Halfway. This teacher is a therapist whose approach is built around Buddhist emptiness. To be honest, I'm really happy to be working with someone I feel has solid expertise in this area, because going it alone is no easy endeavor!Johnny Dangerous wrote:Yes. I'm working with a teacher who demands that I go as deep as I can into this investigation. I've been assigned books to read and practical exercises to perform. This thread is one part of my investigation.
I thought that not too long ago you posted that you were not currently interested in a teacher, and were fine doing your own investigations independently, has that changed?
Does a tree possess tree-ness?
Re: Does a tree possess tree-ness?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Does a tree possess tree-ness?
Sheesh ... you just don't give up, do you? I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.Johnny Dangerous wrote:Naw, I don't think that's adequate for this kind of discussion. You need qualify your statements, and not muddy the water when you are asked to clarify them.rachmiel wrote: Your reading of my posts is not my reading of my posts. Again: Agree to disagree.
Are you, or are you not saying that something "new" arises from the constituent parts of a tree as "tree ness" which has a unique form of existence in comparison to non-natural phenomena? Further, are you saying that this "meta consciousness" or whatever is more than the sum of it's parts, is it something altogether "new"?
To repeat an earlier question:
How does wholeness exist separate from its parts? If it doesn't exist separate from it's parts, then what is it?
Tell you what, I'll continue the conversation, but there's a price:
Tell me (honestly!) *why* you keep pursuing this with me? You clearly don't accept what I am saying. I'm not asserting that it is true (or false). So what is driving you?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Does a tree possess tree-ness?
They are definitely directly related. All Form is an energy structure. The beingness aspect that you are describing comes with a more heart based approach/opening.rachmiel wrote:Funny you should post this ... because I was just thinking that chi and prana both *point to* what I'm getting at with essential-ness. I'm not sure chi/prana = essential-ness, but my gut feeling is that they are closely related.seeker242 wrote:A tree would contain Ch'i or qi, but not a lamp. A tree is actually alive but a lamp is not. Perhaps it's not some "essential-ness" but just the presence of Chi.rachmiel wrote:
It doesn't work this way for me for a lamp, which is clearly a collection of human-designed and manufactured parts.
Whatcha think?
It would make sense that chi/prana were in the back of my mind when I formulated this meta-consciousness thing, since I studied Tradition Chinese Medicine and Ayurveda quite seriously some years ago, and developed an intimate feeling for both chi and prana.
If you think of it as from the Heart Sutra, Form = Emptiness and Emptiness = Form. The layers both exist and yet do not.
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17071
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Does a tree possess tree-ness?
rachmiel wrote: Tell you what, I'll continue the conversation, but there's a price:
Tell me (honestly!) *why* you keep pursuing this with me? You clearly don't accept what I am saying. I'm not asserting that it is true (or false). So what is driving you?
It's not anything personal, but a subject like this should be taken reasonably seriously in a forum called "Exploring Buddhism", since it deals intimately with arguably THE major doctrinal point of Mahayana Buddhism.. Saying you're not claiming your idea is true or false is a cop out, People are going to take it as true or false by virtue of you presenting it. I would think you know that on a forum like this, a philosophical point like you are making can't just be "out there", people will expect some kind of qualification of it from you, and will respond to your idea.
I don't mind you doing it at all, it's what the forum is for, I do think it's...bizarre that you expect to both make this point, then simultanously claim you are not actually making it, and show no interest in defending or supporting your position.
If you want to know my personal feelings, sure, I can share them:
You regularly post your skepticism about Dharma teachings, your general dislike for anything perceived as "religious", you are willing to cast a certain level of scrutiny on these things, "organized" Buddhist teachings on Karma, Rebirth, or whatever.. yet you seem to be getting slightly defensive when someone casts the same level of scrutiny on your own ideas.
I am not trying to go after you personally at all, I like you and appreciate a good chunk of the things you post. However, you are setting a pretty high bar for yourself with this thread, and now it seems like you are trying to back off from simple questions regarding some of your ideas.
The point is not that I don't accept what you are saying, the point is that no one here has any compelling reason to accept what you are saying on the basis of your reasoning, perhaps they'd agree on the basis purely of how they felt, but then..what is the point of a conversation like that? The questions people are asking you in this thread are based on Buddhist dialectics, so it is not really about anyone's personal feelings so much as it is the framework of the forum. Talk about meta-consciousness etc. - just spitballing of ideas is something that I might expect on a new-age type of forum, but on here, most people's responses to you will be rooted in the Buddharma take on things - that is what you are seeing I think.
So here again is my question:
me wrote: How does wholeness exist separate from its parts? If it doesn't exist separate from it's parts, then what is it?
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: Does a tree possess tree-ness?
