[Buddha-l] Re: Aama do.sa I

[Joy Vriens]

Dan,

>Dan: 
>The point was not about what ought to be allowed or disallowed, but of 
>taking stock of an important variable that is different between Western and 
>classical Indian culture. In the West -- at least here in the States -- we 
>have lunatics on our city streets and college campuses who carry signs 
>announcing the apocalypse and the Gospel and all sorts of other apramana 
>declarations.

Difference? Michel Strickmann (him again) mentions a period of great anxiety in the 2-3rd century in China and quotes the end of the Sukhaavatii-vyuuha, in which the Buddha teaches that his teaching will last 1000 years, after which period will appear the pure land teachings that will last 100 years. Basically this text says that there is no time to lose. Strickmann adds that apart from the moral and personal karmic incentive, there was now a historical one as well. Texts appearing at that time came with slogans: Hold me, recite me, copy me, preach me and diffuse me or else! Contemporary advertising hasn't invented anything!  

>Joy: 
>> Ok I take note of these definitions and their different stated objectives, 
>tarka being merely a desperate shot in the dark and pramana proceding in all 
>glory on an enlightened path leading towards the light. The tarka adepts 
>must have felt pretty miffed when they heard what they were considered to be 
>doing... 
> 
>Dan: 
>As I mentioned, Nyaya -- at least some of it -- speaks very approvingly of 
>tarka. One of the later Nyaya textbooks is actually titled Tarka-samgraha 
>(Summary of Tarka). In Aristotle, this is analogous to the distinction he 
>draws between logic (prior and posterior analytics) and "dialectic," by 
>which he didn't mean what Hegel later used the term to signify, but the use 
>of logical methods to speculate about those things which, for a variety of 
>reasons, we cannot have certain knowledge, so that we may at least have the 
>best guesses possible. So no reason to get miffed. The Buddhist anti-tarka 
>rhetoric is not necessarily against thinking clearly, but against mistaking 
>speculative theories for truths. 

Out of curiosity, what would the Buddhist anti-tarka rhetoric have said about a person claiming:

"And what is the miracle of psychic power? There is the case where a certain person wields manifold psychic powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he beomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, & mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun & moon, so mighty & powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds. This is called the miracle of psychic power." 
 
>Joy:
> And from your own experience does that seem plausible to you? That it is 
>perhaps one of the many factors that can help to contribute to liberation 
>seems reasonable, but the only liberation achieved through clarity and 
>precision I can imagine is liberation from lack of clarity and from lack of 
>precision and even then to a certain degree. We like to dream of great 
>achievements and of the sky being the limit, but that doesn't stop us from 
>knocking our heads against the ceiling of our limited senses. 
 
>Dan: 
>Lack of clarity is not liberation.

That's not what I said. I said that the only liberation that can be achieved through clarity and  precision I can imagine is liberation *from* lack of clarity and *from* lack of  
precision. 

>It might be intoxication, oblivion, or 
>something else. This is why -- to bring us back to what started this 
>thread -- it is important to rethink such claims in terms of medicine. Which 
>physician would you entrust your health and life to -- the one who 
>understands clearly what is taking place and has a clear plan of treatment, 
>or the one who practices "from a lack of clarity and from lack precision"? 
>Buddha is a doctor -- as you already noted. 

Of course I would go for the clarity and precision, but our doctor, the Buddha, had his weird moments too (see above). So I would hope he'd leave his psychic powers aside. Doctor Buddha and mister Hyde.
 
>Joy: 
>> Are chimeras born or not-born, are non-chimeras born or not-born? What's 
>the point in listing specific chimeras? Would that list be exhaustive? Does 
>that knowledge liberate us? 
 
>Dan: 
>Chimeras are the false ideas one attaches to that have to be recognized for 
>what they are in order to get free from them. The seemingly solid 
>foundations on which people build their models of reality reveal themselves 
>to be chimeras when clearly seen. Otherwise one counts the teeth of a crow 
>endlessly. Only those lacking clarity, of course, may think that crows have 
>teeth. 

Or miscount the number of all the maggots in the universe. Not all knowledge, however clear and precise, is pertinent for liberation or even more so for detachment and equanimity. 
 
>Joy: 
>> What I learned from this text is that I don't have to pick up that 
>question, that I don't have to decide, that I don't have to direct my 
>knowledge faculty at it and to arrive at a conclusion. It teaches a 
>corrective reaction to what it considers shortcomings of earlier corrective 
>reactions and it undermines its own seriousness so it doesn't require more 
>corrective reactions. 

>Dan: 
>It may be time to re-read Vimalakirti. That is exactly the question it is 
>raising and addressing on a multitude of levels throughout the text -- the 
>plot, the discourses, the purpose of eloquence (Vimalakirti's most famous 
>and repeated quality), the centrality of Buddhism as a response to duhkha, 
>etc. Vimalakirti teaches little else. 

I will take your advice.
 
>Joy: 
>> That's not how I see it. It is impossible (in my experience) to exclude 
>reality. E.g. I don't see the dangers of nihilism or of mere emptiness. You 
>simply open another perspective and reality will still be there. How could 
>it be otherwise?  Think or believe or whatever that everything is 
>non-existent or a dream, do you think that by doing so, reality will 
>disappear? I think it will change our perspective on reality and that that 
>is all it does. The same half glass of water can be half full or half empty. 
 
>Dan: 
>That sort of is/isn't daydreaming has nothing to do with nihilism, since, as 
>you say, it is a game which, no matter how you turn at any one moment, you 
>are still there turning, and everything significant and stabilizing remains 
>in place. Nihilism is when one deeply and thoroughly and fervently believes 
>something so intensely, that reality itself hinges on that being the case --  
>and then discovering it is not the case. That bottomless abyss of 
>meaninglessness is nihilism. Nothing meaningful or stabilizing remains. 

I have no experience with that. I do not know if views and philophies can be that efficient as to cause exactly that. Perhaps deep depression or mental illness can do that, but those are not produced by a philosophical view as far as I know.  

>Joy: 
>> As I see it the non of non-thinking is a modifier it doesn't negate 
>thinking, it doesn't make it go away, it is different thinking or thinking 
>experienced differently. Life with detachment and equanimity is still life. 
 
>Dan: 
>One of Nietzsche's greatest chapters comes in the third part of Genealogy of 
>Morals in which he delves into the logic by which mystics, etc., claim that 
>non-knowing is true knowledge, and exposes that for the viparyaasa (reversal 
>of what actually is the case) it is. Might be worth a read. 

I sure will, I also think that mystics are often misunderstood. I will never give up on them since they offer a perspective that I think is useful, albeit in coexistence with others.

Joy