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

[Mark Foote]

5 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

Right, so the first part of your reply in which you quote the Zen priest is describing a ‘preparatory’ practice to get to ‘shikantaza’. What is ‘shikantaza’? another word for Enlightenment to be added to the tags at the top of the OP?
 

 

Shikantaza is "just sitting", sitting minus any "doing something".  
 

 

Quote

 

You then go on to differentiate between ‘bliss’, ‘happiness’ and ‘ease’. You now reject the notion of ‘bliss’...
 

 

I never put forward the idea of bliss.  I did say that Gautama said there was a happiness in all the states of concentration, including the final "cessation of ('determinate thought' in) feeling and perceiving".  It's not the happiness that's the draw, though, IMHO.
 

 

Quote

 

... which is ironic as in the beginning of this thread everyone was rejecting the notion of ‘happiness’ in preference for ‘bliss’… So you’re not interested in ‘bliss’, but you seem to be saying that the ‘[permanent] cessation of determinate thought’ may be attained, and that with it comes a happiness—so if that ‘cessation of determinate thought’ is permanent then so would be the happiness that comes with it… and you then say that you are currently at a stage in your practice when you are “at ease”, like a sage; are you “at ease” perpetually, right now, then?
 

 

I did not say that the ‘[permanent] cessation of determinate thought’ may be attained.  Here's the teaching, from the Pali sermons with some commentary on my part:
 

Gautama’s teaching revolved around action, around one specific kind of action:
 

…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)

 

“When one determines”—when a person exercises volition, or choice, action of “deed, word, or thought” follows.
 

Gautama also spoke of “the activities”.  The activities are the actions that take place as a consequence of the exercise of volition:
 

And what are the activities?  These are the three activities:–those of deed, speech and mind.  These are activities.
 

(SN II 3, Pali Text Society vol II p 4)

 

Gautama claimed that a ceasing of “action” is possible:
 

And what… is the ceasing of action? That ceasing of action by body, speech, and mind, by which one contacts freedom,–that is called ‘the ceasing of action’.
 

(SN IV 145, Pali Text Society Vol IV p 85)

 

He spoke in detail about how “the activities” come to cease:
 

…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)

 

 

(A Way of Living)

 

The "trances" or states of concentration are not permanent.  Gautama spent most of his time in the first concentration, with thought applied and sustained--that, he said was his way of living, "especially in the rainy season".

However, there is this:

 

Gautama described his way of living as a mindfulness composed of sixteen thoughts applied and sustained, each thought applied or sustained in the course of an inhalation or an exhalation. The fifteenth of the thoughts that he applied and sustained was:

Contemplating cessation I shall breathe in. Contemplating cessation I shall breathe out.

(SN V 312, Pali Text Society Vol V pg 275-276; tr. F. L. Woodward)
 

 
From the descriptions Gautama made of concentration, he apparently attained the fourth concentration regularly.  He then took an overview of the body (which he termed “the survey-sign” of the concentration, or “the fifth limb of concentration”).  The overview enabled him to re-enter the fourth concentration, as required in his mindfulness.

 

(From my next post, hopefully)

 
 

I'll try to answer the rest of your questions at some point, but I think maybe this answers your central concern.  You're right, I don't expect to experience the cessation of ("determinate thought" in) feeling and perceiving, with the accompanying insight into dependent causation (and suffering)--Gautama's enlightenment.  I'm only looking for the natural way to incorporate "the cessation of ('determinate thought' in) inbreathing and outbreathing", cessation with regard to the activity of the body, into my daily life.  Not for the happiness--more like, just to live a natural life, in light of the experience.

Gautama said that for an enlightened individual, the asavas or "poisons" of sensual desire, becoming, and ignorance were cut off, like a palm tree at the stump, never to grow again.  I can't verify that.  That would be the difference between an enlightened individual and anyone else, but if you ask me, most of the folks that have been and are regarded as enlightened have mastered the fourth of the initial concentrations, and maybe something of the further concentrations but not the cessation of feeling and perceiving.  They get really good at dropping volition in action of the body, particularly in the movement of breath, and the presence that accompanies "one-pointedness of mind".  That's a good thing, but the asavas don't seem to have been cut off at the root, for many of them.

