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

[Dan Lusthaus]

Joy,

Positions are getting clearer...

> >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.

I'm not sure which "they" you are referring to.


> 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.

Tautological experience. You are serious and persistent about this. Of
course there are other ways to experience besides causal analysis. But that
is neither Buddhist practice nor liberation. I'll let you in on a secret:
One always coincides with what is, even now as you are reading this and a
meaning is being conveyed to you. You are coinciding with that meaning. Even
to daydream and float away from what is in front of you is to coincide with
your daydream. As Husserl (and the Yogacaras) said: Consciousness is always
consciousness of. That's how cognition works. So what?

Don't hunt for snarks or illusory coincidences. Figure out what is going on.


> 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.

Remarkable example of circular reasoning -- getting nowhere in a great
hurry. The not- or a- means "absence of" -- what is lacking is vidya,
knowledge, understanding. Ignorance is always the starting point. What one
lacks knowledge of are the causes and conditions of bondage and liberation.
Samsara is cyclical but not circular. We attempt to reinstate the same in
what is always different.


> Whereas Asvaghosa's Buddhacarita (you brought up) is...?

It's the origin of Sanskrit kavya literature -- and a good story.


>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.

I wouldn't. It took him six months to figure out that starving himself was
causally counterproductive to having a clear mind that could engage in
causal analysis. In fact, that is exactly the reason he gives for accepting
the food. The women with the rice milk was having an epiphany and coinciding
with her experience -- that's why she mistook Siddhartha Gautama for a deity
she believed helped her become pregnant. She was happy with her delusion,
her story -- and Buddha had his first meal in 6 months.


>William James: "self surrender has been and always must be regarded as the
vital turning point of the religious life."

I think I overheard some suicide-bombers-in-training say the same thing. On
the other hand, Buddha said be a lamp unto yourselves, and Linji said "be
independent." Kill the Buddha (which means surrender to no one).

Dan