Hindoeïsme, boeddhisme, bewustzijn #2

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

When the bodhisattvas had given their explanations, they all addressed the crown prince Manjusri: "Manjusri, what is the bodhisattva's entrance into nonduality?"

Manjusri replied, "Good sirs, you have all spoken well. Nevertheless, all your explanations are themselves dualistic. To know no one teaching, to express nothing, to say nothing, to explain nothing, to announce nothing, to indicate nothing, and to designate nothing - that is the entrance into nonduality."

Then the crown prince Manjusri said to the Licchavi Vimalakirti, "We have all given our own teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the entrance into the principle of nonduality!"

Thereupon, the Licchavi Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.

The crown prince Manjusri applauded the Licchavi Vimalakirti: "Excellent! Excellent, noble sir! This is indeed the entrance into the nonduality of the bodhisattvas. Here there is no use for syllables, sounds, and ideas."

When these teachings had been declared, five thousand bodhisattvas entered the door of the Dharma of nonduality and attained tolerance of the birthlessness of things.

https://www2.kenyon.edu/D(...)n260/Vimalakirti.htm

quote:

Op zondag 29 september 2024 03:01 schreef VseslavBotkin het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]
"This World" van Czesław Miłosz, vertaald uit het Pools door Czesław Miłosz en Robert Hass.

You’re “A GOD� Having a HUMAN Experience

quote:

"Those who teach dharma, and those who listen when it is being taught;
Those who have won the fruit of an Arhat, a Single Buddha, or a world-saviour;
And the Nirvana obtained by the wise and the learned –
Mere illusions, mere dreams – so has the Tathagata taught us."

quote:

Op maandag 7 oktober 2024 22:42 schreef Libertarisch het volgende:

[..]
Nirvana een illusie?

Ik dacht het niet.

We hebben het hier wel over de allerhoogste spirituele staat die alleen de allerhoogste spirituele meesters kunnen bereiken.

quote:

If there were anything at all called 'Truth' which in its own nature was absolute, there would be those who were the bearers of this Truth and there would be some ultimate being called the illustrious Buddha, its teacher. This is the way it would be. As however,

"[Nagarjuna:] 24 ultimate beatitude is the coming to rest of all ways of taking things the repose of named things;
no Truth has been taught by a Buddha for anyone, anywhere."

How can the above objection affect us? Because here the meaning is that the very coming to rest, the non-functioning, of perceptions as signs of all named things, is itself nirvana. And this coming to rest being, by its very nature, in repose, is the ultimate beatitude, When verbal assertions cease, named things are in repose; and the ceasing to function of discursive thought is ultimate beatitude. Again, the coming to rest of named things by the non-functioning of the basic afflictions, so that personal existence ceases, is ultimate beatitude, The coming to rest of named things as a result of abandoning the basic afflictions and hence of totally extirpating innate modes of thought is ultimate beatitude. Again the coming to rest of named things through not seizing on objects of knowledge or on knowledge itself, is ultimate beatitude.

(...)

But, one might object, if the Buddha has taught no truth at all to anyone whatsoever at any time, how is it that the various scriptural admonitions have been taken as meaningful? We rejoin: This arises only from the imagination of people who are dreaming and who are deep in the slumber of ignorance. 'This revered one, lord of gods, demons and men in all the three worlds, has taught this doctrine for our sakes', they think. The illustrious one said, 'The perfected one has his being as a reflection of the pure, passionless truth; he is not ultimately real in himself nor is he perfected; he is beheld as a reflection in all worlds.' This is explained in detail in the treatise on The Secret of the Sayings of the Perfected One. And so, as there is no true doctrine concerning nirvana, how can the existence of nirvana depend on the existence of such a doctrine? Therefore it is established that even nirvana does not exist. It was said by the illustrious one: 'Nirvana is no-nirvana, the lord of existence taught; a knot tied by infinitude itself and loosed even by the same.'

And again, 'O illustrious one, an enlightened one cannot arise for those who believe that elements of existence come to be and cease to be. O illustrious one, there is no final triumph over everyday existence for those who search persistently for nirvana as something existent. Why? O illustrious one, nirvana is the cessation of all perceptions as signs, the coming to rest of all activity overt and covert.

