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

[Daniel]

Non-dual is like light which is in very close proximity to the surface of the sun 

 

or

 

Non-dual = the absolute absence of anything and everything in the center of a black-hole

[Cobie]

.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Cobie

[Mark Foote]

19 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

On a side note ,The historic Buddha was not a Buddhist before he founded Buddhism...
 

 

I think not even after. 

I quoted from a sermon a week or so ago, where someone was asking Gautama exactly what he was--a deva, a god, how should he be thought of.  Gautama denied all the labels, "no I'm not (that)", then said, "take it that I am a Buddha".  Like, just go ahead and use this, if you must use something, but really what I am can't be defined.

[Cobie]

.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Cobie

[Nungali]

5 hours ago, Cobie said:

(Google) non-duality:

 

 

 

 

 

but three !

 

You see , you cant escape it ..... two  MUST  'make' three .  Above we actually have  three things .

[Mark Foote]

21 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Who would of thought that a philosophy that encourages resting the mind in non-conceptual reality would be so heavy with concepts?  

 

 

Everybody thinks they have to do the Buddha one better. 

 

There's a thread across the early sermon volumes that actually makes sense, but there are fifteen volumes of sermons, and a lot of repetition.  

I continue to maintain that the essential practice is like the practice involved in lucid dreaming, basically trying to stay conscious while falling asleep.  As I've said, at some moment the movement of breath begins to place attention, and that attention shifts and moves.   In lucid dreaming, the idea is that attention can then move out of the body, but when attention moves in the body, the activity of the body follows automatically from the location of attention.  In particular, the activity of the body in inhalation and exhalation follows automatically.

 

 

…I say that determinate thought is action. When one determines, one acts by deed, word, or thought.
 

(AN III 415, Pali Text Society Vol III p 294)
 

 

…I have seen that the ceasing of the activities is gradual. When one has attained the first trance, speech has ceased. When one has attained the second trance, thought initial and sustained has ceased. When one has attained the third trance, zest has ceased. When one has attained the fourth trance, inbreathing and outbreathing have ceased… Both perception and feeling have ceased when one has attained the cessation of perception and feeling.
 

(SN IV 217, Pali Text Society vol IV p 146; emphasis added)

 

 

When the automatic activity of the body in inhalation and exhalation follows from the location of attention, "determinate thought" in inbreathing and outbreathing has ceased.

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

Non-dual is like light which is in very close proximity to the surface of the sun 

 

or

 

Non-dual = the absolute absence of anything and everything in the center of a black-hole

 

 

?   Why do you claim the center of a black hole  has such absence ? 

 

and   IF that was the case , would not such an absence of anything ( and here ; particularly in the center of a black hole ) be more representative of the 0  before the 1 manifested   (  the Dao manifested before 'the one ' ).

 

If we are going down a cosmological path here  and going to use modern physics , Id suggest the opposite ; not a black hole but the 'white point'  that is ; that moment of singularity before the 'big bang' .  Or even in the concept of 'gravitational singularity .

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

[Cobie]

.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Cobie

[Mark Foote]

On 8/25/2023 at 3:26 PM, Cobie said:

Deleting the quoted material from Cobie here, at Cobie's request.
 

 

Darned if Daniel wasn't right, two fast "enter"s and the quote split.

"Most people are not on a spiritual path because they already have what’s being looked for on a spiritual path."  I would certainly agree with that.  

What I need is the thing that results in me already having what is looked for on the spiritual path.
 

 

Quote

 

Deleting the quoted material from Cobie here, at Cobie's request.

 

 

 

Six senses, in the teaching of the Gautamid, including the mind:
 

"And there is only this degree of disturbance, that is to say the six sensory fields that, conditioned by life, are grounded on this body itself.”

(MN III 108-109, Pali Text Society Vol III pg 151-152)

 

That's from Gautama's description of his attainment of "the cessation of ('determinate thought' in) feeling and perceiving", the last attainment, the one associated with his enlightenment.  So a degree of disturbance associated with the mind is to be expected, even in the attainment associated with enlightenment (which enlightenment consists of insight into dependent causation as a result of the ceasing of volition in feeling and perceiving).

Edited August 27, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Cobie]

.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Cobie

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Cobie said:

In Mahapralaya the ‘void’ is total darkness, in Daoism the ‘void’ is total light only (無極 wu2 ji2  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuji_(philosophy) 

Void is void. No one knows what it is like. Everyone has his own imagination.

 

OK, thank you for sharing this tidbit.  Naturally I'll want to look at it myself, but I'm adding this to my to-be-researched list.  I sincerely appreciate it.

