Is modernity bad for practice?

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: Is modernity bad for practice?

Postby muni » Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:15 am

:smile: Yes the mirror, reflections are not mind but not other than mind.

I think regarding that competition own mind must see its mistakes. There is such a joy by that! And I have lots of mistakes! So lots of joy! :smile:

Own mind is the domain to work so to say, to blow on karmic dusts. We cannot purify others mind, we can only support, try to help, inspire with our possibilities. But even so, how that will be percieved is others practice.
We can include others fully in practice.

I feel no need to add each time the great masters like Longchenpa since no any tools for knowledge is mine, no any. They are passing along many centuries and more, by selfless love.

Others are the means, to realize nature to see that all are own mind (mirror example) and not some phenomena outside to shoot.

Two cents.
muni
 
Posts: 2735
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Is modernity bad for practice?

Postby catmoon » Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:22 am

tobes wrote:
Are we really sure we know what modernity is?

:anjali:


Well when I hear the term "modernity" I always think of June Ckeaver proudly showing off her new refrigerator.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Is modernity bad for practice?

Postby Simon E. » Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:04 am

futerko wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:What is the sound of one finger wagging?

I think it sounds a bit like...
"I have absolutely no interest in philosophy... Supposing I get on with the sadhana which I am committed to this morning instead ?"

No sir, with respect that is the sound of two fingers wagging. And further reading of the thread would show me wagging them in my own direction..If you are going to quote me then I would appreciate you quoting me in context...and the context was my admission that I had blundered into the thread by mistake.
My reaction was that of a vegan who had wandered into a steak house...or if you prefer a carnivore presented with a choice of wheat grass options for lunch..the problem wasn't the menu..it was a a diner in the wrong place.

:namaste:
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Is modernity bad for practice?

Postby futerko » Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:35 am

Simon E. wrote:
futerko wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:What is the sound of one finger wagging?

I think it sounds a bit like...
"I have absolutely no interest in philosophy... Supposing I get on with the sadhana which I am committed to this morning instead ?"

No sir, with respect that is the sound of two fingers wagging. And further reading of the thread would show me wagging them in my own direction..If you are going to quote me then I would appreciate you quoting me in context...and the context was my admission that I had blundered into the thread by mistake.

:namaste:


Are you sure that was my finger? Earlier you said it was my willy! :tongue:
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Is modernity bad for practice?

Postby Simon E. » Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:39 am

I apologise for my appendage driven confusion. I become defensive when I realise that I have gone through the wrong door and feel silly. :smile: .
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Is modernity bad for practice?

Postby Queequeg » Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:40 pm

futerko wrote:The narrative would be the causal chain, dependent origination, with emptiness as the meta-truth about it. If you take just the meta-truth without understanding its foundation then you run into all kinds of absurdities, and conversely if you take just the narrative then you have no way out of the cycle.


Hm. Not quite comfortable with the value-judgment loaded into equating "emptiness" with "meta-truth". I understand that some schools understand it this way, but that would seem to be a bias in favor of one quality of the True Aspect over its indivisible counter part.

My understanding is that the conditioned, analyzed on its own terms, eventually fails, and emptiness is revealed in the failure, and only in the failure. Emptiness is a quality that is evident only in contrast to the conditioned, and more specifically, in the failure to locate any essential quality. Its been a while, but if I recall correctly, Nagarjuna then refers to the emptiness of emptiness - which to me seems like something distinct from the emptiness which is revealed as a contrast to the conditioned.

The "meta-truth" might be applied to this "emptiness of emptiness" but then we end up with this same failure of the conditioned... "emptiness of emptiness" is revealed only in contrast to this Madhyamika analysis. In my experience, it is the repeat ad nauseum of this loop of analysis until you tired yourself out and come to tolerate this intractable problem... You become comfortable with words of conceptions being deficient to what is all but realized...

Anyway - I'm just uncomfortable with applying this term "meta-truth". I understand how it came up - its part of the attempt to open a means of common ground with some post-modern, deconstructionist discipline. However, "meta-truth" might not be the right terms to use to describe emptiness. It could be misleading for someone approaching Madhyamika from a background where "meta-truth" is part of their vocabulary. Its loaded with too much baggage.
Queequeg
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Is modernity bad for practice?

