@ bob:
Apology accepted, Bob. Thank you. My main point was to possibly steer the Hegel comparison away from the complexity of Buddhism to the Yoga Sutras, or Ken Wilber. I've been checking back on Wilber and he is commonly referred to as a "neo-Hegelian," and "post-Hegelian." So it's not just that he writes about Hegel. His whole "integral psychology" deal is considered very Hegelian.
@ bob:
Glad I missed this comment. Now Colin will probably be the only one to read my response.
I'm trying to go easy here. After the aggressive "incorrect" misstatement on Bob's part, what he says about Vajrayana practice and Crazy Wisdom is true. But that's from the student perspective. I was referring to what we get from the teachers--the Lamas and Rinpoches. I was referring to their teachings. So I was not incorrect. Then there's the "As for the rest of vajrayana being more rational based – that’s just crazy" part. Uh...what? How does anything I wrote connect to that? It's amazing that someone who calls for "specificity" can muddle things to this degree. Bob proves my point. The comparison between Hegel and Buddhism is something that leads him into confusion. I was trying to be nice about it. He makes it very difficult.
"Many Tibetan meditational figures derive from Hindu gods and goddesses."
So? Again, does that have anything to do with anything? The fact that some Buddhists are much more religious than others was my point. And again, when Buddhists are so different, it makes it hard to compare Hegel to Buddhism. Which Buddhism? Bob makes one point. It takes a great deal of specificity to make the comparing at all meaningful. He could have made that point without adding a false conclusion and an irrelevant statement.
The other challenge when it comes to comparing things to Buddhism is that there are three kinds: hinayana, mahayana, and vajrayana. The last one is tantric. That means all bets are off with it. Vajrayana equals "Crazy wisdom" level of practice. Naturally, that's my favorite. The other ones relate more to the reasonableness and rationality that the world thinks of as Buddhist--"the Buddhism without belief" part. Tantric Buddhism even includes a kind of Buddhist form of worship in connection with Chenrezig, which was Avilakeshvara in the pre-Buddha, Hindu days of compassion oriented spiritual teaching.
The reason the Dharma does not change is because the content of thought is irrelevant. So yes, the content can change, but so what?
Agreed. That's why I think what Colin was getting at with the Hegelian philosophy really connects more with the dualistic aphorisms of the Yoga Sutras than Buddhism. Some people think the Sutras are a yogic response to Buddha's teachings. The only problem with that idea is that they probably came first.
@ CK MacLeod:
This is very "Ken Wilber." As a Buddhist, it was unique for Wilber to put forth the idea that things had changed from the time of Buddha even from an Ultimate (not just a relative) perspective. He has been criticized for thinking that the Buddha's philosophy needs updating. Wilber explains why in context of Form and Formlessness. All Buddhists, including Wibler, see it is as a mistake to connect Buddha's realization of Emptiness to the transcendence of "illusion." "Form" is not just an illusion. Everything is empty, including Formlessness. To see things differently would create a dualistic perspective. Buddhists always see dualism in a negative light and that's okay in connection with the Buddha's ideas (not in connection with yoga). So Form is as eternal as Formlessness and no less real. Form is Formlessness and Formlessness is Form. Therefore, as you point out in a different way, Form will impact Truth. What was True for the Buddha is different now. Like I stated, most Buddhists don't go for that idea. They think of the Buddha's dharma as Ultimate Truth that does not change. You really should check out Ken Wilber's writing. I know he has written about Hegel extensively. I'll research which books would be the best.
@ miguel cervantes:
That brought a smile to my face, Miguel. No shit. Really? A Libra. I would not have guessed that, but now that I think about it, I get it. You're not out actually causing the conflict you advocate. So, okay. Libra.
@ George Jochnowitz:
But you do have powers, George. I wrote a whole response to your earlier astrology question, posted it, and then it came up "this post is under moderation." Then, when I posted another comment, the earlier one disappeared. Maybe it had to do with the Cabbala word in it. Anyway, I explained the relevance of astrology along Carl Jung lines. You probably wouldn't have related to it anyway.
The best part was that I commended the Tsar for this quote: CK MacLeod wrote:
I thought Scorpios were supposed to be secretive. You must have some other sign burglarizing your House.