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

 

Spoiler

Cantor distinguished two types of actual infinity, the transfinite and the absolute, about which he affirmed:

 

These concepts are to be strictly differentiated, insofar the former is, to be sure, infinite, yet capable of increase, whereas the latter is incapable of increase and is therefore indeterminable as a mathematical concept. This mistake we find, for example, in Pantheism. (G. Cantor, Über verschiedene Standpunkte in bezug auf das aktuelle Unendliche, in Gesammelte Abhandlungen mathematischen und philosophischen Inhalts, pp. 375, 378)

 

... For intuitionists, infinity is described as potential; terms synonymous with this notion are becoming or constructive.[12] For example, Stephen Kleene describes the notion of a Turing machine tape as "a linear 'tape', (potentially) infinite in both directions." To access memory on the tape, a Turing machine moves a read head along it in finitely many steps: the tape is therefore only "potentially" infinite, since — while there is always the ability to take another step — infinity itself is never actually reached.
 

Mathematicians generally accept actual infinities. Georg Cantor is the most significant mathematician who defended actual infinities. He decided that it is possible for natural and real numbers to be definite sets, and that if one rejects the axiom of Euclidean finiteness (that states that actualities, singly and in aggregates, are necessarily finite), then one is not involved in any contradiction.

 

(Wikipedia, "Actual Infinity")
 

 

The reason the intuitionists disavow "actual infinity" is because of the contradictions it allows.  That's mathematics, but I look at mathematics as the most reliable means we have for modeling the universe in a predictive manner.  Consequently, I expect that the assumption of an actual infinity in the physical or spiritual realm will in the end yield contradictions, and make whatever model is assumed based on the actual infinity subject to predictive failure.

 

 

My question was, why are you saying there are gaps in uncountable infinity?  Cantor showed there aren't any.

 

Regarding contradictions, I think a better term is paradox.  A contradiction is simultaneous opposing concepts which when linked are always false.  A paradox is simultaneous opposing concepts which when linked are not always false.

 

The problem with defining actual infinity, as far as I know, is, as was briefly mentioned in another thread, russel's paradox.  But that has been resolved.  It's actually really simple, and shouldn't be a big surprise.  Just go one level higher.  Abandon the "set" and move on to category theory.  The set of all sets is defined as an absolutely general conglomerate.  And that's still math, so you can trust it.

 

BTW, Math is nothing more than philosophy.

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

51 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

Whaddya say, wantah give us a prediction, based on the omnipotence and transcendence of your actual infinity? 

 

I'm not sure what you're looking for, or would accept.  However, if you want evidence of an accurate prediction, I accurately predicted the behavior which would identify someone who considers themself a "baptised teacher".  And I was spot-on in my profiling the evangelical nature of buddhist preaching.  I noticed it several months ago, when the individual cherry-picked scripture to force their pre-desired conclusion.  And refused to consider any alternatives.  Made claims that I could not ever understand the dao unless I did it their way. 

 

Receiving "empowerment" = "baptism"

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Daniel

[Cobie]

 

 

3 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

What are the circumstances which culminated in these deaths?  Please.  This is very important to me. 

 

Is there anything else that is known besides their reflection on their body?  What sort of monks were they?

 

 

I’d like to know this too.

 

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Cobie

[Daniel]

35 minutes ago, Cobie said:

I’d like to know this too.

 

Found it...  I haven't read the article, but this gives enough to research it for ourselves.

 

https://suvacobhikkhu.wordpress.com/2017/05/07/the-mass-suicide-of-monks-in-discourse-and-vinaya-literature-by-venerable-analayo/

 

"...The narrative concerns a mass suicide by monks disgusted with their own bodies, which reportedly happened after the Buddha had praised seeing the body as bereft of beauty..."

[Cobie]

.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Cobie

[whocoulditbe?]

4 hours ago, Daniel said:

On 14/09/2023 at 5:51 PM, Mark Foote said:

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

What are the circumstances which culminated in these deaths?  Please.  This is very important to me. 

 

Is there anything else that is known besides their reflection on their body?  What sort of monks were they?

You should take a look at meditation sickness.

