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

[Joy Vriens]

Dan,

>Positions are getting clearer... 

A replay of a gradualist-subitist debate? I hope we are more original than that. 
 
>> >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. 

"They" would be those who through causal analysis succeed in "neutralizing" conditions and are shielded of pain and pleasure, except of course the pleasure of their neutral condition.

>> 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.

Well, I look what happens with myself, around me, I look at the past, read about the past, look at the present and see tautology everywhere. Vanitas,vanitum et omnia tautology and nothing new under the sun. I can dream up an evolution including a spiritual evolution à la Teillard de Chardin, a spiral as so many have done before, but find it hard to measure any "progress" on the level of experience when I look back. One can jump as high as one wants, add a couple of somersaults, and will always fall back on one's feet, back or bum. Consciousness is always consciousness. Aren't we fooling ourselves with the concept of "progress"? 

> 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? 

That would be perfect. If we coincided with what is, then there would be no split, no shoulds or should nots. Non-duality :-) 
 
>Don't hunt for snarks or illusory coincidences. Figure out what is going on. 

Why? That would create a distance between myself and what is, a distance that is necessary to figure out. I am doing too much of that already.
 
 >> 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.

You really ought to tell me where you think you are going, I start to become intrigued. People talking about getting nowhere and losing time always surprise me. Where do they think they are going and how would they not lose time? 

>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. 

I have met people of whom I got the impression they were content. It could be pure a projection on my part of course. But I can think of contentment as a possible quality within my reach and I can imagine it to be independent of knowledge of the causes and conditions of bondage and liberation. I would be surprised if the people I mentioned did have that "knowledge". Or that "knowledge" would have to be something very intimate, intuitive and not necessarily linked to clear and precise thinking. Perhaps you could say something about how discursive clear thinking ought to be.   

>>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.

Please no Godwin's law style argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

> 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). 

Perhaps we can then agree on being a lamp unto oneself without surrendering to oneself?

Joy