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

[Dan Lusthaus]

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

Not just that -- self-power vs other-power, thoughtful vs non-thought, and a
whole panoply of recurrent themes.

> >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.

Neutralizing conditioning is not anasthesia -- it is fully sensitizing. Nor
is neutrality pleasure per se. Habits dull the sense. Involvement without
indulgence, detachment without denial, as Geshe Wangyal used to say. To see
something afresh ... never as good as the first time ... every moment is
new.... no tautologies or repeats anywhere...


> >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"?

So now we've returned to the Middle Ages -- they also didn't believe in
progress and thought one must wait -- the momentous is on its way, when it
is ready, in its own good time. We need to wait and behave ourselves in the
meantime.

This is not about Teillard de Chardin / Hegel / et al. teleology. Progress
is not measured by how close we get to what we have pre-imagined. That is
tautological imagining. Recognizing imperfection (or, as Buddha said, sabbam
dukkham, all is duhkha) means there is room for improvement, and, it takes
effort, and it is gradual (despite the subistists, Pali Buddhism (and the
Pali Buddha), Yogacara, Kamalasila, et al., all warned that the marga is
gradual. Huayan only pretends to disagree by deferring the gradual -- Sudden
Enlightenment is *followed* by Gradual Practice. That's because that sudden
enlightenment is not enlightenment at all, but only bodhicitta. Actual
enlightenment is a long way off for them, anuttara-samyak-sambodhi,
somewhere in the infinite kalpa future. But, tautologically, they believe,
to enter the path is already to be guaranteed the end, so the telos is
already present. Certainly, if you rummage around the Buddhist tradition you
can find plenty of tautological support. Only analysis will expose the
problem with this.


> That would be perfect. If we coincided with what is, then there would be
no split, no shoulds or should nots. Non-duality :-)

We already do, and it is not perfect.

>
> >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.

Reality invariably knocks such complacency in the face. That's what sabbam
dukkham means. To not figure it out means to surrender to it, let it tell
you what to do, what to feel, to comply, be obedient (since the disjunction
is from *your* side, isn't it? Only solved by you surrendering?), conform,
to be passive where it counts. Passive is also passion (same root -- pas).
Wait -- and tell oneself that waiting is non-waiting.

>
> 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?


"getting nowhere in a great hurry" is not about getting anywhere, or having
or losing time, but about the attitude -- being in a hurry. If you watch a
cat, when they chase their tail "in a hurry" they never catch it. When they
lie down and decide to clean it, there it is, in their paw available for as
many licks as they wish. Figuring things out is gradual.

> 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.

Cats enjoy chasing their tails in a hurry. And it is amusing for others to
watch. A splendid time is had by all.

> >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

Who mentioned Hitler or Nazis? That was an example from our daily
newspapers, not history. Have you listened to the videos suicide bombers
leave behind? Or what their supporters say in support? It is eerily close in
rhetoric and intent. They also physically coincide and intersperse
themselves with their surroundings. Suddenly. Passivity is very passionate.

If one takes James' statement as a definition -- >>William James: "self
surrender has been and always must be regarded as the vital turning point of
the religious life."  -- then I have never for even a moment been religious,
nor would I want to be. Without disingenuously invoking Godwin's law, by
this definition suicide bombers are very religious. They certainly think
they are.

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

Starting to sound better...

Dan