'Therefore they are deluded people who, having taken up the spiritual life in some popular religious order, have fallen into a heretical view and persistently seek for nirvana as existent -- as oil of sesame is pressed from sesame seeds or butter churned from milk. Those who strain for a nirvana as the everlasting extinction of all elements of existence, these I say are self-deluded heretics. The saintly wise man, one truly realized, does not bring about either the coming to be or the ceasing to be of any element of existence whatever; nor does he claim to possess or to indubitably cognize any element of existence whatever ' and so on.

bron: https://static.sariputta.(...)mervyn-sprungpdf.pdf pdf-pagina 277

quote:

6.521 Die Lösung des Problems des Lebens merkt man am Verschwinden dieses Problems.

(Ist nicht dies der Grund, warum Menschen, denen der Sinn des Lebens nach langen Zweifeln klar wurde, warum diese dann nicht sagen konnten, worin dieser Sinn bestand.)


6.521 De oplossing van het probleem van het leven merkt men aan het verdwijnen van dit probleem.

(Is niet dit de reden waarom mensen, aan wie na lang twijfelen de zin van het leven duidelijk was geworden, daarna niet konden zeggen waaruit deze zin bestaat?)

[Gijsbers' vertaling]

quote:

First of all, Susan, thank you for your excellent articles. I have been re-reading them every now and again for a few years now.

I was wondering (since I’ve been particularly preoccupied with Nagarjuna again since the release of a new translation in my native language) how you viewed the Svatantrika-interpretation of the Middle Way, since your own reasoning seems to be very much rooted in the deconstructive approach of Prasangika. Some adherents of the Prasangika even go so far as to deny that Svatantrika is a form of Middle Way-philosophy at all, due to the foundationalism that they perceive in it. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

Best wishes.

Kahn: Svatantrika believes that conventionally things do have an inherent existence, that they are not empty. Otherwise says Svatantrika, how could we call a cat, a cat? Prasangika disagrees. Even though it is clear that conventional appearances are coherent and regular, (that a cat doesn’t become a dog), upon analysis, it can be seen that all things are nonetheless without their own fixed and separate nature. Instead, everything depends upon conditions, parts, and thought. If things did inherently exist, they would be fixed, permanent and unchanging, depending upon nothing for their existence.

Through what we call thought, we spread a oneness over the parts of everything with our concepts and words, giving the impression that there are fixed and separate wholes. We can see in our lives however, that even conventionally this cannot be claimed, that everything is dependent and interrelated, and without a nature of its own. Color for instance, is not out there in some object, but in what we call retinal cones in our eyes. In actuality however, there is no “in here” (mind-body) or “out there” (object world). Seeing and all the mind-body processes are inseparable from what we consider to be the object world.

In studying among other work, Nagarjuna’s “Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way,” the contradictions and incoherence of inherent existence in our everyday lives become clearly exposed.

Thank you for your response, I agree. On top of that, I never really understood how Svatantrika could propose syllogistic logic as part of their method, since the notion of emptiness precludes the existence of stable logical subjects which could form the basis of such (or any) logic.

I was a bit triggered by your remark: “Color for instance, is not out there in some object, but in what we call retinal cones in our eyes”. Of course, you were speaking provisionally here (as indicated by the follow-up sentence), but I personally find this claim problematic even conventionally. Wouldn’t you agree that the naïve conventional perception of colour is simply the “correct” one? I am apt to agree with Chandrakirti when he claims that overt theorising about the conventional actually obscures our own access to it – I feel this is especially the case with theories which seek to introduce a reality/appearance distinction at the level of phenomenality.

Kind regards.

Kahn: "Agreed, sensory processes, such as seeing, and all processes are completely interrelated with nothing left over, and thus empty. However, note that even the word “interrelational” fails, as it assumes two “things” that interrelate. And so we also agree that for Svatantrika to propose any ultimate logic, undermines an understanding of emptiness, because any reality that such ultimate logic would presumably be based upon, exists as an empty, conventional appearance only."

quote:

(...) In situations where one is trying to penetrate to the ultimate status of phenomena, the introduction of theories as a means of explaining the working of the phenomenal world fogs the issue and actually undermines the correct approach to the conventional truth. Far from elucidating the conventional, Chandrakirti says, theories actually undermine it. It is the conventional itself— what actually happens—that is the means of entering the ultimate. To create a theory as a way of explaining the mechanics of the conventional does not help to introduce the ultimate; it merely complicates the matter. Therefore theories are dangerous, for they obscure the conventional; they hinder the procedure whereby one can “see through” the conventional appearance of phenomena and perceive their lack of intrinsic “thingness.” Chandrakirti says that to create a theory about the conventional is in a sense to “destroy” the conventional; it produces an account that, however coherent it may be, is always at variance with what we actually experience. As such, it is at best irrelevant to the task in hand, namely, to perceive the true nature of phenomenal appearance. At worst it is a hindrance and a trap. The image often evoked is that of a man climbing a tree. Before he has caught hold of the branch above, it is inadvisable for him to move off the one below. In weaving their theories, this is precisely what philosophers do. To create a theory about the conventional is in a sense to move away from the conventional as experienced (which alone is the gateway to the ultimate). The progression from the conventional to the ultimate is rendered more difficult by the invention of illconceived hypotheses.

