy company and fine when they leave.  It's all good, mostly.  Painful stuff happens and while it's nice when it stops, it doesn't necessarily make me happier during the good times.  

 

I just saw the play Tommy, where he's tries to get the world enlightened by making them temporarily deaf, dumb and blind.  Good songs, but not a great strategy.  I read an article that the West misinterprets the Buddha's teaching on suffering.. but it was so long ago I've mostly forgotten it. 

Edited August 15, 2023 by thelerner

[liminal_luke]

11 hours ago, C T said:

 

 

I agree that pleasure is not happiness, and yet many of us would do well to put more effort into experiencing daily pleasures, not less.  One of the skills taught in Dialectical Behavior Therapy is to "accumulate positive emotions" by engaging in pleasurable activities daily.  Simple things count: savoring a cup of tea, noticing flowers on a short walk, calling a friend.  The regular experience of pleasure can be a bulwark against depression and emotional overwhelm.  Perhaps there's a middle path here, not living a life devoted purely to hedonism, and also taking time to appreciate the tiny good things in life.

Edited August 15, 2023 by liminal_luke

[thelerner]

I wouldn't want to live in Hedonism but I don't mind visiting.  I guess it's the same with asceticism.  I dig my cold showers cause it feels good when I stop**.   Hedonism, asceticism** compliment each other, though wisdom means returning to the middle path.  

 

**These summer days there is no icy cold, so it's pretty much all refreshing.  I will switch from warm to coldest back to warm then back to cold.  Gives my epidermis and psyche a little workout.  

 

**Yet ascetism isn't pain or necessarily suffering, at its best its simplicity.  Hedonism can be complication, like karma there are consequences to Hedonism.. course there consequences to everything but Hedonist experiences a little more so.

Edited August 18, 2023 by thelerner

[Bindi]

On 13/8/2023 at 5:59 AM, Nungali said:

 

Interesting post .

 

For me ; ' hermetically  / magically '   'bliss' is a  third state , a pendant to or an origin of the other two states , not one of the states in duality with the other . For example , not  'Bliss' opposed to suffering  but    a tripartite  arrangement

 

         ecstasy

 

thought      feeling

 

Its hard to explain , from a person perspective I   'suffer from '  (   )  prolonged bouts of eudamonia  within this  , I might be up or down ,  feeling great  or not ,   at ease or in physical pain .  But it doesnt effect the 'inner bliss' .

 

Its sorta a way or process of 'getting above'  things . We can also use the planets to explain , the inner ones, the 'personal planets , those that make up the triple arrangement of the psyche (positioned around the Moon , the Unconscious , and linked to the Sun , the Ego)  - the base line of this pyramid is the Mars / Venus polarity but the apex is Mercury , that force that moves 'between the worlds' (from that dualistic base line of 'the extremes of one thing ' ) to the higher realm .

 

Total and forever , eternal bliss state ?  Nah .  Afterlife doesnt work like that , I won't go into a dissertation on it here , but I think your post contains a good set of observations as to why this  can not be  so  .

I agree with your tripartite arrangement of 

 

        ecstasy

 

thought      feeling

but I would be inclined to replace “ecstasy” with something else. Not sure what though! Something in a different ballpark to thought and feeling yes, a third state, perhaps one that is in sync with underlying reality, in sync with the world, not necessarily pleasant or unpleasant but satisfying somehow. For a mundane example say being in sync requires returning after an argument to resolve an issue with someone, not necessarily pleasant, but satisfying and an action that can result in better relationship. Right time right place instead of pushing shit uphill? Being in sync with the Dao? 

 

[Nungali]

I agree .    " not necessarily pleasant or unpleasant but satisfying somehow. "  that gets close to it .  Also this  " , a third state, perhaps one that is in sync with underlying reality, in sync with the world, "

 

I think the natural state in the natural environment , for humans , is this type of 'bliss ecstasy'  and related to the  'neo-classical' concepts of eudamonia  .  

 

I would like to explain that more ... but got a meeting to go.  ( to   ... ugh ... community meeting   ... I'm supposed to have retired from that !  )

 

[whocoulditbe?]