Postby muni » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:19 pm

Karma Chochi Jinpa wrote:It is only bad if you are lost in fascination. When we complain about something, anything really, our teacher reminds us how lucky we are to have such great karma to have such wonderful teachers. The Chinese saying, "May you be blessed to live in an interesting time." is also said "May you be cursed to live in an interesting time." These things are only a distraction if you're perception of reality is still unskillful. Like everything else it is your perception that is the hindrance.


So very great to learn a bit to practice to directly look inside mind when a fixation happens by re-action on phenomena, modern or other. Since that is the obstacle which troubles, not the appaerance/phenomena. Recognizing that (fades) is such great relief, better than aspirin! :smile:

:namaste:
muni
 
Posts: 2735
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Is modernity bad for practice?

Postby viniketa » Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:41 pm

Queequeg wrote:I'm just uncomfortable with applying this term "meta-truth".... The "meta-truth" might be applied to this "emptiness of emptiness" but then we end up with this same failure of the conditioned...


It is just an analogy drawn during an exploration, so no need to get too uncomfortable. I think that the "great emptiness" (mahāśūnyatā) is implied, here, so it escapes the problem of the "failure of the conditioned", * in most schemas. :bow:

:namaste:
Last edited by viniketa on Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
viniketa
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: Is modernity bad for practice?

Postby futerko » Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:45 pm

Queequeg wrote:
futerko wrote:The narrative would be the causal chain, dependent origination, with emptiness as the meta-truth about it. If you take just the meta-truth without understanding its foundation then you run into all kinds of absurdities, and conversely if you take just the narrative then you have no way out of the cycle.


Hm. Not quite comfortable with the value-judgment loaded into equating "emptiness" with "meta-truth". I understand that some schools understand it this way, but that would seem to be a bias in favor of one quality of the True Aspect over its indivisible counter part.

My understanding is that the conditioned, analyzed on its own terms, eventually fails, and emptiness is revealed in the failure, and only in the failure. Emptiness is a quality that is evident only in contrast to the conditioned, and more specifically, in the failure to locate any essential quality. Its been a while, but if I recall correctly, Nagarjuna then refers to the emptiness of emptiness - which to me seems like something distinct from the emptiness which is revealed as a contrast to the conditioned.

The "meta-truth" might be applied to this "emptiness of emptiness" but then we end up with this same failure of the conditioned... "emptiness of emptiness" is revealed only in contrast to this Madhyamika analysis. In my experience, it is the repeat ad nauseum of this loop of analysis until you tired yourself out and come to tolerate this intractable problem... You become comfortable with words of conceptions being deficient to what is all but realized...

Anyway - I'm just uncomfortable with applying this term "meta-truth". I understand how it came up - its part of the attempt to open a means of common ground with some post-modern, deconstructionist discipline. However, "meta-truth" might not be the right terms to use to describe emptiness. It could be misleading for someone approaching Madhyamika from a background where "meta-truth" is part of their vocabulary. Its loaded with too much baggage.


This is exactly what I was trying to say. The issue for post-modernism is the apparent lack of a meta-truth, but as with your allusion to Nagarjuna - this only reveals itself in the apparent "failure" of the conditioned.
It is revealed precisely as a lack in the fabric of what was apparently solid, and that is why the "failure" to locate any essential quality is exactly what gives us a way out of the endless cycle of repetition.
The emptiness of emptiness is referring to the idea that emptiness may not only be found as a lack of any essential quality of the conditioned, but also that the quality found only expresses itself as the absence of a quality.
Its like a footprint reveals two absences, both a gap in the ground where the earth was, and the lack of the foot which made them. If you look for the second without finding the first you grasp at nothing.
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Is modernity bad for practice?

Postby Queequeg » Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:00 pm

viniketa wrote:
Queequeg wrote:I'm just uncomfortable with applying this term "meta-truth".... The "meta-truth" might be applied to this "emptiness of emptiness" but then we end up with this same failure of the conditioned...


