And the originating texts is the Satipatthana Sutta - 'the discourse on mindfulness'. It is all about 'seeing things just as they are' - but again, it's not a gimmick or a shortcut but a mental and physical discipline based on clear comprehension of everything you do — Wayfarer

Given that you seem to have investigated these topics extensively, (amazing really!) I'm wondering if you can point me to any schools or teachers who have set aside the "mental and physical discipline" and the "comprehension of everything you do" parts. It's not my intent to argue such a route would be superior to anything else, though I may regrettably wander in to that, I'm mostly just intrigued by the notion.

To the degree that the problems being addressed arise from the medium of thought itself, that suggests remedies which may be radically simpler, and thus much more accessible to many more people. My practical nature is drawn to that, and my intellectual nature is intrigued by the possibility of sweeping all of the philosophy off the table in one efficient movement.

In both science and religion observation is typically considered a means to some other end, knowledge or insight etc. What if we were to instead embrace observation for itself? The desired end would still be a healthier mind, but we would have removed the middle men of insight, understanding, growth, change, transformation, and all that this entails.

It's impossible that I would be the first or only person to have such a notion, so I'm curious where others with such perspectives might reside. Zen? I have no idea.

Don't let me hijack the thread in to Hippyheadism. :-) Please change the subject when it's time to do so. I get carried away with things that interest me and may need some assistance.

Praxis - "Unfortunately for those who died in Jonestown (a different religion than Buddhism), this is obviously false."

What of Earth has Jonestown got to do with anything? We're talking about Buddhism.

Praxis - "Right, it makes a difference to Buddhists and others"

What we call Buddhism makes no difference to Buddhism. Obviously it makes a difference to you. .

Praxis - "Religion works, but not in the way most people think, in my opinion. Religion may or may not reveal truth, that's beside the point. Religion necessarily promises salvation, delivering on that promise is beside the point. "

You have almost no comprehension of religion and you make this perfectly clear. Your opinions are not interesting and really you shouldn't have any. Much better to establish the facts. You say 'religion works'. How do you know this? What do you even mean by it? How can it be beside the point if religion reveals truth? If it doesn't do this it doesn't work>

Sorry mate, but I have you down as a troll. I see no serious interest in the topic or any desire to know much about it. . . .

And, I'm guessing such overactive analysis could be useful if we analyze our way to an understanding of the limits of such analysis. Not the most efficient method of travel perhaps, but one does what one has to do.

Yes. yes, yes. Spot on! You say you know little of Buddhism and yet you say nothing but sensible things about it. This would be exactly the purpose of analysis. The method is demonstrated to perfection by Nagarjuna's in his Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way.. In this text he proves the absurdity of all positive metaphysical theories. thus proving that the true nature of Reality lies beyond conceptual fabrication.

Your comments above suggest you would be naturally drawn to the simplicity of Zen practice. Nagarjuna is a patriarch of Zen.

You say - "In both science and religion observation is typically considered a means to some other end, knowledge or insight etc. What if we were to instead embrace observation for itself?"

Again, spot on. Science asks us to look through the telescope. Mysticism asks us to investigate who is doing the looking. Basically the idea is to discover that we are not body or mind. As one Sufi sage puts it, 'Man can partake of the perpetual, but not by thinking he can think about it'.
.

I found this page about Nagarjuna.

https://iep.utm.edu/nagarjun/

Here's the summary at top of the page. I've added some white space here and there because, well, that seemed appropriate. :-)

Often referred to as “the second Buddha” by Tibetan and East Asian Mahayana (Great Vehicle) traditions of Buddhism, Nagarjuna offered sharp criticisms of Brahminical and Buddhist substantialist philosophy, theory of knowledge, and approaches to practice.

Nagarjuna’s philosophy represents something of a watershed not only in the history of Indian philosophy but in the history of philosophy as a whole, as it calls into questions certain philosophical assumptions so easily resorted to in our attempt to understand the world. Among these assumptions are the existence of stable substances, the linear and one-directional movement of causation, the atomic individuality of persons, the belief in a fixed identity or selfhood, and the strict separations between good and bad conduct and the blessed and fettered life.