I think that once you realise that pleasure is complicit in suffering, a new false opposition opens up between the pleasure-suffering compound/cycle and the extinction of both. So, instead of a triangular figure, we have a diamond or catuskoti like this:

 

                        nirvana

               (double negation)

        suffering               pleasure

       (negation)          (affirmation)

                       samsara

             (double affirmation)

 

Some people respond by "finding happiness in the process," by accepting samsara and enjoying suffering through its interdependence with pleasure. This attitude is exemplified by Romanticism, parts of the Zhuangzi, and much of Nietzsche's writing. The basic premise of Buddhism is more like transcending attachment to pleasure in order to transcend pain, escaping into nirvana. However, whichever approach is chosen, the old opposition ends up projected onto the new, with one pole becoming the new object of seeking. This might be why we frequently end up calling nirvana "pleasure" and samsara "suffering," even though nirvana is neither and samsara is both. So, we end up going at least one step further, realising the emptiness of the distinction between nirvana and samsara.

 

There is no distinction whatsoever between samsara and nirvana;

and there is no distinction whatsoever between nirvana and samsara.
The limit of nirvana and the limit of samsara:

one cannot even find the slightest difference between them.

    – Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarikah Chapter 25

 

But what comes after this? Nirvana-as-samsara vs. neither-samsara-nor-nirvana? This line of thought could go on forever without bearing much fruit.

Edited August 15, 2023 by whocoulditbe?
sp.

[Daniel]

40 minutes ago, whocoulditbe? said:

nirvana

               (double negation)

        suffering               pleasure

       (negation)          (affirmation)

                       samsara

             (double affirmation)

 

This is so cool.  I never thought of it this way.  

 

Just the most immature thoughts on this, but I would appreciate your feedback?

 

Double-negation is affirmation?  Which is true?  Which is a gain? a benefit? 

 

Double-affirmation is.... exaggeration?  inflamation?   Which is inherently false?  The actual is being amplified falsely and harshly?

 

It's a bad feedback-loop?

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by Daniel

[whocoulditbe?]

Just now, Daniel said:

 

This is so cool.  I never thought of it this way.  

 

Just the most immateur thoughts on this, but I would appreciate your feedback?

 

Double-negation is affirmation?  Which is true?  Which is a gain? a benefit? 

Double-affirmation is.... exaggeration?  inflamation?   Which is inherently false?  The actual is being amplified falsely and harshly?

 

It's a bad feedback-loop?

I'm mostly referencing the final proposition of the catuskoti (neither is nor is not) but you could also see it in terms of the opposition between the Hegelian negation of the negation and the Nietzschean "affirmation of the affirmation."

[Daniel]

7 minutes ago, whocoulditbe? said:

I'm mostly referencing the final proposition of the catuskoti (neither is nor is not) but you could also see it in terms of the opposition between the Hegelian negation of the negation and the Nietzschean "affirmation of the affirmation."

 

OK, thank you.

[C T]

5 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

I agree that pleasure is not happiness, and yet many of us would do well to put more effort into experiencing daily pleasures, not less.  One of the skills taught in Dialectical Behavior Therapy is to "accumulate positive emotions" by engaging in pleasurable activities daily.  Simple things count: savoring a cup of tea, noticing flowers on a short walk, calling a friend.  The regular experience of pleasure can be a bulwark against depression and emotional overwhelm.  Perhaps there's a middle path here, not living a life devoted purely to hedonism, and also taking time to appreciate the tiny good things in life.

 

Couldn't agree more. As always, pleasure and hedonism isn't the cause of malaise; its the hankering for more (and more and more...) post experience that stumbles a person.

[galen_burnett]

4 hours ago, whocoulditbe? said:

 

There is no distinction whatsoever between samsara and nirvana;

 

 

But what comes after this? Nirvana-as-samsara vs. neither-samsara-nor-nirvana? This line of thought could go on forever without bearing much fruit.

