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

[galen_burnett]

19 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

I was mildly alarmed when I read that GB was going to do an "unbiased" distillation of this thread on his Youtube channel.  Would I become famous, and not in a good way?  After thinking about it, I've decided that there's not really much danger and, should he desire it, he's welcome to comment on my asavas.

the video itself will receive not less than 5 BILLION views! and will be remembered as a GROUND-BREAKING piece of home-video in the junior years of the information-age—BRUH you will be completely CANCELLED from the internet ENTIRELY! the years before the video was published will be forever known in internet culture simply as ‘THE TIME BEFORE’. children in every school and workers in every corporate chain in the West will know liminal_luke as one of the best MEMES of the 2020’s—to rival even STAR WARS KID! make good use of the MONTHS your reputation HAS LEFT before you are completely CANCELLED!! you should never have CROSSED the GREAT ENLIGHTENED sage-master GIGALORD Galen Burnett! it will be BAD for YOU!1!!1 CAAAAAANCEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 🥸

Edited September 14, 2023 by galen_burnett

[galen_burnett]

On 09/09/2023 at 3:59 PM, liminal_luke said:

 

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?

i mean you can enjoy attention from others, i’m not the guru telling you what you should do and how you should be; but i made this thread to address a very particular scruple i have with spiritual traditions, so i will be very critical and thorough with anyone who speaks on behalf of the ‘opposition’, which will include calling out anyone i feel is trying to dodge around proper argument. look, for the last time, your smooth talking doesn’t work on me, i can see right through it; no doubt it works well on pretty girls etc. though; i just cringe at it though. i’m unfriendly with you because i care a lot about the topic of the thread which i feel you’ve disrespected through failing to be direct in your answers due to a fear of yours of arguing properly about it—and the 19 pages of this thread have proven that the ‘perpetual-bliss’ concept cannot indeed be defended effectively without the influence of an enigmatic guru. i don’t care for what i may or may not know about you honestly; i disregard you in the context of this thread because you haven’t been honest in the argument. and, lol, “you see me”—i mean, whatever?—you see me, like this?:

[galen_burnett]

On 09/09/2023 at 5:42 PM, Daniel said:

Welcome back

 

That’s no problem at all Daniel. I can’t say I myself aspire to agnosticism, but I certainly respect you. I guess, to offer my own take on the learning experience, I like learning things because it’s entertaining and engaging, and because it’s how I resolve difficulties that arise in my life. Personally I don’t really worry too much about the act of judging stuff to be true or untrue so long as I feel I’ve given some time to contemplating the issue; it’s generally important to me that I have a clear judgement on something after having spent the time thinking on something—I like to be able to say “I think this is true/false” after thinking about something—but once I’ve done that process with a topic I’m happy to hold myself to whatever judgement I’ve made about it; I’m generally not the type to worry about “judge not lest ye be judged” is what I’m trying to say. There’ll always be stuff I don’t know, and I guess I’m happy to just keep picking items out of my “stuff I don’t know” folder, spending some time with it, and then, if it’s up for debate as to whether the thing is true or not, making a decision about it in that regard.

 

And no rush at all with your reply, I’m snowed under with the thread as it is!

Edited September 14, 2023 by galen_burnett

[liminal_luke]

20 minutes ago, galen_burnett said:

 look, for the last time, your smooth talking doesn’t work on me, i can see right through it; no doubt it works well on pretty girls 

 

Whatever your gifts of analysis when it comes to spiritual traditions, I can assure you of one thing: my smooth talking doesn't work especially well on pretty girls.

[galen_burnett]

Just now, liminal_luke said:

 

Whatever your gifts of analysis when it comes to spiritual traditions, I can assure you of one thing: my smooth talking doesn't work especially well on pretty girls.

i don’t believe you [insert obligatory winking emoji]

[Mark Foote]

4 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

@Mark Foote your reply to Daniel on 28th august (page 14) regarding putting “(and what he was)” in brackets. it’s understood that he was answering in the present-tense* to a question about his future; but it’s still not clear—at least not to me—why you put that part in brackets.

