primordial buddhism

User avatar
anjali
Global Moderator
Posts: 971
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: primordial buddhism

Postby anjali » Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:41 am

Minobu wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Minobu wrote:so Malcolm what about overself guiding us


You have to be kidding...

Actually no, in the sense of trying to make sense of it...
the guy actually based his writings on tibetan Buddhist stuff...and many people learned their first stuff from hi.

Minobu, what you are asking is best discussed in PM with Malcolm, or by starting a new topic, since it is unrelated to the subject of the OP or Pure Land.
All things are unworthy of clinging to (sabbe dhammā nâla abhinivesāyā). --Shakyamuni Buddha
Wanting to grasp the ungraspable, you exhaust yourself in vain. --Gendun Rinpoche

binocular
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:58 pm

Re: primordial buddhism

Postby binocular » Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:27 pm

tingdzin wrote:Everyone has his or her own opinion about "original Buddhism", and, not surprisingly, it's usually close to that of the school they personally prefer.If you really want a thorough answer to that question, you'll have to do a lot of research and make up your own mind.

Malcolm wrote:That was the point of my reply. And it illustrates the second of tingzin's point, "you'll have to do a lot of research and make up your own mind."


And how does this differ from what is, for practical intents and purposes, solipsism?

To say that it is up to the individual to decide whether 2 + 2 = 4 -- that's just crazy.

Leaving it up to the individual to decide (in whatever way, whether through research or through gambling) which Buddhist school is the original one, that's like leaving it up to the individual to decide whether 2 + 2 = 4.

If everything everyone claims to be true is in fact true, then we're living in a chaotic universe in which human action is of no consequence, and suffering a constant.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23338
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: primordial buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:20 pm

binocular wrote:
tingdzin wrote:Everyone has his or her own opinion about "original Buddhism", and, not surprisingly, it's usually close to that of the school they personally prefer.If you really want a thorough answer to that question, you'll have to do a lot of research and make up your own mind.

Malcolm wrote:That was the point of my reply. And it illustrates the second of tingzin's point, "you'll have to do a lot of research and make up your own mind."


And how does this differ from what is, for practical intents and purposes, solipsism?

To say that it is up to the individual to decide whether 2 + 2 = 4 -- that's just crazy.

Leaving it up to the individual to decide (in whatever way, whether through research or through gambling) which Buddhist school is the original one, that's like leaving it up to the individual to decide whether 2 + 2 = 4.

If everything everyone claims to be true is in fact true, then we're living in a chaotic universe in which human action is of no consequence, and suffering a constant.


It's more like choosing a political party than solipsism.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


There is neither sharp nor dull in the capacity of sentient beings. If it is asked why this is so, it is because an introduction is sufficient.


— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra

binocular
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:58 pm

Re: primordial buddhism

Postby binocular » Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:06 pm

Malcolm wrote:It's more like choosing a political party than solipsism.

In that case, such a chooser is trivializing the metaphysical/cosmological claims that the religion (he is choosing) makes.
I think it is cognitively and morally corrupt to demote religion to the level of a political party; although it's probably quite common, and perhaps even the only way in which one can actually choose a religion.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23338
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: primordial buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:08 pm

binocular wrote:
Malcolm wrote:It's more like choosing a political party than solipsism.

In that case, such a chooser is trivializing the metaphysical/cosmological claims that the religion (he is choosing) makes.
I think it is cognitively and morally corrupt to demote religion to the level of a political party; although it's probably quite common, and perhaps even the only way in which one can actually choose a religion.


Not at all. You are proceeding from the idea that there are absolute facts which exist separately from how people cognize them. Buddhism actually rejects this point of view without in turn making all of reality dependent upon just one person's perceptions.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


There is neither sharp nor dull in the capacity of sentient beings. If it is asked why this is so, it is because an introduction is sufficient.


— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra

User avatar
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: primordial buddhism

Postby PuerAzaelis » Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:14 pm

binocular wrote:Leaving it up to the individual to decide (in whatever way, whether through research or through gambling) which Buddhist school is the original one, that's like leaving it up to the individual to decide whether 2 + 2 = 4.

Did you discover that 2+2=4 or did you always know it?
To understand everything except one’s own self is very comical. Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript

binocular
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:58 pm

Re: primordial buddhism

Postby binocular » Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:19 pm

Malcolm wrote:Not at all. You are proceeding from the idea that there are absolute facts which exist separately from how people cognize them.

Indeed.

Buddhism actually rejects this point of view without in turn making all of reality dependent upon just one person's perceptions.

I'm not sure I understand.

What do you see as an alternative to both solipsism as well as to authoritarian cognitive externalism (to call it somehow -- "absolute facts which exist separately from how people cognize them")?

One of the alternatives to that could be a kind of epistemic universalism coupled with an unquestioning regard for every human, regardless of the state the human is in. Ie. basically granting that every human is essentially sane and can know "how things really are" without an external party posing as an epistemic authority.

binocular
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:58 pm

Re: primordial buddhism

Postby binocular » Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:20 pm

PuerAzaelis wrote:Did you discover that 2+2=4 or did you always know it?

Neither. To the best of my knowledge, I internalized it before my cognitive apparatus has developed any critical thinking powers.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23338
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: primordial buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:24 pm

binocular wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Not at all. You are proceeding from the idea that there are absolute facts which exist separately from how people cognize them.

Indeed.


Then you are realist who proposes that things have independent existence.

Buddhism actually rejects this point of view without in turn making all of reality dependent upon just one person's perceptions.

I'm not sure I understand.

What do you see as an alternative to both solipsism as well as to authoritarian cognitive externalism (to call it somehow -- "absolute facts which exist separately from how people cognize them")?

One of the alternatives to that could be a kind of epistemic universalism coupled with an unquestioning regard for every human, regardless of the state the human is in. Ie. basically granting that every human is essentially sane and can know "how things really are" without an external party posing as an epistemic authority.


Buddhism proposes that all humans are basically deluded, but are equipped with the capacity to know "how things really are."
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


There is neither sharp nor dull in the capacity of sentient beings. If it is asked why this is so, it is because an introduction is sufficient.


— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra

binocular
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:58 pm

Re: primordial buddhism

Postby binocular » Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:53 pm

Malcolm wrote:Then you are realist who proposes that things have independent existence.

In this instance, for the purpose of this conversation, yes.
If you look at how Buddhism is often taught, it's precisely that way -- "You're stupid and you need someone to tell you how things really are." While I have never seen it articulated with that precision, I can infer it from the way many Buddhists teach -- from their impatience, from the way they feel offended when people don't unquestioningly submit, from the threats of karmic retribution they make if one doesn't think, feel, speak, and do as they want.
In fact, listening to Western Buddhists, I often have the impression that I am listening to a Christian, it's just that the names are different.

Buddhism proposes that all humans are basically deluded, but are equipped with the capacity to know "how things really are."

This will need some elaboration!

Christians, for example, too, sometimes say that all humans are basically deluded, but are equipped with the capacity to know how things really are -- and that the how things really are is Jesus Christ, and that if your efforts to know how things really are don't conclude in the conviction that Jesus is the answer, then you're still deluded.
And something similar in Buddhism -- "you're deluded, you have the capacity to know how things really are, but if you don't come to see that we are right, you're still deluded."

It's the same pattern -- in both cases, it is proposed that there are absolute facts (especially in religious matters) which exist separately from how people cognize them.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23338
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: primordial buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:00 pm

binocular wrote:It's the same pattern -- in both cases, it is proposed that there are absolute facts (especially in religious matters) which exist separately from how people cognize them.


It is really not the same. How things really are is not a "fact." Facts require empirical agreement. There is no way that "how things really are" can be subject to such empirical agreement. Why? Because how things really are is a personal intuition (in the philosophical sense) and cannot be communicated verbally to others. It is something that must be know for oneself. Thus the Buddha declared, "Ehipaśyika," "Come and see!"
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


There is neither sharp nor dull in the capacity of sentient beings. If it is asked why this is so, it is because an introduction is sufficient.


— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra

binocular
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:58 pm

Re: primordial buddhism

Postby binocular » Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:12 pm

Malcolm wrote:It is really not the same. How things really are is not a "fact." Facts require empirical agreement. There is no way that "how things really are" can be subject to such empirical agreement. Why?
Because how things really are is a personal intuition (in the philosophical sense) and cannot be communicated verbally to others.

I hear this for the first time!
Could you direct me to some reading about this?
This is immense.

It is something that must be know for oneself. Thus the Buddha declared, "Ehipaśyika," "Come and see!"

Well, listening to Buddhists so far, I got the impression that the invitation to come and see was much the same as in Christianity, where it's basically submitting to someone in a position of authority (such as a priest or a group leader) and then pretending one has discovered some great truth and pretending that one knows it for oneself (when one is, at worst, just repeating after others, or, at best, has managed to internalize so that then it seems true, as in "objectively true").

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23338
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: primordial buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:54 pm

binocular wrote:
Malcolm wrote:It is really not the same. How things really are is not a "fact." Facts require empirical agreement. There is no way that "how things really are" can be subject to such empirical agreement. Why?
Because how things really are is a personal intuition (in the philosophical sense) and cannot be communicated verbally to others.

I hear this for the first time!
Could you direct me to some reading about this?
This is immense.


The Buddha stated this principle very clearly pretty much everywhere.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


There is neither sharp nor dull in the capacity of sentient beings. If it is asked why this is so, it is because an introduction is sufficient.


— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra

User avatar
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: primordial buddhism

Postby PuerAzaelis » Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:32 pm

binocular wrote:
PuerAzaelis wrote:Did you discover that 2+2=4 or did you always know it?

Neither. To the best of my knowledge, I internalized it before my cognitive apparatus has developed any critical thinking powers.

What's the difference between believing something as a result of "critical thinking powers" and believing something as a result of "making up your own mind" or being "up to the individual to decide" or "choosing a political party"?

I don't think anyone is saying that the latter process requires me to abandon the former.

PS:

binocular wrote:This is immense.

?

It would be nice if I could practise just by listening to someone convey information.

It would be nice to wake up just by taking a Buddhism Science class or going to Buddhism Church.
To understand everything except one’s own self is very comical. Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript

binocular
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:58 pm

Re: primordial buddhism

Postby binocular » Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:30 pm

Malcolm wrote:
binocular wrote:
Malcolm wrote:It is really not the same. How things really are is not a "fact." Facts require empirical agreement. There is no way that "how things really are" can be subject to such empirical agreement. Why?
Because how things really are is a personal intuition (in the philosophical sense) and cannot be communicated verbally to others.

I hear this for the first time!
Could you direct me to some reading about this?
This is immense.

The Buddha stated this principle very clearly pretty much everywhere.

Do give me an example of such a source. I have never seen this before. I have never heard a Buddhist say such a thing yet.

binocular
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:58 pm

Re: primordial buddhism

Postby binocular » Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:38 pm

PuerAzaelis wrote:
binocular wrote:
PuerAzaelis wrote:Did you discover that 2+2=4 or did you always know it?

Neither. To the best of my knowledge, I internalized it before my cognitive apparatus has developed any critical thinking powers.

What's the difference between believing something as a result of "critical thinking powers" and believing something as a result of "making up your own mind" or being "up to the individual to decide" or "choosing a political party"?

The difference I was talking about is between
internalizing something so early in life that one has no memory of when it happened,
and
trying to internalize something deliberately.

binocular wrote:This is immense.

?

Malcolm is presenting a view of Buddhism that I have never encountered before, and which, if true, has immense implications for how one approaches Buddhism.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23338
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: primordial buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:55 pm

binocular wrote:
PuerAzaelis wrote:
binocular wrote:Neither. To the best of my knowledge, I internalized it before my cognitive apparatus has developed any critical thinking powers.

