to get back to your original statement what would be the difference between yourself and a person "distracted from the real"?
I don't know how much clearer I can get. I keep talking about self-view; you keep talking about the self. I say the two are different; you don't seem to see the difference. Of course. And it is because it is a speculation that it causes me bewilderment, stress, suffering. But I don't see how I could have anything but speculation when it comes to matters of eternal life. I know. But if one understands Buddhism, I think one sees that some questions do not apply. I don't think I can explain this any further. Technically so, yes. But to abstractly work out this system is, as the centuries of Buddhist philosophy have shown, riddled with trouble. The Suttas of the Pali Canon contain very little of what could be considered "abstract philosophical system". It is the later texts, ie. the commentaries, the Abhidhamma, the philosophical texts of the Mahayana and the Vajrayana, and Buddhologists like Scherbatscky that have tried to work out the philosophical system behind the Pali Canon. And they often enough run into contradictions with the Pali Canon. I think this trouble to present Buddhist philosophy in an abstract manner is because the Buddhist Path in the Pali Canon is set out as a gradual training, formulated for the uses of a gradual training. I am inclined to think that the Buddha realized how useless and misleading it would be to formulate the Path in an abstract philosophical way. And no, on this account, I am not making an argument from authority. It has been my own experience that the instructions in the Suttas of the Pali Canon are useful, something I can relate to and take to heart. When I encountered some philosophical writings of the Mahayana, Vajrayana and Scherbatsky, my thoughts were "If I am supposed to get my mind around this, I am doomed. I will be long dead before I figure out this." As I see it, believing that the distinction is an illusion, is extremely unhelpful in daily life. Of course. But I wish to rely on belief and apriorism as little as possible. Not because I would suspect or presume to know those apriori statements would be incorrect. But the act of having to take things on faith or for granted causes me bewilderment, stress and suffering. The only thing I really can settle for, the only thing that I am sure that I am not taking on faith or for granted is, There is stress and suffering.
... Then you disagree. And I think that in "Eastern" cultures, this line of reasoning is taken further to its consequences - the understanding that there are circumstances in which it is better not to show one's emotions. Perhaps on the surface, this is sometimes misleadingly explained as "emotions are bad". You wouldn't tell a small child "Don't go into the cars of strangers, no matter what they offer you - because they might abuse you and then you will be dead or have a lifetime of trauma to work through" and instead tell them "Don't go with strangers, strangers are bad". The instruction you give the child depends on your assessment of the child's reasoning and of how efficient a particular instruction might be. - I think similar goes with other instructions and guidelines for life. I think we're actually heading toward the same thing, but are conceptualizing it differently. In the Avoiding the pits of extreme skepticism, I am bringing up the importance of admitting and dealing with whatever comes up in the mind and not refraining from the extremely good and the extremely bad.