[stirling]

On 9/15/2023 at 11:55 AM, Michael Sternbach said:

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

 

I'm looking for the bottom, Michael!

[stirling]

15 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

In this comment of yours you are trying to argue that an experience of union with the Non-Dual—synonymous with the Void—can be had, and that the Void is beyond all concepts; you are arguing this because your argument would then follow that such a union equates to Enlightenment or arrival in ‘perpetual-bliss’. I make points below in argument against.

 

I have never said that enlightenment is commensurate with "perpetual bliss". It is your belief or assumption, not mine. 

 

Quote

No, nothing that exists can be without a concept, I’m afraid—if you are saying something exists then you have an idea of what that thing is and therefore it can be conceptualised, ‘idea’ being synonymous with ‘concept’. 

 

“We have experience of knowing things all the time that aren't conceptualized”. 

 

No, we don’t; we often come across things we can’t effectively describe nor understand, but that doesn’t in any way mean that those things are therefore without concepts or forms. 

 

They don't have concepts until WE supply them. They don't have those concepts themselves. The concepts are ours. As far as we know the balance of the animal kingdom interacts with objects all of the time using no known conceptual abstractions. Concepts have no reality of their own. There are many concepts that don't even have physical objects to go with them. 

 

Taxonomy is the practice of applying appellations to classified and labeled objects that are newly encountered. It uses the comparison with other things as its basis and many objects get reclassified more than once when new info became available. The things that are named are NEW to experience. The objects could be known before they were named. They could be handed back and forth, smelled, traded, bought and sold without having names.

 

Quote

“Any time the mind is quiet and we are present with what is happening there is knowing, but without the conceptual overlay.” 

 

No, you cannot know something without conceptualising it; one can have a vague sense of something with being able to grasp it, but that vague understanding is only due to the limitations of one’s intelligence and comprehension; even a vague understanding requires a rough conceptualisation of the object.

 

That isn't my experience. There are other ways to know than with the thinking mind. Are you a meditator? This would be a way into understanding what I am saying if you were curious.

 

Quote

“Many of these are non-dual experiences […] “

 

No they’re not; what I’ve already said in this comment supports this rebuttal as does much of what I’ve said elsewhere in the thread.

 

My experience is that they ARE. If you really wanted to understand it, I would suggest you consider exploring it for yourself. If you have made up your mind, I understand. That's OK too, but probably means that there isn't anything further for us to discuss, really.

 

Quote

“[…] we can see that time, space, and self are all missing from the moment of experiencing.”

 

No. Time continues whether you appreciate it or not, it waits for no man, for so sannyasin; not sure how you came to the conclusion that space itself could ever be invalid, nor do I see how that even supports an argument for Non-Dual experiences; the ‘self’ will always be necessarily present in any experience whatsoever, due to what I’ve said elsewhere in the thread about frames-of-reference.

 

See above.

 

Quote

“I have successfully guided many people to notice how this is and point it out (commonly called "pointing out instruction" in the Tibetan Buddhist traditions). “

 

You have provided an explanation for their experience when they could not describe it at all—that doesn’t at all mean your explanation is accurate: the residents of Roswell in the 1950’s couldn’t make head or tail of the UFO crash, that doesn’t mean the explanation the press gave of a ‘weather-balloon’ was accurate.

 

I have attempted to explain it, yes, but if I had done a good job you would see what I mean. An explanation won't do it, either way. It is something you have to experience to understand, not read. 

 

Quote

Honestly it sounds like you’re just repeating a lot of rhetoric that you’ve learned by rote from your ‘teachers’ without actually considering how incoherent it is to anyone outside the bubble in which that rhetoric is professed. I’m well aware of how romantic and impressive it sounds—but I can cut through that.

 

I honestly don't know how else to talk about it. If it isn't interesting to you I'm fine with that. 

 

Quote

Regarding gnosis, one can receive ‘downloads’ from mysterious other-worldly sources—it happens. But you need to clarify how you get from referencing gnosis to the conclusion that all things are void, as both the way you’ve worded that final paragraph as well as the point you’re trying to make with it are obscure.

 

It surprises me that what I am saying seems less believable than downloads from mysterious other-worldly sources? I'm just suggesting looking at your own experience and taking it apart. 