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

take it that I am a Buddha

 

very-super-duper-low-priority-question:  are you possibly able to tell if the indefinite article is included in the original language?

 

I know it may sound like a strange question, but, to me the following 3 quotes can have different meanings:

 

take it that I am a Buddha

 

take it that I am Buddha

 

take it that I am buddha

[liminal_luke]

...

Edited August 26, 2023 by liminal_luke

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Cobie said:

no matter how many years you sit doing zazen, you will never become someone special... 

 

A perfect example of the reasons to reject this sort of stuff...

 

"You will never..."  HAH!  You already ARE!  Now let's go get some veggie-burritos, I'm buy'n.  There's a great burrito cart just a few blocks down the road....

[Daniel]

41 minutes ago, Cobie said:

Great minds think alike. 

 

~bows in your general direction~

 

High praise.

[Cobie]

.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Cobie

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

?   Why do you claim the center of a black hole  has such absence ? 

 

I could be wrong, but, I recall that the only absolute perfect vaccuum exists at the center of a black hole.

 

Quote

and   IF that was the case , would not such an absence of anything ( and here ; particularly in the center of a black hole ) be more representative of the 0  before the 1 manifested   (  the Dao manifested before 'the one ' ).

 

Yes. Definitely.  From my perspective "1" implies at least duality, because it always and forever includes "not-1".  But it actually includes the entire uncountable infinite set of negations: 

 

not-0, not-1, not-2, not-3....

 

also all decimals

 

not-1.1, not 1.11, not 1.111, not-1.1111, not-2.1, not-2.11, not-2.111, not-2.1111....

 

also all objects

 

not-apple, not-orange, not-hammer, not-nail, not-lint, not-duck ....

 

also all actions

 

also all symbols

 

also any conceivable concept that any human has, is, or will have.  And all the concepts that no human has ever had, is having or will have.

 

It get's very-very big very very fast, doesn't it?  Just by claiming "1"?

 

Unless proven otherwise, absolute nullification, oblivion, and void is the only non-dual concept which exists, because it goobles up anything and everything.  It's a perfect vaccuum.

 

I don't represent it as zero, but instead use the word NULL which is always and forever forced to be singular. But, I think I know what people mean when they use the zero symbol in this context.  So I'm not intending to argue.  I promise.

 

Quote

 

If we are going down a cosmological path here  and going to use modern physics , Id suggest the opposite ; not a black hole but the 'white point'  that is ; that moment of singularity before the 'big bang' .  Or even in the concept of 'gravitational singularity .

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

 

I need to read more about it, but based on what you're saying, I absolutely love-it!  It sounds like this is what I had in mind when I said "like the light in close proximity to the surface of the sun", but I felt like that would never be absolutely correct.  I think your example is probably better and might be absolutely correct.

 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

35 minutes ago, Cobie said:

Only after defecating. 
 

 

 

sounds like something from a 'Monty Python' episode

[Daniel]

49 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

Darned if Daniel wasn't right, two fast "enter"s and the quote split.

 

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

Now we just need to collaborate on some sort of exorcism for Nungali's internet-device.  I can donate hyssop, cedar, and boat-loads of optimism

 

 

[Daniel]

4 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

 

I think I have better luck getting it to break if I use shift-enter, than just enter (where's the Dao Bums mini-editor instruction manual!).

 

It appears that the forum is using 'invision' forum software, and the editor is a highly customizable plugin called CKeditor5.  As such there is no manual because of the modular nature of the product.  The link below is the top of the tree of the  developer documentation in all its glory.

 

https://ckeditor.com/docs/ckeditor5/latest/features/index.html

Edited August 26, 2023 by Daniel

[Michael Sternbach]

On 24.8.2023 at 11:23 PM, Daniel said:

 

Classic.

 

 

This is the point.

 

I assert that you are far more than than what is on the surface.  That you have an essence, which is eternal, timeless, absolutely unique.  You bring something to reality which absolutely cannot be brought by anyone or anything else.  And it's not just you, it's everyone and everything that exists.  Because of this, I greatly value the opportunity to interact with you, and them, and everything.  To be in your presence, to listen to your words, to share your ideas when you choose to share them.  To visit the realm-of-luke whn I am invited.  But not just you.  Everything is like this for me.

 

When I am able to hold this idea and maintain it, it's an ongoing blissful state, and it's close, oh.  it's so close, it's like th air i breath every second of every day.  I don't need to do anything, its just happening.  When Ajay asked about my experience, I went to the store and reached out with my peripheral vision, and just basked in the blissful tempo of life and all it has to offer.  That way I could write about it.