Well yes that’s basically what my argument concludes too: that joy and pain cancel each other with a net-zero outcome. But there is nothing that “comes after it”; that’s just how it goes on forever, the interplay of joy and pain and the forever unfolding drama and adventure of life that they weave together. So if your Nirvana is annihilated with Samsara then it makes no sense to make Nirvana a goal, right? You may as well seek Samasara if you’ve just equated them.

[galen_burnett]

@thelerner Regardless of that we disagree on the interdependence of pain and joy, I think you’ve yet to state or imply what your position is regarding Enlightenment? Is there such a state in which you can be perfectly at ease with everything? [Obviously, I say there isn’t and that there will always be things that make you flee from them—always will be things you try to escape and other things you chase.]

[galen_burnett]

2 hours ago, C T said:

 

Couldn't agree more. As always, pleasure and hedonism isn't the cause of malaise; its the hankering for more (and more and more...) post experience that stumbles a person.

But isn’t it impossible to not pursue the things you like? Forget about the ‘hedonistic’ pleasures for a moment—what about the ‘spiritual’ pleasures you chase? Do you not practise your spiritual-practice because you believe doing so will give you more experiences and insights and life-adjustments and transformations that you like? Surely you only practice because you have experienced benefits—got good things—with it before, and so you continue with it as you reckon more of those good things await you further along. So is that not a pursuit, a ‘grasping’, an ‘attachment’, a ‘hankering’. Could you actually be happy without your spiritual-practice? And if not, then surely you are attached to it! 

 

I make no distinction between animals chasing prey or foraging leaves, people chasing wealth, and practitioners pursuing health and well-being benefits and spiritual-experiences. Each of those parties goes through trouble to get their reward, gets some pleasure from that reward, and inevitably feels at least a slight degree of disappointment with their reward—c’est la vie. Though I know that Buddhists do make a distinction between those parties as they think that the latter are on the path that will get them perfect Bliss—but I’ve already said many times that I think they’re wrong there.

[galen_burnett]

@liminal_luke I don’t understand how you can at once accept that the ordinary pleasures in life are valid and yet deny that you are happy when you have them. Like, when you laugh, you are happy! Simple as that. When you finish a good book or film or game—you are satisfied, and you are happy! When you eat a nice thing after being hungry—you are happy. To idolise ‘happiness’ as this grand attainment and treasure that you can only attain by much work and diligence and application—Nirvana, Sahasraha, Satori, etc—is just deluded in my opinion and is a mind-prison, just like the Kingdom of Heaven construct is for the Christians and Muslims. Happiness is not a permanent state! Buddhism itself says that all things are impermanent! Including happiness! It is transitory, and you are experiencing it every day, more-or-less, whenever you feel good, and in-between the annoying times, without acknowledging it. Happiness is not a kingdom that can be conquered, it is what the dictionary says it is—as simple as that. 
 

Life is enormously deep and complex. It doesn’t matter if the stimuli that satisfy the average human don’t do it for one’s self; if one just carries on one will find that greater and greater, more refined, pleasures and joys and satisfactions will present themselves to one’s self—just never anything that is a ‘forever ocean of liquid ecstasy’ for example. 

[Shadow_self]

17 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

is there an online source for this in english?  ( lacking commentary, ideally )

 

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html

 

Quote

Dwelling at Savatthi... "Monks, I will describe & analyze dependent co-arising for you.

 

"And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

 

"Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.

 

"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.

 

"And what is becoming? These three are becomings: sensual becoming, form becoming, & formless becoming. This is called becoming.

 

"And what is clinging/sustenance? These four are clingings: sensuality clinging, view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of self clinging. This is called clinging.

 

"And what is craving? These six are classes of craving: craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for smells, craving for tastes, craving for tactile sensations, craving for ideas. This is called craving.

 

"And what is feeling? These six are classes of feeling: feeling born from eye-contact, feeling born from ear-contact, feeling born from nose-contact, feeling born from tongue-contact, feeling born from body-contact, feeling born from intellect-contact. This is called feeling.

 

"And what is contact? These six are classes of contact: eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, intellect-contact. This is called contact.