 

Quote

Having read a bit further in the thread I think I remember you saying to the effect of “no, form and void are equally valid”, pretending to agree with me, whereas here you are trying to imply really that Forms are subordinate to the Void by choosing the adjective “contrived” to describe Forms, with all the negative connotations that word possesses today. Furthermore, though I agree that all Forms are made of a fundamental ‘stuff’, that ‘stuff’ is not ‘void’, it is as real and as material as the Forms themselves.

 

Why do you assume I am somebody who is out to make fun of you or pretend anything? I am sorry that you have come to that conclusion. If you really feel that way I am happy to refrain from commenting on your posts. You seem like you have your own ideas about how things are, I am just answering your questions from my understanding and experience as plainly and honestly as possible. 

 

The word "contrived" is a commonly used Buddhist term. According to some online dictionary it means:

 

Quote

...deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously.

 

This is what I am saying about our conceptual overlay of reality: We make it. It isn't naturally there. 

Edited September 17, 2023 by stirling

[Mark Foote]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

My question was, why are you saying there are gaps in uncountable infinity?  Cantor showed there aren't any.
 

 

The acceptance of "actual infinity" allows for the proof that there are no gaps in the real number line, true.  That's one of the proofs that the Intuitionists haven't been able to come up with, if I understand correctly, and of course calculus depends on it.  Am I getting that right?

 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

Regarding contradictions, I think a better term is paradox.  A contradiction is simultaneous opposing concepts which when linked are always false.  A paradox is simultaneous opposing concepts which when linked are not always false.
 

 

a. : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true. b. : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true.

Paradox Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

The problem with defining actual infinity, as far as I know, is, as was briefly mentioned in another thread, russel's paradox.  But that has been resolved.  It's actually really simple, and shouldn't be a big surprise.  Just go one level higher.  Abandon the "set" and move on to category theory.  The set of all sets is defined as an absolutely general conglomerate.  And that's still math, so you can trust it.
 

 

 

Not familiar with category theory.  Somehow it seems to me that Godel's theorems resolve the issue of paradoxes derived from axioms in mathematics by saying that only a limited set of axioms can be used, and the whole of what is known to be true in mathematics can never be derived from a limited set of axioms.  So what does that say about "actual infinity".   

I guess that it's there and we're here, and never the twain shall meet.
 

 

 

 

[Mark Foote]

3 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

I'm not sure what you're looking for, or would accept.  However, if you want evidence of an accurate prediction, I accurately predicted the behavior which would identify someone who considers themself a "baptised teacher".  And I was spot-on in my profiling the evangelical nature of buddhist preaching.  I noticed it several months ago, when the individual cherry-picked scripture to force their pre-desired conclusion.  And refused to consider any alternatives.  Made claims that I could not ever understand the dao unless I did it their way. 

 

Receiving "empowerment" = "baptism"

 

By the power never invested in me, I hereby baptise and empower thee Sir Daniel!  Rise, and shed thy pearls!

[Nungali]

Receiving empowerment cannot be the same as Baptism at all .  If one cared to look up what baptism is, if you didnt understand that already, you would see it is an admission ritual / rite into Christianity ... and as far as 'empowering goes' it actually makes you submissive to the 'power' of priests .   .

 

Daniel made other wrong claims like this previously  which I showed to be false  and posed certain questions and facts to  prove that , he never answered any of that , diverted and when called out said I was 'now on ignore ' .

 

 

But I am not 'ignoring ' certain misleading statements made here .

[Mark Foote]

3 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Found it...  I haven't read the article, but this gives enough to research it for ourselves.

 

https://suvacobhikkhu.wordpress.com/2017/05/07/the-mass-suicide-of-monks-in-discourse-and-vinaya-literature-by-venerable-analayo/

 

"...The narrative concerns a mass suicide by monks disgusted with their own bodies, which reportedly happened after the Buddha had praised seeing the body as bereft of beauty..."
 

Not the version in the Pali Text Society translation of Samyutta Nikaya volume V.  Let's see if I can copy that version in, from the PDF available here.