Greenberg maybe you could provide an eg or somehow explain how one can have a self view without a self, because from my angle I cannot understand - IOW having a self view is contingent on a self (for instance it would be meaningless to talk of the self view of a microphone because it doesn't have a self) I raise the issue because you seem to indicate earlier When a person holds any of these statements to be true, it leads to more and more stress and suffering, in one form or another. Also, at the time they are spoken, none of them can be verified, they are speculations. that conclusions arrived at through speculation should not be considered binding “ so do you think buddhism has some other goal or ideal aside from nirvana? Or do you think there is no goal or ideal for buddhism? If there is some discussion of a goal or ideal or a standard or a quality (which tends to be something along the lines of "success is to put an end to suffering") then there must be some indication of what is real/what is illusion - and this forms the foundation of it's metaphysics. Basically anything knowable (or "do-able") has three aspects - theory, practice and conclusion/realization. IOW the foundation of realization is practice, and the foundation of practice is theory. I am not asking you to theoretically present what can only be achieved by practice (ie actual realization) I am however asking you to present the theory that serves as a foundation for practice (eg "What is the relationship between suffering and the self?") If one cannot answer questions like "What am I?", "Why am I suffering?", "What is this world?" "What is the goal/ideal of life?" its very difficult to understand how one could even begin to talk of the value of practice (because it doesn't appear that the theory would be capable of guiding one through practice) too which they would probably reply something like "it enables one to be detached from the suffering of illusion" how do you distinguish between something which is only a little bit a priori or greatly a priori? faith is not the problem (actually its unavoidable) - wrongly placed faith is the problem however .... It would be difficult to understand how you propose to get relief from stress and suffering without approaching issues of faith
One develops self-views mainly due to social conditioning and reference to one's own body. I think this is enough to explain the existence of self-views; I think it is not necessary to resort to trying to prove or disprove whether a self is necessary in order to have self-views. If one is told all the time that people have an eternal self, then one will likely believe that one has an eternal self. If one is told all the time that people don't have an eternal self, then one will likely believe that one doesn't have an eternal self. If one gets told both that people have an eternal self, as well as that people do not have an eternal self, one will be bewildered and confused, and eventually probably decide on the grounds of complex decision-making patterns. "Conclusions arrived at through speculation should not be considered binding" - do you agree with that? No on all accounts. The goal is said to be Nirvana. It is not the "theory" that guides one through practice. It is the dissatisfaction, the boredom, the stress, the suffering. I think one has to be dissatisfied, worn and jaded enough to take to Buddhism. With that dissatisfaction, being worn and jaded in place, many questions that previously would seem important (like "Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going?") lose their importance or even fall away. I think you are thinking far too much ahead. I think Buddhist practice is more like "Try out this small thing, take a breath, see how it feels. See how it goes. You'll see then what to do next." In a way, it is minimalistic to the extreme. - And this is actually what I am having many problems with, this downsizing and cutting back, this limiting myself to the essential. This is actually the greatest challenge for me, and I am sure I am not the only one. If you want more specific answers to your questions above, though, then I think you should speak to a Vajrayana or Mahayana practitioner. Because to me, those questions aren't really important. Perhaps, but it also makes one passive. I do it by intuition, and largely, I take it for granted. I am not content with this, and I am continually working on it. But big, abstract, complex theories usually all seem to request to be accepted apriori, in my mind. I would intuitively assess it as being a very speculative statement, requiring that one accept plenty of things apriori. Why? Birth and death are two things that are outside of the realm of my knowledge; I experience the lack of this knowledge as intense. This of course makes perfect sense. The problem is though, how to place one's faith correctly and how to know one has done so. Of course. As far as I know, there are five similes the Buddha gave for the search of happiness: Above, I have extracted only the similes, but they are explained in the essay linked to.
The problem I have with such statements is that they are stating the obvious. An instruction for how to act yet needs to be extrapolated from such statements. And there seems to be so much room for extrapolation that I cannot but put such texts aside.
P.S. The way I see it, and the way I understand Buddhist teachings, the problem with "desires" (and "emotions" and "attitudes" and some other things) is that they are complex phenomena compounded of helpful and unhelpful components (other desires, attitudes, thoughts). Acting on such a complex desire can bring both the helpful and the unhelpful components to their results. Take for example the desire I want to believe in God. For me, this is compounded of at least these: I want to be happy. I want things to be easy in life. I want to believe all will be well. I don't want to go to hell. I want someone else to take care of me. My happiness is not in my own hands. I am helpless and lost without God. I don't want to think that the Universe might be evil. This is quite a mixture. If I take into consideration that the desire I want to believe in God is a complex compound, a mixture, then I realize that some of the components might be successfully addressed without referring to God at all; some might be dismissed as idle; some might need to be abandoned because they are harmful. If I don't take into consideration that the desire I want to believe in God is a complex compound, a mixture, and still try to act on it as good as I can, then I will be left to the mercy of the components leading to whatever results they lead to.
