Quote:

---

daytripper23 said:
Wittgenstein didn't go so far to explicitly describe a soteriology (suggesting enlightenment or disentanglement) as the Madhyamika do.

He represented an philosophical investigation. Toward what?

---

Quote:

---

appleorange said:

Quote:

---

daytripper23 said:

Quote:

---

appleorange said:
Icelander has a lot more humility than most us here do.

I don't see eye to eye on everything he says, but at least he doesn't preach from a soap box.

---

Hmmm so is Icelander dishing out a koan here? Many have acknowledged that it is a futile question.

So Maybe it is... I can't really judge that. I don't have experience with a system of learning that doesn't engage with formal philosophy, and I find that ambiguities such as this that put me in doubt or skepticism.

Apples...The form of this thread may easily fall in line with a framework you are familiar with, however, I would ask if that is both necessary and sufficient? From what I can see is that the question has a very certain form. I think on a basic level it is clear to anyone that Icelander has set up a soap box for either pedantic or enlightened explanations.

Is the explanation legitimate? Or first should we wonder if the question is legitimate?

This situation is something I've wanted to probe you a bit on, given your experience as a Zen monk. From an external perspective, it seems to me that Zen is very disciplinary in nature. I do not suppose I can really interrogate the system,  but I would just say I do not trust myself to take refuge in Sangha (Community), or more specifically, the elders who are dishing out either the nonsense, or whattchacallit (KATZ!)

How do you tell when its genuine?

I vest much more in the Dharma (teachings) - ideally, exoteric philosophy (although I also enjoy esoteric philosophy too.)

Since I have had a basic understanding of Buddhism, I have noticed a great tension between the 3 refuges (Sangha, Dharma, Buddha - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refuge_(Buddhism)). In my particular experience, I have found it difficult to acknowledge that to learn, one must be taught in a personal relationship, which implies power relations.

This is why I am curious of Zen, which seems to be so firmly situated in Sangha, and further does not seem to have any formal philosophy to speak of.

Noticing that a pedantic structure ultimately effects the ground of discourse, it has seemed to me that these communal relations impose on the explicit philosophy that I am inclined to. I certainly do not see a sense of favoring or even augmenting uneven grounds (soap boxes - a step up.)

This is why I find your comment interesting, because Zen seems to make this sort of face...

I recognize that the game can't be avoided, and in the same sense, I understand why the three refuges are represented equally. BUT it is my own disposition to question where and how personal relations (power) meets discourse. I can see it is weighted differently depending on the tradition.

In short, I think Icelander is looking for a conceptual answer. I think the question he has contrived is futile, and it suffers a disconnect to what may ideally be explained, (which again, is what he frankly asked for)

As I see it, what may seem to be koan could be a conceptual trap. How do you tell the difference? It would require great faith in a person for me to see through a koan. That is what I cannot seem to trust in community. What I notice, is that strictly in terms of Sangha, you would never be able to tell the difference between a koan and a trap - otherwise, what fulcrum in analytic is there to speak of?

About Icelander's "question", somehow I find it worthwhile, I wouldn't post otherwise. But on the other hand I wouldn't give credit for just laying these grounds - as this is much too ambiguous.

I think that Icelander has set up, and is holding conceptual ground. His tactic is actually to be the lower ground, and he has gotten good at defending this position. Humble? He is no more humble than my ass, as I assume a higher ground. We are all doing the same thing here. And you may also note that we all got here by being high....

This world or community immanent. I am up on a mountain with my books, apples has spent time in a zen community, and Icelander... I'm not sure where hes at other than some relative lowland. But none of these positions represent necessary and sufficient conditions for individualized existence. The ultimate "character" of discussion is that we are interacting.

This is where an illusion of separateness can be seen in a positive sense. Consider the format of this argument - I am not describing wholeness, I am saying someone cannot exist by an inherent disposition. This is much bigger than the shroomery. It is like what the Dalai Lama was explaining in the previous quote as dependent origination; emptiness.

Dependent origination, at least, is not an esoteric truth. Conventionally, it may be seen that we are all communicating with definite potency towards expression, even though some may assume more passive or aggressive positions. Even in questioning, in an "inferior" position, with the head tilted upward, intonation voicing an upward climb - a basically dependent position is maintained. This is intuited by everyone on some level.

As for the question, maybe a few remarkable persons have been able to hold one foot in absurdity and the other in logic. But there definitely isn't going to be a straight answer of "unification" - at best, you might get an absurd "naturalism".

Beware the Jabberwok, my son - Logician/Madcap Lewis Carrol

Quote:

---

Jabberwocky


`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
  Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
  And the mome raths outgrabe.



"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!"
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
  Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
  And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
  The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
  And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
  The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
  He went galumphing back.
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
  Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
  He chortled in his joy.


`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
  Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
  And the mome raths outgrabe.

---

---

Icelander does want an answer, but he wants an answer that complies with his perception of reality.

Enlightenment both exists and does not exist.

