As this is a Buddhism thread, some reference ought to be made to abhidharma, which is Buddhist philosophical psychology. It is the ‘third’ of the ‘three baskets’ the other two being vinaya (monastic regulations) and sutta (sayings and teachings). It’s a methodical analysis of the whole process of perception and ideation which leads to rebirth in saṃsāra. As such it’s a deep and difficult study, but suffice to say in this context that it is based on the same principles that (I think) you’re trying to get at. — Wayfarer

Again, without arguing what anybody else should pursue, and thank you for your patience as I beat my dogma drum... I'm not really talking about methodical analysis.

A methodical analysis would seem to assume that the problem we're addressing arises at the level of the content of thought (this idea vs. that idea) and thus can be solved at that level by editing thought content. My argument is that if conflict and suffering arose from the level of the content of thought then by now someone would have stumbled upon some ideology, philosophy or religion which has escaped conflict and suffering, and such a happy ideology would have taken over the world.

What we see instead is that every ideology, philosophy and religion seems to be generating it's own flavor of conflict. You know, if this methodical analysis were to become a new religion or ideology, it would probably only be about 2 weeks before it began breaking up in to sects which then come in to conflict with each other.

The universal nature of such conflicts in every time and place suggests that the source of the conflict is something all the ideologies have in common, which can only be that which they are all made of, thought itself, the medium.

The personal suffering of individual human beings is also a universal phenomena, no matter what time, place, culture, philosophy or religion etc that a person might be part of. This again suggests that such suffering does not arise primarily from cultural factors.

What I'm suggesting is that it's at least worth considering that psychological suffering might be usefully considered to be a mechanical issue, just as we consider every other operation of the body to be a mechanical issue.

To the degree that might be true, it would seem to open the door to mechanical remedies that are far more universally accessible than any philosophy or religion.

I once heard a story about some heart doctors who wanted to teach their patients meditation. The doctors removed all philosophical and religious concepts from their teaching because they didn't want to alienate any of the patients from the class. They wanted their class to be accessible to all their patients, no matter the patient's beliefs or level of education etc.

My critique of religion would be that it typically attempts to address problems generated by thought by piling on more thought. That's kind of like an alcoholic trying to treat his disease with a case of scotch.

And what happens if you have a shitty manager (or a shitty Pope)? — praxis

What you are perhaps forgetting is that everyone on Earth is not a great philosopher like you and me. So what may seem correct in the ideal (such as my post above) it's not so ideal if most people can't get it and don't want it (such as my post above).

In the real world where real human beings live religious structures have arisen and long ago proven that they are well adapted to their environment, ie. the human condition. Religious structures typically involve some kind of authority structure so that the religion can manage the process of defining itself. And...

Most people simply ignore the authorities when ever the authorities proclamations become inconvenient to the user's own perspective. As example, the vast majority of American Catholics simply ignore the Vatican's teachings on contraception. Half of them ignore the teachings on gay rights and abortion. The list goes on and on and on....

The Pope and the Vatican are not the Catholic Church. They are instead a tiny number of influential Catholics who have appointed themselves to prominent public positions. The real Catholic Church is the community of a billion Catholics and all the many different flavors of what they believe, and way more importantly, what they actually do.

The source of the problem is not Buddhism, or Catholicism, or religion in general. The problem arises from that which all these things are made of. That's why such conflicts are universal, not limited to particular ideologies.

Just for a change I wouldn't agree. But the issue is too deep to delve into here.

You can’t fire God, Hippyhead, because he’s an ultimate authority. Why are you talking about those below him?

It's a koan, and yes, it can withstand a lot of thought, but best not.


I despair. Please go away. I've given it my best shot but enough is enough.

Well, what have you got nearby? It seems good to find something within 30 minutes range or so, that way you can go often.

You don't imagine we still trees here in the UK do you? Hell, they would get in the way of railways and supermarkets. .

I ain’t go’n nowhere, bi-otch. :lol:

My critique of religion would be that it typically attempts to address problems generated by thought by piling on more thought. That's kind of like an alcoholic trying to treat his disease with a case of scotch.

I'm beginning to grasp your view. It appears to be Buddhism. But there's something you may be forgetting.

