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

[Joy Vriens]

>Dan: 
>I have no illusions about that. Much earlier in this thread I already 
>pointed out that while Buddha tried to replace magical thinking with causal 
>analysis, Buddhists subsequently re-imported magical thinking with a 
>vengeance. At a magic show the difference between magical and causal 
>thinking is that those thinking magically fall for the trick, while the 
>causal analyst figures out how it was done. 

And yet they remain sensitive to beauty and can make aesthetical judgements, judging by some of their poetry. For that a minimum of enchantment and enjoyment is necessary imo.  

>Joy: 
>> According to the Buddha the cardinal problem is avidya, but also craving. 
>I doubt precise thinking is a sufficient cause of Awakening. 
 
>Dan: 
>Such is what Buddha said. Clear thinking is causal, hence to think of a 
>symphony, or a dream, etc., means to analyze its causes and conditions. To 
>feel attraction or repulsion toward such things also requires analysis. Pain 
>leads to avoidance, pleasure to attachment -- both reactions establish 
>habitual behaviors and attitudes. If one untangles how conditioning works, 
>then one can apply that to neutralize one's own conditioning. Neutralized 
>conditioning is nirvana. 

Yes, that is what the Buddha said. So we leave it at that? 
If we talk about causal thinking (which is a choice one can or can not make), we assume causality, causes and hence a prior condition to anything. There are other ways of experiencing than to experience reality causally. One could coincide with what is, whatever it is, without hunting for the Snark.

Avidya, not-knowing, assumes there was something to be known? Then logically there is a precedent to the not-knowing of what is/ought to be known? It can not be that there is not-knowing (of what is to be known) before there is that which is to be known and which is not known. The apposition of not- or a- is already a hint. Moreover if one thinks causally, i.e. that things have causes, then what is the cause of not-knowing? Of course we can stop at ignorance because the Buddha said so and then that's where our causal thinking has to stop too. We can then turn it into a circular movement and call it samsara.
 
>Craving is the byproduct, not the root cause. That's why in the 
>pratitya-samutpada model it comes seventh on the list of nidanas, while 
>avidya is #1. Desire receives prominence in discourse and practice because 
>it is more tangible, more easily observed, more easily engaged and wrestled 
>with. Ignorance -- precisely because one is ignorant of it -- is more 
>amorphous, intangible, "difficult to understand." But desire doesn't cause 
>ignorance. Ignorance causes desire. 

Yes that's what he said. :-)
 
>Joy: 
>> To bring this back to Buddhism, there are many stories about Buddhist 
>tantrics (but I have seen similar stories in Chan or Zen litterature), 
>seasoned practitioners, going through similar periods of despair, utter 
>despair, very near suicide, but they always tend to have a happy end. 
 
>Dan: 
>That's why they are "stories." 

Whereas Asvaghosa's Buddhacarita (you brought up) is...? And talking about it, how about the episode where the Buddha decides to take milk-rice? It is presented as a calculated gesture (it gives him the
extra strength he needs to go til Awakening), but one could interpret it differently. He gives up his quest, surrenders the last thing he can surrender and Wham! If I had to rewrite the Buddhacarita that's how I would do it.
 
>Joy: 
>> And it basically boils down to surrender... 
 
>Dan: 
>Al-Islam... OK, I give up! 

That is a good start ;-)
Al-Islam (submission)? no. William James: "self surrender has been and always must be regarded as the vital turning point of the religious life." 

Joy