 

*note: i have also addressed the problem of ‘having been awakened’ being a past-participle—which is past-(perfect?)tense and not present-tense—anyway in a recent comment.
 

You're talking about:
 

Dona the brahmin is asking what he will become.  Apparently Gautama felt that in answering "take it that I am a Buddha", he answered that question.  That's why I said "of what he would become (and what he was)".  

  

 

  Quote

 

I'm not understanding why this is in parentheses?
 

 

 

The question was about what he will become, but his answer was present tense, that's why I put "and what he was" in parenthesis--he is saying what he is, but in answer to what he will become.  Sorry if that was confusing (it is confusing).

 

 

galen_burnett, I thought I answered your question in the last sentence, above.  What am I missing.

A thing I like about the sermons of Gautama in the Pali Canon, he's careful not to say too much.  I give you the words of Didymous Judas Thomas, about another individual who was careful not to say too much, at least in Thomas's recounting:
 

Jesus said to His disciples:  Make a comparison to Me and tell Me who I am like.

... Thomas said to Him:  Master, my mouth will not at all be capable of saying whom Thou are like.  

Jesus said:  I am not thy Master, because thou hast drunk, thou hast from the bubbling spring which I have measured out.

(The Gospel According to Thomas, coptic text established and translated by A. Guillaumont, H.-CH. Puech, G. Quispel, W. Till and Yassah ‘Abd Al Masih, p 9 log. 13, ©1959 E. J. Brill)

 

For me, Gautama's use of the word "buddha" in his reply to Dona is the equivalent of "not capable of saying".

 

[Mark Foote]

6 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Would you say that Soto Zen is Gautama's Buddhism pure and simple?
 

 

You find Gautama's teaching pure and simple?

 

Something, something, something:

 

Gautama said:
 

And I… at the close of (instructional discourse), steady, calm, make one-pointed and concentrate my mind subjectively in that first characteristic of concentration in which I ever constantly abide.
 

(MN I 249, Pali Text Society vol I p 303)

 

Gautama’s statement implies that he did not experience “that first characteristic of concentration” when he spoke.

“That first characteristic of concentration” is “one-pointedness of mind”, as here in Gautama’s description of “right concentration”:
 

“And what… is the (noble) right concentration with the causal associations, with the accompaniments?  It is right view, right purpose, right speech, right action, right mode of livelihood, right endeavor, right mindfulness.  Whatever one-pointedness of mind is accompanied by these seven components , this… is called the (noble) right concentration with the causal associations and the accompaniments.”
 

(MN III 71, Pali Text Society vol III p 114; similar at SN V 17; “noble” substituted for Ariyan)

 

Even though giving “instructional discourse” meant the loss of “that first characteristic of concentration”, Gautama went ahead and taught, and he expected the monks in his order to do the same. He severely chastised a group of monks who had taken a vow of silence for their rainy-season retreat, and made a rule against the practice:
 

“Monks, an observance of members of other sects, the practice of silence, should not be observed. Whoever should observe it, there is an offence of wrong-doing.”
 

(2nd book of the Theravadin Vinaya, Khandhaka 4.1.13)

 

 

(Mindfulness of Death)

 

 

Soto Zen is big on silence, at retreats.

 

Here's the part where I see Soto Zen as in accord with Gautama's teachings:

 

Although we accept Buddha’s teaching, our practice is not based on any teaching. Our practice is based on our original nature—buddha-nature. Even if Buddha did not appear in this world, we all have [laughs] nature. And we should start our practice because of our true nature which Buddha found.

(Shunryu Suzuki, 68-07-21 lecture, http://www.shunryusuzuki.com/suzuki/transcripts-pdf/LE/68-07-21-LE.htm)

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Mark Foote

[galen_burnett]

On 09/09/2023 at 7:41 PM, stirling said:

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

 

So you have a permanence in the indelible nature of reality, in the unity of all existence, and an impermanence in the change of the ‘illusory’ things inside that universe; that’s similar to how I see it too, except for me the forms are as valid as the formless. But ‘bliss’ is qualified, it is a form, an object, and as such, according to your ontology it is in the category of things that change, and so it cannot be permanent. You will probably just try and tell me “nah, it’s not” without substantiating that rebuttal in any way whatsoever, like everyone who’s been before you in this thread. What’s more, a conscious soul itself is a form and cannot ever be without a form if it wants to be able to know and experience anything at all—this has also been covered in the thread already—and so it can never be let into your fabled Realm of the Enlightened Mind, where no forms are permitted. 