 

"And what are the six sense media? These six are sense media: the eye-medium, the ear-medium, the nose-medium, the tongue-medium, the body-medium, the intellect-medium. These are called the six sense media.

 

"And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form.

 

"And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness.

 

"And what are fabrications? These three are fabrications: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. These are called fabrications.

 

"And what is ignorance? Not knowing stress, not knowing the origination of stress, not knowing the cessation of stress, not knowing the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called ignorance.

 

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

 

Had the OP listened to me instead, the answer to his question is contained within

 

HIs lack of understanding regards the process is less conceptual and moreso experiential

[liminal_luke]

10 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

I don’t understand how you can at once accept that the ordinary pleasures in life are valid and yet deny that you are happy when you have them. 

 

If you like that one, stick around.  You'll be amazed at the heights of self-contradiction I can reach!  

 

But seriously.  Happiness is just a word.  If you'd like to define it as including the positive states induced by simple pleasures, fine by me.  Alternatively, we could break things down into more granular categories to come up with a more nuanced taxonomy of good feelings.  There's bliss, there's ecstasy, there's contentment.  In particular, there's a species of happiness that derives from awareness of existence itself rather than any given specific aspect.  None of these states are permanent -- or at least that hasn't been my experience.  None of them need be regarded as great spiritual accomplishments or thought of as requiring loads of "work."

Edited August 16, 2023 by liminal_luke

[galen_burnett]

@liminal_luke “just a word”, again, this sort of statement really just serves to obfuscate the argument by sinking it into semantic discord,  just in the opposite direction to the others who have a super super carefully crafted precise definition of it: to say “it’s just a word” and to say “it has a very special definition, different to what you find in a dictionary” is the same smoke-screen strategy of evasion. When we can’t argue logically we try to sabotage the argument by doing things like moving the goal-posts and changing definitions, or else by trying to invalidate terms that the argument takes as premisses—it’s a strategy as old as time, and i’m sure you could go to any elementary-school-yard in the world and find it being deployed. Look, you may humour and impress others saying things like “i am a human contradiction”, but i’m here for a logical argument, i value logic, i’m not impressed by ‘cool dudes’, and saying things like that just makes me think you’re not serious and so weakens any argument you might otherwise have in my eyes. 

 

And you clearly do not think of it as “just a word” otherwise you wouldn’t have said something as edgy and laconic as “pleasure is not happiness” in the first place; this rather clearly implies you do have quite an intricate and careful definition for the word (happiness), probably just what everyone else on this thread defines it as honestly

 

Otherwise—yes!—that’s exactly how most people would define it: the spectrum of good experiences, which is what the definition of any dictionary would imply also. And honestly I don’t think people are reading the thread properly because i’ve said this i think at least twice already: you can’t take a point on a spectrum off the spectrum and put it apart from the rest of the spectrum—to say there is this golden state of bliss which can be got and kept permanently which is nothing like any other experience of happiness, which other experiences are then disposed of forever—it’s just illogical, and if we’re using words then logic needs to be respected entirely!  I agree there are extremes to any spectrum, and those extremes are visited now and then; but it’s impossible to stay at the extremes, or at any point on the spectrum for that matter. It’s fine also to think deeply about the qualities of these different shades of joy; but usually in these philosophies this sort of thinking is only inspired by the notion that there is an ultimate superior degree of bliss which should be defined and sought after, hunted, and obtained, and then used to decorate one’s abode with.

 

You have already said that you don’t believe the Bliss of Enlightenment is permanent—but then what do you believe in then? You haven’t outright stated you don’t believe in the idea, which of course you would have stated in a post like this that argues against the idea, if you did not believe in it. You either believe in Nirvana, in ‘permanent-bliss’—and don’t try to tell me that that’s not what these philosophies are proselytising, they definitely are—or you don’t.

 

If you can’t tell, i’m trying to ‘smoke you out’ because you’re coming across as very contrarian, which, i repeat, is no good if you want to persuade anyone with reason; to try and argue with someone while being contradictory is like trying to dig a hole with a spade made of paper. Maybe you would persuade someone with your image or personality, and this is really, I think, what hooks people onto these philosophies in the first place—the charm of the guru—; but not me, i value logic when it comes to forming ideas and am very suspicious of any and all ‘gurus’.