 

(ix) Vesali.
Thus have I heard * On a certain occasion the Exalted One
was staying near Vesali, in Great Wood, at the House with
the peaked gable.
Now on that occasion the Exalted One was talking to the
monks in divers ways on the subject of the unlovely, was
speaking in praise of the unlovely, was speaking m praise of
meditation on the unlovely.
After that the Exalted One addressed the monks, saying:
Monks, I wish to dwell in solitude for the half-month.
I am not to be visited by anyone save by the single one who
brings my food.
So be it, lord/ replied the monks to the Exalted One.

Thus no one visited the Exalted One save only the single one
who brought his food.
So those monks, saying, ‘ The Exalted One has in divers
ways spoken on the subject of the unlovely, he has spoken in
praise of the unlovely, he has spoken in praise of meditation
on the unlovely, spent their time given to meditation on the
unlovely in all its varied applications. As to this body, they
worried about it, felt shame and loathing for it, and sought
for a weapon to slay themselves. Nay, as many as ten monks
did so in a single day; even twenty, thirty of them slew themselves
in a single day.
Now at the end of that half-month the Exalted One, on
returning from his solitary life, said to the venerable Ananda
‘ How is it, Ananda ? The order of monks seems
diminished.
‘ As to that, lord, the Exalted One spoke to the monks in
divers ways on the subject of the unlovely, spoke in praise of
the unlovely, spoke in praise of meditation on the unlovely.
Then the monks, saying, “ The Exalted One has (thus spoken)
. . . spent their time given to meditation on the unlovely in
all its varied applications. As to this body, they worried
about it, felt shame and loathing for it, and sought for a
weapon to slay themselves. Nay, as many as ten monks did
so in a single day; even twenty, thirty of them slew themselves
in a single day. It were a good thing, lord, if the Exalted One
would teach some other method, so that the order of monks
might be established in gnosis.
‘ Very well then, Ananda. Summon the monks who dwell
in the neighbourhood of Vesali to the service-hall.
'Very good, lord, replied the venerable Ananda to the
Exalted One, and, after summoning all the monks who dwelt
in the neighbourhood of Vesali to the service-hall, he came to
the Exalted One and said:
‘ Lord, the order of monks is assembled. Now let the
Exalted One do as he deems fit.

Then the Exalted One went to the service-hall, and on
arriving there sat down on a seat made ready. As he thus
sat the Exalted One addressed the monks, saying:
'Monks, this intent concentration on in-breathing and outbreathing,
if cultivated and made much of, is something
peaceful and choice, something perfect in itself,2 and a pleasant
way of living too. Moreover it allays evil, unprofitable states
that have arisen and makes them vanish in a moment.
Just as, monks, in the last month of the hot season the dust
and dirt fly up, and then out of due season a great rain-cloud
lays them and makes them vanish in a moment,—even so
intent concentration on in-breathing and out-breathing, if
cultivated and made much of, is something peaceful and
choice, something perfect in itself, and a pleasant way of
living too. Moreover it allays evil, unprofitable states that
have arisen, and makes them vanish in a moment.
And how cultivated, monks, how made much of, does intent
concentration on in-breathing and out-breathing (have this
effect) ?
In this method a monk who has gone to the forest or the
root of a tree or a lonely place, sits down cross-legged . . .
holding
the body straight. Setting mindfulness in front of him, he
breathes in mindfully and mindfully breathes out. As he
draws in a long breath he knows: A long breath I draw in.
As he draws in a short breath he knows: A short breath I draw
in. As he breathes out a short breath he knows: I breathe
out a short breath.
Thus he makes up his mind (repeating): I shall breathe
in, feeling it go through the whole body. Feeling it go
through the whole body I shall breathe out. Calming down
the bodily aggregate I shall breathe in. Calming down the
bodily aggregate I shall breathe out.”
Thus he makes up his mind (repeating): “ Feeling the thrill
of zest I shall breathe in. Feeling the thrill of zest I shall
breathe out. Feeling the sense of ease I shall breathe in.
Feeling the sense of ease I shall breathe out.”
He makes up his mind (repeating): “ Aware of all mental
factors I shall breathe in. Aware of all mental factors I shall
breathe out. Calming down the mental factors I shall breathe
in. Calming down the mental factors I shall breathe out.
Aware of mind I shall breathe in. Aware of mind I shall
breathe out.”
He makes up his mind (repeating):  Gladdening my mind
I shall breathe in. Gladdening my mind I shall breathe out.
Composing my mind I shall breathe in. Composing my mind
I shall breathe out. Detaching my mind I shall breathe in.
Detaching my mind I shall breathe out.”
He makes up his mind (repeating): “ Contemplating impermanence
I shall breathe in. Contemplating impermanence
I shall breathe out. Contemplating dispassion I shall breathe
in. Contemplating dispassion I shall breathe out. Contemplating
cessation I shall breathe in. Contemplating
cessation I shall breathe out. Contemplating renunciation
I shall breathe in. Contemplating renunciation I shall
breathe out.”
Thus cultivated, monks, thus made much of, intent concentration
on in-breathing and out-breathing . . . allays
evil, unprofitable states that have arisen, and makes them
vanish in a moment.