 

You describe the Enlightened Mind in a grandiose way using words like “ultimate” and ‘unqualified’, but still, even after I demanded that you say what your position is regarding ‘perpetual-bliss’, you have neither properly explained what your Enlightened Mind really is (of course, I’m 99.9999% sure that you think it is a state of perfect and perpetual bliss, attainable through diligent practice) nor answered that question I just repeated (again, I’m just going through the motions—you think it is true, of course).

 

The underlying unity of things can indeed be experienced and felt from time to time, but only as happy transitory states. The Forms are indeed fundamentally all made of the same elemental stuff, but that elemental soup is no more valid than the forms themselves. Life has form for a reason, and you’re missing out by blocking your eyes and ears to it and trying instead to escape back into the womb. 

 

This attachment (😮😮😮) to that fantastical state of formless bliss just tells me that a person is hoping to escape their reality; life’s hard sometimes—50% of the time actually—but whatever, there’s nothing to be done about that. You can’t alter the 50/50 ratio of happiness (or “bLiSs”, if you like) to suffering, and your journey through these spiritual traditions will yield a no better ratio than that when you finally emerge, disillusioned, on the other side, possibly some lifetimes from now. 

Edited September 14, 2023 by galen_burnett

[Mark Foote]

5 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

Isn’t that ‘permanent’ cessation of attachments in conflict with the tenet of impermanence? what comes after such a permanent unshackling—‘permanent-bliss’? 
 

I don't know!

At the moment Gautama realized the asavas were not present, the disturbance of the six sense fields was still present.  He did mention that.

I'm guessing that "the cessation of ('determinate thought' in) feeling and perceiving" allows unshakeable insight into the lack of any abiding self, into the chain of causation that begins with ignorance and ends in grasping after self (which Gautama said was identically suffering).

Your point about pain as suffering, I understand, but.  I look at my cat, and I see that the cat has some pain because her kidneys are failing.  The cat doesn't seem to suffer, even so. 

I have seen a cat die, with her paws tucked in under her on a desk, doing kitty zazen.  The cat did not seem to suffer, in spite of two surgeries for mammarian cancer which had returned.  

Are humans so much different from other animals?  Or have we just lost sight of something, lost accord with our nature?  If we have lost accord, then perhaps our existence is a challenge to return ourselves to that nature, and to find a way to do so that can be communicated widely before we destroy the planet.

Gautama turned his focus to teaching his own way of living, after the suicide of scores of monks a day, as they reflected on the unlovely aspects of the body.  As far as I understand that way of living, Gautama practiced to "the cessation of ('determinate thought' in) inbreathing and outbreathing" regularly, and then used a recollection of the state of the body in that cessation to recall the concentration as needed in daily life.  That was his way of living, "especially in the rainy season", so not all the time but a lot of it. 

That's not the concentration associated with his enlightenment.  That's just allowing the natural placement of attention in the movement of breath, and experiencing the cessation of habitual or volitive activity of the body in inhalation and exhalation, as necessary.

Where's the bliss in that.  I find relief in that, satisfaction in that, amazement in that.  Is that a kind of happiness?--yes, but I wouldn't call it bliss.  Is it nondual?  Yeah, in the sense that the natural placement of attention in the movement of breath is singular, there's a sense of awareness at a singular location.  Everything else enters into that location, things beyond the range of the senses can influence that location, and at some moment the activity of the entire body becomes automatic with that singularity.

 

When you find your place where you are, practice occurs, actualizing the fundamental point.