He was right. Dead on. But I'm not telling him what the other sign in the other "House" is. It's a secret.
@ CK MacLeod:
Very funny, Mr. Role. You know, as a fellow Scorpio, I will get you back on that level. The thing I love about Scorpios like ourselves is that we always retaliate in kind. We don't use a Louisville Slugger when someone else has used a whiffle bat. So, somewhere down the line I too will recall some little soft spot of yours and tweak it with good humor.
@ CK MacLeod:
You would probably expect me to bring up the fatalism issue here, but no. I agree with the essentialness of failure. It may not be a positive or a negative, but it is essential. Because Christ's love cannot be about success, because to be Love it has to be expressed with the knowledge that it can't be about winning, because it most certainly can't be about defeating the Romans (as some of Christ's followers wanted it to be about and as all fundamentalists want it to be about now), true Love, true Yoga, true Art at a minimum connects with the "possibility" of failure. Just so.
Now you've done it. Thanks to you and Kojève I really am going to have to study Hegel. The quote is remarkably similar to "dualistic" commentaries written about the Yoga Sutras. The Sutras are dualistic but most contemporary yoga people put a non-dual spin on them. One of the things scholars debate continually about the two states, which with Christianity are Man and God, and with so-called Classical Yoga or Patanjalian Yoga are Prakriti (Nature) and Purusha (Pure Consciousness), is whether the yoga described in the Sutras can happen while the practitioner is alive or if it happens after death. This is debated, but most people believe there to be something akin to the Hegelian idea that "he must realize in himself what at first he thought was realized in his God. To be really Christian, he himself must become Christ." The yogi would realize in himself what at first he thought was realized in Purusha. With Classical Yoga, however, the yogi realizes himself as a "separate and eternal Pure Consciousness." There is no union, which is why some people see Classical Yoga as a-yoga, or no-yoga, because there is no union (yoga). And yogis who reject that fundamentalist type of dualism also reject the selfishness involved and would advocate, like Hegel, that "Man must look away from the Beyond, look toward this earth and act only with a view to this earth."
Any way, the yogic equivalence is clear.
@ bob:
Apology accepted, Bob. Thank you. My main point was to possibly steer the Hegel comparison away from the complexity of Buddhism to the Yoga Sutras, or Ken Wilber. I've been checking back on Wilber and he is commonly referred to as a "neo-Hegelian," and "post-Hegelian." So it's not just that he writes about Hegel. His whole "integral psychology" deal is considered very Hegelian.
@ bob:
Glad I missed this comment. Now Colin will probably be the only one to read my response.
I'm trying to go easy here. After the aggressive "incorrect" misstatement on Bob's part, what he says about Vajrayana practice and Crazy Wisdom is true. But that's from the student perspective. I was referring to what we get from the teachers--the Lamas and Rinpoches. I was referring to their teachings. So I was not incorrect. Then there's the "As for the rest of vajrayana being more rational based – that’s just crazy" part. Uh...what? How does anything I wrote connect to that? It's amazing that someone who calls for "specificity" can muddle things to this degree. Bob proves my point. The comparison between Hegel and Buddhism is something that leads him into confusion. I was trying to be nice about it. He makes it very difficult.
"Many Tibetan meditational figures derive from Hindu gods and goddesses."
So? Again, does that have anything to do with anything? The fact that some Buddhists are much more religious than others was my point. And again, when Buddhists are so different, it makes it hard to compare Hegel to Buddhism. Which Buddhism? Bob makes one point. It takes a great deal of specificity to make the comparing at all meaningful. He could have made that point without adding a false conclusion and an irrelevant statement.
The other challenge when it comes to comparing things to Buddhism is that there are three kinds: hinayana, mahayana, and vajrayana. The last one is tantric. That means all bets are off with it. Vajrayana equals "Crazy wisdom" level of practice. Naturally, that's my favorite. The other ones relate more to the reasonableness and rationality that the world thinks of as Buddhist--"the Buddhism without belief" part. Tantric Buddhism even includes a kind of Buddhist form of worship in connection with Chenrezig, which was Avilakeshvara in the pre-Buddha, Hindu days of compassion oriented spiritual teaching.
bob wrote:
Agreed. That's why I think what Colin was getting at with the Hegelian philosophy really connects more with the dualistic aphorisms of the Yoga Sutras than Buddhism. Some people think the Sutras are a yogic response to Buddha's teachings. The only problem with that idea is that they probably came first.