All such assumptions are called into fundamental question by Nagarjuna’s unique perspective which is grounded in the insight of emptiness (sunyata), a concept which does not mean “non-existence” or “nihility” (abhava), but rather the lack of autonomous existence (nihsvabhava). Denial of autonomy according to Nagarjuna does not leave us with a sense of metaphysical or existential privation, a loss of some hoped-for independence and freedom, but instead offers us a sense of liberation through demonstrating the interconnectedness of all things, including human beings and the manner in which human life unfolds in the natural and social worlds.

Nagarjuna’s central concept of the “emptiness (sunyata) of all things (dharmas),” which pointed to the incessantly changing and so never fixed nature of all phenomena, served as much as the terminological prop of subsequent Buddhist philosophical thinking as the vexation of opposed Vedic systems. The concept had fundamental implications for Indian philosophical models of causation, substance ontology, epistemology, conceptualizations of language, ethics and theories of world-liberating salvation, and proved seminal even for Buddhist philosophies in India, Tibet, China and Japan very different from Nagarjuna’s own.

Indeed it would not be an overstatement to say that Nagarjuna’s innovative concept of emptiness, though it was hermeneutically appropriated in many different ways by subsequent philosophers in both South and East Asia, was to profoundly influence the character of Buddhist thought.

Yes. yes, yes. Spot on! You say you know little of Buddhism and yet you say nothing but sensible things about it. — FrancisRay

Apparently I'm one of the great Buddhist sages and didn't even know it. Would someone please tell the hippy chicks? :-)

Mysticism asks us to investigate who is doing the looking. Basically the idea is to discover that we are not body or mind. — FrancisRay

Best I can tell, that seems a reasonable description of mysticism. But not quite what I was referring to so much. Maybe I can improve the question...

Sri Baba Hippyhead asked, "What if we were to instead embrace observation for itself?"

---------
Put another way, what if the psychic nutrition we seek can be found in the experience of observation itself, and is thus not dependent upon any insights which may or may not arise as a result of that experience?
---------

Having just today learned of Nagarjuna today for the first time, I of course can not relate this question to his teachings. But maybe you can?

If it were the only reason, or even a primary reason, then why would you be wasting your time arguing here, something that you've described yourself as "burdensome," rather than putting effort into realizing Dharmma?
— praxis

I attempted to address this above. Alcoholics are the primary people in AA meetings. Thought-o-holics (like me) are often those most interested in exploring these topics. It's typically the sick who show up at the hospital.

Not a fixed rule which includes everyone, but true often enough to merit mention. — Hippyhead

The point was not to critique anyone’s habits but to point out that if the religious were actually motivated by what they claim to be motivated by, some form of salvation, then they would behave accordingly. Typically they behave as though the solidarity of their tribe religion was of the utmost importance.

I admit that I've expressed hostility towards Hippy
— praxis

You and I both would seem to have a natural talent for getting under people's skins. The two of us together is annoying squared. Let's just take a break from engaging. — Hippyhead

:razz: Do whatever you must.

"Put another way, what if the psychic nutrition we seek can be found in the experience of observation itself, and is thus not dependent upon any insights which may or may not arise as a result of that experience?"


I'm not sure I understand this question. Certainly the question 'Who is observing?' would be vital since it comes down to 'Who am I?'.

---"Having just today learned of Nagarjuna today for the first time, I of course can not relate this question to his teachings. But maybe you can?"

Hmm. Nagarjuna tells us nothing really exists or ever really happens, and this would cover all observations and observers, We would have to go deeper than the relative world. Likewise, Meister Eckhart tells us whatever we observe is quite literally nothing. Time and space would be smoke and mirrors. This would be meaning of the Grail experience by which we discover our immortality beyond the psycho-physical world. The observer and the observed would the same phenomenon. Consciousness and Reality would be the same phenomenon.

We're diving straight into the deep end here. .

Pardon me if I was bit effusive earlier, but It's not often people ask questions rather than just argue for their own view. . . .; . .

Praxis - "Unfortunately for those who died in Jonestown (a different religion than Buddhism), this is obviously false."

What of Earth has Jonestown got to do with anything? We're talking about Buddhism. — FrancisRay

You claimed that a practitioner would know what Buddhism (a religion) is. My point was that religious followers are notoriously often mislead.

You say 'religion works'. How do you know this? What do you even mean by it? — FrancisRay

Religion binds a community with common values, narrative, and goals. This has great survival value, evolutionarily speaking.

How can it be beside the point if religion reveals truth? — FrancisRay

There are literally thousands of religions. Can they all be true? Of course they can’t. Therefore truth must be beside the point, right?

You claimed that a practitioner would know what Buddhism (a religion) is. My point was that religious followers are notoriously often mislead.


Ah. I was speaking of practitioners of Yoga and self-enquiry, not crazy quasi-religious cults.

---"There are literally thousands of religions. Can they all be true? Of course they can’t. Therefore truth must be beside the point, right?"

This is a common misunderstanding and I wouldn't criticize you for holding it. But a little research will dispose of it.

Your comment relates to the commonplace dogmatic kind of monotheism but is not relevant where a religion is the search for truth. Regrettably many people only know the former kind of religion, since the Churches have worked around the clock for centuries to ensure their flock don't ever break free of superstition and speculation. You have to remember that until quite recently my posts here would probably have led to my martyrdom. It's only recently that it has become safe in Western society to speak about mysticism. I have a Christian friend who believes mysticism is the work of the Devil. Even Erwin Schrodinger ran into this problem, as he endorsed the doctrine of the Upanishads. His regular publisher refused to publish one of his books on grounds of heresy!

For a great book there is Fritz Schuon;s Transcendent Unity of Religion.. Or perhaps you could check out Alan Watts on youtube talking about Jesus and religion. .

Your comment relates to the commonplace dogmatic kind of monotheism but is not relevant where a religion is the search for truth. — FrancisRay

Lol, true religions are true and false religions are false. That’s your response, essentially? If so, well, okay, but then why do false religions still work?

Lol, true religions are true and false religions are false. That’s your response, essentially? If so, well, okay, but then why do false religions still work?


This is very definititely not what I said. But I'll respond anyway.

Religion is an ambiguous word with many meanings. What I said was that where a religion is the search for truth it will lead to truth. The religions you speak of do not quality. They depend on faith and belief and usually deny even the possibility of truth and knowledge. Thus the mystic would endorse the teachings of Jesus but reject the teachings of the Roman Church. If you have a look at Classical Christianity, the tradition of the first three centuries, you'll ses it is entirely different from the later Roman bowdlerisation of the teachings.

Thus there is something called the 'Perennial' philosophy, which includes (Middle Way) Buddhism, (Philosophical) Taoism, Sufism, Advaita Vedanta, Christian, Jewish and Islamic mysticism and so forth. Monotheism is rejected as being false. . . . .

What I said was that where a religion is the search for truth it will lead to truth. The religions you speak of do not quality. They depend on faith and belief and usually deny even the possibility of truth and knowledge. — FrancisRay

I'm talking about all religions and all religions depend on faith, specifically and significantly faith in ultimate authority.

Thus there is something called the 'Perennial' philosophy, which includes (Middle Way) Buddhism, (Philosophical) Taoism, Sufism, Advaita Vedanta, Christian, Jewish and Islamic mysticism and so forth. Monotheism is rejected as being false. . . . . — FrancisRay

Of all posters in this topic I would expect you to be the first to acknowledge a difference between spirituality or mysticism and religion.

I'm talking about all religions and all religions depend on faith, specifically and significantly faith in ultimate authority.

Okay. So this is your definition of religion. In this case Buddhism is not a religion. If you define religion like this then there is clearly a strict dividing line between religion and mysticism. There need be no prevarication.

But many people do not define religion in this way and I don't. You don't seem to acknowledge the difficulty caused by the variety of definitions in common use. Perhaps this is because you have clear definition. If you can persuade everyone to adopt the same definition then the ambiguities will disappear. . . . . . . .

I'm talking about all religions and all religions depend on faith, specifically and significantly faith in ultimate authority.↪praxis

Okay. So this is your definition of religion. In this case Buddhism is not a religion. — FrancisRay

I assume you're claiming this because Buddha's are not considered Gods and therefore not an ultimate authority. What matters is that in order to be part of the religion, the authority has access to knowledge or experience that others do not, and that their authority is beyond questioning. Those who question are heretics, outsiders, or otherwise not considered part of the tradition.

People often point to the Kālāma Sutta and say something like, "see, the Buddha says to not take anything on authority and simply try it out for yourself." Notice that nowhere does the doctrine entertain the possibility that the doctrine could be mistaken in any way or invite criticism or reform. In philosophy, science, and art, revision is an integral part.