 

Someone comes along and says, "nah... you're nothing, they're nothing, your family is meaningless, you're meaningless.  you have no soul, they have no souls.  I'm enlightened and my bliss experience requires the denying you your identity."  That's a bit of a buzz kill.

 

Yes, that's exactly the issue I have with the Buddhist mindset myself. It doesn't seem to recognize the glorious and eternally valid uniqueness of the individual as one in a myriad of foci the Universe creates to contemplate its own existence. 

 

BTW, back in the day, I was taught the illusionary nature of individual existence in a lecture in Kyoto's Sosenji temple (where I was occasionally practising zazen at the time) and attempted to further discuss the issue, however, the monk in charge decided to quickly move on to other attributes of Nothing, LOL.

 

On 24.8.2023 at 11:23 PM, Daniel said:

Generally, I would avoid discussing it with people whom I know, for certain, are adherents to this sort of mindset.  But here we are on a public forum, and a kindred spirit pops-in to say, "Hey, have you noticed that this so-called-enlightenment is kind of a shell-game.  it's not what it appears to be on the surface?"  So, I'm here supporting that person, because, if they are like me, then these ideas of sunyata as the only-way are kind of distracting.  And knowing they have friends who relate and understand out there can cut down on the noise.

 

 

[stirling]

On 8/24/2023 at 3:31 PM, liminal_luke said:

I'm pretty certain this is not the Buddhist view.  I know that it can sound like the Buddhist view and one could get this impression sometimes talking with Buddhists but it's actually not their view at all. I'm wondering if there's anything I could say or the Buddhists on the forum could say that might change your mind?  (Perhaps @stirling could shed some light?)

 

Thanks for the mention Luke.

 

With great respect to the original poster who is trying so bravely to make sense of these ideas here, there are a number of problems with the initial proposition as it is presented that would require entirely re-stating the premise in a new way. It seemed difficult and possibly unskilful, so I haven't dived in for this reason. Life is also busy in a good way at present, so...

 

In regard to this sub-point: firstly, there is ONLY enlightenment. It is not different from culture to culture - how it is DESCRIBED is. It is no problem for a Buddhist to share the experience of non-dual understanding with a Sufi, Hindu, or other Buddhist, at least in my experience. It is rich and rewarding to do so, and you won't finding those with understanding splitting hairs, or protecting their "tradition". The deeper the understanding, the more this is true. Where do the problems between traditions differ? It is where those that don't understand conceptualize and postulate, in my experience. 

 

Forgetting the "Buddhist view" for a moment: what is being suggested is that family, self, and souls are meaningless and that understanding how things are means denying identity. This would be a gross misunderstanding of enlightenment. 

 

In Buddhism "Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form":

 

https://www.sotozen.com/eng/practice/sutra/pdf/01/04.pdf

 

What does this mean? It means that form IS merely a quality of emptiness, but that both co-exist and are interdependent. So, the illusory form of "self" never goes anywhere, but is recognized to be empty of intrinsic reality, or, more simply put, no-thing has a reality that is independent of the rest of reality. It IS true that designations like family, self, and soul are illusory, and yet even enlightenment finds itself at family reunions, prefers a particular brand of peanut butter, and experiences interconnected meaning in the context of what arises in this moment. 

 

To believe otherwise is to be trapped in the conceptual constructs of nihilism, and not true understanding. Embracing nihilism would be a misunderstanding of the nature of reality as it is. 

 

The REAL problem is in trying to make ANY of this a conceptual framework or idea. It isn't and CAN'T be; conceptual ideas about non-dual reality are NOT understanding. The "mind" CANNOT parse how things really are, and no espousable idea or mental construct is "it" and can't be. 

 

Even the great Nagarjuna's teachings, the most clear and delineated teachings on emptiness extant, are understood to be merely a scaffolding to be held lightly until there is REAL understanding. 

 

Understanding the conceptual idea of the Āyatana of mind and mental objects is important to seeing how our exalted sense of "I", born from the misunderstanding of the importance of thought, misdirects and confuses us.

[Michael Sternbach]

On 25.8.2023 at 12:53 AM, Nungali said:

On 24.8.2023 at 9:34 PM, Michael Sternbach said:

 

So you are saying that we are labeling things based on convention, and thus attributing a 'reality' to them that they don't intrinsically have.

 

Yep !   have you seen what the Hebrew letters are supposed to represent ?   So .... no wonder !

 

 

 

I am familiar with the Kabbalah and therefore aware that the Hebrew letters represent objects and beings (as do the Egyptian hieroglyphs, the Chinese and Japanese characters, etc).