The following parable, borrowed from Bertrand Russell, may further illustrate this important point. If I go up to a nuclear physicist and ask him to describe for me the physical constitution of a table, I will receive a long and learned answer, all about magnetic fields and atomic and subatomic particles moving around at great speed. These, he assures me, are the real constituents of the table; the object in the corner is little more than an optical illusion. On the other hand, if I approach the same scientist unannounced and simply ask whether there is a table in the room, he will, without a moment’s hesitation, point and say: “It’s over there, can’t you see it?” However accurate the scientist’s earlier description may be, it has clearly not interfered with his perceptions. But now let us extend the parable further and imagine the same physicist trying to use his bank card to get money from a cash machine outside a bank, and let us suppose that there is something wrong with the card, with the result that the machine swallows it and produces no money. Before long he will become annoyed and start beating on the machine with the same degree of frustration as any ordinary nonscientist. And I would be ill advised, at this point, to try to comfort him by reminding him that, after all, the bank card he has lost and the bank notes he has failed to receive are no more than a mass of subatomic particles. Sophisticated as the physicist’s theory may be, it has done nothing to free him from the suffering and perturbation always liable to manifest in the course of conventional transactions. In the same way, the propounding of theories about the conventional does nothing to remove the tyranny of phenomenal appearance. And the use of independent syllogisms, and the acceptance of conventionally existent entities, which this entails, necessarily implies a theoretical explanation of the conventional—of the kind that, in the above example, seemed only to intensify (when mentioned inappropriately) the impotent fury of the frustrated scientist.

quote:

There is no truth that is not war against theology, and even the word ‘truth’ has been plastered by the spittle of priestcraft. It cannot be attachment to some alternative conviction that cuts here, but only relentless refusal of what has been told. The dangerous infidels bypass dialectics. It is the sceptic who assassinates the lie.

Whenever its name has been anything but a jest, philosophy has been haunted by a subterranean question: What if knowledge were a means to deepen unknowing? It is this thought alone that has differentiated it from the shallow things of the earth. Yet the glory and also the indignity of philosophy is to have sought the end of knowing, and no more.

Nick Land, Shamanic Nietzsche
bron: https://genius.com/Nick-land-shamanic-nietzsche-annotated

SPOILER: schokkende beelden

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

Hoogcarspel: “Logica is gebaseerd op ontologie. In de predicatenlogica van Aristoteles impliceert een predicaat een subject, of een substantie, waarop het predicaat van toepassing is.”

Gastheer: “Maar die substantie is er niet.”

Hoogcarspel: “Nee, dus die predicaten... hangen dan als het ware in de lucht, ze zijn niet zeker meer.”

Gastheer: “Je kan geen logica hebben; je kan het er niet over hebben.”

Hoogcarspel: “Nee, want er is niets waar je het over hebt.”

bron: Podcast Filosofie · Episode 19:54

quote:

18.3 Wie vrij van 'ik' en egoïsme is, is ook niet voorhanden
Wie afwezigheid van zelf en identiteit ziet, ziet überhaupt niet.

[Basisverzen van het middenpad, Leezenberg's vertaling]

quote:

Op dinsdag 22 oktober 2024 21:00 schreef Libertarisch het volgende:

[..]
Hij heeft pijn maar hij onderdrukt de pijn niet, hij is transcendent. Hij staat boven plezier en pijn.

Door meditatie kom je bij het pure bewustzijn, vrij van conditionering en karma. In die staat is er geen dualiteit, en dus geen verschil tussen plezier en pijn.

Voor een getrainde monnik is zelf-immolatie geen probleem. Hij blijft onaangetast, wat hij ook voelt.

Ik ben trouwens ook altijd onder de indruk geweest van deze foto's. Wat een verschil met de christelijke geestelijken he, die kunnen niks speciaals laten zien.

quote:

In philosophy and logic, a deflationary theory of truth (also semantic deflationism[1] or simply deflationism) is one of a family of theories that all have in common the claim that assertions of predicate truth of a statement do not attribute a property called "truth" to such a statement. (...) Gottlob Frege was probably the first philosopher or logician to note that predicating truth or existence does not express anything above and beyond the statement to which it is attributed. He remarked:

"It is worthy of notice that the sentence "I smell the scent of violets" has the same content as the sentence "it is true that I smell the scent of violets". So it seems, then, that nothing is added to the thought by my ascribing to it the property of truth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflationary_theory_of_truth

quote:

