Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2023 8:15:58 GMT -5
The single sentence fifth paragraph from the end states: "Well, there is nothing to be reborn." The remaining four paragraphs then go on to completely contradict that statement. I don't see it. The final paragraphs say rebirth happens moment to moment without a permanent entity enduring it, and the same principle applies to reincarnation. It says the personality is accepted in an empirical sense, but isn't real in the ultimate sense. It then says it is the 'kammic force' that binds the elements of the individual together (which follows the Buddhist perspective the construct of aggregates doesn't constitute a perpetual identity or self). I think the last terms like 'beginningless past' are completely vacuous, and I don't think the binding of aggregates is the Buddhist version of a soul, but I can't see how the conclusion is contradictory. It seems completely consistent, actually.
If there's nothing to be reborn there cannot be kammic energy re-materializing itself in another form. This is simple logic. If that process is happening moment to moment then how many moments are there? If those moments never run out then it's rebirth. If there is a powerful thought in your mind before you fall asleep it's likely that will be the first thought when you awake. That's a kind of rebirth after sleep. You have the sense of self before sleep and you will have a sense of self when you awake regardless of what thoughts and feelings are appearing and disappearing. If you don't have that same thought you fell asleep with the night before you will still feel like you are you regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 3, 2023 8:20:08 GMT -5
I don't see it. The final paragraphs say rebirth happens moment to moment without a permanent entity enduring it, and the same principle applies to reincarnation. It says the personality is accepted in an empirical sense, but isn't real in the ultimate sense. It then says it is the 'kammic force' that binds the elements of the individual together (which follows the Buddhist perspective the construct of aggregates doesn't constitute a perpetual identity or self). I think the last terms like 'beginningless past' are completely vacuous, and I don't think the binding of aggregates is the Buddhist version of a soul, but I can't see how the conclusion is contradictory. It seems completely consistent, actually.
If there's nothing to be reborn there cannot be kammic energy re-materializing itself in another form. This is simple logic. If that process is happening moment to moment then how many moments are there? If those moments never run out then it's rebirth. If there is a powerful thought in your mind before you fall asleep it's likely that will be the first thought when you awake. That's a kind of rebirth after sleep. You have the sense of self before sleep and you will have a sense of self when you awake regardless of what thoughts and feelings are appearing and disappearing. If you don't have that same thought you fell asleep with the night before you will still feel like you are you regardless. I'm sorry, lolly and ouroboros just understand all this more deeply than you do. (I'm reading the link, lolly's link. It wouldn't link, I had to type in the complete URL to find it, found it). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2023 8:20:20 GMT -5
To be honest it's really difficult to unpack what your point is here. It doesn't help that in a fundamental way you have made a wrong comparison between Buddhism and Vedanta. There is no permanent self in Vedanta just like Buddhism. You are not comparing self with self but self with (S)elf. There is personal self and Transcendent Self. In terms of personal self there is no difference between Buddhism and Vedanta. self as personal egoity is impermanent in both traditions. The point about Buddhism and Vedanta is superfluous, doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong about that as far as my view is concerned. Simply, Gurdjieff said and wrote we have the possibility of being a volitional person-individuality, but not separate in any sense. When the possibility is actualized, he called this having our own I. This is the meaning of the evolution of consciousness, essence can-grow-into Real I. And the means is volition, volition on the side of essence (via voluntary attention and awareness), not on the side of the imaginary self, obviously (as described above, the imaginary self can't do anything). This, is the return path back to Source. Involution is the movement of energy away/out-from Source, ~seeded as essence~, evolution is the return of energy back to Source, with ~ interest~, what returns is a hundredfold ~*return-on-investment*~, in the words of Jesus. [I really should stop there, but enter here Gurdjieff's ~wacky~ cosmology. He said that if essence doesn't develop, then it goes to feed the Moon, the energy of essence goes to feed the Moon. It takes a lot to eventually understand he is correct. {Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson is basically all about the consequences of increasing entropy, although that word is never used. Gurdjieff calls entropy in Beelzebub's Tales, the Merciless Heropass, Heropass meaning time. So undeveloped essence going to feed the Moon, means entropy is increased, overall, but to a purpose}. Also will add here, Gurdjieff said involution and evolution are like two different rivers, two different flows is actually what he meant. And he said it is possible for any particular person, man or woman, to be able to pass from the flow of involution to the flow of evolution, from one river to the other, this again is the meaning of the evolution of consciousness. Also adding, using the language of the cosmology, Gurdjieff said our essence comes from the stars, that's why I'm stardustpilgrim. So the return path is from Earth, to the planetary world, then-to the Sun, and then-to the Milky Way, the outer cosmology represents [inner invisible] higher dimensions. Beelzebub's Tales is highly allegorical, and describes all this. Yes, Gurdjieff was that intelligent, to create such a meaningful truthful mythology]. That's exactly why I don't accept Gurdjieff as any kind of authority since there's no such thing as truthful mythology. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2023 8:22:33 GMT -5
If there's nothing to be reborn there cannot be kammic energy re-materializing itself in another form. This is simple logic. If that process is happening moment to moment then how many moments are there? If those moments never run out then it's rebirth. If there is a powerful thought in your mind before you fall asleep it's likely that will be the first thought when you awake. That's a kind of rebirth after sleep. You have the sense of self before sleep and you will have a sense of self when you awake regardless of what thoughts and feelings are appearing and disappearing. If you don't have that same thought you fell asleep with the night before you will still feel like you are you regardless. I'm sorry, lolly and ouroboros just understand all this more deeply than you do. well that's a forceful argument indeed. 😃 |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 3, 2023 8:50:05 GMT -5
