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

[liminal_luke]

10 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

No, you’re not. You’re not fooling me. You’re not agnostic like Daniel, you are definitely in the Enlightenment camp, as everything you’ve said in this thread testifies to. You’re just trying to say the thing that would get the most positively enthusiastic response from people at this point in the thread (‘like’ farming), irregardless of the truth. 

 

Some of the things you say are true.  Although I'm not a practicing Buddhist, those that are have my respect.  I think they're probably on to something.  You're also correct in your assertion that I like to be liked.  The opinions I relate here represent my genuine take on things, but I'm not unhappy when they're positively received.  In an ideal world, would I be indifferent to "likes" from strangers?  Possibly.  Obsessive concern with the opinions of others is a mark of insecurity.

 

I've been a member of this forum for many years so presumably I'm getting something out of my participation here.  The board is a wonderful place full of intelligent and accomplished people and there's much to learn.  One thing though: I wish we treated each other with more kindness.  Beneath our sometimes armored presentations, many of us feel vulnerable and yearn for a warmer, more welcoming atmosphere.  I know I do.  In general, I think Bums underestimate the extent to which they are known to others.  However careful we are not to say "too much," our words give us away.  You think you know a lot about me from the handful of posts I've written on this thread.  And I won't dispute the accuracy of your perception: you see me.  I wonder if you realize that I see you too?

Edited September 9, 2023 by liminal_luke

[Daniel]

11 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

No, you’re not. You’re not fooling me. You’re not agnostic like Daniel, you are definitely in the Enlightenment camp, as everything you’ve said in this thread testifies to. You’re just trying to say the thing that would get the most positively enthusiastic response from people at this point in the thread (‘like’ farming), irregardless of the truth. 

 

Welcome back.  Respectfully, gently, I request not to be included in these sorts of comparisons?  Something about it doesn't feel right to me.

 

I haven't forgotten that you asked some questions before you stepped away from the forum for a bit.  I will reply to those.  However, while you were away I've been involved in some other conversations, and I'd like to re-read much of this thread to return to the flow of what's being said here.

 

As I'm typing this, I'm wondering if, maybe, the reason I balk at being included in this sort of comparison has to do with my agnosticsm, which is perhaps a little unique.  Most people apply agnosticsm in a theological context, but I expand on that and move beyond it.  If I begin from the premise and assume or acknowledge that something is unknown, that does not prohibit learning about it.  Instead of trying to know it, it's possible to trace its border, for lack of better words.  Once the border is completely traced, then, it can be understood, this is unknowable.  Agnostic.  There is no gate, no portal to its interior dimension.

 

One of things which is unknowable like this is the interior experience of each and every human being.  With practice it can be modeled and predicted with some accuracy, especially for the rare extreme examples, but, words like "You are... " and "You are not..." cannot be true and consistent unless very carefully qualified.  It cannot be known precisely who a person IS or IS NOT from the outside.  And so comparing two individuals doubles the potential of error. 

 

I'm not trying to read your words hyper-literally as if you intended to make a specific perfect comparison.  I'm just trying to explain, maybe, why it doesn't feel right to me.  It feels good to me reading your words and ideas, they resonate with me.  But if agnosticsm is part of what both of us aspire to, and admire, then I don't think statements phrased in form of "You are..." or "You are not..." fit with that.  

 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Daniel

[stirling]

 

13 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

your third paragraph: yes, there you go, you just validated my accusation of Buddhism breaking its own rules. “all things are impermanent, except for ‘perpetual-bliss’ which is achieved through union with the “unconditional”. I’m confident enough that that is what you are implying to call you out on it. But if you are not, and rather you are just commenting on the eternal indelible nature of existence and the universe and its relationship to the constant flux of its forms, then i agree with you—it is a pleasant phenomenon to consider. 