I admit that I've expressed hostility towards Hippy, in this topic, who has blatantly used ad homs against me and so not undeserving, but I've quickly reviewed and can't say that I've expressed or felt hostility towards you. Impatience perhaps, but not hostility. And I did not mean to suggest any nefarious ulterior motives on your part, only an inclination to support a meaningful belief system. — praxis

Very well. Yes, I do have an inclination to support the teachings and try to share them, but you make a good point that I should be supportive of my own practice as well (indeed it can be quite challenging). I'd be happy to keep discussing with you, however I'm weary of what's been happening thus far (even though I was content to play with it a little).

That said, I do remain somewhat wary of going to war with what was installed in my DNA before I was born. I do see the downsides of being a nerd. But I also see that there are pros and cons to any kind of mind I might have been born in to. I'm wary of getting drawn in to a notion that there is some kind of perfection out there somewhere that I should be chasing. — Hippyhead

The perfection is not "out there", that's the thing. Even though we get our ideals and guidance from "out there", it's all "in here". Suffering is here; the "nerd" is here, the mentalities and habits and attitudes are "here"; the "virtue" is here and, over all, the "karma" is here.

The middle way is, simply put, the middle way between happiness and suffering, or indulgence in pleasure and pain. It's often treated as the middle way between severe asceticism and sensual indulgence, but it's not so black and white. Monks, even during the Buddha's time, were praised for their extreme austerities, as long as it bore good fruit in their practice (e.g. Maha Kassapa). And there are a number of indications that it's quite wholesome and "pure" to enjoy the pleasures of nature.

The important thing comes down to the mind, particularly where one seeks happiness. At the time people thought indulgence in sensuality was the best way to be happy; others thought that they needed to torture themselves to realize nirvana by exhausting their bad karma. The Buddha's position was, based on his own realization, that no - one simply needs to abandon the cause of suffering, which sometimes entails austere practice but also entails the enjoyment of pleasure, be it the fruits of one's virtue or the more refined pleasures of meditative absorption. So actually, perhaps it might not be wrong to say that the middle way is a path which is not devoid of pleasure of pain, but rather approaches them from a different vantage point and with a different purpose of mind.

And so, this "nerd" business is indeed a form of pleasure, though there is pain involved, inevitably (e.g. in the sense that from birth comes aging, illness, death). You say there's pros and cons, the Buddha says yes: and therefore it's unsatisfactory, and one ought to abandon that for something more refined, to the point where "happiness" and "suffering" are both transcended (Ajahn Chah said that happiness was the tail of the snake, suffering its head). If I'm not wrong, it seems that you already have a sense that some pleasures are a bit more refined, such as when you're out in nature. "Being okay with it" is a form of contentment, which is also a form of refined pleasure. This, to my understanding, seems pretty much along the lines of dhamma practice, however in Buddhism, if one really wants to be free, one has to push the envelope just a little bit and say "this is pleasant, but it's not quite there yet. There's still some underlying dis-ease here. My mind isn't free from unskillful attitudes. There's more to be done." This is the kind of discontent which, perhaps like dispassion and a sense of urgency from recollecting one's inevitable death (and uncertain future), incites us to go deeper. Edit: And I must say that truthfulness and honesty are of great importance here.

1) To what degree does human suffering arise from faulty thought content, bad ideas, incorrect understandings etc?

2) To what degree does such suffering arise from the medium of thought itself? — Hippyhead

Having faulty thought content can cause suffering by putting us into conflict with the world or even ourselves. This is, to my understanding, because the processes of our thought-forming are informed by our lack of understanding. Not only that, we attach ourselves (through craving) to these thoughts, and so they keep going. As a result, holding to wrong thinking causes us suffering on different levels.

But thoughts are not easy to tame. Even though thoughts are karma, it's as if we don't intend to think them and they keep coming up. They come up, partly, due to inappropriate attention, which includes the manner in which we assume a "self". It doesn't matter what kind of self it is - the "self" as an internal essence or "soul", the "body as self", the self as "the universe", or even the self as non-existent. Any self-view is a wrong-view, and it comes from wrong-attention. Similarly, sensual desires and ill-will come from inappropriate attention as well. Our thoughts and intentions are quite connected to the way we attend to "experience". Thus the Buddha (in MN 2) advocates for "appropriate attention" or "right view" which means attending to things in terms of the four noble truths: "this is suffering, this is the cause of suffering...". This is the framework which allows us to see everything as something capable of transcending, even total "oneness" (which seems to be the interest of Romantic philosophers and some popular secular Buddhist teachers).