But you see, this sense of wholeness only arises in you because your brain is trained to join sound together in that way. It is mentally producedrachmiel wrote: I experienced this kind of joining and blending in the trio. But that's not what I mean by the fourth member. I mean more that meta- kind of thing, a sense of wholeness/identity that "floats above" the parts (three human members). I realize this must sound deluded, even perhaps heretical (!) in a Buddhist forum. And perhaps it *is* deluded, wishful/magical thinking on my part. But perhaps it's not.
But it's not a valid conclusion. It's like arguing "X cannot be proven to not exist, therefore we should conclude X exists". Without having a legitimate basis for concluding something exists, it is irrational to conclude that it does exist.rachmiel wrote:Yes! It's like freedom of speech: It opens the floodgates to all manner of utterances, from exquisite to depraved with everything in-between. It's the price of freedom.
Last edited by Bakmoon on Fri Aug 07, 2015 10:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17071
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Does a tree possess tree-ness?
Thought i'd share a recalled discussion from meatspace Dharma discussion groups I've been in, as it's basically the same question:
If i'm reading it wrong, feel free to correct me on specifics.
I have a soul
Ok, what is a soul
It's my deepest essence, who I really am
Ok so can you define it
No
How does it relate to "you" i.e. the indentifiable parts of you that make up you, arms, personality, eyes, experiences, whatever, does it share those characteristics?
-or-It doesn't, it is beyond those things
It doesn't, it comes from those things, but isn't those things
This seems to be the tree argument in a nutshell, something that makes trees uniquely trees, but is not actually connected to all the things that make trees trees. It is a basically question of not-self.Then how can it also be you?
If i'm reading it wrong, feel free to correct me on specifics.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: Does a tree possess tree-ness?
Yes, that is what I'm seeing from most, but not all postings. Some people seem to understand the spirit with which I'm posting these questions, a sharing stories around the campfire group exploring, and are happily willing to listen to my story and share theirs. These are the people with whom I'd like to make a connection in a thread like this.Johnny Dangerous wrote:The questions people are asking you in this thread are based on Buddhist dialectics, so it is not really about anyone's personal feelings so much as it is the framework of the forum. Talk about meta-consciousness etc. - just spitballing of ideas is something that I might expect on a new-age type of forum, but on here, most people's responses to you will be rooted in the Buddharma take on things - that is what you are seeing I think.
I didn't realize the Exploring Buddhism title of this sub-forum was to be taken so literally. I thought of more as a catch-all for any topic related to Buddhism. Perhaps I should have started this thread in the Personal Experience sub-forum? If so, please feel free to move it there.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17071
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Does a tree possess tree-ness?
I'm not sure why it bothers you that people want to use Buddhist dialectics to examine and/or refute them, especially since you made reference to Madhyamaka in the first post. Why can't you just answer my question? It's completely relevant.rachmiel wrote:Yes, that is what I'm seeing from most, but not all postings. Some people seem to understand the spirit with which I'm posting these questions, a sharing stories around the campfire group exploring, and are happily willing to listen to my story and share theirs. These are the people with whom I'd like to make a connection in a thread like this.Johnny Dangerous wrote:The questions people are asking you in this thread are based on Buddhist dialectics, so it is not really about anyone's personal feelings so much as it is the framework of the forum. Talk about meta-consciousness etc. - just spitballing of ideas is something that I might expect on a new-age type of forum, but on here, most people's responses to you will be rooted in the Buddharma take on things - that is what you are seeing I think.
I didn't realize the Exploring Buddhism title of this sub-forum was to be taken so literally. I thought of more as a catch-all for any topic related to Buddhism. Perhaps I should have started this thread in the Personal Experience sub-forum? If so, please feel free to move it there.
I don't think it's fair to post something like this, and then say you only want certain types of responses, and not others, when everyone in the thread is discussing in good faith.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: Does a tree possess tree-ness?
Maybe. Maybe not. It's in the realm of stuff that cannot be determined with utter certainty to be true or false. At this point for me, it's a good story ... and since I see pretty much all "truth" as storytelling, that's good enough for me.Bakmoon wrote:But you see, this sense of wholeness only arises in you because your brain is trained to join sound together in that way. It is mentally produced.rachmiel wrote: I experienced this kind of joining and blending in the trio. But that's not what I mean by the fourth member. I mean more that meta- kind of thing, a sense of wholeness/identity that "floats above" the parts (three human members). I realize this must sound deluded, even perhaps heretical (!) in a Buddhist forum. And perhaps it *is* deluded, wishful/magical thinking on my part. But perhaps it's not.
Rational thought is imo a great tool for certain tasks. Not for this one.rachmiel wrote:But it's not a valid conclusion. It's like arguing "X cannot be proven to not exist, therefore we should conclude X exists". Without having a legitimate basis for concluding something exists, it is irrational to conclude that it does exist.Yes! It's like freedom of speech: It opens the floodgates to all manner of utterances, from exquisite to depraved with everything in-between. It's the price of freedom.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17071
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Does a tree possess tree-ness?