 

Buddhism isn't breaking its own rules in this case:

 

Quote

The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths (Sanskrit: dvasatya, Wylie: bden pa gnyis) differentiates between two levels of satya (Sanskrit; Pali: sacca; word meaning "truth" or "reality") in the teaching of the Śākyamuni Buddha: the "conventional" or "provisional" (saṁvṛti) truth, and the "ultimate" (paramārtha) truth.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine#:~:text=Essence-function in Korean Buddhism,-See also%3A Korean&text=The polarity of absolute and,realities%2C but interpenetrate each other.

 

The understandings of impermanence and dependent origination are "provisional" truths, meaning that they are true when observed by unenlightened mind. They are provisionally true where the world is understood to be comprised of objects that have intrinsic reality of their own.

 

Enlightened mind sees through both delusions. When enlightened mind looks at reality the quality of emptiness is ALWAYS there. It is omnipresent and eternal. Enlightenment does not come and go, it is an "ultimate" truth. 

 

Enlightenment contains but supercedes the relative. The world looks the same, but with something taken away. The relative is still seen, but understood to be a delusion. The pervasive quality that is perceived is its emptiness - the "own-being" quality of objects is seen through. 

[Daniel]

14 minutes ago, stirling said:

The pervasive quality that is perceived is its emptiness - the "own-being" quality of objects is seen through. 

 

You have my sincere sympathies.

 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

15 minutes ago, stirling said:

The pervasive quality that is perceived is its emptiness - the "own-being" quality of objects is seen through. 

 

Do you acknowledge the emptiness of your own words, ideas, and this philosophy?  Do you know what 'emptiness' means?

[Nungali]

18 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

@Michael Sternbach what do you think archeologists have got wrong about prehistoric civs?

 

i still don’t follow the “nungali is an inaccurate human” bit though, don’t understand that part.

 

I am a a cultural anthropologist with a focus on ancient history .  I usually go on archaeology , 'oral tradition inference' , palentology, geology, etc . 'related sciences' .   I do have a HUGE interest in ancient civilization ... especially ancient forgotten civilization ... but I am a realist  ( eg. I find it much more fascinating  to think ancient Egyptians built what they did with the technology THEY actually had back then ... than to imagine aliens with  0 G tractor beams or rock melting lasers did it ) .  SO ... I find the lost ancient BMAC civilization  VERY fascinating , since it only became known to the west in the 1970s .   So I have focused on that ... this rather incredible and may be a candidate for one of the first five ( previously four )  civilizations .

 

But I dont go as far of the 'scientific research rails' as Michael does ... he is into Atlantis ,  Edgar Cayce  and others who tout 'alternative history .   I am not against that ... I just have more of a 'evidence based discernment ' .

 

There are many here who think the same as Michael , I often debate with them  ... they can angry when I expose the sacred cows to the light of reason and evidence  .  I will say though, Michael is more of the rational ones .

 

I am supposing that is what makes me an 'inaccurate human '  .     -    my insistence on accuracy and evidence . 

 

There are a few threads around  daobums where some have touted this 'secret ancient technology' stuff .  My opinions on that are not too popular here .   The Gobleki Tepe  threads where fun ..... I seemed the odd one out  here  ..... until recently ... when all the BS I called out has now been exposed by the actual archaeological research team     

[galen_burnett]

@Daniel Out of curiosity, what did you mean by “Nor is the concept of the delusion being rejected.”, Daniel, in the penultimate paragraph of your reply to iinatti on the 25th (page 11), when talking about the evangelicals? and would you be able to just clarify the last paragraph of that reply also, regarding ‘doctrine’? do you mean that in their (‘Non-Dualists’) doctrine ‘attachment’ is despised, yet they are attached to claiming perfect absolution from delusion?

[galen_burnett]

On 25/08/2023 at 11:09 PM, Daniel said:

 

Not two?  Obviously three.

Or 1,654 pixels, maybe?

