The thicket of views

[Malcolm]

Kind regards

The point of dharma is give sight to the blind, not lead them, still blind, along a path to a destination they still can't see.

This thread is just a bunch of useless verbal proliferation.

In this case, there is no use in getting involved in this briar patch.

[ground]

TMINGYUR replied:

Now this simile describes the difference between a "teacher" and someone who clings to fabricated thought that does not point to anywhere but is merely a self-referential mere thought. "Teaching" this thought to others necessarily inoculates others with this clinging to mere thought because there is nothing in direct experience that the thought refers to. Like the blind man that may touch the finger pointing to the station but this would never lead him to the station.

Well, you assume that there is nothing in direct experience that the thought refers to. I am not certain this is the case, in fact, I am so far inclined to believe otherwise--in other words, I believe in the possibility of an unmediated, direct experience, available to every human being, potentially. That is, after all, the Buddha's message, is it not?

Well I think what exactly is the message of the Buddha's is the question of all this. Primarily it is the cessation of what is translated as "suffering".
And as to belief ... belief may have its own function and in a sense every thought is a belief.

Let us say, for example, the blind man has never been to the station before. There is no doubt that the experience of touching the guide's finger is not the experience of "the station," nor would be the guide's verbal description of the station. The blind man would still not have experienced "the station."

Now, I grant you, it would be sad if the blind man, filled with a description of the station, along with a guide to get there, decided that he didn't need to get there after all, because he had a description. Perhaps the description was unappealing. Perhaps it was negative. Perhaps, perhaps, the guide described the station only by means of exclusion, saying that the station was not, for instance, a shopping mall, or an airport, or a candy factory. Filled with such "descriptions," the blind man turns the other way, walks away from the station, into traffic, and ends up losing his life or breaking his limbs.

If, on the other hand, the guide was skillful, and described the station in appealing terms, or perhaps even in terms that aroused the blind man's curiosity, the blind man might eventually have an experience of the actual station, if he followed the guide and reached the destination.

Then we could ask the blind man about his experience with regard to the station, and also with the path he followed to reach the station. The blind man would say, in my opinion, that the direct experience of the station ultimately could not be described in words or descriptions, as they all fell short. At the same time, he would grant that, not only were the descriptions provided by the guide expedient, in that they aroused his curiosity or affirmed a goal worth reaching, but they were also, in some sense, an imperfect approximation of the station.

You are actually deviating from the original topic of illustration - maybe because you have misunderstood the context of "experience" mentioned. The topic of illustration was: Mere thought as a means to reach a goal vs experience as a means to reach the goal. The goal ("to get to the station") not has been described or meant to be an experience itself.

You suggested "compassion" as a cause for teaching mere thought. I would say it is simply lack of wisdom to do so. Therefore the Buddha is the supreme teacher because he did not teach mere thought but guided his disciples through what they can experience themselves.

Kind regards

[conebeckham]

Thought is just another variety of experience....
"The Cessation of Suffering" is certainly a major part of the Buddha's Message.....but that does not account for the "increase in qualities," including the Two Omnisciences. But I'm not going to go there, as it's just more conceptual claptrap, isn't it?

We do agree that the Buddha was the supreme teacher...but I'm not sure we agree on the scope of his teachings. In any case, there's no sense in discussion, as you seem attached to your position regarding "nonattachment to elaboration" and it would be silly, not to say useless, of me to talk about "mere thought" and "experience" and their possible relationship.

[ground]

Now if lack of wisdom is the cause for teaching mere thought (mere self-referential ideas not pointing to anyhere) then the conclusion is that those who do/did so cannot be legitimately called "Buddhas" or "enlightened".

Kind regards

[conebeckham]

Then again, it's possible Mere Thought points toward something like Wisdom......but you don't think so, I know.

[ground]

Thought is just another variety of experience....

It really seems that nobody does get the point. This may be the consequence of being conditioned by Madhyamaka philosophy which actually does not foster discrimination but undermines it.

Kind regards

[ground]

This may be the consequence of being conditioned by Madhyamaka philosophy which actually does not foster discrimination but undermines it.

No. That is too restrictive. Actually it may be conditioned by non-differentiating and all-inclusive views I listed in the OP
viewtopic.php?p=33863#p33863

Kind regards

[conebeckham]

Your point is that any "positing" of a View, an Ultimate, an Absolute....even if that Absolute is "Emptiness"...is ipso facto reification, and that students take such "views" as correlates of Ultimates, when in fact they are ossifying experience and creating obstructions to non-attachment, and therefore, to "liberation from suffering."

?

[conebeckham]

..should be "As correlates of (nonexistent) ultimates, or of the Ultimates themselves,.....

That more clearly expresses what I hear you saying.

??