You don't want to have rational thoughts about it, but apparently you want to discuss it?Rational thought is imo a great tool for certain tasks. Not for this one.
If you are not going to use rational thought to discuss it, what will you use?
I don't think "feel" is a good test for whether or not to believe something is true, we "feel" anger and other emotions to such a degree that we not only think they are real, we imbue them with enough reality that we mistake them for an identity, i.e. "I am angry", "I am sad", etc.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: Does a tree possess tree-ness?
Yes, good point. Put it this way instead: I welcome all postings, as long as they are respectful, but I connect more with some than others. That feels better.Johnny Dangerous wrote:I don't think it's fair to post something like this, and then say you only want certain types of responses, and not others, when everyone in the thread is discussing in good faith.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Does a tree possess tree-ness?
Now you've got my interest ...Johnny Dangerous wrote:You don't want to have rational thoughts about it, but apparently you want to discuss it?Rational thought is imo a great tool for certain tasks. Not for this one.
If you are not going to use rational thought to discuss it, what will you use?
That's a great and imo important question. I have no facile answer for it. I guess I'm trying to discover a useful way to talk about this in the manner that I'd like it to be talked about. And, apparently, failing ... or at least flailing.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Does a tree possess tree-ness?
I see wholeness in a Gestalt way: It is other than (not reducible to) the sum of its parts. And yet it is dependent on these parts. This is the mystery for me, and I don't think that rational thought is the right tool to explore it, at least not rational thought by itself.Johnny Dangerous wrote:How does wholeness exist separate from its parts? If it doesn't exist separate from it's parts, then what is it?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17071
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Does a tree possess tree-ness?
rachmiel wrote:I see wholeness in a Gestalt way: It is other than (not reducible to) the sum of its parts. And yet it is dependent on these parts. This is the mystery for me, and I don't think that rational thought is the right tool to explore it, at least not rational thought by itself.Johnny Dangerous wrote:How does wholeness exist separate from its parts? If it doesn't exist separate from it's parts, then what is it?
The gestalt though is an imputation, since it is not findable within it's parts..we do it with everything, not just trees, "Like a phantom, a star at dawn"..yadda, yadda. It is the root of the whole "not self" thing, this is why people keep harping on it, it is a sort of Buddhist dialectics 101 question. It doesn't mean that these things are non-existent, it means their existential mode is emptiness..which ironically is the ultimate "isness" a thing can have.
Do you not accept the Buddhist answer(s) to the question, not find them satisfying or?
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: Does a tree possess tree-ness?
I accept them as compelling stories. Some of them seem close to "truth." But how would I know? All I can do is guess.Johnny Dangerous wrote:Do you not accept the Buddhist answer(s) to the question, not find them satisfying or?
Though I've been teasing at studying and practicing emptiness for a few years, I've only just recently gotten quite serious about it. I'm a skeptic, so the verdict is still out for me. I accept pretty much nothing in the metaphysical realm by sheer faith, and precious little by rational argument.
Do you accept all the Buddhist teachings within your particular school?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17071
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Does a tree possess tree-ness?
rachmiel wrote:I accept them as compelling stories. Some of them seem close to "truth." But how would I know? All I can do is guess.Johnny Dangerous wrote:Do you not accept the Buddhist answer(s) to the question, not find them satisfying or?
Though I've been teasing at studying and practicing emptiness for a few years, I've only just recently gotten quite serious about it. I'm a skeptic, so the verdict is still out for me. I accept pretty much nothing in the metaphysical realm by sheer faith, and precious little by rational argument.
Do you accept all the Buddhist teachings within your particular school?
Can't really answer that, I doubt I even know half the tenets or specific doctrinal positions of the Sakya school, there are of course plenty of things in my time studying Dharma that have had me scratching my head, personally the "big stuff" hasn't been in that category for me though. I definitely accept emptiness and dependent origination - for me the logical proofs combined with experiential learning are enough for me to say "yeah, ok, that is pretty convincing"..especially when compared to other phenomenological explanations.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: Does a tree possess tree-ness?
Rachmiel, when you understand what your mind is doing with this...rachmiel wrote:Does a tree possess an essential tree-ness?
...
It *feels* like a tree possesses some form of essential tree-ness. It is ... itself, a tree, purely and simply. It aligns with its nature unresistingly.
It doesn't work this way for me for a lamp, which is clearly a collection of human-designed and manufactured parts.
Whatcha think?
...you will understand what your mind is doing with a tree and tree-ness.
Re: Does a tree possess tree-ness?
JD:
I also find them compelling. They're a large part of what drew me (draws me) to Buddhist thought.