[Daniel]

11 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

@Daniel Out of curiosity, what did you mean by “Nor is the concept of the delusion being rejected.”,

 

 

Sure.  Certain ideologies and worldviews draw a sharp distinction between themselves and the outsiders using the pejorative "delusion".   If they don't agree, then, they are automatically considered "deluded".  In Christianity, it's Satan who is blinding the non-believer.  In Islam it's Iblis.  In Baha'i its the "ego".  In Hinduism it's 'maya'.  In politics it's the 'media', etc...

 

In my reply I'm trying to speak generally.  For Satan, and Iblis, and the ego, and the media, it's not that these concepts ( if they are properly defined ) do not have the capability to delude.  They can.  "... the concept of the delusion is not being rejected."  My objection is when:  "all others are [automatically labeled] **delusional**".  This is repugnant, and invites sharp criticism.  If the individuals who are holding this point of view, did not preach it, then there would be very little conflict from me, at least.

 

The post I was replying to was asking "why is it repugnant to have differing opinions about non-duality?"  My answer is:  "It's not, it's the preaching and the negative judgements applied universally among other things ."

 

Quote

Daniel, in the penultimate paragraph of your reply to iinatti on the 25th (page 11), when talking about the evangelicals? and would you be able to just clarify the last paragraph of that reply also, regarding ‘doctrine’? do you mean that in their (‘Non-Dualists’) doctrine ‘attachment’ is despised, yet they are attached to claiming perfect absolution from delusion?

 

Yes, but not exactly.  I'm saying that individuals who claim a non-dual perspective will never admit that they are starting ideological conflict and perpetuating ideological conflict.   This is because they claim to have transcended the attachment and doctrine which produces ideological conflict in the first place.  So, when they are presented with examples of starting and perpetuating conflict, it will be immediately rejected and denied.  

 

If they were to acknowledge the mistake, then their own self-described enlightenment collapes.

If they were to acknowledge that their philosophy is starting and perpetuating ideological conflict, then their entire philosophy collapses.

 

It's better for these people to just stay quiet and not preach these sorts of things.  They can believe it, but once they start preaching it, then that invites the sort of disagreement that I was writing about in that post on page 11.

 

At least the Christians admit it's spiritual warfare.  So there's no conflict about what they are doing.

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

On 8/23/2023 at 9:50 PM, Michael Sternbach said:

If the Divine is synonymous with the Infinite, it makes sense that we can forever approach it, but never reach it.

 

If the divine is infinite it cannot be ever be approached, because, it is already omni-present.

[Mark Foote]

39 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

If the divine is infinite it cannot be ever be approached, because, it is already omni-present.
 

That assumes that what is infinite must fill the entire universe.  The rational numbers would seem to fill the number line, and there are an infinite number of them, but between any two rationals is a real number.  Just for an example.  Devil's advocate.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Daniel]

26 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

That assumes that what is infinite must fill the entire universe.  The rational numbers would seem to fill the number line, and there are an infinite number of them, but between any two rationals is a real number.  Just for an example.  Devil's advocate.

 

uncountable infinity fills those gaps.  http://5010.mathed.usu.edu/Fall2021/CHendricks/UncountablyInfinite.html

 

And the devil is always welcome.  the devil is a friend of mine

 

 

 

[Mark Foote]

5 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

This is because they claim to have transcended the attachment and doctrine which produces ideological conflict in the first place.  So, when they are presented with examples of starting and perpetuating conflict, it will be immediately rejected and denied.  

 

 

Ok, actually I had another name in mind, but--ha ha!

I did find a sermon in the Pali Canon the other day where Gautama said that his followers were enlightened two ways, one being the way Gautama was enlightened, the other "through mind", or words to that effect.  I found that remarkable, but I don't doubt that he said it, somehow, and maybe it's true.