" How is it, Ananda ? The order of monks seems
diminished."--priceless.

"It were a good thing, lord, if the Exalted One
would teach some other method, so that the order of monks
might be established in gnosis."--ya think?

Sermons that begin with "Thus have I heard" are thought to have been the recollections of Ananda, Gautama's attendant, who apparently had a photographic memory for sound.
 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Mark Foote]

3 hours ago, whocoulditbe? said:

You should take a look at meditation sickness.
 

I was thinking more like:

 

In my school, there are only two kinds of sickness.  One is to go looking for a donkey riding on the donkey.  The other is to be unwilling to dismount once having mounted the donkey.

… Once you have recognized the donkey, to mount it and be unwilling to dismount is the sickness that is most difficult to treat.  I tell you that you need not mount the donkey; you are the donkey!
 

(“Instant Zen:  Waking Up in the Present”, tr T. Cleary, Shambala p 4)

 

[Daniel]

On 9/16/2023 at 3:49 PM, Mark Foote said:

 

The acceptance of "actual infinity" allows for the proof that there are no gaps in the real number line, true.  That's one of the proofs that the Intuitionists haven't been able to come up with, if I understand correctly, and of course calculus depends on it.  Am I getting that right?

 

I understand Cantor's proof, which you brought of transfinite numbers, to be the proof of no gaps in uncountable infinity.  I think there is also something somewhere that shows the specctrum of light is a physical, real world, objective example of uncountable infinity.

 

Let's see if I can find it.... Here you go.  University of Illinois.

 

 

 

 

Quote

a. : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true. b. : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true.

 

Great!  Did you notice this matches exactly what I said?

 

I said:  "A paradox is simultaneous opposing concepts which when linked are not always false"

 

Seemingly contraditcory = opposing concepts

yet is perhaps true = are not always false

 

If you are looking at the B defintion, I don't think those were standing in the way of "actual infinity".  I think it was russel's paradox from the early 1900s.  It's no more a contradiction than the "liar's paradox".  It's looping self-references.

 

Quote

Not familiar with category theory.  Somehow it seems to me that Godel's theorems resolve the issue of paradoxes derived from axioms in mathematics by saying that only a limited set of axioms can be used, and the whole of what is known to be true in mathematics can never be derived from a limited set of axioms.  So what does that say about "actual infinity".   

 

Godel's work is more complicated, but, I think the solution that he brought for the set of all sets is similar.  It's just semantics.  Another layer of abstraction is introduced beyond the set.

 

Quote

I guess that it's there and we're here, and never the twain shall meet.

 

It's, of course, your choice how you perceive reality.  Absolute literal infinity can be mathematically justified. And this version of infinity is lacking any gaps.  But just like many other natural phenomena that are beyond the physical senses, it makes perfect sense to ignore it.  And, I can understand why some find it rewarding to deny it.

 

Edited November 4 by Daniel

[doc benway]

4 hours ago, Nungali said:

Receiving empowerment cannot be the same as Baptism at all .  If one cared to look up what baptism is, if you didnt understand that already, you would see it is an admission ritual / rite into Christianity ... and as far as 'empowering goes' it actually makes you submissive to the 'power' of priests .   .