The point about Buddhism and Vedanta is superfluous, doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong about that as far as my view is concerned. Simply, Gurdjieff said and wrote we have the possibility of being a volitional person-individuality, but not separate in any sense. When the possibility is actualized, he called this having our own I. This is the meaning of the evolution of consciousness, essence can-grow-into Real I. And the means is volition, volition on the side of essence (via voluntary attention and awareness), not on the side of the imaginary self, obviously (as described above, the imaginary self can't do anything). This, is the return path back to Source. Involution is the movement of energy away/out-from Source, ~seeded as essence~, evolution is the return of energy back to Source, with ~ interest~, what returns is a hundredfold ~*return-on-investment*~, in the words of Jesus. [I really should stop there, but enter here Gurdjieff's ~wacky~ cosmology. He said that if essence doesn't develop, then it goes to feed the Moon, the energy of essence goes to feed the Moon. It takes a lot to eventually understand he is correct. {Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson is basically all about the consequences of increasing entropy, although that word is never used. Gurdjieff calls entropy in Beelzebub's Tales, the Merciless Heropass, Heropass meaning time. So undeveloped essence going to feed the Moon, means entropy is increased, overall, but to a purpose}. Also will add here, Gurdjieff said involution and evolution are like two different rivers, two different flows is actually what he meant. And he said it is possible for any particular person, man or woman, to be able to pass from the flow of involution to the flow of evolution, from one river to the other, this again is the meaning of the evolution of consciousness. Also adding, using the language of the cosmology, Gurdjieff said our essence comes from the stars, that's why I'm stardustpilgrim. So the return path is from Earth, to the planetary world, then-to the Sun, and then-to the Milky Way, the outer cosmology represents [inner invisible] higher dimensions. Beelzebub's Tales is highly allegorical, and describes all this. Yes, Gurdjieff was that intelligent, to create such a meaningful truthful mythology]. That's exactly why I don't accept Gurdjieff as any kind of authority since there's no such thing as truthful mythology. All conceptualization in any sense is a kind of mythology. This is the point ZD continually makes, correctly. Take a piece of fruit, it is what it is. The same piece of fruit just is what it is whether you might-just-happen to call it an apple, or call it banana. (Some famous guy said that once upon a time, a poet). A name is just a name, a placeholder. Analogy, symbol, allegory, and myth are just different forms of language, period. Confusion occurs when we can't, via words, convey the truth we intent to, the actuality. And this is what Zen is all about, direct perception of truth which cannot be conveyed via words. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2023 8:53:33 GMT -5
That's exactly why I don't accept Gurdjieff as any kind of authority since there's no such thing as truthful mythology. All conceptualization in any sense is a kind of mythology. This is the point ZD continually makes, correctly. Take a piece of fruit, it is what it is. The same piece of fruit just is what it is whether you might-just-happen to call it an apple, or call it banana. (Some famous guy said that once upon a time, a poet). A name is just a name, a placeholder. Analogy, symbol, allegory, and myth are just different forms of language, period. Confusion occurs when we can't, via words, convey the truth we intent to, the actuality. And this is what Zen is all about, direct perception of truth which cannot be conveyed via words. If that's true then why didn't Gurdjieff just shut up like the Zen people? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 3, 2023 8:56:26 GMT -5
I'm sorry, lolly and ouroboros just understand all this more deeply than you do. well that's a forceful argument indeed. 😃 I'm just out of time right now, I'll be back later, your tomorrow. But, basically, it's about energy and information. There is a continuity of movement of energy + information. Actual tangible energy does not necessarily mean a self or a soul. Read the article with that in mind and it will make more sense. But you are correct, the guy should not have used the word nothing. Replace nothing, there, with ~a continuity of a certain movement of energy~, and it will all make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 3, 2023 8:59:02 GMT -5
All conceptualization in any sense is a kind of mythology. This is the point ZD continually makes, correctly. Take a piece of fruit, it is what it is. The same piece of fruit just is what it is whether you might-just-happen to call it an apple, or call it banana. (Some famous guy said that once upon a time, a poet). A name is just a name, a placeholder. Analogy, symbol, allegory, and myth are just different forms of language, period. Confusion occurs when we can't, via words, convey the truth we intent to, the actuality. And this is what Zen is all about, direct perception of truth which cannot be conveyed via words. If that's true then why didn't Gurdjieff just shut up like the Zen people? Because Zen doesn't go far enough. Zen doesn't talk about ~a certain continuity of movement of energy~. Gurdjieff didn't claim to be any kind of authority. He just taught, people listened, or didn't. He just wanted his books published, then people could read them, or not. ZD is correct about the parable of the sower. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 3, 2023 9:02:01 GMT -5
I don't see it. The final paragraphs say rebirth happens moment to moment without a permanent entity enduring it, and the same principle applies to reincarnation. It says the personality is accepted in an empirical sense, but isn't real in the ultimate sense. It then says it is the 'kammic force' that binds the elements of the individual together (which follows the Buddhist perspective the construct of aggregates doesn't constitute a perpetual identity or self). I think the last terms like 'beginningless past' are completely vacuous, and I don't think the binding of aggregates is the Buddhist version of a soul, but I can't see how the conclusion is contradictory. It seems completely consistent, actually.