Given that we don't currently have a realization into the four noble truths, we can't say with 100% certainty that our current attention is truly "correct"; it's said the only person who has truly correct attention, or at least practice, is a stream-enterer. Until then, we're really taking the framework of the noble truths to the best of our ability, paying attention to the results and seeking guidance, finding what works and what doesn't.

I would hesitate to say that we need to drop thinking and just "know" (this can be impractical if not self-oppressive or delusional). Also I would hesitate to say that we need to examine all the contents of our thoughts (because thoughts will often just keep coming and complicating themselves). Simply put, we need to learn how to think skillfully. And for this it also helps to live skillfully, which is why virtue is quite fundamental and the precepts are by no means "beginner stuff". They're the foundation, because just as our attention informs our thinking, so does our behavior. Thus monastics have lots of rules and their way of living is peaceful, simple, and not so entangled into modern society.

But any way, in the context of meditation as I have learned it, one first has to take stock of their mind; going straight to the breath is not so easy (although Goenka retreats advocate this, and not without good reason). If thoughts are just coming, one should actually just go straight to the breath and try to settle. If the mind is kind of dull and lazy or sleepy, one should actually use thinking to uplift the mind, make it resolute, and then settle it (see SN 46.51). Sometimes it's necessary to look at the content of the thoughts to see in what way it's feeding restless activity, doubt, depression, etc, and then sometimes it's necessary to use thoughts to kind of give the mind the strength to cut through thinking processes - especially after one has understood that those processes are not helpful for one's well-being. Thus, although observing is important (and clarity of vision is desired), thinking is important too. Edit: But also, here is where thinking becomes a mix of verbal and non-verbal; we may use verbal thinking ("Buddho" on the in and out breath) to maintain focus, and we may also engage with the breath to make it more pleasant (modifying our breath by relaxing it, lengthening or shortening it, etc). So there's engagement on different levels according to the mind's needs, and this is developed fundamentally through practice; teachers can't give us all the answers.

So, when I learned from my own teacher and I was asking him all those technical questions, he had a good reason for telling me to "stop asking questions" and just focus on my breath. It was a good way to cut through the crap. :]

And really, it mostly comes down to suffering and not suffering, or you can say happiness and unhappiness. If we're suffering, there's no need to start analyzing it philosophically, or trying to understand right away which form of "inappropriate attention" one is engaged in, or trying to see which chain link of dependent origination went wrong. As I was taught, if going back to the breath isn't helpful, one can just remember: "this is suffering." For me, that's a really good way to get one back to the fundamental point, which is to be free and be at ease. That's a good way to establish a good intention for practice, and a good way to give the mind a reason to let go and relax a little... then get down to business.

It's for this reason that, to some extent, I think "authority" isn't of supreme importance. That said, I respect authority enough to give credit to the Buddha when he said, as per the Dhammapada, that oneself is one's refuge. And indeed, when Thai Forest teachers talk about "taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha," they often point out that these are most importantly internal. I find it helpful to remember to recollect the "external" Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, but the internal ones need to be remembered as well: one's own "knower", the "truth" of one's present state, and one's virtue and proper methods for practice.

Edit: made some edits above. Also, since you mentioned emptiness, it might be good to look at Bhikkhu Analayo's book on Compassion and Emptiness, if not the cula-sunnata sutta itself. It makes an interesting point that emptiness is not necessarily treated as a metaphysical trait as it is a recgonition of absence: not just of self or ultimate existence, but also of stress. In the sutta, each progressive state of meditation is "empty" of a particular "disturbance," namely the disturbance of the previous state of concentration. As far as I know, it's useful to see stressful "self" oriented thinking along these lines, and pay attention to where it's present and where it can be abandoned so one may enjoy its absence. Similarly with even "pleasant" ways of "self" thinking.

My practical nature is drawn to that, and my intellectual nature is intrigued by the possibility of sweeping all of the philosophy off the table in one efficient movement. — Hippyhead

Pure Land schools teach the setting aside of all 'self-effort' and simple recitation of the name of Amidha, the Buddha of Boundless Light. There is actually a vast literature behind this too, beginning with the Pure Land Sutras, which are Mahāyāna texts. You can read about it here.