 

At the same time, the Hebrew letters represent numbers and archetypes -- which actually illustrates my statement that transient things are expressions of archetypal 'ideas'.

 

Quote

Quote

 

However, I think what actually happened was that we -- as a species -- found distinct objects and beings in our environment and started giving them names for easy reference.

 

I was listening to one of the teachers in an Aboriginal language  she said  : " Oh no, I am not an expert, I am still learning  , I go to  my grandfather still for lessons ; he picked me up the other day  .... I was  saying  ...... "   (  that language's name for a certain bird .... I cant remember the word  or the bird  .....   but  )  " and he said , no, thats not the correct pronunciation .... it doesnt even sound like that bird's call . "    Then they  went through a list of  animal words whose names related to the sound they make .   ( a bit like  ' no, it isnt 'kookaburra'  it should be  ' kookookakar '   ( with the oo part pronounced like a kookaburra does  it )

 

A nice example for words being derived from the things they are intended to designate -- rather than the reverse, as some Buddhists suggest.

 

Quote

Quote

My dogs understand very well what a bone is and what its specific attributes are without knowing what it's called.

 

?   Eh ?  ... Their ears dont prick up , tail wag and lips licked when you say  ;  " Bone ? "    .  I am sure the possum that  sleeps above my bed knows what " Banana ? "  means .

 

They do react to certain words that way, however, 'bone' isn't part of their vocabulary. But they have a clear concept of it regardless. 

 

Ultimately, seeing is believing... 😉

 

Quote

Quote

That said, I certainly don't deny that our convention based concepts tend to structure and limit our perception -- they do so to a large extent --, but to infer from this that the objects of our perception have no intrinsic reality seems to be quite a stretch.

 

Not until they are named  

.... ( as in the Jewish/Christian scripture )  ... and to an extent in some  old indigenous cultures  

 

And I would still like to know who first expressly came up with this idea, and when. If anyone here knows, I would appreciate a hint.

 

 

Whoever wrote  "   and the Lord said ; let there be light  ? 

 

( Oh look ....   the quote breaker is working again ! )

 

Right, the Logos... Which also has to do with the ability to measure things, besides naming them. 

 

The question is how we are to interpret the ancient scriptures, though. If I had forgotten my name and found myself in a place where nobody knows me, would I cease to exist?

 

Quote

 

Quote

 

The melted metal of our hammer indeed has the potential to become a lot of different things, as long as it's in the formless state.

 

But a potential hammer won't help you sticking actual nails into the wall -- trust me, you'll need an actual hammer for the job.

 

' Philosophy is fine ... until its time to hang a picture '

( Sun-poo  Sutra 23 )

 

The Platonist philosophy I referred to is well aware of the difference between potential and actuality, and looks at them as a polarity. Whereas the Buddhist view you represent seems to only acknowledge 'the sea of potential' as reality and claim that the hammer, the nails, and the wall don't actually exist.

 

Nor does a punch in the nose  ..... until you get one .   

 

Exactly, and at that moment, it won't matter a bit if you call it a cross, a gyaku-tsuki, or whatnot -- or if you even know what hit you (in fact, the worst hits are those that you didn't see coming).

 

Nor will it help to tell yourself that you were hit by a mere convention, LOL.

 

Quote

Quote

 

That's a non-sequitur. To any thougthful individual, it will be rather obvious that little in the manifest world is permanent -- perhaps not even the manifest world itself.

 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Michael Sternbach

[Daniel]

9 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Thanks for the mention Luke.

 

With great respect to the original poster who is trying so bravely to make sense of these ideas here, there are a number of problems with the initial proposition as it is presented that would require entirely re-stating the premise in a new way. It seemed difficult and possibly unskilful, so I haven't dived in for this reason. Life is also busy in a good way at present, so...

 

In regard to this sub-point: firstly, there is ONLY enlightenment. It is not different from culture to culture - how it is DESCRIBED is. It is no problem for a Buddhist to share the experience of non-dual understanding with a Sufi, Hindu, or other Buddhist, at least in my experience. It is rich and rewarding to do so, and you won't finding those with understanding splitting hairs, or protecting their "tradition". The deeper the understanding, the more this is true. Where do the problems between traditions differ? It is where those that don't understand conceptualize and postulate, in my experience. 

 

Forgetting the "Buddhist view" for a moment: what is being suggested is that family, self, and souls are meaningless and that understanding how things are means denying identity. This would be a gross misunderstanding of enlightenment. 