("Genjo Koan", Dogen, tr Tanahashi)

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Mark Foote

[doc benway]

5 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

yes, i presume a lot of universal truths, i’d be daft not to: like, i presume a thorn in one’s foot would be painful for anyone. ‘youth’ is largely independent of age. i’ve nothing more to argue on the matter of problem-solving; i don’t think there is such a thing as surrendering in peaceful acceptance to a problem, beyond a tai-chi context of letting the problem fall over itself by getting out of the way of it, or beyond letting the problem destroy you and thereby solving it as there is no longer a ‘you’ to oppose it; so we just disagree, whatever. “Perhaps you will […]” ditto. I’ve argued pretty well against that fallacy in this thread, so if I’ve not persuaded you by now I don’t think anyone reasonable is going to be able to either anytime soon.

 

A thorn wouldn’t be painful if the foot is numb…

Taiji is a great example regarding problem solving, many ways to address issues, including simply walking away when that is an option. The “no longer a ‘you’” is precisely the type of solution I’m referring to. This is what is meant by emptiness. When we genuinely find that we identify less with that sense of ‘me’ many problems are far less problematic. This is the source of the result you are questioning. The main reason my mind isn’t likely to change on the topic is that I am living with and benefiting from the effects of the practice.

 

5 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

 

”I'm not too concerned with whether or not Buddhism breaks its own rules. Rules are artificial and conditional by nature. I'm much more interested in understanding what the wisdom teachings are trying to show me. With proper study and practice a deeper and more comprehensive understanding is possible if one has the interest and drive.”

 

i mean, again, you’re just cherry-picking logic that confirms your bias, like so many others have done in this thread already: “i reject rules [logic]; but please give me rules [logic] enough to study and practise with, and to understand my guru’s wisdom by, and with which i may form a deep and comprehensive understanding of existence… but, no, banish them otherwise, banish the rules.

 

I’m not so much cherry picking as simply not getting too engaged in theoretical concerns and conceptual analysis. I don’t reject rules or logic, they certainly have value and an important place in my life, I simply don’t find them useful when it comes to my spiritual practice. In this arena they can be limiting rather than enlightening. My practice doesn’t require rules, this is the point of it in fact. Through practice I’ve seen changes in my life and attitude that reinforce the practice. Very few rules are necessary once some degree of familiarity is there. 

 

5 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

 

i can’t deny i’m annoyed at coming up against what i think to be unreasonable argument once again; but at least you have been more polite than the others.

 

Thanks, I feel I owe that to the very practice and associated benefits being discussed in this thread. 

[stirling]

2 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

So you have a permanence in the indelible nature of reality, in the unity of all existence, and an impermanence in the change of the ‘illusory’ things inside that universe; that’s similar to how I see it too, except for me the forms are as valid as the formless.

 

I agree with all of that, yes, though I might phrase it differently. Form and the formless are interwoven, and coexist (seemingly) so both are "valid", it is just that the formlessness is present and pervades all form; it is the omnipresent "quality" of all phenomena. 

 

2 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

But ‘bliss’ is qualified, it is a form, an object, and as such, according to your ontology it is in the category of things that change, and so it cannot be permanent. You will probably just try and tell me “nah, it’s not” without substantiating that rebuttal in any way whatsoever, like everyone who’s been before you in this thread.

 

The formless is extremely difficult to discuss in language. When broken down into conceptual ideas, the formless could be said to have certain qualities that it does not ultimately have. To express them is always inaccurate. I am not trying to be obtuse when I describe this for that reason. 

 

While they can be seen from either perspective, all objects are ultimately formless in nature. The substantiation would need to be in the form of training, if you to see what I mean. In same way that somebody can't read a book and suddenly ride a bike, play the drums, or dance ballet, having some experience of emptiness is necessary to understand what is being pointed to. 

 

2 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

What’s more, a conscious soul itself is a form and cannot ever be without a form if it wants to be able to know and experience anything at all—this has also been covered in the thread already—and so it can never be let into your fabled Realm of the Enlightened Mind, where no forms are permitted. 

