Not really familar with Wilber. Could be a interesting discussion re Hegel. But why steer the discussion away from Buddhism. I'm OK with the complexity and I'm sure Colin's up to it.
The comparison between Hegel and Buddhism is something that leads him into confusion.
Ah Scott, I'v been living in confusion for much longer than this latest exchange with Colin.
I'm sorry for the inartful #44.
On the comparison issue, in #36 I had specified that I was following the Gelugpa school's presentatin of these issues. So I wasn't sure what your comment referred to. I should have made that clear.
My "gods and goddeses" point was to amplify your Chenrezig point. From your comment I inferred you did not know it was a more general phenonomen. Perhaps that was incorrect.
On "crazy wisdom"...I don't really get the point you're making in #48.
Any valid comparison depends of specificity of what's being compared.
Vajrayana= crazy wisdom. This is incorrect. Crazy wisdom is a tradition within vajrayana. It can refer to either a general style of teaching or a very specific system within the tradition.
As for the rest of vajrayana being more rational based - that's just crazy. All forms of Tibetan Buddhism start with some version of a graded curriculuum before starting with various forms of tantric practices.
Many Tibetan meditational figures derive from Hindu gods and goddesses.
I wrote the last comment without reading your last one.
So we don’t have to solve this one once and for all today! In fact, let’s not…
Couldn't agree more. I'm done.
Just one question...when reading about Hegel's broad idea of the State to include various civic asscociations, do Hegalians ever break out into chants of "All power to the Rotarys!"?
I have focussed most of my my Buddhist comments on Emptiness related ideas. The other pole is referred to ususally as Mind or Buddha Nature.
The presentations can differ enormously because the experience is ineffable.
The Buddhist concept of space is not so much negative thingness defined by the things around it, as either the absence of obstacles (much like the State) or the potentiality for phenonomen.
Mind is like space.
In that way it both is eternal and unchanging, but not a thing at all.
Mind is unobstucted awareness, or the potential for awareness.
In this way it is also a continency since it depends on some form of contingent pheonomen and specific thought to manifest. So it is in this way empty of inherent existence just like the objects of thought (other phenonomen) are.
I agree with Scott that "transcendence" does not apply to Buddhism. Enlightenment is a metaphoical uncovering of something that is already there. Buddha Nature is the potentiality for Enlightenment. Traditionally one metaphor is a great treasure buried beneath the house of a destitute person who does not know it's there.
The reason the Dharma does not change is because the content of thought is irrelevant. So yes, the content can change, but so what?
Awareness without the fabrication of the self. How can that change?
Probably a barrier to a discussion between us is how to specifidcally understand some of the terms we might use. As I said in my The Wall conversation with Colin, I use therms as the Gelupa school does.
At this level, even slight differences of terminolgy can lead us astray.
Buddhism uses philosophy to ready the mind for the nonconceptual, but does not see itself as that.
The illusion I refer to is the illusion the self has of itself as existing as an independent, non-contingent entity. So it is illusion like a dream is understod when we wake up, or if one is capapble of lucid dreaming. It is delusion if we understand ourselves to truly exist, but have n awareness it could be otherwise.
Non-self is misunderstod as nullification. It is the mode of independent existence that is negated, not existence as such.
"Buddhism" as a religion is understood (or should be) by Buddhists as a historical contingency (just like everything else).
"Christianizing" seems a word that cause more problems than it solves at this historical juncture.
A big difference in Buddhism and Hegel is the engine of realization. Buddhism sees the contribution of the State to simply not be an obstacle- much like living in in place in which one won't be eaten by wild animals.
By locating realization completely in the subjective experience (one school is called Mind Only) the historical contingencies are thought to be eliminated. The mind to mind transmission from teacher to student becomes central.
There’s no positive aspect of the life of the individual human being that doesn’t bring him into relationship with others, doesn’t reproduce that relationship within him, doesn’t have him finding himself in others. Moreover, all of these seemingly separate relationships exist simultaneously and imply and co-determine each other. Individuality is the constant movement between them, not any kind of static, absolute separation.
This co-determination of the universal and the particular, the interdependence and inter-penetration of self and others would seem to be similar and possibly identical to ideas in Buddhism.
Inter-being in the words of Tich Nhat Hahn and Tibetan Budhism co-dependent origination and the deep ecology movement flowing from Heidegger seem superficially similar, but, if I'm understanding you correctly, quite different.
With these, individuality is in fact an illusion (if functional) or a delusion (if not). I'm guessing this difference is what you referred to in your characterization of Buddhism as a "one-sided universality".
I need to break this discussion into pieces, so I'll pause here. Doses this seem accurate to you?
Having created (the idea of) God, a being whose dignity rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with Man, Man has simulataneoulsy, created the idea of separteness, of individuality. But it is an incomplete individualty since it contains the idea of communion, of transcendence.
But man's true task is to truly understand his individuality, not to transcend it.
The history of the Christian World, therefore, is the history of the progressive realization of that ideal State, in which Man will finally be “satisfied” by realizing himself as Individuality... In other words, he must eliminate the Christian idea of transcendence.
Having created man, a being whose dignity "rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God" (Vatican Council II) God has created the individuality of each person from other people and from God. Having done that, God as omnipotent being dies (man has free will beyond God's power), leaving man the task of truly understanding his individuality, not transcending it. Only by this process is God resurrected in the being of each individual person.