 

Sorry if it’s the case that you just haven’t made up your mind. I have indeed presumed that you do think one way or the other—and don’t tell me you believe both! impossible!

[galen_burnett]

6 hours ago, Shadow_self said:

 

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html

 

 

Had the OP listened to me instead, the answer to his question is contained within

 

HIs lack of understanding regards the process is less conceptual and moreso experiential

Bruh, this is a thread made up of words; as are the books these philosophies are written down in. As soon as you write a word you are engaging with concepts. If you want to communicate experientially rather than conceptually then go do that. And if what your argument boils down to is “it has to be experienced to be understood” then why link a book to me in the first place?! you should’ve rather linked a website for a scheduled talk by some revered guru where i could go and witness his great grace. You’ve literally just said “he doesn’t understand because he hasn’t experience it”—so no matter even if i did go and read your reference, it would have done me no good, because i need to experience it! so what on earth are you doing linking me a book in the first place?! to inspire me to seek experience? I’ve already stated in this thread, which you must not have read properly, that i am familiar with Eastern philosophies—i’m over that hill, i was enchanted by them once upon a time, i knew quite well their fundamental principles and tenets, and then i moved on. i’m sure there’s no book you could refer to me that would re-enchant me with those philosophies. not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, there is a lot of good and truth in them; but the Nirvana scam is what i’m getting at.

[Shadow_self]

25 minutes ago, galen_burnett said:

Bruh, this is a thread made up of words; as are the books these philosophies are written down in. As soon as you write a word you are engaging with concepts. If you want to communicate experientially rather than conceptually then go do that. And if what your argument boils down to is “it has to be experienced to be understood” then why link a book to me in the first place?! you should’ve rather linked a website for a scheduled talk by some revered guru where i could go and witness his great grace. You’ve literally just said “he doesn’t understand because he hasn’t experience it”—so no matter even if i did go and read your reference, it would have done me no good, because i need to experience it! so what on earth are you doing linking me a book in the first place?! to inspire me to seek experience? I’ve already stated in this thread, which you must not have read properly, that i am familiar with Eastern philosophies—i’m over that hill, i was enchanted by them once upon a time, i knew quite well their fundamental principles and tenets, and then i moved on. i’m sure there’s no book you could refer to me that would re-enchant me with those philosophies. not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, there is a lot of good and truth in them; but the Nirvana scam is what i’m getting at.

 

The answer to your conceptual question is contained within that text...that is related to dependant origination

 

The problem is you dont want to engage the material as you think you understand it and have already disregarded it

 

You really dont, at all.

 

On examination, your argument is one that is overintellectualised.

 

Thats fine if you want to remain in that mindset

 

However overly long defensive discourses that lead you no further to your answers arent helping you

 

Are you seeking truth, or affirmation? The latter is the projection from your statements

 

To summarize

 

Your problem is one of causality, and specifically an inability to come to a true understanding of it.

 

Work harder in this regard if understanding is what you seek

 

 

Here's the practical aspect that would aid you

 

However, before that, I suggest a daily dose of anapanasati.

 

Some of the responses suggest to me it would benefit you,

 

Far more than neigong I might add

[liminal_luke]

48 minutes ago, galen_burnett said:

@liminal_luke “just a word”, again, this sort of statement really just serves to obfuscate the argument by sinking it into semantic discord,  just in the opposite direction to the others who have a super super carefully crafted precise definition of it: to say “it’s just a word” and to say “it has a very special definition, different to what you find in a dictionary” is the same smoke-screen strategy of evasion. When we can’t argue logically we try to sabotage the argument by doing things like moving the goal-posts and changing definitions, or else by trying to invalidate terms that the argument takes as premisses—it’s a strategy as old as time, and i’m sure you could go to any elementary-school-yard in the world and find it being deployed. Look, you may humour and impress others saying things like “i am a human contradiction”, but i’m here for a logical argument, i value logic, i’m not impressed by ‘cool dudes’, and saying things like that just makes me think you’re not serious and so weakens any argument you might otherwise have in my eyes. 