If there's nothing to be reborn there cannot be kammic energy re-materializing itself in another form. This is simple logic. If that process is happening moment to moment then how many moments are there? If those moments never run out then it's rebirth. If there is a powerful thought in your mind before you fall asleep it's likely that will be the first thought when you awake. That's a kind of rebirth after sleep. You have the sense of self before sleep and you will have a sense of self when you awake regardless of what thoughts and feelings are appearing and disappearing. If you don't have that same thought you fell asleep with the night before you will still feel like you are you regardless. I observe feelings and thoughts etc, but only assume a self. The aggregates (feelings, thoughts etc) are undeniable because the experience of them is direct, but I have never experienced 'myself'. The was an occasion I did 'see myself' but I immediately knew it's a ghost and not actually me. In contrast, I was still there where I actually belong, in the driver's seat, as opposed to living as that horrid thing which is nothing but wound up impulses from craving and aversion.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 3, 2023 9:03:57 GMT -5
Gotta go, my Taco Bell breakfast window is closing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2023 9:27:33 GMT -5
If there's nothing to be reborn there cannot be kammic energy re-materializing itself in another form. This is simple logic. If that process is happening moment to moment then how many moments are there? If those moments never run out then it's rebirth. If there is a powerful thought in your mind before you fall asleep it's likely that will be the first thought when you awake. That's a kind of rebirth after sleep. You have the sense of self before sleep and you will have a sense of self when you awake regardless of what thoughts and feelings are appearing and disappearing. If you don't have that same thought you fell asleep with the night before you will still feel like you are you regardless. I observe feelings and thoughts etc, but only assume a self. The aggregates (feelings, thoughts etc) are undeniable because the experience of them is direct, but I have never experienced 'myself'. The was an occasion I did 'see myself' but I immediately knew it's a ghost and not actually me. In contrast, I was still there where I actually belong, in the driver's seat, as opposed to living as that horrid thing which is nothing but wound up impulses from craving and aversion. You don't assume a sense of self, you experience it. It's a visceral sense, it's tangible and it's not doing any craving. It's not changing or suffering. You will have the sense of self no matter what you are thinking or not thinking. You never say I'm not me today because I'm having some different thoughts. You are you no matter what. But that fundamental sense is entangled with egoity which does partake of craving and aversion. The driver's seat is that sense of self with no one in it. But most people prior to stream entry, if you want to use that particular categorization, can't tell the difference or disentangle the pure sense of self from changing phenomena which is why it's possible to say I'm not myself today. so they work on that which is external and that's a large part of modern-day Buddhist psychology which is nonsense. But go to the absorption states of the Jhanas and mindfulness and you're getting closer to what I believe Buddha would have taught. In the meantime I cannot take at face value a single word that is attributed to the Buddha since nothing was written down for a long time after his passing. Most of what people read today are commentaries. For me it's quite simple. If I read some Buddhist teaching and it's not my experience then I immediately dismiss it. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 3, 2023 10:24:08 GMT -5
The lolly linked article is very good, but the whole process is explained much better by Yogacara Buddhism. I've been exploring Yogacara for a while. Living Yogacara is the best concise source I've found, 150 pages. The alaya-vijnana consciousness is not permanent, the word means storehouse consciousness. It, is what carries the seeds of the vasanas and samskaras from incarnation to incarnation, "positive" seeds and "negative" seeds. And even alaya-vijnana is based on dependent origination, IOW, it's not permanent. There isn't a self that reincarnates, just seeds. The Tibetan teachings on the Bardo show how the self disintegrates after death.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 3, 2023 11:57:41 GMT -5
Gotta go, my Taco Bell breakfast window is closing. “ The moral of "The Myth of Sisyphus" is that there is no greater meaning in life but what we give it. When we accept that the universe has no inherent meaning or reason, we can be free of artificial expectations and embrace the absurd.” Well, remember that Camus only understood "intellectual meaning" and that's where he was coming from. He apparently never realized that there is a difference between intellectual meaning, which is relative, and absolute meaning. which is not. "What is" is absolute whereas our ideas about "what is" are relative and take the form of images, ideas, and symbols. If language and thought are left behind, the world of non-duality, which is absolute but neither subjective nor objective, is what remains. In this case the word "absolute" is just a pointer to something that can be apprehended but is not intellectually comprehensible. The biblical statement attributed to God, "I am that I am," and Niz's statement, "I am THAT" both point to the same thingness thing. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 3, 2023 12:29:53 GMT -5