I studied Advaita for a time under the quasi-tutelage of a well-known writer on Advaita, Dennis Waite. Loved it, loved it, loved it ... then hit Brahman, ground to a halt, and never got past it. I just couldn't make the leap of faith to believing(/knowing) that Brahman was Absolute Truth. Skeptics don't leap so well.
I had been interested in Buddhism for a long time, but never really studied it. So I dove in and found, to my delight, that Buddhism posited no Absolute Truth, rather unraveled the whole notion of absolutes.
My latest inkling is it might end up that, for me, Advaita is too much (Brahman) and Buddhism too little (emptiness in its sense of absence of any essence, period, end of discussion). But that's fine, because I'll just take what works for me and leave the rest behind.
I also find them compelling. They're a large part of what drew me (draws me) to Buddhist thought.
I studied Advaita for a time under the quasi-tutelage of a well-known writer on Advaita, Dennis Waite. Loved it, loved it, loved it ... then hit Brahman, ground to a halt, and never got past it. I just couldn't make the leap of faith to believing(/knowing) that Brahman was Absolute Truth. Skeptics don't leap so well.
I had been interested in Buddhism for a long time, but never really studied it. So I dove in and found, to my delight, that Buddhism posited no Absolute Truth, rather unraveled the whole notion of absolutes.
My latest inkling is it might end up that, for me, Advaita is too much (Brahman) and Buddhism too little (emptiness in its sense of absence of any essence, period, end of discussion). But that's fine, because I'll just take what works for me and leave the rest behind.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Does a tree possess tree-ness?
Nice!anjali wrote:Rachmiel, when you understand what your mind is doing with this...rachmiel wrote:Does a tree possess an essential tree-ness?
...
It *feels* like a tree possesses some form of essential tree-ness. It is ... itself, a tree, purely and simply. It aligns with its nature unresistingly.
It doesn't work this way for me for a lamp, which is clearly a collection of human-designed and manufactured parts.
Whatcha think?
...you will understand what your mind is doing with a tree and tree-ness.
I fathom where you are headed with this ... but let me ask you a question:
If that were a real man in the picture, rather than an arrangement of different types of fruit, would that make a difference to you?
It would to me. The arrangement is a buncha human-designed stuff that doesn't add up to anything more than an illusion. The actual man is different, it/he has an integrity and unartificial wholeness that is absent in the fruit basket.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Does a tree possess tree-ness?
When I look at (take in) an object, my instinctual reaction is to reify it.
That cup is ... a cup! It is real and stable and imbued with ... cup-ness. It endures, it doesn't jump around or melt away, its color stays white day after day, it feels the same when I pick it up and set it down.
But, thanks to my emptiness training, I can see (and, to an extent, feel ... though that is harder) that what I am calling a cup is a dynamic process that supervenes on a web of interdependent dynamic sub-processes, all the way down. It is a "cup" simply because I name it "cup." It possesses no essential cup-ness.
So that's no big problem for me, the unraveling into emptiness of a synthetic object, one that has been put together by thought.
But it's qualitatively different, or at least feels that way, for a natural object ... one that has sprung forth from nature itself. A bird living in the wild, for example.
When I look at that bird, once again my instinctual reaction is to reify it. It's a bird! But, when I go to "unravel" it to emptiness, something integral to the bird remains: an essential bird-ness (specific to that one bird, not to birdkind in general).
So I guess I could sum it up as: I can see/feel emptiness in synthetic objects (boondoggled together by thought) just fine, but not in natural objects: trees, birds, stones, creeks. The latter seem to possess an essence, an overarching identity. Not an identity that is independent and unchanging, rather one that is dependent on causes/conditions and changes continuously (is that an oxymoron?).
That cup is ... a cup! It is real and stable and imbued with ... cup-ness. It endures, it doesn't jump around or melt away, its color stays white day after day, it feels the same when I pick it up and set it down.
But, thanks to my emptiness training, I can see (and, to an extent, feel ... though that is harder) that what I am calling a cup is a dynamic process that supervenes on a web of interdependent dynamic sub-processes, all the way down. It is a "cup" simply because I name it "cup." It possesses no essential cup-ness.
So that's no big problem for me, the unraveling into emptiness of a synthetic object, one that has been put together by thought.
But it's qualitatively different, or at least feels that way, for a natural object ... one that has sprung forth from nature itself. A bird living in the wild, for example.
When I look at that bird, once again my instinctual reaction is to reify it. It's a bird! But, when I go to "unravel" it to emptiness, something integral to the bird remains: an essential bird-ness (specific to that one bird, not to birdkind in general).
So I guess I could sum it up as: I can see/feel emptiness in synthetic objects (boondoggled together by thought) just fine, but not in natural objects: trees, birds, stones, creeks. The latter seem to possess an essence, an overarching identity. Not an identity that is independent and unchanging, rather one that is dependent on causes/conditions and changes continuously (is that an oxymoron?).
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...