 

 

Whoa, galen_burnett...can we take a beat?  Sometimes my approach to these threads is to find something that hooks my attention and go on about it a bit.  It's fun for me to develop my thinking and see if I can communicate what I want to say clearly.  I hope that my posts stimulate the minds of my fellow Bums, or, failing that, provide a moment of entertainment.  I'm generally not trying to "win" any arguments -- unless you catch me on a bad day.  I don't take it all that seriously.  

 

If you're not impressed by my "cool dude" persona, that's fine.  Feel free to ignore me.  I'm just bumming around.

[galen_burnett]

@Shadow_self lmao. you can see the title of the post right? that’s my question. if there’s such a good counter in that text that has not already been addressed by the rest of the thread why don’t you go and present it? you’re basically going to keep strafing between “here is the golden text that conceptualises it” and “it cannot be conceptualised, only experienced”, so whatever.

 

“over-intellectualised”?? you mean, i’ve actually thought about things, actually made a coherent train on logic, rather than just accept some cool sounding stuff from some cool looking yogi.what have you used to examine my argument?? intellect! so, using intellect, you have examined my argument, and found it to be unacceptable due to it expressing too much intellect. lol.

 

well, of course it is fine, who suggested otherwise? and yes, i like logic a lot and find it to be very cool, rewarding and comforting. my own ontology deduces that happiness and pain will always balance in equal measure—and i’m down with that. seems to me it’s you guys who aren’t happy with 50/50 and instead want more and more more.

 

what’s my problem dude?

 

i don’t understand cause-and-effect?? what bruh?? just, what? please don’t just pluck cool words out the air in the hopes of impressing people.

 

i’m seeking the fun and competition of philosophical debate, and a couple of people on this thread have stepped up to that, so thanks to them. i’m not seeking understanding, as far i can see i understand enough—go ‘work’ yourself lmao!

 

please keep your prescriptions, thank you, i’m quite certain they’d be ineffective.

Edited August 16, 2023 by galen_burnett

[galen_burnett]

@liminal_luke yeah ok. pax. but i’m a little wary of you, you slippery meerkat

[Shadow_self]

59 minutes ago, galen_burnett said:

@Shadow_self lmao. you can see the title of the post right? that’s my question. if there’s such a good counter in that text that has not already been addressed by the rest of the thread why don’t you go and present it? you’re basically going to keep strafing between “here is the golden text that conceptualises it” and “it cannot be conceptualised, only experienced”, so whatever.

 

See below

 

59 minutes ago, galen_burnett said:

“over-intellectualised”?? you mean, i’ve actually thought about things, actually made a coherent train on logic, rather than just accept some cool sounding stuff from some cool looking yogi.what have you used to examine my argument?? intellect! so, using intellect, you have examined my argument, and found it to be unacceptable due to it expressing too much intellect. lol.

 

No, ive just been around so many supposedly "smart people"  long enough to know it when i see a person who's presents an argument that is so tangled up in their own mental knots, they cannot see a rather obvious truth sitting in front of them

 

Happens ALL the time

 

This is no different

 

59 minutes ago, galen_burnett said:

well, of course it is fine, who suggested otherwise? and yes, i like logic a lot and find it to be very cool, rewarding and comforting. my own ontology deduces that happiness and pain will always balance in equal measure—and i’m down with that. seems to me it’s you guys who aren’t happy with 50/50 and instead want more and more more.

 

Im not sure logic is on your side here, making claims that Nirvana is a scam, without a proper foundation in Buddhist philosophy and practice

 

More on this below

 

59 minutes ago, galen_burnett said:

what’s my problem dude?

 

i don’t understand cause-and-effect?? what bruh?? just, what? please don’t just pluck cool words out the air in the hopes of impressing people.