The enlightenment we are discussing in this thread does not exist. That's a spiritual trap that many of us fall into, we've turned enlightenment into a concept, no different from the words "job promotion" or "sex." How can you reach a concept? Let alone, how can you show that your concepts exist in an "objective" world? This is why Bodhidharma would ask people to show him their minds, it's impossible, it cannot be done.

Once Hui-Neng came across two monks looking at a flag blowing in the wind and they were discussing whether it was blowing east or west, Hui-Neng replied "neither, it is your mind that is moving, not the flag."

You mentioned something about community and trust. I think these two things are very important. One of us here may be posting something that is very insightful and would benefit our understanding, but since this is the shroomery, we don't take our posts all that seriously. We all assume that we are just book-learned people, quoting others, and living off the knowledge of something that maybe Alan Watts said. When you look into a man's eyes and listen to what he is saying with complete faith, there's a receptiveness that you can never capature from the words on a page. There's a conviction in your heart that what he is saying is truth.

As a kid, would you believe in Santa Clause from reading about him in a book or by your own father sitting you on his lap and telling you about him?

P.S.

KATZ!!!

---

Quote:

---

guruu said:
Life=suffering could more accurately be translated as "life is uncomfortable."  Inherent in life is the being ripped out of the womb, growing up and getting all conditioned, and then watching your body die as you grow older, eventually resulting in the death of the brain.  Buddhism says that if we remove our desires, this suffering will end. 

It makes sense at the immediate level...if I remove the desire to have a fancy car, I will no longer suffer when I see others driving a fancy car. It gets cosmic when you start talking about removing ALL desires...extricating yourself from the web of ego.

---

Quote:

---

Mr. Cypher said:

Quote:

---

guruu said:
Life=suffering could more accurately be translated as "life is uncomfortable."  Inherent in life is the being ripped out of the womb, growing up and getting all conditioned, and then watching your body die as you grow older, eventually resulting in the death of the brain.  Buddhism says that if we remove our desires, this suffering will end. 

It makes sense at the immediate level...if I remove the desire to have a fancy car, I will no longer suffer when I see others driving a fancy car. It gets cosmic when you start talking about removing ALL desires...extricating yourself from the web of ego.

---

Eliminate your fear of death and you'll kill the ego, I swear.

---

Ah so you are an example of egolessness. How interesting in that you seem just like everyone else here.

Quote:

---

Icelander said:
True, experience must be had. Yet isn't that a given? And everyone can eat an orange right. But not everyone can experience enlightenment. So what's going on?

Basically as humans we have common ground for physical mental experience. Now it's not going to be the same for everyone but their will be similarities. That's something we can work on together. But enlightenment? I can't even really begin to guess what these folk here are talking about. I don't even believe what they are saying because it's not part of my human experience. It sounds like magic to me. And I don't believe in magic.

---

Quote:

---

guruu said:
Before, when I assumed death was the end of it all

---

Quote:

---

appleorange said:

Quote:

---

Icelander said:
True, experience must be had. Yet isn't that a given? And everyone can eat an orange right. But not everyone can experience enlightenment. So what's going on?

Basically as humans we have common ground for physical mental experience. Now it's not going to be the same for everyone but their will be similarities. That's something we can work on together. But enlightenment? I can't even really begin to guess what these folk here are talking about. I don't even believe what they are saying because it's not part of my human experience. It sounds like magic to me. And I don't believe in magic.

---

A deeper seeing is that there are no other people who share a common ground with you. The other people are you.

If you look closely, the only thing that makes you think other people exist independently of you is the idea that they do. That's all.

This is why we have racism, nationalism, countries, sexism, and all other divisional acts fueled by insecurity and fear. As long as a sense of self exists, fear and insecurity has to exist alongside with it.

If you were to meet another person as none other than yourself, how could hate or animosity possibly be projected on to them?

---

Just don't agree. I can bump into another person or a tree dog or cat to know they exist independently of me and from that I surmise they are having a separate experience. I can intellectualize our commonality by learning about atomic particles. I can also choose to get along with others when I realize it's in my best interest.

But life is designed for separateness. Everyone wants to get out of life the way it is. Well not everyone.

Quote:

---

guruu said:
Life=suffering could more accurately be translated as "life is uncomfortable."  Inherent in life is the being ripped out of the womb, growing up and getting all conditioned, and then watching your body die as you grow older, eventually resulting in the death of the brain.  Buddhism says that if we remove our desires, this suffering will end. 

It makes sense at the immediate level...if I remove the desire to have a fancy car, I will no longer suffer when I see others driving a fancy car. It gets cosmic when you start talking about removing ALL desires...extricating yourself from the web of ego.

---

Quote:

---

Icelander said:
Now, I realize that even if death is only of the body and not of your whole existence,

Oh boy, here I go again, I'm the Zappasgod of the Philosophy forum.

How do you know the death of your body is not the end of your existence/ Please explain.

---

Because if we are all one consciousness, and merely the illusions of ourselves, then death is simply waking from the dream.

Quote:

---

I really don't see any evidence for this. Especially the part about animals being forced together for the sake of love.

---