Spidergoat then your previous statement doesn't make sense further regress? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
it states that action is an unavoidable consequence of faith and that faith is arrived at by the modes of nature (or material conditioning) therefore proper action (at least from the vantage of conditioned life) equals proper material conditioning, or acquiring the faith to act for positive improvement Frankly, this is a proposal not vastly different from the recommendation of following the 8 fold path, so its not clear why you have issues with it - in fact your whole thread seems to be about this issue of acquiring faith
Greenberg why is it not important? for instance would you be equally satisfied by having a self view not connected to the self (like say dreaming you had eaten a meal) or a self view connected to the self (actually eating a meal)? and regardless of whatever self view one has (yes/no/maybe) the self can ultimately be only one of them - that is why I am asking about what is the final last word of "self" according to buddhism as you understand it - otherwise by saying the real issue is self view, its kind of like saying there is no difference between a person who actually exists eternally thinking that they don't and a person who actually doesn't exist eternally and thinking that they don't (both of them have identical self views but opposing ontologies) accepting them as binding is risky business, since as you indicated, speculation cannot be verified then why is the question "what is the self's relationship with nirvana?" irrelevant? unless one has some theory to start with there is no practice. For instance if one didn't have the theoretical notion of somehow being able to avoid/surmount issues of dissatisfaction/etc, there would be no practice to speak of I agree practice may be gradual or come in increments, but it still requires some platform of theory. To answer what it is that one is actually trying and why one is trying it requires an examination of theory (otherwise there would be no difference between a buddhism and heroin use - "Try out this small thing, take a breath, see how it feels" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) thats my point! to limit oneself to the essential requires an examination of the theory (or philosophy) That is what makes the foundation of practice! I tend to disagree if you want to refine your practice, you have to examine the theory this is what makes the distinction between a thoughtful practitioner and a mindless one to which they would probably say "there is no ultimate issue of passive or assertiveness - only oneness" - of course this doesn't really help you if you are walking on a narrow path and an elephant comes the other way ... except of course for those big, abstract, complex theories that one is already working out of intuitively .... So in comparison to the statement " we have more than this life ahead of us", which is more greatly relying on an a priori premise by examination of theory according to how one views questions like "where am I' "What is my relationship this world" etc will determine where and how one places one's faith clearly they all involve issues of faith the greatest issue of faith that sets the mood of the link is to have faith that buddhism can help one surmount difficulty. What is clearly accompanying your faith The only thing I really can settle for, the only thing that I am sure that I am not taking on faith or for granted is, There is stress and suffering. is the faith that this situation can be surmounted - if you didn't have that, you wouldn't have the faith to inquire into buddhist philosophy
Of course ... But what would that "proper material conditioning" be? In the Eightfold Path, things are spelled out. And not formulated in a stating-the-obvious, abstract, more or less circular manner.
How on earth can a person know whether their self-view is connected to the self or not?! In order to determine this, they would have to know the self first. Which brings us back to the beginning of the problem. And how on earth is a person to figure this out prior to practice?! I will tell you that once I have completed the Path, if I ever do. It goes both ways: Accepting something because it is speculation, as well as rejecting something because it is speculation are both problematic. So that which one knows to currently be speculation, should be put aside for the time being or used as a hypothesis. You see, this is why I cannot answer many of your questions. They are beyond me to answer. Because however I would try to answer it, it would be speculation. And I told you above how I think is best to treat speculations. Not even this is necessary to begin, though. Sheer stubborness and pride can drive a person into practice, and they do as the instructions say, even though they don't actually believe the instructions. Perhaps you wouldn't call that practice, but I think many people start out that way. Ideally, the belief in the law of karma is a prerequisite to begin. But a dumb resistance to suffering and acting inconsistently with one's beliefs can also be a start. People want to be happy. Whether they admit or are aware of this desire, or not. This desire will inform everything else. For you and some other people, perhaps. A practitioner who was very much into issues of Buddhist theory was once given this advice by a teacher, in short: Focus on the breath. Just this breath. See if it is comfortable. If it's not, see if you can make it comfortable. Keep to this, and other things will come in due time. The teacher explained that the man -who was intensely engaging in theoretical discussions and debates about Buddhist philosophy that were were stressful for him- might have been discussing things he didn't really understand or have first-hand knowledge of, hence all the stress. But going from engaging in complex theories to focusing on the breath - this is a very demanding act of downsizing. I've been attempting to do it myself. It feels so alienating. Because once I focus on the breath, I am hit with the full force of my intellectual pride, greed, hatred. Terrible things can happen when one focuses only on the breath. The gunk that comes up is often more than I can bear. Swimming in lofty theories is so much nicer, one is blissfully unaware of what is actually going on. Actually, I think I just realized why the teacher gave the man this advice. I'll finish this reply to you and then I'll take a break. Well, that would be practice in accordance with your criteria. Exactly. Not, not "except". Everything should be subject to scrutiny. I don't really have that faith, though. In the 24 hours that there are in a day, as far as I am aware, I have that faith altogether for about 5 minutes, if at all.