I couldn't help but notice that talking to our karma-practice-chameleons is a bit like talking to our solipsists - the logic is fine and usually flawless, but the basic premise to which the logic is applied to is, unfortunately, false. That's all I wanted to point out. Because if you start with a flawed premise, it can only get wronger and not righter the more logic you apply, no matter how flawless your logic. And so what has been proposed here is all hopelessly flawed and donkey-backwards, even though it can be backed up by personal experience, scriptures and logic. This is mainly because the issue is approached exclusively from the personal perspective, not the impersonal perspective. People here, with their strong focus on how to get 'there', don't seem to realize that there's no 'there' there, that there is no actual difference between missing TPTPAU by a mile or missing it by a hair. You either passed thru the gateless gate or you didn't. The personal perspective remains the personal perspective and is not the impersonal perspective, no matter how pure or polished. And only from the impersonal perspective can this karma and practice topic be put to rest. From the personal perspective it will forever remain speculation, a mind game. Can you explain how a personal premise is problematic and why an impersonal one makes better sense?
Interesting question, and there are several ways to approach it. The impersonal premise offers both opportunity and pitfall, as does the personal. This is perhaps illustrated by the extremes. Just look to pop culture for the extreme of the personal premise. The spiritual ideal of the personal premise is total and sincere devotion to God. The extreme of the impersonal premise - prior to realization as to the nature of the dichotomy - is a complete emotional detachment. The spiritual ideal of the impersonal premise is elevated wisdom and a deep love for the world. In thinking back to your writings on the meditation, it doesn't seem to me so easy to pigeon hole it in terms of either premise. To choose one, I'd say personal, because it is focused on reactivity, so, the focus is on personal reactivity. And yet, the "solution" to the reactivity is impersonal, in that your advice is to observe the reaction and let it pass. In that, your descriptions always seemed to me to directly invoke self-inquiry, begging the obvious question .. "what reacts?". If you're interested, I could advocate for an impersonal premise. I'm personally biased toward an impersonal premise from personal experience.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 3, 2023 12:44:13 GMT -5
Even the logic seems flawed to me .. how to square purification with interdependent origination? But that is jut the mind, gaming, after all. I had a similar thought to yours here today. More importantly than the logic - and satch raised this as one of his original interests here years ago - I see this as related to a very old dichotomy. There aren't many Buddhists left in India, and Advaita flipped the duck/bunny of " no self" to " only self". So Ramana's inquiry is "who am I?". As ultimately, there is no inner, and no outer, this is just the flip side of "what is that?". So "ATA-T" is just a flip-side, mirror image of Ramana's "who am I?" or Niz's "refuse all thoughts but 'I AM'". Only difference being the vector of attention, either "inward", or "outward". From the personal perspective, this is the dichotomy of subjective/objective. Focusing "inward", with "who am I?" can lead a person into solipsism (whether they want to see it that way or not). Focusing "outwward", with "what is that?", can lead a person into nihilism. Two sides, same coin. But I also think it's important to recognize the value of a silent, still (quiescent, but open and pliant) mind, regardless of how one gets there. And while human social systems are a disaster, asking people to treat one another decently really doesn't seem like asking all that much, to me.  So I'm not totally anti "purification", albeit I have my misgivings and objections about using the notion. It's a nuanced subject with a simple principle: if you can leave everything to be 'as it is', purification is what happens. The rest of the topic is an elaboration on that principle - mostly, why we can't meet that ideal.
Yes, I'm familiar with your meaning of purification, and it doesn't involve moral stricture. My opinion is that ourboros' version of purification is not so simple or clear cut in that regard, and implicates some cultural baggage. He offers some great impersonal insights as well, so I don't dismiss it out of hand, but in not dismissing it I have to look for a place to check the bags. |
|
So I'm not totally anti "purification", albeit I have my