 

I think ive already stated the problem. You dont understand the concepts begind the argument you are attempting to make

 

Im not plucking anything, Im stating an observation based on your words

 

Dependant origination explains causality

 

Dependant origination is the focal point of your issue

 

An understanding of Dependant origination is something lacking  in the presentation of said "hypothesis"

 

So thats how we arrived here

 

59 minutes ago, galen_burnett said:

i’m seeking the fun and competition of philosophical debate, and a couple of people on this thread have stepped up to that, so thanks to them. i’m not seeking understanding, as far i can see i understand enough—go ‘work’ yourself lmao!

 

Alrght then...

 

I guess you wont mind me pointing out the logical fallacies and bias

 

ill do one of each per post if you like...otherwise this would be a bit long winded

 

Lets start with the Black or white fallacy - Suggesting there is a zero sum between polarities (pleasure and pain as example)

 

Your problem is one of your understanding. As per your own words

 

Quote

 Well Nirvana is ‘nice feelings’ times 100!” 

 

Pointing to the text I made reference to

 

Quote

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

 

So feelings cease, and they arent the last thing to go either (Which is ironic, because Nibbāna would be far beyond where they cease)

 

Nibbāna, as they refer to it, has nothing to do with bliss in the sense that you understand it

 

Your concept of it (amongst other things) is  very  distorted

 

So I think we are done with that now.

 

That aspect of your argument is refuted, and redundant.

 

Unless of course you want to move the goalposts (engaging in another logical fallacy) to redefine the word feelings, or Nirvana

 

59 minutes ago, galen_burnett said:

please keep your prescriptions, thank you, i’m quite certain they’d be ineffective.

 

And you would be incorrect in that assertion. 

 

I speak from experience on that matter with certainy (and insight, oddly enough)

 

But feel free to cling to it if it makes you comfortable,

 

I'm wont judge nor do I want you take my word for it....

 

Thats why i linked you to a practice that might actually help you understand, as opposed to a load of mental flip flopping.

 

And here we arrive at the cognitive bias, all the above argument is wrapped up in.

 

The illusion of explanatory depth.

 

You think you know more about this than you actually do

[Daniel]

@galen_burnett,

 

Maybe the compliment of intellectual is intuitional?  Generally speaking, mind compared to heart ( metaphorically ).  I vote that utilizing both is ideal.  Both have several gates for interacting with ourselves and others.  Naturally each person is going to have their own affinties and aversions to each of these gates.  

 

"Knowing" is an intellectual gate which is lifted up as the ideal in systems of logic.  It's great in many ways, but also has its limits.  Its asset and its liability is rigidity.  Classical logic depends on consistency and rigorous definitions.  If the definitions are changed, as you noted, the consistency is sacrificed. But the same occurs if the defintion is vague.  Precise defintions should be encouraged when using logic not discouraged.  Lacking consistency, the logical construct is no longer true in all cases, which makes it weak.  It's possible that it will be true and consistent as a happy-accident, but likely not.

 

The most common construct in classical logic is the "material conditional" which is mis-identified in common parlance "implication".    The material conditional is a fickle beast, as such, most logical proofs employ the contra-positive, what I think you're observing as "contrarian", in order to interact with a logical proposal.  This is natural, and in my opinion should not be discouraged.  This is because "logic", in spite of its formal, axiomatic ( religious ), presentation in philosophy is a natural and intuitive method for interacting and predicting relationships... when it is working.  If it is over intellectualized all sorts of nonsense can be produced as logical "truths".  Here's a link to the wiki-monster for a little more detail:  LINK. 

 

One valid counter-example defeats any proposal in any logical system, which is why the contra-positive is employed so often.  The important distinction, in my mind, should be, what is this "defeat"?  What does it mean?  In classical logic, if the contrapositive is true, then the original assertion MUST be false, per the law of non-contradiction.  I think this is a gross mistake, which exaggerates the effect of the contra-postive into hostility.  Instead, I vote that when any proposal is defeated, then the the assertion ( both the positives and the negatives ) should return to a state of agnosticm per connexive logic ( from falsehood... nothing ) as opposed to trivialism ( from falsehood... anything ).   This produces an open friendly flexible logic because the contra-positive does not discredit another's intuition and personal experiences.  It merely tethers grandiose universal propsals to the "real" world. 