It is just an analogy drawn during an exploration, so no need to get too uncomfortable. I think that the "great emptiness" (mahāśūnyatā) is implied, here, so it escapes the problem of the "failure of the conditioned", * in most schemas. :bow:

:namaste:


When I start thinking about all this emptiness and emptiness-of-emptiness business, I tend to get disoriented - so please forgive me if I seem unclear or confused - because I probably am. :smile: This might be getting off tack of the original post, but I'll justify this digression by saying its a sub-issue... :thinking:

As I was walking along this morning, thinking this emptiness-of-emptiness through, I came back to something that has always bothered me about Madhyamika - it has no punchline - its like a joke that is all set up. It doesn't even venture an, "Aristocrats!" at the end to let you know the joke is completed. The emptiness-of-emptiness itself, at a, ahem, meta-level, is yielded only in relation to the Madhyamika analysis. Divorce it from this analysis, and what is there? You've now just asserted a "meta-truth" subject to the same impossibility of every other dharma... I understand that there are some schools of Madhyamika interpretation that assert precisely this, with all the caveats of nuance properly footnoted. I may also be mistaken - its not a subject I've studied extensively. Assuming my perception is more or less accurate (all this hedging language demanded by Madhyamika!)...

My impression is that Madhyamika is an incomplete teaching. This is for so many reasons. The primary one is that all it does is show the impossibility of a naive notion of self. An active application of Madhyamika analysis can engender a particular state of consciousness, but I have to say, I sympathize with critics of Madhyamika who characterize this state as dangerous pit, functionally similar, if not identical to the Hinayana enlightenment with all of its failures. If this was all that the Buddha taught, there would be no basis for compassion. That's why, even though this is just an exercise in interdisciplinary dialogue, I am uncomfortable with calling even Mahasunyata a Meta-Truth. As I speculated, though, this may just be a sectarian distinction, or my own misunderstanding.

Please forgive me, Viniketa, if I am reading too much into your brief comments here, but I sense futerko has a slightly different view than you that is closer to mine.

futerko wrote:This is exactly what I was trying to say. The issue for post-modernism is the apparent lack of a meta-truth, but as with your allusion to Nagarjuna - this only reveals itself in the apparent "failure" of the conditioned.
It is revealed precisely as a lack in the fabric of what was apparently solid, and that is why the "failure" to locate any essential quality is exactly what gives us a way out of the endless cycle of repetition.
The emptiness of emptiness is referring to the idea that emptiness may not only be found as a lack of any essential quality of the conditioned, but also that the quality found only expresses itself as the absence of a quality.
Its like a footprint reveals two absences, both a gap in the ground where the earth was, and the lack of the foot which made them. If you look for the second without finding the first you grasp at nothing.


"Nothing" being thoroughly unreal. As Bob Thurman was fond of saying in class, "You can't have nothing!"

I agree with all of this, and futerko, your interpretation may in fact follow the turn I'm about to describe - just not certain based on what you write here.

Examining the conditioned for essential nature we fail, revealing, as you say, "the absence of quality." The absence is indistinguishable from the conditioned that is revealing the absence. Absence cannot be distinguished as anything in itself.

Unable to distinguish emptiness, however, we are compelled to return and fully engage in the conditioned, the difference now being that we do so with the Madhyamika insight into the conditioned.

In terms of our practice - and I only tread here because you mentioned this quality of "the absence of quality", so to speak, gives us the out from the endless cycle (samsara) - we seek to realize liberation from the conditioned - but all of our activities to achieve this are necessarily conditioned. Our practices to be liberated from the conditioned are themselves conditioned, and can be no other way. Its only when we realize that the goal is, and has always been an inherent quality of our activity that we can in any sense be liberated; the goal is achieved in the place of practice, so it is said; liberated without being liberated, or rather neither liberated nor not liberated. I'll just wrap this up by suggesting the existential implications I'm referencing here seem to be the issues at play in questions about Sudden and Gradual Enlightenment, Buddhanature, and in a more distant way, Alaya and Amala Vijnana.