 

A soul implies something with intrinsic reality. Have you ever experienced a soul? I haven't ever met anyone who has. To imagine a soul as having a form, or no form, or as existing at all is merely an act of imagination, isn't it? I only trust what I can experience. Conjecture is just a belief, in my opinion, not real knowledge of something. If you know of a way to experience a soul, I would be open to it experimenting with it. 

 

Enlightened mind sees both form AND emptiness (see Heart Sutra, quoted previously). Form never goes anywhere.

 

2 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

You describe the Enlightened Mind in a grandiose way using words like “ultimate” and ‘unqualified’, but still, even after I demanded that you say what your position is regarding ‘perpetual-bliss’, you have neither properly explained what your Enlightened Mind really is (of course, I’m 99.9999% sure that you think it is a state of perfect and perpetual bliss, attainable through diligent practice) nor answered that question I just repeated (again, I’m just going through the motions—you think it is true, of course).

 

I'm sorry if the words I have chose appear grandiose. Just trying to represent things as I see them. I have honestly tried to answer your question about bliss, but the question as phrased doesn't make sense from the absolute perspective. 

 

In its simplest terms,  enlightened mind has insight into the underlying non-dual nature of reality and can permanently see it at any time. It isn't a state, in that states come and go. It doesn't have any qualities . If you ask me to tell you what its qualities are I will be telling you some concepts that are similar to how it is, but do not embody the truth of how it is. 

 

Reading Nagajuna here would be a recommendation:

 

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

 

He is the Einstein of Buddhism. Even though his logic when talking about the Absolute is impeccable, he will still tell you that his ideas are merely a scaffolding - intended as a pointer to foster insight.  

 

I don't think it is a "state of perfect and perpetual bliss, attainable through diligent practice". To rephrase in a way I would say is more accurate from my perspective: there is nothing to add or subract to it, it is relaxing, and sometimes a relief when the turmoil of reality is seen through (like as glass of cold water on a hot day, as I think I previously said), and is completely unobtainable by a person, since its realization is the realization that the "self" as a separate thing in experience is an illusion. 

 

2 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

The underlying unity of things can indeed be experienced and felt from time to time, but only as happy transitory states. The Forms are indeed fundamentally all made of the same elemental stuff, but that elemental soup is no more valid than the forms themselves. Life has form for a reason, and you’re missing out by blocking your eyes and ears to it and trying instead to escape back into the womb. 

 

Is that your experience? My experience is that the unity is always present, and always has been, as is the constantly evolving form which arises from the unity. I am unsure how anybody could block seeing form, or hearing form, or escape form, but what CAN happen is seeing through the delusion of struggle, or suffering with it. 

 

2 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

This attachment (😮😮😮) to that fantastical state of formless bliss just tells me that a person is hoping to escape their reality; life’s hard sometimes—50% of the time actually—but whatever, there’s nothing to be done about that. You can’t alter the 50/50 ratio of happiness (or “bLiSs”, if you like) to suffering, and your journey through these spiritual traditions will yield a no better ratio than that when you finally emerge, disillusioned, on the other side, possibly some lifetimes from now. 

 

Anybody who has attachment to bliss is stuck. I'd agree with that. Otherwise I'd have to say that my experience is different. Lifetimes? It is worth asking: How many lifetimes have you experienced?  

 

 

[Daniel]

10 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

And no rush at all with your reply, I’m snowed under with the thread as it is!

 

I went back, re-read the questions.  Started writing a reply.  Then felt that ship had sailed, and, the thread had moved on.

 

I remember you asked about the rear-guard.  It's just an idea of being solo and self sufficient.  And in context, I was trying to communicate I am not like the crowd.  I am a unique self-sufficent individual.  

 

The rear guard, is the last team in the field, needs to be able to do it all on their own.  Also, they need indigeous knowledge, and, are often medics.  Any that have fallen and are not able to keep up with the convoy end up falling back with the rear guard.

 

There's a biblcal story, idea, myth, about the rear guard.  Guess who?  The tribe of Dan.  They were known as the in-gathers, the finders of lost things.  If anything, anything at all was dropped along the way in the wilderness, the Tribe of Dan would find it and send it up with Natfali, the runners, who were like a deer.  There's other myths of the Tribe of Dan, some good some bad.  But all of it is inspiring for me.