What's the difference between believing something as a result of "critical thinking powers" and believing something as a result of "making up your own mind" or being "up to the individual to decide" or "choosing a political party"?

The difference I was talking about is between
internalizing something so early in life that one has no memory of when it happened,
and
trying to internalize something deliberately.

binocular wrote:This is immense.

?

Malcolm is presenting a view of Buddhism that I have never encountered before, and which, if true, has immense implications for how one approaches Buddhism.


well, for example, it is exemplified in Vimalakīrti's famed silence in response to Buddha questioning various members of his audience on their understanding of nonduality.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


There is neither sharp nor dull in the capacity of sentient beings. If it is asked why this is so, it is because an introduction is sufficient.


— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra

binocular
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:58 pm

Re: primordial buddhism

Postby binocular » Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:18 pm

The Vimalakīrti Sutra is a Mahayana sutra. Do you know any references to this phenomenon in the Pali suttas?

You said: "Because how things really are is a personal intuition (in the philosophical sense) and cannot be communicated verbally to others."

I cannot imagine anyone seriously meaning that and stopping at that.
Usually, I have heard things to the effect of
"How things really are is a personal intuition (in the philosophical sense) and cannot be communicated verbally to others, but if you look into your heart and are truly honest, you will know that Jesus is your Lord and Savior."

Whenever I have heard people talk about how things really are, this was always followed by making clear their specific religious or political etc. affiliation.
I have never heard anyone actually stop at "It's deeply personal, it's not possible to talk about it."

Sometimes, there are people who seem to stop at that, but a closer look reveals they are actually refering to something that they don't want to talk about (with the person they're talking to), and that it isn't something that would be impossible to talk about.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23338
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: primordial buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:40 pm

binocular wrote:The Vimalakīrti Sutra is a Mahayana sutra. Do you know any references to this phenomenon in the Pali suttas?

You said: "Because how things really are is a personal intuition (in the philosophical sense) and cannot be communicated verbally to others."

I cannot imagine anyone seriously meaning that and stopping at that.
Usually, I have heard things to the effect of
"How things really are is a personal intuition (in the philosophical sense) and cannot be communicated verbally to others, but if you look into your heart and are truly honest, you will know that Jesus is your Lord and Savior."

Whenever I have heard people talk about how things really are, this was always followed by making clear their specific religious or political etc. affiliation.
I have never heard anyone actually stop at "It's deeply personal, it's not possible to talk about it."

Sometimes, there are people who seem to stop at that, but a closer look reveals they are actually refering to something that they don't want to talk about (with the person they're talking to), and that it isn't something that would be impossible to talk about.


"How things are" is a personal intuition. The Buddha taught us that we could discover this for ourselves.

If you limit yourself to the Pali Canon, you are like a person who decides they like walking with the chains on their feet when they could choose wings.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


There is neither sharp nor dull in the capacity of sentient beings. If it is asked why this is so, it is because an introduction is sufficient.


— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 760
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: primordial buddhism

Postby Coëmgenu » Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:49 pm

Malcolm wrote:If you limit yourself to the Pali Canon, you are like a person who decides they like walking with the chains on their feet when they could choose wings.
Plenty of people consider the teachings of the Pāli Canon to be highly efficacious, and not comparable at all to chains that bind progress.
"My pure land is not destroyed,
yet the multitude sees it as consumed in fire,
with anxiety, fear, and other sufferings
filling it everywhere."
(Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra XVI)

All these dharmāḥ are the status of dharma, the standing of dharma, the suchness of dharma; the dharma neither departs from things-as-they-are, nor differs from things-as-they-are; it is the truth, reality, without distortion.(SA 296, 因緣法)
揭諦揭諦,波羅揭諦,波羅僧揭諦,菩提薩婆訶(Prajñāpāramitāhṛdayasya Mantra)


Return to “Pure Land”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests