Queequeg wrote: ↑
Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:10 pm
Crown, if you want a discussion, I think you're going to have to restate your argument fresh. Do not refer to anything you wrote before. Write a post as though it was the first in this thread.
That is probably better seeing how it was directed at you in the first place. Let’s give it another try then shall we.
Mr dangerous is under the impression that i did not focus on the subject and arguments made in regard to renunciation in the particular goldstein example. I have no idea what went wrong in his puzzling assessment of everything i wrote but alas I will try to make it abundantly clear now.
I agree with what you and everybody else is saying. Yes that is an example of renunciation. End of discussion. That's it. No need to pursue it any further.
The entire topic of discussion that was of interest to me which did not get addressed and was being misconstrued in various ways revolved around a single remark which was the following:
Its clear that you do not have much experience with contemplative practice. You will be enlightened on the subject if you undertake contemplative practice and gain some personal, subjective experience with it. To appreciate attachment at subtler levels of the mind that are very much at play in even the slightest activities of your mind'
My reply was that one should probably exercise a bit more caution in jumping to that conclusion because your assumption about what constitutes contemplative practice may differ quite a bit from mine plus there are more ways to explore and appreciate attachments at these subtler levels of awareness. I laid out my reasoning which I’ll repeat here but somewhat edited.
I understand fully why you would say what you did in this context considering that we already started off on the wrong foot with the whole misunderstanding about the 'attachment to practice' example and how it relates to renunciation etc. which again ultimately we are on the same page. But of course at the time that is the assumption you have including other things I may have said. I pointed out that if that misunderstanding had not come about in the first place we probably would not even have this discussion because you might have refrained from saying it although ultimately this is somewhat besides the point. The heart of the matter is as follows:
The concept of contemplative practice and the experience of appreciating attachment on these subtler levels is not exclusively tied to the buddhist framework.
Although there might be a lack of knowledge on the various viewpoints about renunciation, retreats and scripture etc within said buddhist framework it would not be wise to mistake that for a lack of intimate experience on my end and in general with the phenomenon of what is being called renunciation and insight into attachment on subtler levels of awareness. Like I mentioned earlier I also view contemplative practice in a broader sense then was most likely being assumed.
To further illustrate my point I said it could be analogous to a child that has no ‘knowledge’ about mindfulness but in all likelihood is ‘more mindful’ than your average practitioner of mindfulness. Other examples could include people that live in certain remote areas or have been through extreme ordeals often display a lot of similarities with buddhist practitioners without ‘meditating’ a day in their life.
If you think contemplative practice and insight into attachment at these subtler levels of mind can only occur in a buddhist context or a specific secluded type of meditation then I fundamentally disagree. There are various (other) ways to get intimately familiar with your own mind.
This is why I cautioned against jumping to conclusions about another one’s experience with these phenomena.
That’s it. Don't know how to phrase it any other way.