Bringing this back to the subject of the "post-modern", although some of there analysis parallels aspects of Madhyamika, they engage in a different discipline than Buddhists because their activity is oriented to a different goal. They may deny that they have a goal, but whatever they are doing, its not Buddhism.
Queequeg
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Is modernity bad for practice?

Postby viniketa » Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:40 pm

Queequeg wrote:Please forgive me, Viniketa, if I am reading too much into your brief comments here, but I sense futerko has a slightly different view than you that is closer to mine.


I brought this on myself by anticipating futerko's meaning - wrongly! :tongue: I don't think the 'views' are different.

Queequeg wrote:As I was walking along this morning, thinking this emptiness-of-emptiness through, I came back to something that has always bothered me about Madhyamika - it has no punchline - its like a joke that is all set up.


Well, if followed to the extreme, the middle way has a punch line: Nothing whatsoever exists, even the Buddha. But, keep in mind that there are at least 20 types of emptiness (I say at least, because I've seen types discussed that don't seem to be among the generally accepted 20):


emptiness of the outer (Tib. ཕྱི་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་, chi tongpa nyi; Wyl. phyi stong pa nyid)
emptiness of the inner (Tib. ནང་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་, nang tongpa nyi; Wyl. nang stong pa nyid)
emptiness of the outer and inner (Tib. ཕྱི་ནང་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་, chi nang tongpa nyi; Wyl. phyi nang stong pa nyid)
great emptiness (Tib. ཆེན་པོ་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་, chenpo tongpa nyi; Wyl. chen po stong pa nyid)
emptiness of the beginningless and endless (Tib. ཐོག་མ་དང་མཐའ་མ་མེད་པའི་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་, tokma dang tama mepe tongpa nyi; Wyl. thog ma dang mtha' ma med pa'i stong pa nyid)
emptiness of the conditioned (Tib. འདུས་བྱས་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་, dü je tongpa nyi; Wyl. 'dus byas stong pa nyid)
emptiness of the unconditioned (Tib. འདུས་མ་བྱས་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་, dü mache tongpa nyi; Wyl. 'dus ma byas stong pa nyid )
emptiness of emptiness (Tib. སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་, tongpa nyi tongpa nyi; Wyl. stong pa nyid stong pa nyid)
emptiness beyond extremes (Tib. མཐའ་ལས་འདས་པའི་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་, tale depe tongpa nyi; Wyl. mtha' las 'das pa'i stong pa nyid)
natural emptiness (Tib. རང་བཞིན་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་, rangshin tongpa nyi; Wyl. rang bzhin stong pa nyid)
emptiness of the unobserved (Tib. མཚན་ཉིད་མེད་པའི་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་, tsennyi mepe tongpa nyi; Wyl. mtshan nyid med pa'i stong pa nyid)
ultimate emptiness (Tib. ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་, ngowo nyi tongpa nyi; Wyl. ngo bo nyid stong pa nyid)
emptiness of the indispensable (Tib. དོར་བ་མེད་པའི་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་, dorwa mepe tongpa nyi; Wyl. dor ba med pa'i stong pa nyid)
emptiness of the essential nature of non-entities (Tib. དངོས་པོ་མེད་པའི་ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་, ngöpo mepe ngowo nyi tongpa nyi; Wyl. dngos po med pa'i ngo bo nyid stong pa nyid)
emptiness of all phenomena (Tib. ཆོས་ཐམས་ཅད་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་, chö tamche tongpa nyi; Wyl. chos thams cad stong pa nyid)
emptiness of specific characteristics (Tib. མཚན་ཉིད་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་, tsen nyi tongpa nyi; Wyl. mtshan nyid stong pa nyid)

plus:

17. emptiness of the concrete (Tib. དངོས་པོ་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་, ngöpo tongpa nyi; Wyl. dngos po stong pa nyid)
18. emptiness of the inconcrete (Tib. དངོས་པོ་མེད་པའི་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་, ngöpo mepe tongpa nyi; Wyl. dngos po med pa'i stong pa nyid)
19. emptiness of nature or of identity (Tib. ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་, ngowo nyi tongpa nyi; Wyl. ngo bo nyid stong pa nyid)
20. emptiness of substance (Tib. གཞན་གྱི་དངོས་པོ་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་, shengyi ngöpo tongpa nyi; Wyl. gzhan gyi dngos po stong pa nyid)

from Rigpa Wiki


:namaste:
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
viniketa
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: Is modernity bad for practice?