This is central to Buddhist teaching. Not necessarily breath, though. Philosophy is a fine topic for discussion, but ultimately not the real focus of Buddhist method. When you wash the dishes, that is central to the thing. When you brush your teeth, when you do all the little things ordinarily deemed unimportant... they are not. Master washing the dishes, being totally present in the act, that's the path to enlightenment.
Greenberg It is the foundation of practice and it reveals itself - for instance if you try simply eating in dreams for a month instead of actually eating, your "self" would most likely win out to your "self view" - meaning you might be inspired (ie starving) to adopt an alternative "self view" - and if you don't you will die (which would also be another victory for the "self" over the "self view") if you don't have an idea on what you actually are, there is no question of progress Śāntideva (an 8th-century Indian Buddhist philosopher and practitioner) informs us that in order to be able to deny something, we first of all need to know what it is that we are denying. Without contacting the entity that is imputed You will not apprehend the absence of that entity —Bodhicaryāvatāra generally knowledge works like this we travel a certain distance with our senses (empiricism) when we reach the limits of our sense of sight/hearing etc we guess what might be beyond it based on our experience (rationalism) when we reach the limit of that we approach persons who due to special training have a different scope with the previous two (for instance if we are very sick, we eagerly rely on the empirical/rational powers of a doctor as opposed to ourselves or the green grocer) my point is that speculation without an appropriate foundation of experience or theory is flimsy this is where buddhist theory enters the picture - I wasn't quizzing you as self realized - I was quizzing you on the nature of self realization in buddhism (of which there are ample texts to reference on the topic) true it may be a start actually there are 4 indications for starting (given in BG) BG 7.16: O best among the Bhāratas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me — the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute. My point however is that theory guides one through practice (after having "started") therefore different theories about the nature of happiness gives different practices - thus one person takes to buddhism and another to heroin “ thus a theory that it is more important to be aware of one's conditioned nature is indicated as more beneficial than cerebral loftiness - if the teacher was aware of that theoretical element he could prescribe a practice to a student, and if the student performs it properly he gets the result - thats the relationship between theory, practice and realization in a nutshell I think you misunderstand I am not advocating theory as the summum bonum. I am advocating it as the foundation of practice and further that by practice (as opposed to theorizing) one gets the summum bonum - namely realization to go back to your breathing eg, the student's practice was refined (in this case by the teacher) by redefining his theoretical approach to practice ("less cerebral loftiness and more breath focus") no doubt they would say that any adverse outcomes was simply due to you not being fully fixed on your meditation on becoming one with the universe (or maybe they would argue that by getting squashed in the road you had achieved this goal) so why use intuition and not scrutiny when it comes to a priori foundations for knowledge? you spend about 5 minutes a day cultivating buddhist practices (reading, discussion, contemplation, etc) or acting on a platform that is revised by such practices? It must have taken you longer than 5 minutes to post your responses on this thread that definition is found by examining theory - namely what is the "actual" relationship between the self, other selves, this world etc etc The 8fold path has a focus on the use of the word "right" - a variety of theoretical foundations gives a variety of interpretations (and thus a variety of practices) - so its not as straight forward as you seem to indicate BTW I do not understand why you used the word "circular"