For me, the point is that the way of living in which Gautama spent most of his time was apparently the first concentration, where thought is applied and sustained.  The catch-22 being that one of the thoughts was of the cessation of "determinate thought" in the activity of the body applied or sustained while an inbreath or an outbreath was taking place, but the cessation of of "determinate thought" in inbreathing and outbreathing doesn't take place until the the fourth concentration.  Gautama explained how he practiced through the first four concentrations to the "fifth limb" of concentration, the "survey-sign" or overview of the body that followed the fourth concentration--implied is that he employed the survey sign to recall "the cessation of inhalation and exhalation" as necessary in the rhythm of thought in the first concentration.

Oh, and the fundamental characteristic of concentration is "one-pointedness".   Shunryu Suzuki had a metaphor for what's involved in "laying hold of one-pointedness of mind", as Gautama described it:

 

If you are going to fall, you know, from, for instance, from the tree to the ground, the moment you, you know, leave the branch you lose your function of the body. But if you don’t, you know, there is a pretty long time before you reach to the ground. And there may be some branch, you know. So you can catch the branch or you can do something. But because you lose function of your body, you know [laughs], before you reach to the ground, you may lose your conscious[ness].
 

(“To Actually Practice Selflessness”, August Sesshin Lecture Wednesday, August 6, 1969, San Francisco, http://shunryusuzuki2.com/detail1?ID=281)

 

 

That's about:

 

There can… come a moment when the movement of breath necessitates the placement of attention at a certain location in the body, or at a series of locations, with the ability to remain awake as the location of attention shifts retained through the exercise of presence.

 

So regardless of whether someone claims that they have permanently transcended dualism due to an experience they had or not, I am only looking for the presence of mind that allows me to return to cessation of activity in the movement of breath, as needed.  I feel drawn to that, and if someone else's words or presence is helpful in that regard, I'm grateful.  I'm the bigger fool if I don't hear the universe when the universe is talking, and the universe speaks through us all, blah blah blah...
 

Edited September 11, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Mark Foote]

8 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

uncountable infinity fills those gaps.  http://5010.mathed.usu.edu/Fall2021/CHendricks/UncountablyInfinite.html

 

And the devil is always welcome.  the devil is a friend of mine

But the uncountable infinity is of a different size, says Cantor and most mathematicians (with the exclusion of the Satanic so-called Intuitionists).

[iinatti]

.

Edited September 27, 2023 by iinatti
.

[Michael Sternbach]

[Double post.]

Edited September 11, 2023 by Michael Sternbach

[Michael Sternbach]

7 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

If the divine is infinite it cannot be ever be approached, because, it is already omni-present.

 

It is--insofar it's at the very centre of things.

The Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra states "that the fields full of assemblies, the beings and aeons which are as many as all the dust particles, are all present in every particle of dust."

This is no different from William Blake's famous vision in The Auguries of Innocence:

"To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour"

Even though it is possible for mere mortals to gain that kind of insight, the question is if infinity can ever be actualised to its full potential by a finite being.

I once had a discussion about this with a Buddhist lady who insisted that her revered Tibetan masters were fully-realised. Wicked me maintained that this was an impossibility.

If anyone had a total realisation of Being, they would be identically--and consciously--God.

[Michael Sternbach]

On 9.9.2023 at 5:47 AM, galen_burnett said:

@Michael Sternbach what do you think archeologists have got wrong about prehistoric civs?

 

Well, they're generally unaware of the very existence of prehistoric civilisations. Even though things started shifting a bit with some of their more recent finds.

 

This is actually a topic that I pursue with great interest, as you can see, e.g., here:

 

Since I started that thread, I collected a lot more information and developed certain theories of my own. One day in the not-so-far future I am going to publish all this material in a comprehensive book.

 

On a related note, the Lost Civilisation topic plays a role also in my upcoming sci-fi novel Spacepunk I -- Humanity at the Crossroads. 

 

On 9.9.2023 at 5:47 AM, galen_burnett said:

i still don’t follow the “nungali is an inaccurate human” bit though, don’t understand that part.