In my own experience, Pure Land is inextricably bound up with Japanese culture. Whilst I appreciate the ethics and aesthetics of the tradition, due to my Anglo cultural background, I don't think I have the appropriate mentality to really benefit from it. I have encountered some people on forums who really managed to integrate with it but I've decided my own path lies elsewhere. I think the basic text I need to follow is the venerable and time-tested Mindfulness in Plain English which was the book that introduced the whole 'mindfulness movement' to modern culture.

I found this page about Nagarjuna. — Hippyhead

Nāgārjuna is indeed fascinating, including to many academics and philosophers. When I first started studying Buddhism, I read The Central Philosophy of Buddhism by T R V Murti. Murti was an Oxford-trained professor of Asian studies, who compares the 'revolution' introduced by Nāgārjuna to Kant's 'Copernican revolution in philosophy'. He's rather fallen out of favour amongst later scholars but this book was electrifying for me, it made sense on so many levels.

Other than that, I endorse everything TLCD1996 has said above (with the caveat that his username sounds like a bus license plate :-) ).

Put another way, what if the psychic nutrition we seek can be found in the experience of observation itself, and is thus not dependent upon any insights which may or may not arise as a result of that experience? — FrancisRay

I'm not sure I understand this question. — FrancisRay

Because I'm not putting it well. That happens a lot. Your patience is appreciated.

Certainly the question 'Who is observing?' would be vital since it comes down to 'Who am I?'. — FrancisRay

What if questions and insights and philosophies etc are largely unnecessary?

We eat an apple. We receive the nutrition. We don't really need to know much of anything about apples or digestion.

We observe. Our minds receive a rest. We don't really need to know much about how or why.

PREMISE: If the problem we are trying to address arises primarily from the nature of thought itself....

THEORY: Then it's essentially a mechanical issue which doesn't really require much insight.

UNNECESSARY FANCY PHILOSOPHY: :-)

It's my sense that what we're looking for is embedded in the real world. What's typically preventing us from accessing this asset is that we are distracted by the symbolic world inside our heads. It's not complicated, we're just not paying much attention to the real world, that's all. Typically we are instead paying attention to our thoughts about the real world, which is something else entirely.

Any method of observation which succeeds in shifting our attention from the symbolic world to the real world would seem to be sufficient. As you know, there are countless simple mechanical exercises which can lead one in this direction.

Not sure if this helps, or just makes things worse. :-) In any case, I'm obsessed with such notions, but nobody else need be. Whatever works seems a rational principle.

Your comment relates to the commonplace dogmatic kind of monotheism but is not relevant where a religion is the search for truth. — FrancisRay

And if a perspective should consider "the truth" to be the real world, and not any collection of ideas pointing to it, then concerns about dogmatism, contradiction etc are resolved. Instead of an endlessly unproductive debate about who has the correct philosophy, another option is to just toss all the philosophies overboard.

You claimed that a practitioner would know what Buddhism (a religion) is. My point was that religious followers are notoriously often mislead. — praxis

Homework: Start a new thread on any subject where you share your own insights, without any reference whatsoever to what anybody else has said. If you find that you can't do so, start a thread about that.

Complete non sequitur.

The perfection is not "out there", that's the thing. Even though we get our ideals and guidance from "out there", it's all "in here". — TLCD1996

I agree and spoke imprecisely. Was trying to say that I'm a human being, and so there is no perfection in here. The evidence suggests that this will always be the case, so the rational course would seem to be to make peace with "what is", as the saying goes. Not complacency exactly, but not chasing an illusion either. One way to look at it, not a "one true way".

You say there's pros and cons, the Buddha says yes: and therefore it's unsatisfactory, and one ought to abandon that for something more refined, to the point where "happiness" and "suffering" are both transcended — TLCD1996

Ok, yes, observation of reality is neither happiness or suffering because those are made of thought, and the clearest observation requires setting thought aside, or at least turning down the volume. Observation might be described as peace, but at it's best it's not that either, but rather nothing. A state of mind which happens to match the vast majority of reality pretty well, thus adding to it's credibility, imho.

Transcended in the moment, yes, possible. Transcended permanently? Not possible for me, but maybe for you. I do wish to avoid making sweeping dogmatic assertions about millions of people I've never met.

Having faulty thought content can cause suffering by putting us into conflict with the world or even ourselves. — TLCD1996

Yes, of course, agreed.

But thoughts are not easy to tame — TLCD1996

Agreed again. When I'm anywhere near a computer (work of Satan!! :-) ) impossible. However, when I'm in the woods, the volume of thought tends to lower naturally and largely without effort. The "secret" ingredient is time. Just time. It's perhaps from this experience that I'm questioning the necessity of philosophy, insights, transformation etc.

There is so much more of interest in your post, but we're reaching the end of the day here and my focus is fading away. Look forward to more soon!

Other than that, I endorse everything TLCD1996 has said above (with the caveat that his username sounds like a bus license plate :-) ). — Wayfarer

Listen up punks! Now THAT is how to give someone a good debunking!

But now I'm terrified of what he's going to say about my screen name.... :-)

Complete non sequitur. — praxis

Entrance fee to being taken seriously. Or not.

What does that have to do with religious followers being misled or otherwise taken advantage of? You think that doesn't happen in Buddhism? Awwwww, you're so adorably innocent.

I see no attempt by you to understand the issues. I cannot see the point of your approach and clearly it prevents you from learning anything. I will not respond to you from now on.

Any method of observation which succeeds in shifting our attention from the symbolic world to the real world would seem to be sufficient. As you know, there are countless simple mechanical exercises which can lead one in this direction.


To a Buddhist your paragraph is a muddle of misconceptions. What you call the real world would be unreal. What makes you say it is real? Realism causes nothing but paradoxes and contradictions in metaphysics, which suggest it is false.

I realise you want to throw philosophy away, but God gave us a brain and we may as well use it. Nagarjuna proves, as does the history of Western philosophy, that there is only one metaphysical theory or position that survives analysis. This shows the value and importance of metaphysics, As Bradley says, it is an 'antidote to dogmatic superstition'. Not to take this antidote is to risk believeing all sorts of nonsense.

I suspect your low view pf philosophy comes from surveying the state of Western academic or university philosophy. If I didn't know more than academics usually know about the subject I'd also believe philosophy is a waste of time. But anyone who understands Nagarjuna's logical argument knows more than most professors.

The idea of meditation would be lead one from the symbolic or 'conventional' world to the real or 'ultimate' world. Sensory observation would have the opposite effect. To escape from what you call the real world would be the cessation of suffering. To be stuck in it would the definition of suffering. .

Simply put, we need to learn how to think skillfully. — TLCD1996

Ok, I can obviously endorse this suggestion. In that spirit, we might start by attempting to approach this advice in the simplest most straightforward manner possible.

I recently purchased a chain saw. The very first step in understanding how to "saw skillfully" is to learn how to operate the on/off button. Should a philosopher consider the mind to be another mechanical device of the human body, the very first step in understanding how to think skillfully might be to learn how to operate the on/off button.

What if what the philosophical mind in all it's infinite complexity is reaching for is most efficiently found simply by turning the mind machine off?

Or, to chant this in Hippiehead dogma, what if the problem we are trying to address arises not from thought content, but from the medium of thought?

And if a perspective should consider "the truth" to be the real world, and not any collection of ideas pointing to it, then concerns about dogmatism, contradiction etc are resolved. Instead of an endlessly unproductive debate about who has the correct philosophy, another option is to just toss all the philosophies overboard.

I'd rather say that if we take a scientific approach we will not be led astray. Most people view the world pre-analytically, adopting a folk-psychological realism whereby kicking a rock is enough to prove its reality. The value of philosophy is that it debunks this naive idea. Once the idea is debunked perhaps analysis can be abandoned, but to abandon it while holding on to logically-absurd and indefensible ideas would be to seriously shoot oneself in the foot.

For a practitioner discursive philosophy is not important, but for anyone else it is the only way to work out where the truth lies. ,.

Or, to chant this in Hippiehead dogma, what if the problem we are trying to address arises not from thought content, but from the medium of thought?

Respect to Sri Baba Hippyhead but there's something I think you're missing here. If you want to take this 'no-thought' route then Zen practice would be just the ticket. But this profoundly simple practice is justified in philosophy by Nagarjuna's not-so-simple logic.

So thought is important and unimportant, necessary and unnecessary. Lau Tsu tells us 'True words seem paradoxical' and this is what Nagarjuna proves in logic.We-are and are-not, says Heraclitus, and this dual-aspect view is what we need to understand for a grasp of what Buddhism is about. We have to go beyond the binary yes-no, on-off kind of thinking that causes Western metaphysics to be useless, and it's not an easy trick to learn. . , .



.