Says you. Says you. But I am not denying the self. Thank you for making my point. You must mean texts that came after the Pali Canon, specifically after the Sutta Pitaka. I know very little about those texts and I don't rely on them. Not really. In my opinion, submission to authority, be that submission forced or out of respect does far more than simply "theory". Of course, we could also say that in that case, the "theory" is "Submit to your guru" ... Yes, and the heroin user -because he is driven by the desire to be happy- sooner or later realizes that the stuff isn't making him happy. You are forcing this. Your approach is not realistic. Someone prone to theorizing will most likely resent an instruction or a stance that says "it is more important to be aware of one's conditioned nature is indicated as more beneficial than cerebral loftiness", and this resentment may very well make them ignore said instruction or stance. I am saying that that would be practice in accordance with your criteria. It is your criteria that the "theory" should be known in ways you propose. As if it should be necessary that one be able to theoretically explain the doctrine if one is to come to attainment. - I have never seen this to be listed as a necessary requirement. You know what happened? The man hadn't given up theorizing, not even months later after he received this advice which he himself asked for. He goes "Yes, but ..." Whatever rocks their boat, right? How rude of them. If things were only so easy! It's not like I am making a choice whether to use scrutiny or intution. Scrutiny requires education, skills and concentration. If any of these are lacking, intuition is what is left. No, it's the faith "that this situation can be surmounted" that I have only five minutes of in a day, if at all. Really? And one is just supposed to believe that theory? It doesn't say things like it states that action is an unavoidable consequence of faith and that faith is arrived at by the modes of nature (or material conditioning) therefore proper action (at least from the vantage of conditioned life) equals proper material conditioning, or acquiring the faith to act for positive improvement All in all, discussing with you has brought to my attention on of my central problems with the practice of Buddhism - the assumption that I must be able to explain the doctrine and to defend it. Such explanations are demanded from me both from some Buddhists and some non-Buddhist, as well as from my internal critical voice. Trying to provide such explanations has actually been hampering me. I am sure I had done better if I would just keep to my insights, however small they are, and act accordingly. I still couldn't call myself a Buddhist, but I bet I'd be a lot happier. But - I don't want to discuss things with you anymore. Thanks but no thanks.
Greensberg "says I" having provided examples If you can find an example of theory-less practice, it would help your explanations then you are probably standing outside of buddhism and are situated in something else a bit more eclectic true yes, according to different theories, such as buddhism ... hence they miss out on an essential aspect of practice by neglecting theory if you don't know what the goal is (or to regress it a bit further, "know how to come to the position of knowing what the goal is"), you do you propose that progress is made? then he didn't take the theoretical instruction on board and remained stabilized on an unsatisfactory level of performance to which they would reply that we are still in gross illusion, making value judgments on non-existent entities perhaps now you can see the important contribution that theory plays, since it is the doorway to granting such things as skills, concentration, etc “ “ the moment your faith quits out is the moment you stop cultivating spiritual disciplines/discourses/meditations etc - otherwise it seems strange to continue in endeavours that one has no faith in if by introspection that one concludes that things like the self, other people and this world bear an effect on one's nature, yes, certainly. (of course everyone has different powers of introspection and different resources of knowledge, thus there are a few different paradigms to take shelter of) if it didn't, a heroin user could be a bonafide buddhist because using heroin would constitute "right action" for them given that doubt and skepticism is integral to our very (conditioned) self, its not clear how one could expect any long lasting commitment without taking this path. IOW, how on earth can one progress in anything if the goal is not understood (not that the goal has to be determined in complete detail, but to subscribe to the notion that all discussion of "goal" is futile, makes for futile practice - I can guarantee you that) no problem I think we have probably exhausted the limits