 

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by Daniel

[galen_burnett]

On 11/09/2023 at 12:12 AM, Daniel said:

This is because they claim to have transcended the attachment and doctrine which produces ideological conflict in the first place.

 

Yes I see, it’s clear what you meant now: yes the Zen people etc. do say things to the effect of “the Enlightened Mind has transcended all practice and rules and structures and doctrine”.

Edited September 15, 2023 by galen_burnett

[galen_burnett]

On 11/09/2023 at 4:29 AM, Daniel said:

 

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

(page 15)

 

I think both your comment there as well as Michael Sternbach’s are sensible in their own ways.

[galen_burnett]

On 11/09/2023 at 5:08 AM, 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.

Could you explain this a bit further please? I believe I know both what a Rational Number is—anything that can be divided to give a non-infinite Quotient—and a Real Number is—any non-Imaginary Number.

[galen_burnett]

On 11/09/2023 at 5:42 AM, Mark Foote said:

looking for the presence of mind that allows me to return to cessation of activity

Please say clearly why you are seeking this.

[Daniel]

12 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

the forms are as valid as the formless.

 

👍

 

Quote

You will probably just try and tell me “nah, it’s not” without substantiating that rebuttal in any way whatsoever

 

Maybe substantiating it requires dharma.  Not that the words don't exist or that there is not a way to substantiate it, but without a dharma transmission that is developed over years and years and years of day after day after day 24/7 monastary life with an *actual* enlightened master, a person literally cannot rise to these challenges.

 

Quote

a conscious soul itself is a form and cannot ever be without a form if it wants to be able to know and experience anything at all—

 

👍

 

Quote

you have neither properly explained what your Enlightened Mind really is

 

At this point I would expect, you will be directed to the experience.  You will be told it cannot be understood or described.  I actually doubt that this is true, but, this is a limitation on the teacher.  They don't know what they don't know.  If they only know an experience, and were never taught anything else, perhaps their own teachers never taught them more, or didn't know any more...  

 

Quote

This attachment (😮😮😮) to that fantastical state of formless bliss just tells me that a person is hoping to escape their reality; life’s hard sometimes—50% of the time actually—but whatever, there’s nothing to be done about that.

 

I actually think, in this specific case it's more of a hobby.  A passion.  A serious time-consuming hobby.  Yes a form of escape, but not from suffering.  

Edited September 15, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

8 hours ago, stirling said:

A soul implies something with intrinsic reality. Have you ever experienced a soul? I haven't ever met anyone who has. 

 

This sounds like blatant dishonesty, or selection bias.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

 

I experience souls everyday of the week all day long.  I am quite sure you would deny my experience as a product of religious doctrine even though it is easy to prove.  Search the thread for hammer, and you will find a post where a hammer's soul is objectively described.  Another buddhist tried to deny it and failed.

 

8 hours ago, stirling said:

the question as phrased doesn't make sense from the absolute perspective.

 

or it makes perfect sense.  but it doesn't make sense to you that you are unable to answer.  and the only way to make sense of it is to assume that the question is the problem.

[galen_burnett]

On 11/09/2023 at 1:02 PM, Michael Sternbach said:

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.

No, such a comprehension is not possible; not that you were asking me, but I’ve stated my opinion on this and my reasoning behind it, I think, more than once elsewhere in the thread. Not even ‘God’ is capable of such a comprehension, as he himself would also be a finite being—I deduce this from the premiss that being conscious necessitates having a Form and therefore also limits.

[Daniel]

5 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

No, such a comprehension is not possible; not that you were asking me, but I’ve stated my opinion on this and my reasoning behind it, I think, more than once elsewhere in the thread. Not even ‘God’ is capable of such a comprehension, as he himself would also be a finite being—I deduce this from the premiss that being conscious necessitates having a Form and therefore also limits.

 

If there is a distinction between knowing and comprehension ( understanding ), then it can be understood as unknowable.

 

If so infinity is fully comprehensible by a finite being.  