Postby Queequeg » Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:03 pm

viniketa wrote:Well, if followed to the extreme, the middle way has a punch line: Nothing whatsoever exists, even the Buddha.


Mmm. Ok. To quote a 20th C. Existentialist who might appreciate all this - "In a way." But I'm not so sure.

The statement "Nothing whatsoever exists" is, if you say it from a Madhyamika perspective, must be laden with footnotes, caveats, equivocations - it means something other than that statement simpliciter. This is not going to get resolved here. People have been sitting around staring at each other discussing this for at least two millenia and there's still unresolved issues. Most of it is over my head, and in my experience, going much further just gets us lost in the tangle of language.

I'll just refer to Vimalakirti's final answer and withdraw for now even though I have no idea what he meant. Mine is more like :shrug: If you can, however, explain it - I'm more than interested to see the proofs! just not sure I'd have much to say... :smile:
Queequeg
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Is modernity bad for practice?

Postby viniketa » Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:32 pm

Queequeg wrote: If you can, however, explain it - I'm more than interested to see the proofs! just not sure I'd have much to say... :smile:


I'll be the first to admit that I am not unequivocally accepting of this myself; if I could "prove it" to myself, I'd offer you some proof (but then, again, I'm awfully picky when it comes to "proof"). It's not a teaching I've received. To the extent I do understand, it doesn't require much in the way of "footnotes, caveats, equivocations". Thus have I heard: It requires and understanding that the "two (or three) truths" are one truth (conventional), and there is no thing that exists without conditions. Thus have I heard: It is not nihilistic as, once realized, one is naturally filled with compassion. Thus have I heard: If I don't understand, I'm not enlightened (not a big news flash). AFAIK, the "proof" is a tantric secret. I couldn't tell you with certainty which traditions teach this, but it seems to be Tibetan and/or Dzogchen.

You now know as much as I on the topic. :broke:

:namaste:
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
viniketa
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: Is modernity bad for practice?

Postby futerko » Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:28 am

Queequeg wrote:Bringing this back to the subject of the "post-modern", although some of there analysis parallels aspects of Madhyamika, they engage in a different discipline than Buddhists because their activity is oriented to a different goal. They may deny that they have a goal, but whatever they are doing, its not Buddhism.

The "crisis" of modernity which results in post-modernity is seen as a failure whereby progress is revealed to be nothing but an endless cycle of repetition - chasing after rainbows and finding nothing new, only a regurgitation of the old. What is revealed as a failure of teleology is exactly its success when viewed slightly differently - it means we realise we are chasing our own tail and can stop striving after something other.

As you put it, "we are compelled to return and fully engage in the conditioned", with the understanding that it is all we have, we are no longer "distracted" by searching for something else, which cultivates compassion and gratitude on that basis.

(A caveat to this may be that, despite Absolute Being (i.e. God) no longer proving to be adequate to orient our goal driven activity, science as Absolute non-Being still believes it has an aim.)

Queequeg wrote:The primary one is that all it does is show the impossibility of a naive notion of self.

Equally here, all attempts to conceive the "self" also necessarily fail and only serve to impose a fictional limit on something ungraspable.
The failure to establish subjectivity appears as a failure of freedom in terms of any established set of overarching universalised rules, actually turns out to be the success of the subject as utterly unestablished - this is true "freedom" which was misrecognised within a horizon of a futile search for some ultimate meaning.

Queequeg wrote:…the existential implications I'm referencing here seem to be the issues at play in questions about Sudden and Gradual Enlightenment, Buddhanature, and in a more distant way, Alaya and Amala Vijnana.

Could you elaborate on this please?
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Is modernity bad for practice?