@ CK MacLeod:
Don't want to overstep here - what about Anne?
@ Scott Miller:
Not really familar with Wilber. Could be a interesting discussion re Hegel. But why steer the discussion away from Buddhism. I'm OK with the complexity and I'm sure Colin's up to it.
@ Scott Miller:
Ah Scott, I'v been living in confusion for much longer than this latest exchange with Colin.
I'm sorry for the inartful #44.
On the comparison issue, in #36 I had specified that I was following the Gelugpa school's presentatin of these issues. So I wasn't sure what your comment referred to. I should have made that clear.
My "gods and goddeses" point was to amplify your Chenrezig point. From your comment I inferred you did not know it was a more general phenonomen. Perhaps that was incorrect.
On "crazy wisdom"...I don't really get the point you're making in #48.
@ Scott Miller:
Any valid comparison depends of specificity of what's being compared.
Vajrayana= crazy wisdom. This is incorrect. Crazy wisdom is a tradition within vajrayana. It can refer to either a general style of teaching or a very specific system within the tradition.
As for the rest of vajrayana being more rational based - that's just crazy. All forms of Tibetan Buddhism start with some version of a graded curriculuum before starting with various forms of tantric practices.
Many Tibetan meditational figures derive from Hindu gods and goddesses.
@ CK MacLeod:
I wrote the last comment without reading your last one.
Couldn't agree more. I'm done.
Just one question...when reading about Hegel's broad idea of the State to include various civic asscociations, do Hegalians ever break out into chants of "All power to the Rotarys!"?
@ CK MacLeod:
I have focussed most of my my Buddhist comments on Emptiness related ideas. The other pole is referred to ususally as Mind or Buddha Nature.
The presentations can differ enormously because the experience is ineffable.
The Buddhist concept of space is not so much negative thingness defined by the things around it, as either the absence of obstacles (much like the State) or the potentiality for phenonomen.
Mind is like space.
In that way it both is eternal and unchanging, but not a thing at all.
Mind is unobstucted awareness, or the potential for awareness.
In this way it is also a continency since it depends on some form of contingent pheonomen and specific thought to manifest. So it is in this way empty of inherent existence just like the objects of thought (other phenonomen) are.
I agree with Scott that "transcendence" does not apply to Buddhism. Enlightenment is a metaphoical uncovering of something that is already there. Buddha Nature is the potentiality for Enlightenment. Traditionally one metaphor is a great treasure buried beneath the house of a destitute person who does not know it's there.
@ Scott Miller:
The reason the Dharma does not change is because the content of thought is irrelevant. So yes, the content can change, but so what?
Awareness without the fabrication of the self. How can that change?
Probably a barrier to a discussion between us is how to specifidcally understand some of the terms we might use. As I said in my The Wall conversation with Colin, I use therms as the Gelupa school does.
At this level, even slight differences of terminolgy can lead us astray.
Buddhism uses philosophy to ready the mind for the nonconceptual, but does not see itself as that.
The illusion I refer to is the illusion the self has of itself as existing as an independent, non-contingent entity. So it is illusion like a dream is understod when we wake up, or if one is capapble of lucid dreaming. It is delusion if we understand ourselves to truly exist, but have n awareness it could be otherwise.
Non-self is misunderstod as nullification. It is the mode of independent existence that is negated, not existence as such.
"Buddhism" as a religion is understood (or should be) by Buddhists as a historical contingency (just like everything else).
"Christianizing" seems a word that cause more problems than it solves at this historical juncture.
A big difference in Buddhism and Hegel is the engine of realization. Buddhism sees the contribution of the State to simply not be an obstacle- much like living in in place in which one won't be eaten by wild animals.
By locating realization completely in the subjective experience (one school is called Mind Only) the historical contingencies are thought to be eliminated. The mind to mind transmission from teacher to student becomes central.
To the Buddhist, universality is also a ilusion/delusion.
All of it, conceptualization, metaphor is useful as a tool, traditionally, as a boat useful to cross the river, but then to be discarded.
"Being human means coming to understand one’s individuality" vs non-self.
The idea of non-self uses the same reasoning of interdependence to arrive at the oposite conclusion.
Yes?
@ CK MacLeod:
This co-determination of the universal and the particular, the interdependence and inter-penetration of self and others would seem to be similar and possibly identical to ideas in Buddhism.
Inter-being in the words of Tich Nhat Hahn and Tibetan Budhism co-dependent origination and the deep ecology movement flowing from Heidegger seem superficially similar, but, if I'm understanding you correctly, quite different.
With these, individuality is in fact an illusion (if functional) or a delusion (if not). I'm guessing this difference is what you referred to in your characterization of Buddhism as a "one-sided universality".
I need to break this discussion into pieces, so I'll pause here. Doses this seem accurate to you?
@ CK MacLeod:
How about this:
Having created (the idea of) God, a being whose dignity rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with Man, Man has simulataneoulsy, created the idea of separteness, of individuality. But it is an incomplete individualty since it contains the idea of communion, of transcendence.
But man's true task is to truly understand his individuality, not to transcend it.
Having created man, a being whose dignity "rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God" (Vatican Council II) God has created the individuality of each person from other people and from God. Having done that, God as omnipotent being dies (man has free will beyond God's power), leaving man the task of truly understanding his individuality, not transcending it. Only by this process is God resurrected in the being of each individual person.
How close is that?