Chandrakirti schreef:

"24 ultimate beatitude is the coming to rest of all ways of taking things the repose of named things;
no Truth has been taught by a Buddha for anyone, anywhere." [Nagarjuna]

But, one might object, if the Buddha has taught no truth at all to anyone whatsoever at any time, how is it that the various scriptural admonitions have been taken as meaningful? We rejoin: This arises only from the imagination of people who are dreaming and who are deep in the slumber of ignorance.

quote:

1. She has radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered;

2. She realizes that argument phrased in her present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts;

3. Insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a power not herself.

— Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, p.73

quote:

Philosophers have lots of tools and tricks up their sleeves. They, of course, can use formal argumentation, they can employ all sorts of thought experiments to elicit various intuitions, they can lay out examples, dilemmas, dialectics, and do a whole host of other things. But I want to talk about one particular trick that only a select few philosophers have employed. This trick involves wrapping everything up in a philosophical system only to have that system knock itself down by its own internal means, and doing all in order to produce some sort of anti-philosophical result. I’ve come to call this the “looping” trick, and it’s one of the most philosophically curious things that I’ve ever stumbled upon...

quote:

Boeddhistische Blik – ‘De Werkelijkheid Bestaat Niet’

‘De Werkelijkheid Bestaat Niet’ onderzoekt hoe de eeuwenoude boeddhistische filosofie van Nagarjuna hedendaagse wetenschappers uit verschillende disciplines inspireert. Deze filosofie stelt dat niets volledig op zichzelf bestaat, alles is met elkaar verbonden – we hebben de natuur, de aarde en elkaar nodig om te bestaan. De documentaire nodigt je uit om op een nieuwe manier naar de werkelijkheid te kijken.

Stel je voor: je staat naast gigantische watervallen van de Niagara Falls. Je hoort het water kletteren en voelt de kracht van de watervallen. Maar een vogel, of een vis, zal deze zelfde watervallen waarschijnlijk heel anders ervaren dan jij. Bestaat er dan wel zoiets als een objectieve werkelijkheid van de waterval?

Wetenschappers, zoals de beroemde natuurkundige Carlo Rovelli en filosoof en vertaler Jay Garfield delen hun fascinatie voor de boeddhistische wijsheid van Nagarjuna en zijn blik op de werkelijkheid. Deze Indiase filosoof stelde dat de wereld geen vaste eigenschappen heeft en dat alles pas betekenis krijgt in relatie tot iets anders, bijvoorbeeld pas in onze waarneming.

Rovelli legt uit dat ook in de kwantumwetenschap blijkt dat niets op zichzelf bestaat. Alles is verbonden en niets staat echt los van elkaar. Wat wij ervaren, is altijd afhankelijk van onze relaties met anderen, met de natuur, met de wereld om ons heen.

Ethicus Laura Candiotto helpt ons begrijpen hoe deze inzichten ons kunnen helpen bewuster om te gaan met onze relaties en met de natuur. We zijn allemaal afhankelijk van elkaar en de wereld om ons heen, en misschien moeten we daar wat vaker bij stilstaan.

‘De Werkelijkheid Bestaat Niet’ is een uitnodiging om anders te kijken naar onze ervaring van de werkelijkheid. De film wordt uitgezonden op 13 oktober om 15:25 uur op NPO2 door de KRO-NCRV.

https://boeddhistischdagb(...)heid-bestaat-niet-2/

quote:

For me as a human being, Nagarjuna teaches the serenity, the lightness and the shining beauty of the world: we are nothing but images of images. Reality, including ourselves, is nothing but a thin and fragile veil, beyond which … there is nothing.

quote:

Op maandag 11 november 2024 19:46 schreef VseslavBotkin het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op dinsdag 19 november 2024 13:46 schreef RJ125 het volgende:

[..]
Waarom onderwees de Boeddha (en Nagarjuna) hun hele leven lang het Boeddhisme, de dharma, meditatie, het pad naar verlichting/bodhisattva?

quote:

Op dinsdag 19 november 2024 14:32 schreef VseslavBotkin het volgende:

[..]
Ik heb het Madhyamaka-perspectief hierop al uitgebreid uiteengezet in mijn reactie op je een paar maanden geleden en de andere berichten die ik hier heb geplaatst. Staat ook in de prajnaparamitasoetras en het meest expliciet in Chandra's commentaar op de MMK.

quote:

Op dinsdag 19 november 2024 15:37 schreef RJ125 het volgende:

[..]
Ik ga niet een boek lezen of daarop reageren en stel een simpele vraag.