 

For example, classical logic has no hierarchy, and cannot process relevance in any way.  It is religiously bound to the law of non-contradiction and assumes phenomena exist in perfectly closed systems.  And this is its downfall.  The mantra "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" is well known to be true, has been taught for at least hundreds of years with great and repeated success, but classical logic cannot tolerate "slow is fast".  From this, and other examples, the law of non-contradiction is defeated with the one valid counter-example.  But when I say defeat, I only mean that it is not true in this case, but might be true in others depending on the connections and relevance between the phenomena.  The law of non-contradction is proven to be non-universal, it is not true and consistent in any possible world ( modal logic ), but is still true and useful... sometimes.  The question is when and is it rare?

 

Further, almost any internal process cannot be modeled using classical logic because it is better modeled as quantum phenomena.  Particles in a quantum domain are known to occupy two distinct "places" at the same time violating the law of non-contradiction.  External phenomena can be accurately modeled both with classical physics and quantum mechanics because the wave function collapses when observed permitting its behavior to be approximated by classical physics.  Internal processes are not observed, at least not with light waves ( electro-magentic radiation ) bouncing and reflecting and absorbing and emanating here-there-and-every-where.  In this way, internal processes are, somewhat, isolated systems.  Certainly more isolated than external processes.  Because of this, I think it's good to retain a bit of caution applying rigid external logic systems to internal human dynamics like happiness and suffering.

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Daniel

[Mark Foote]

On 8/15/2023 at 7:25 AM, galen_burnett said:

 

I just saw this, Again, this philosophy is trying to separate the desired ‘bliss’ from other states of happiness; this is the same thing being addressed throughout the replies to this post. It doesn’t yield any discussion really because it’s essentially just moving the goal-posts: I’m saying “the idea exists that Enlightenment is perpetual great happiness; here’s why I think that’s a non-reality (opposites, Duality, etc.); now how do you support the Enlightenment idea I am arguing against?”; and then people proceed to just evade it entirely with “what is happiness? how do you define happiness?”. If you’re going to redefine fundamental concepts like happiness and pain away from the commonly-accepted definitions, then there can’t be any discussion, because you’re basically saying “no, the sky is pink, actually”. In order to think most of these replies to be in any way coherent I would have to accept your redefinition of pain and joy—how on earth would I do that?! the only way to do that would be to surrender the logic I know and subscribe blindly to Buddhism—and why then would I do that?! So you see outside of your own niche, your argument doesn’t stand, and I have to conclude that there isn’t really any opposition to the argument I presented in the post. The only way I could be persuaded is if a Buddhist could show me someone that I could believe was actually ‘perfectly happy’, and I don’t think that’s happening.

 

I don’t think this is going anywhere; or else I think I’ve seen all that I need. 

 

Happiness, to you, is the opposite of pain?  Pleasant sensation and painful sensation, these are opposites to me.  Happiness and sadness could be taken as opposites.

I get it, you're trying to talk about how people perceive Buddhism, and the other major religions, not about the actual teachings themselves.  And you're right, there a lot of people running around chasing after enlightenment.  You're making the argument that the duality people expect enlightenment to overcome is inherent in existence, and no amount of the kool-aid will actually make one side of the duality disappear.

Yes, ok.  But the particulars interest me.

Just so you know, there is a cessation of duality associated with the cessation of ("determinate thought" in) inbreathing and outbreathing. 

 

For Gautama, concentration was "one-pointedness", and the last of the initial concentrations he described involved the freedom of "one-pointedness of mind" to shift and move in the body "with no particle (of the body) left out".  In that concentration, the activity of breath is generated automatically, and volition in the action of the body has ceased.  There is no actor with regard to the body, and in that sense the state is nondual.

If you want to say that enlightenment is the candy in the pinata that keeps most followers of faith swinging, I think most Dao Bums would agree with you.  Watching the folks with the rope raise the pinata just out of reach, amusing! 

 

Dismissing the original teachings, the ones that historians believe are the best representation of the original teachings, I think you do yourself a disservice.