[ground]

"Absolute" is a mere idea, "emptiness" is a mere idea, "existence" is a mere idea ...

"Ultimate" may be acceptable if understood as "where one can ultimately get by means of ..." which emphasises the conventionality of "Ultimate". But as such it stands for a border which can be validly expressed with conditional statements (If ... then ...) which is only called "border" but cannot be asserted as an actual "border" implying that there is a "beyond". Because asserting that there is "beyond" is mere speculation, is an expression of desire and a failure to renounce, a failure to accept what actually is.

This desire expresses itself through mere ideas. It is comparable to a desire to be able to leave one's body. But this body cannot be left because there is nothing except the body and consciousness depending on this body. So in this sense the desire to leave the body as well as the desire for some "beyond" (the conventionally ultimate border) are the same in that they are actually expressions of desire for eternity, desire for something other that actually is.


But of course if there is belief in mere ideas calling mere ideas (mere thoughts) "mere ideas" does neither add nor remove anything.

Finally to continuously question convention (and all these conditioning thoughts & tenets are mere convention of some sub-collective of beings) is a good thing. Traditions are frozen and dead ... but of course without traditions there is no transmission and no opportunity for individuals.

Kind regards

[conebeckham]

Yes, and I understand you.

[ground]

Yes, and I understand you.

Oh ... I would prefer objection.

Kind regards

[Dechen Norbu]

You want a cataphatic approach for what can only have an apophatic one, TMingyur, unless we are talking about manifestation.
You reject gnosis as a valid form of knowing reality as it is. This means that in your perspective cessation is what? Annihilation? Because it seems to be the corollary of your perspective. Nirvana ends up being nothingness. Or did I miss something?

PS- FYI in the tribetan tradition it is asserted that we can leave this body while still being alive and coming back to it. Cool stuff, hum?

[ground]

Or did I miss something?

It seems so. Actually without denying the Mahayana and actually advocating it, I completely rely on the teachings in the suttapitaka. And I take this as the "gold standard" for any other teachings. I do only acccept "bodhicitta" as the characteristic mark of Mahayana, nothing else. The "bodhicitta" teachings I consider to be a valid conclusion from the suttapitaka.

PS- FYI in the tribetan tradition it is asserted that we can leave this body while still being alive and coming back to it. Cool stuff, hum?

Tibetans are asserting much. Some of their teachings are good and some not.


Kind regards

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

PS- FYI in the tribetan tradition it is asserted that we can leave this body while still being alive and coming back to it. Cool stuff, hum?

In my "tradition" you can too... it's called going for a snooze and then waking up.



Maitri,
Retro.

[Kyosan]

Greetings,

In my "tradition" you can too... it's called going for a snooze and then waking up.



Maitri,
Retro.

In my tradition I sometimes fly, and then I wake up and realize it was only dream.

[Dechen Norbu]

Or did I miss something?

It seems so. Actually without denying the Mahayana and actually advocating it, I completely rely on the teachings in the suttapitaka. And I take this as the "gold standard" for any other teachings. I do only acccept "bodhicitta" as the characteristic mark of Mahayana, nothing else. The "bodhicitta" teachings I consider to be a valid conclusion from the suttapitaka.

PS- FYI in the tribetan tradition it is asserted that we can leave this body while still being alive and coming back to it. Cool stuff, hum?

Tibetans are asserting much. Some of their teachings are good and some not.


Kind regards

If you say so...

[Dechen Norbu]

Greetings,

PS- FYI in the tribetan tradition it is asserted that we can leave this body while still being alive and coming back to it. Cool stuff, hum?

In my "tradition" you can too... it's called going for a snooze and then waking up.



Maitri,
Retro.

Meaning?

[Dechen Norbu]

Greetings,

In my "tradition" you can too... it's called going for a snooze and then waking up.



Maitri,
Retro.

In my tradition I sometimes fly, and then I wake up and realize it was only dream.

Then I must have been a great practitioner of such special tradition when I was a kid. Had lots of dreams like that.
Guess my practice went AWOL somewhere in time...
Lately my dreams are much more boring.

[ground]

Or did I miss something?

It seems so. Actually without denying the Mahayana and actually advocating it, I completely rely on the teachings in the suttapitaka. And I take this as the "gold standard" for any other teachings. I do only acccept "bodhicitta" as the characteristic mark of Mahayana, nothing else. The "bodhicitta" teachings I consider to be a valid conclusion from the suttapitaka.

PS- FYI in the tribetan tradition it is asserted that we can leave this body while still being alive and coming back to it. Cool stuff, hum?

Tibetans are asserting much. Some of their teachings are good and some not.


Kind regards

If you say so...

If I would say otherwise then I would not be honest, discard experience and cling to tenets.

Kind regards