 

In Buddhism "Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form":

 

https://www.sotozen.com/eng/practice/sutra/pdf/01/04.pdf

 

What does this mean? It means that form IS merely a quality of emptiness, but that both co-exist and are interdependent. So, the illusory form of "self" never goes anywhere, but is recognized to be empty of intrinsic reality, or, more simply put, no-thing has a reality that is independent of the rest of reality. It IS true that designations like family, self, and soul are illusory, and yet even enlightenment finds itself at family reunions, prefers a particular brand of peanut butter, and experiences interconnected meaning in the context of what arises in this moment. 

 

To believe otherwise is to be trapped in the conceptual constructs of nihilism, and not true understanding. Embracing nihilism would be a misunderstanding of the nature of reality as it is. 

 

The REAL problem is in trying to make ANY of this a conceptual framework or idea. It isn't and CAN'T be; conceptual ideas about non-dual reality are NOT understanding. The "mind" CANNOT parse how things really are, and no espousable idea or mental construct is "it" and can't be. 

 

Even the great Nagarjuna's teachings, the most clear and delineated teachings on emptiness extant, are understood to be merely a scaffolding to be held lightly until there is REAL understanding. 

 

Understanding the conceptual idea of the Āyatana of mind and mental objects is important to seeing how our exalted sense of "I", born from the misunderstanding of the importance of thought, misdirects and confuses us.

 

The simple truth is, this is one way of viewing the world, but not the only way of viewing the world.  It's interesting that I am just now reading your reply, but it matches 1-to-1, a perfect fit, for what I described about the evangelical approach to 'non-dual'.  As I said, the ideas are not repugnant, it's the projecting delusion ( you called it illusion ) on all others ( the ones who are not adherents, literally attached, to non-dual ).

 

And the avoidance of rational discourse is there too.  Denying that it can be understood, so, any discussion about it is moot.  And the claim that 'thought' is some sort of enemy, a demon, which needs to be cast out. Demonizing it is absolutely dualist.  **sigh**

 

You said the mind cannot parse things how they really are, if so, then your mind cannot parse things as they really are, and this should cultivate humility which seems to be absent in what you're saying.  Please note the distinction.  Not who you are, not your behavior in any other aspect of your life.  Just here, just now, in these words and ideas, which are posted on an internet forum, a venue which seems to illicit absolutes in rhetoric.

 

There's so much more that I would like to say, but that would require typing many-many words to avoid absolute language, avoid becoming evangelical myself,  and avoid the pitfalls I'm describing.  Regardless of the accusation that I cannot understand, I understand quite a lot because I use mind-and-heart.  I understand what happens when form is equated with emptiness and I have no desire to deny that.  I understand what happens when family, self, and soul are considered illusion/delusion and I have no desire to deny that.  I understand the root of buddha guatama's teaching, and how these ideas, for lack of a better word, of soul, form, and emptiness contribute to it.  I have no desire to deny it because I understand the great benefit it brings to those who need it. 

 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Daniel

[Mark Foote]

15 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

very-super-duper-low-priority-question:  are you possibly able to tell if the indefinite article is included in the original language?
 

 

I agree, the language is very important.

 

Quote

 

I know it may sound like a strange question, but, to me the following 3 quotes can have different meanings:

 

take it that I am a Buddha

 

take it that I am Buddha

 

take it that I am buddha
 

The memory plays tricks.  I thought he was responding to a question about what he was, but he was responding to a question about what he would become after his time in this world.  And yet, the verb tense in his final response would seem to be about what he was. 

Apparently the term "buddha" had a connotation about what a person would become in the next and subsequent worlds that was widely understood at the time?  People today mostly associate it with enlightenment in this life, and don't think of the significance of the word beyond that.

To be a buddha was to be something more than a "non-returner".  Seems to me there is a lecture where Gautama addresses his cosmology in more substantive terms, but I can't recall where it is at the moment.

Meanwhile:

 

Your worship will become a deva?
 

No indeed, brahmin.  I'll not become a deva.
 

Then your worship will become a gandarva?
 

No indeed, brahmin, I'll not become a gandarva.
 

A yakka, then?
 

No indeed, brahmin.  Not a yakka.
 

Then your worship will become a human being?
 

No indeed, brahmin.  I'll not become a human being.
 

... Who then, pray, will your worship become?

... Just as, brahmin, a lotus, blue, red, or white, though born in the water, grown up in the water, when it reaches the surface stands there unsoiled by the water,--just so, brahmin, though born in the world, grown up in the world, having overcome the world, I abide unsoiled by the world.  Take it that I am a Buddha, brahmin.

(AN Book of Fours 36, Pali Text Society AN Vol 2 p 44)