[Michael Sternbach]

On 12.9.2023 at 2:11 AM, stirling said:

Hello Michael!

 

 

Very certainly Zen/Cha'n is one of my major influences, but I spent 20 years working in the Tibetan Nyingma tradition before that, so you could say Nyingma and Dzogchen are still very influential for me, and I teach some of those texts regularly. 

 

 

I honestly think most Buddhism in the West is experience based, though I don't know that much about the Nichiren or Pure Land schools. In all cases, though what I am saying does not particularly differ from what my teachers or primary texts might have said, what I am expressing is my personal understanding. 

 

That's great! We can only convey convincingly what we have personally understood. 

 

Quote

 

I can see how:

 

 

...could be a provisional understanding used as a teaching scaffolding. My personal experience is that all abstractions such as realms or other worlds are empty of any reality of their own, incompatible with Nagarjuna's explanations of time, space, and self.

 

While I am certainly aware of the important role played by perception, I would argue that this and other realms (including our own existence in them) are structured and determined -- at least to a significant degree -- by mathematical/physical/metaphysical laws and principles which are neither arbitrary nor illusional. I am sure that that's why we see so many mandalas in Buddhist art.

 

Yes, it may all turn out to be something like a dream at the end of the day. But we should be careful not to confuse different levels of reality with one another.

 

Quote

My personal feeling is that Nagajunas explanation (most specifically the Shentong "emptiness of other" interpretation) is about as close as we are going to get to clear dialog about how "reality" is, though it is still flawed as he would have admitted.

 

 

That may be true, but I can only see cosmologies as conceptual constructs, not really having any reality that we can truly experience ourselves. I love cosmology (the stranger, fancier, more arcane and ornate the better) but in terms of reality I only trust what I can experience.

 

What you can experience very much depends on how far down the rabbit hole you're willing to go.

 

Quote

Having said that, the further you get on the this path the more strange and metaphysical what you encounter becomes. Even those experiences have a certain relative reality of their own, though it is advisable to hold what is "real" lightly and without reification. 

 

Yes, sometimes. And sometimes it's important to acknowledge what you perceive as valid and real.

 

Quote

In my teens and twenties I was deeply interested in the supernatural and metaphysical. Buddhism (and "empty" reality) are FULL of such things and experiences. Experiencing them is the natural consequence of dropping tightly held beliefs and stopping the process of explaining them away. 

 

I rather like that.

 

Quote

You can talk about it, but (as neo-Advaita chap Adyashanti says) you have intend to "fail well" in the best case scenario. It really isn't expressible, primarily because our language, which depends on subject/object relationships, is not suited to the task. It isn't a subject/object "thing" to experience. 

 

True, language has its limitations. But I believe that it can do more than what so many spiritual seekers give it credit for.

 

Quote

Oh, DEFINITELY. I think of them as different perspectives of the same thing seen through different facets of a prism. The same thing is looked at, but the descriptions will differ. 

 

My question still stands: What are the descriptions of the 'emptiness realisation' in other spiritual systems?

 

And I am not only asking you, but also myself, and anyone who may have something to share on this topic.

Edited September 15, 2023 by Michael Sternbach

[liminal_luke]

28 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

True, language has its limitations. But I believe that it can do more than what so many spiritual seekers give it credit for.

 

 

Agreed.

 

What language arguably can't do is define reality with precision and certainty; we can't use words like mathematical symbols and prove this or that about the Dao.  But words can suggest and imply so much more than their denotative meaning alone.  Think metaphor, think rhythm, think syntactic symbolism.  Language as art.  Words do not do their work alone but are always mediated through the consciousness of the reader.  The skilled writer can dance with the skilled reader, bringing forth a unique experience in which the distant echo of the ineffable is heard.  

[Mark Foote]

19 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

  On 9/10/2023 at 9:08 PM, 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.
 

Could you explain this a bit further please? I believe I know both what a Rational Number is—anything that can be divided to give a non-infinite Quotient—and a Real Number is—any non-Imaginary Number.
 