Postby greentara » Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:51 am

India is systematically ditching its wonderful ancient culture and values,and replacing it with all the superficial western ways with the eye's focus on short term expediency to the exclusion of all else,,,but at best so far they can only come up with a shoddy imitation,which makes it look like a sad parody.,,they rather have all these walmarts,instead of stamping out the practice of hundreds of millions using the country as an open toilet.,,or burning their garbage in the open instead of using landfills.,,or doing more for basic public health,,,or allocating resourses in such a way that lifts a huge chunk of the population out of crushing desperate conditions,,,,,or winding back the religious economy,which fabulously serves temple functionaries,but is an impost on all those paying big darshan fees to commune with their deity,,,or really practice ahimsa by showing more compassion to animals,,,or provide drinkable water,,,or simply just tone down the in built hubris borne of one's station in life.and the contempt felt and displayed towards the lesser fortunate........but then walmart might have the solution and remedy to all these ills,,,,,,but more likely the farce and parody will continue as long as the multinationals can fatten their major share holders courtesy of the so called local middle class,with their insatiable propensity for ostentatious lurid and garish consumption,while most of their countryfolk barely able to fill their belly.....happy days.
greentara
 
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:03 am

Re: Is modernity bad for practice?

Postby greentara » Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:51 am

India is systematically ditching its wonderful ancient culture and values,and replacing it with all the superficial western ways with the eye's focus on short term expediency to the exclusion of all else,,,but at best so far they can only come up with a shoddy imitation,which makes it look like a sad parody.,,they rather have all these walmarts,instead of stamping out the practice of hundreds of millions using the country as an open toilet.,,or burning their garbage in the open instead of using landfills.,,or doing more for basic public health,,,or allocating resourses in such a way that lifts a huge chunk of the population out of crushing desperate conditions,,,,,or winding back the religious economy,which fabulously serves temple functionaries,but is an impost on all those paying big darshan fees to commune with their deity,,,or really practice ahimsa by showing more compassion to animals,,,or provide drinkable water,,,or simply just tone down the in built hubris borne of one's station in life.and the contempt felt and displayed towards the lesser fortunate........but then walmart might have the solution and remedy to all these ills,,,,,,but more likely the farce and parody will continue as long as the multinationals can fatten their major share holders courtesy of the so called local middle class,with their insatiable propensity for ostentatious lurid and garish consumption,while most of their countryfolk barely able to fill their belly.....happy days.
greentara
 
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:03 am

Re: Is modernity bad for practice?

Postby shel » Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:33 am

futerko wrote:
shel wrote:You're saying that emptiness is a narrative, not a fundamental truth? If so, are the Four Noble Truths also part of a narrative?


The narrative would be the causal chain, dependent origination, with emptiness as the meta-truth about it.


You mean to say ultimate truth or absolute truth, right?
shel
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: Is modernity bad for practice?

Postby jeeprs » Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:03 am

to crib the opening line of the Tao Te Ching, 'the way that can be named is not the real way'.

Even to ask 'which way?' 'is there a way?' or 'is there not a way', is also not the way. It perishes in the very utterance.
He that knows it, knows it not.
User avatar
jeeprs
 
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Is modernity bad for practice?

Postby futerko » Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:08 am

shel wrote:
futerko wrote:
shel wrote:You're saying that emptiness is a narrative, not a fundamental truth? If so, are the Four Noble Truths also part of a narrative?


The narrative would be the causal chain, dependent origination, with emptiness as the meta-truth about it.


You mean to say ultimate truth or absolute truth, right?


The failure to establish the local/relative narrative (the unsatisfactory nature of samsara) in relation to the failure to establish the absolute meta-narrative (the emptiness of emptiness) is what defines the success of the unestablished union of relative and absolute.
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Is modernity bad for practice?

Postby shel » Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:31 am

jeeprs wrote:to crib the opening line of the Tao Te Ching, 'the way that can be named is not the real way'.

Even to ask 'which way?' 'is there a way?' or 'is there not a way', is also not the way. It perishes in the very utterance.


Speaking from the pure mind of emptiness of course.
shel
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: deff, dharmagoat, Lotus108, Lukeinaz, palchi, Thrasymachus and 16 guests

>