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

[Joy Vriens]

Hi Dan,

Time for our by now daily chat at the coffee machine of Buddha-L.
 
>> 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 have no interest in the theories related to other-power, but quite a lot in the dynamics of it. For me there is no higher entity or reality, from which we proceed or that can guide us. But the dynamics and the effects linked to that approach interest me. I am always attracted to what I don't understand and I always try, at least try, to understand it from within through empathy, not by trying to delimit and reduce it, lock it up in a judgement in other words. Whenever I mentioned surrender, you translated it into surrender *to*. Well, I would be interested in surrender without something to surrender to, not even necessarily to what is. We tend to overestimate the control we have over things and surrender could be beneficial. Not surrender for the sake of it, but as acorrective action. Although, who knows I might like it so much I'd go all the way... :-) Same thing for grace. The concept of grace interest me, but not as a grace coming from the outside, but more as an inner !
 attitude that I can develop towards things. The idea that everything is given interests me. That doesn't imply that there is someone actually giving it to me and to whom I ought to be grateful and to whom I ought to submit. No, gratefulness is a quality I can develop in myself, loose from any idea of other-power. And that will bring me closer to contentment, to acceptance and ultimately to some sort of detachment. Universal love is a very powerful quality. Imo it's more efficient than knowledge to lead to liberation, because it skips the whole discrimitave process that comes with knowledge, clear and precise knowledge. So far you haven't given me a hint that the knowledge you aspire to isn't non-discursive and therefore a discriminative one. I admit those are more dreamy utopian concepts, but they can have real effects, at least on the level of individual experience.         

>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... 

Sounds very good.

>> 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. 

Apart from what they believed, or what you believe they believed, it's good to wait and to behave. I wish more people would do that.  

>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.

In theory and especially in Buddhist theory that sounds correct. But when we "recognize" imperfection aren't we tautologically pre-imagining notions of perfection and imperfection. Who guarantees that what is seen as imperfect actually is? Are birth, illness, old age and death imperfections? In comparison to what pre-imagined perfection? Everything is imperfect if the measures we measure with are too perfect. 

> Huayan only pretends to disagree by deferring the gradual -- Sudden 
>Enlightenment is *followed* by Gradual Practice.

Yes, I somehow agree with that, although I wouldn't use the word gradual, because that suggests an increase of some kind. I see it more as maintenance, centeredness, but then without the notion of holding onto something.  

> That's because that sudden 
>enlightenment is not enlightenment at all, but only bodhicitta.

Conversion

> 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.

Which procures some peace and rest so one can walk the path placidly.

> Certainly, if you rummage around the Buddhist tradition you 
>can find plenty of tautological support. Only analysis will expose the 
>problem with this. 

I don't want to expose or create problems, so I will leave analysis create problems, deal with them and then let it continue doing whatever it was doing before it exposed and dealt with the problem inquestion. ;-)  A good market first creates needs and then provides in those needs. But who needs needs?
 
>> 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. 

But then nothing is, sabbam dukkham. This self-realising tautological idea of imperfection may hurt you...

>> >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. 

If one's shoes hurt because we tied them up too much, we may untie them and that brings some relief. Measure, flexibility, things don't need to be done or believed or whatever til their extremes. But then, I am not an ascete, like my comfort and am quite lazy. I leave heroism to the heroes. "Mourir pour des idées, d'accord, mais de mort lente" (Georges Brassens).

>> 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. 

Aha, I see an agreement. Effort stands in the way of figuring out things. I imagined that your figuring out was will-driven and with effort, but here you seem to suggest another possibility. 
 
>> 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. 

Even better, nothing to obtain, only the amusement to enjoy.
 
>> >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?

Well, the terrorists of today are the nazis of the past. Not to forget the Commies in between.

> 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 he ought to have said the spiritual life, considering what I wrote earlier about religion and spirituality. Religion always gets caught up with politics.
 
>> Perhaps we can then agree on being a lamp unto oneself without 
>surrendering to oneself? 
 
>Starting to sound better... 

Hey, there is no perfection, so this may be the best we will get.

Joy