Between any two rational numbers, there's another rational number (just find a common denominator large enough to make the numerators differ by more than 2, then add one to the lowest numerator:  1/4 and 1/2, use the common denominator 8, so 2/8 and 4/8, the fraction 3/8 lies between them).  That actually means you have an infinite number of rationals between any two rationals, right, because this process can be repeated between one of the original numbers and the new number forever).

You would think all those rationals would fill the number line.  But no, then there are the irrationals.  Here's a swift proof from stack exchange that between any two rationals, there's an irrational:

 

... there is a slightly more elementary way of doing this: √2 is irrational. A rational times an irrational is irrational, and the sum of a rational with an irrational is irrational. It's then easy to check that

s=a+ √2(b−a)/2

is an irrational number between a and b.

 

 

The real clincher is Cantor's proof that the infinity of the real numbers is bigger than the infinity of the rationals.  Cantor said (essentially), suppose we have a table that maps the integers to the real numbers, 1 to 1:

 

The number one is mapped to pi in the table, and similarly each counting number is mapped to an irrational number, and we suppose that our mapping is one-to-one.  That would mean the infinity of the counting numbers is the same as the infinity of the irrational numbers.  

Now we add one to a single digit of each of the irrational numbers, along the diagonal:

 

 

 

 

The new number is not in the table.  We know that, because it differs from the first number in the table at the first digit, it differs from the second number at the second digit, and so forth through the whole table.  Conclusion:  the natural numbers cannot be mapped one-to-one to the irrational numbers, the infinity of the irrational numbers is bigger than the infinity of the rationals.

Source for these tables is here.

So when Daniel is talking about an omnipresent infinity--which one?

The assumption that makes Cantor's proof possible is the assumption that we can talk about infinity as though it were a completed thing, an "actual infinity".  Doing so allows certain contradictions, for example, the set of all sets that don't contain themselves--does that set contain itself, or not?

 

 

The mathematician Poincare sums it up nicely for me (from Wikipedia, actual infinity):
 

There is no actual infinity, that the Cantorians have forgotten and have been trapped by contradictions.
 

(H. Poincare [Les mathematiques et la logique III, Rev. metaphys. morale (1906) p. 316])

 

(About Completed Infinities)

 

 

There's an entire school of mathematics that doesn't accept the notion of a completed, or "actual", infinity:  the Intuitionists.  The difficulty is, without completed infinities, some of the critical proofs of higher mathematics can't be made.  

It all comes back to the use of the excluded middle, which Intuitionists reject.  However:

 

In his lecture in 1941 at Yale and the subsequent paper, Gödel proposed a solution: "that the negation of a universal proposition was to be understood as asserting the existence … of a counterexample" (Dawson, p. 157).  ...The debate seemed to weaken: mathematicians, logicians and engineers continue to use the law of excluded middle (and double negation) in their daily work.

(WIkipedia, Law of Excluded Middle)

 

When Daniel proposes that the infinite is everywhere--well, we know there are holes in the infinity of the rational numbers... what makes him think there's only one infinity, and it's everywhere?

Devil's advocate, you know.

Edited September 15, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Mark Foote]

18 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

Please say clearly why you are seeking this.
 

"Seeking" is not what I'm doing.  "Returning to", is more like what I'm doing, except I'm "not doing".

My post yesterday at 09:51 AM:  " I find relief in that, satisfaction in that, amazement in that."

[Daniel]

57 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

So when Daniel is talking about an omnipresent infinity--which one?

 

Hopefully you saw my answer to this?

 

57 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

When Daniel proposes that the infinite is everywhere--well, we know there are holes in the infinity of the rational numbers... what makes him think there's only one infinity, and it's everywhere?

 

Because I am not limiting infinity to numbers. Once everything is included, then there really is only 1.  It literally includes everything, and every non-thing, and every possible thing.  There can only be 1 of those.  

 

Even if i were limiting infinity to a specific domain ( why would I do that? ) the broadband spectrum is a better analogy.  No holes.  Any spectrum is a better analogy than numeric infinity. 

 

And.  There are no holes in uncountable infinity.  Like I said.  I'm not sure why you're saying there is.

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by Daniel