 

 

 

I do think there are similarities. Both give you permission to enter the mandala of the divine. Through tantric empowerment you may become and express the power, the enlightened qualities, of the empowering agency. Sadly that approach is rare, but not entirely absent, in Christianity. I encourage reading Demello who describes the sublime empowerment of awareness in the Jesuit process. And there are clearly negative aspects of both types of indoctrination as well.  

[Daniel]

Baptism by the holy spirit is what made Jesus, Jesus... baptism by fire? this is what gives the power of discernment, salvation, indwelling of the holy spirit... the power to heal by faith... access to the spirit of truth...

 

It's basically the reason a Christian believes they have heavenly authority to proclaim truth, and deny the truth of others.  It's one of the primary causes for the multitude of denominations.  Everyone considers their version and interpretation "holy".

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

 

.

 

Edited November 4 by Daniel

[Michael Sternbach]

On 13.9.2023 at 6:30 PM, galen_burnett said:

Lol indeed! it must be unpleasant for them to always be on guard for attachments, like superstitious medieval house-wives adorning their homes with anti-demon charms, sort-of… 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

On 14.9.2023 at 6:18 PM, Mark Foote said:

 

You find Gautama's teaching pure and simple?

 

I mean, insofar many tomes of teachings have been added by the various Buddhist schools later.

 

On 14.9.2023 at 6:18 PM, Mark Foote said:

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)

 

I simply noticed that you are referring a lot to the Pali canon--arguably the most original Buddhist texts. And since, on the other hand, you are a Soto Zen practitioner (a tradition known for its frugality), I wondered if you see the Pali canon as the essential text.

[Michael Sternbach]

On 15.9.2023 at 11:29 AM, 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.

 

Not in my view. God (Brahman, Dao) is Infinity and Eternity themselves.

[Michael Sternbach]

On 15.9.2023 at 9:40 PM, liminal_luke said:

 

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.  

 

Beautiful! 👏

[Michael Sternbach]

On 16.9.2023 at 10:53 AM, galen_burnett said:

If you accept the extra-terrestrial world-view as David Icke and the Ancient Aliens series have predominantly worked to develop, what reservations could you have to doubt or deny the extra-terrestrial nature of the world’s religious icons?

 

That's a rather broad sweep you're making there!

 

I love the Ancient Aliens series for the many weird observations and speculations it brings to attention. And I am quite familiar with David Icke, Alexander Collier, Tom Smith, Len Kasten, Erich von Däniken, and other proponents of "the extraterrestrial worldview," as you call it. They don't always agree with each other, but that's inconsequential to me. I don't take anyone's scheme at face value, but prefer to make my own critical reviews and distinctions.

 

There's a sad tendency among conspiracists to uncritically accept "the (anyone's) extraterrestrial worldview" in a neat package with Hollow-Earth theory, Hollow-Moon theory, Flat-Earth theory, the moon landings being fake, and/or Trump being the saviour of humanity from the Illuminati, and what-have-you. In fact, some seem to be more than ready to accept any claims at all, as long as they are sufficiently at odds with mainstream thinking! 🙄

 

I see no evidence for any of the known religious founders to be of extraterrestrial origin. I find much wisdom and truth in the words of Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Laotzu, and others--they are representatives of human spiritual ingenuity to me. True, a number of religions have been misrepresented and used for political reasons, but this is generally not their founders' fault.

 

On our expeditions into unfamiliar lands, we need to tread carefully. There's so much we don't know out there!

 

Drawing from ancient mythology, modern mythology (the category which the aforesaid authors fall into), whistleblower reports, occult teachings, and not least my own dream/astral travel experiences, I develop my own take on humanity's past, present, and potential future involvement with extraterrestrial civilisations in my upcoming book trilogy Spacepunk. While nothing in it is implausible in my view, I am presenting it as science fiction, and for good reasons--and if any reader would see it as nothing more than an allegorical narrative, that's fine with me! 🙂

Edited September 17, 2023 by Michael Sternbach

[Daniel]

On 9/15/2023 at 2:29 AM, galen_burnett said:

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.

 

Unless the comprehension is just one of the infinite forms which it possesses.

[Daniel]

16 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

By the power never invested in me, I hereby baptise and empower thee Sir Daniel!  Rise, and shed thy pearls!

 

"By the power never invested in me...."  Why do I have a craving for pickles?  Was that supposed to happen?