@ CK MacLeod:
This is very "Ken Wilber." As a Buddhist, it was unique for Wilber to put forth the idea that things had changed from the time of Buddha even from an Ultimate (not just a relative) perspective. He has been criticized for thinking that the Buddha's philosophy needs updating. Wilber explains why in context of Form and Formlessness. All Buddhists, including Wibler, see it is as a mistake to connect Buddha's realization of Emptiness to the transcendence of "illusion." "Form" is not just an illusion. Everything is empty, including Formlessness. To see things differently would create a dualistic perspective. Buddhists always see dualism in a negative light and that's okay in connection with the Buddha's ideas (not in connection with yoga). So Form is as eternal as Formlessness and no less real. Form is Formlessness and Formlessness is Form. Therefore, as you point out in a different way, Form will impact Truth. What was True for the Buddha is different now. Like I stated, most Buddhists don't go for that idea. They think of the Buddha's dharma as Ultimate Truth that does not change. You really should check out Ken Wilber's writing. I know he has written about Hegel extensively. I'll research which books would be the best.
@ fuster:
Great song. I still think Colin is right, however. Admit it, George, you really are a Sag.
@ miguel cervantes:
That brought a smile to my face, Miguel. No shit. Really? A Libra. I would not have guessed that, but now that I think about it, I get it. You're not out actually causing the conflict you advocate. So, okay. Libra.
@ George Jochnowitz:
But you do have powers, George. I wrote a whole response to your earlier astrology question, posted it, and then it came up "this post is under moderation." Then, when I posted another comment, the earlier one disappeared. Maybe it had to do with the Cabbala word in it. Anyway, I explained the relevance of astrology along Carl Jung lines. You probably wouldn't have related to it anyway.
The best part was that I commended the Tsar for this quote: CK MacLeod wrote:
He was right. Dead on. But I'm not telling him what the other sign in the other "House" is. It's a secret.
@ CK MacLeod:
Great save, Tsar. I recoil my Scorpio stinger.
@ CK MacLeod:
Very funny, Mr. Role. You know, as a fellow Scorpio, I will get you back on that level. The thing I love about Scorpios like ourselves is that we always retaliate in kind. We don't use a Louisville Slugger when someone else has used a whiffle bat. So, somewhere down the line I too will recall some little soft spot of yours and tweak it with good humor.
@ CK MacLeod:
You would probably expect me to bring up the fatalism issue here, but no. I agree with the essentialness of failure. It may not be a positive or a negative, but it is essential. Because Christ's love cannot be about success, because to be Love it has to be expressed with the knowledge that it can't be about winning, because it most certainly can't be about defeating the Romans (as some of Christ's followers wanted it to be about and as all fundamentalists want it to be about now), true Love, true Yoga, true Art at a minimum connects with the "possibility" of failure. Just so.
Now you've done it. Thanks to you and Kojève I really am going to have to study Hegel. The quote is remarkably similar to "dualistic" commentaries written about the Yoga Sutras. The Sutras are dualistic but most contemporary yoga people put a non-dual spin on them. One of the things scholars debate continually about the two states, which with Christianity are Man and God, and with so-called Classical Yoga or Patanjalian Yoga are Prakriti (Nature) and Purusha (Pure Consciousness), is whether the yoga described in the Sutras can happen while the practitioner is alive or if it happens after death. This is debated, but most people believe there to be something akin to the Hegelian idea that "he must realize in himself what at first he thought was realized in his God. To be really Christian, he himself must become Christ." The yogi would realize in himself what at first he thought was realized in Purusha. With Classical Yoga, however, the yogi realizes himself as a "separate and eternal Pure Consciousness." There is no union, which is why some people see Classical Yoga as a-yoga, or no-yoga, because there is no union (yoga). And yogis who reject that fundamentalist type of dualism also reject the selfishness involved and would advocate, like Hegel, that "Man must look away from the Beyond, look toward this earth and act only with a view to this earth."
Any way, the yogic equivalence is clear.