 

Well, I just like to imagine that, when the archaeologists of the future will dig up and carbon date his remains one day, they will be more than surprised to find a specimen of Australopithecus originating from our time. 😉

[galen_burnett]

On 25/08/2023 at 11:14 PM, 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

Could you please explain that first line Daniel?

[galen_burnett]

On 25/08/2023 at 11:20 PM, 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.

 

 

In that case it can’t be known, can’t be experienced—so it effectively doesn’t exist. Both knowledge and experience depend on a frame of reference, a Duality, a non-Unity, to have any meaning.

[galen_burnett]

On 25/08/2023 at 11:20 PM, Mark Foote said:

 

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.

Having a position regarding philosophy and ontology necessitates some sort of label: “i don’t believe in any gods”—atheistic—; “i don’t believe in free-will”—determinist—; i believe in the immortality of the soul—Platonist, or Christian, for want of better words. Professing the existence of an attainable eternal bliss definitely is qualified as a philosophical position, thus necessitating a label, which others will then give him even if it makes him uncomfortable on his seat beneath his fig tree. 

 

I know you yourself seem to be saying that that’s not what Buddhism preaches; but, again, there’s already tons of people in this very thread testifying to it.

[galen_burnett]

@Mark Foote in your reply to liminal_luke on the 26th (page 12) you seem to invalidating Buddhist doctrine, seem to be saying that none of the text really matters, just the practice. Well, are you chucking everything? No, you’re not: you’re keeping the parts that instruct you in that practice and the parts that supply motivation for that practice… including the Enlightenment stuff maybe?

[galen_burnett]

@Mark Foote in your comment on the 26th (page 12) you quote this "Most people are not on a spiritual path because they already have what’s being looked for on a spiritual path." (from Cobie?). Well, kind of, I’d say. Most people don’t have to search too hard for their satisfaction because they are, by definition, average: the world is organised to produce satisfaction as efficiently as possible for the ‘average human-being’. But the average person still suffers, the average person does not abide in some celestial luminescence of shining bliss, which is often what people on spiritual-paths are seeking, which is what my complaint in this thread is—people deluded into thinking they can get that—; the average person has fun, and then he suffers, simple as that. So, yes the average person has what the spiritual seeker wants—relatively easy access to happiness—; but on the other hand they totally don’t have it—they have no coveted ‘perpetual-bliss’.

 

and in the latter part of this same comment—you quite explicitly say that, yes, what the Buddha got was Enlightenment, and you even continue to give a brief description of it “cessation of determinate thought”, and you describe it as desirable. So why is this Enlightenment desirable then? and why is it “ultimate”? The way you talked about the Buddha still even in that state being unable to avoid slight disturbances smelled a lot like someone saying “well, nothing’s perfect, but certainly you will be happy 99% of the time”…

Edited September 16, 2023 by galen_burnett

[galen_burnett]

On 26/08/2023 at 1:20 AM, Daniel said:

 

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....

It seems odd to me that a monk would say something like that—thus seemingly denying any sort of attainable state of ‘perpetual-bliss’—yet continue to, presumably, sit in meditation for long hours every day, and also, presumably, encourage others to emulate his diligence as best they are able. Seems to me he’s not being straight with us: if there’s nothing to get from spending so much time on it, then why is he even doing it? a little daily meditation will do anyone good, but there’s a lot more to life than quiet meditation…

[galen_burnett]

@stirling bruh… “bravely”?? it sounds a lot like you’re being pissy, and from that i could only conclude that my mere challenging the notion of ‘perpetual bliss’ has triggered you into a disgruntled state so as to feel the need to attack me. please quickly clear this up if i’ve misread you.

 

the rest of the thread addresses the difficulties of having a philosophy that can’t describe itself, especially such a one which also promises a golden heaven to the aspirant. 

 

you’re clearly heavily into these philosophies, so if you’re going to partake in the discussion of this thread you should really lay your opinion out straight on the idea of the existence of an attainable ‘perpetual-bliss’: is it real? is it not? or are you agnostic?