Earlier you said that thought leads beyod thought, and that the purpose of philosophical analysis is to reveal the limits of analysis. This is exactly the value of it. You could equally say that analysis takes us beyond ideology.

Nagarjuna's analysis disposes of ideologies. His position It is often said to be not a view but a non-view. It reveals that all the ideas we can think of don't work. Thus it sweeps away all our conjectures and beliefs and replaces them with the idea that we are unable to formulate the truth in our mind, and the only way to know it would be to transcend the mind. .

However, this is no excuse for woolly thinking or the avoidance of analysis. N uses analysis to prove the limits of analysis, thus proving that Reality conforms to a very particular descriptive metaphysical theory. This is a neutral metaphysical theory, which is the formal theory required for non-dualism and the Perennial philosophy.

This is not an ideology but it is a very definite and identifiable description of Reality.

What worries me about your view is that it might undervalue analysis. Buddhist meditation includes analysis. For a person who wants to know whether Buddhism is worth doing before booking a cave in the Himalayas, analysis is all they have to help them. Does it make sense? Is it systematic and logically sound? What does it say about such and such an issue? How does it answer metaphysical questions? Does what it says about suffering make sense? Etc. A sceptical intellectual would want to know all this before risking going on a wild goose chase and taking up the practice. They should ask these questions, and they should expect an answer.

It is demonstrable that N's neutral position is the only one that survives analysis. Every other metaphjysical view gives rise to fatal contradictions. This is the value of analysis, that it proves Buddhist doctrine. This is the reason why Western philosophy has no fundamental theory and is a mess. The only idea that works is not allowed. If we do not do the analysis we will miss this fact and be unable to understand metaphysics, .

. . . .

Ok, that makes sense. I experience peace in the woods, and then start chasing that, and when I don't get it I'm frustrated, annoyed, suffering etc. So long as I don't understand what's happening I'm stuck on the treadmill of chasing. Like that, more or less? — Hippyhead

Yes, that's one way out of many; a common way for impatient or enthusiastic people to make themselves suffer.

And it's here that one may see that all things (of not some) are unworthy of attachment. It's partly because all things are impermanent, etc. That's because all things are conditioned by causes, and so in order to maintain them one must keep the causes going. Fueled by craving, this leads to suffering. So on one hand all things are unworthy of attachment because they're "unsatisfactory".

But another reason is because attachment leads to suffering. Like: fire is not worth touching because it's hot, and also because it gets us burnt. There's two sides to the coin In the case of your treadmill, we've started suffering as soon as we started getting attached to the peace; there's agitation as soon as craving arises; excitement and infatuation are forms of suffering (going back to Ajahn Chah's image of the snake where the tail is happiness, the head is suffering; it's one snake). Thus the Buddha summarized suffering as "the five clinging aggregates" or "the five aggregates subject to clinging" (dif. Translations for upadana khandha).

Therefore suffering arises from something a little more subtle than thinking. Once one goes beyond thinking, there's still some suffering (hence why to progress in jhana, one needs to keep an eye out for subtle agitations, like removing subtle impurities from gold).

Once one has gone beyond thinking, a lot of suffering is left behind, but that doesn't mean one is free, because the causes are still there. Therefore a stream-enterer may be free in a big way, but not totally.

This is one reason why the typical interpretation of the Four Noble Truths as "Life is suffering..." is inadequate and inaccurate; the accurate translation is "This is suffering, this is the cause of suffering...", and the Buddha attached different duties to each noble truth, thus there are four noble truths and twelve aspects. We need to investigate suffering not by wondering how "life is suffering", but by looking at the suffering involved with life. Suffering is something to be understood, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the way leading to cessation developed. Each aspect arises in our daily life, we just need to tune in. Therefore: yes to the treadmill example, and also more. And work! Otherwise it's just an idea.

The academic literature on Nagarjuna is best avoided in my opinion. It usually just massively complicates the issues. It generally treats Nagarjuna's logic as if it is unusual or idiosyncratic in some way, when in fact it is just ordinary logic. The most straightforward and easiest introduction I've found is The Sun of Wisdom: Teachings on the Noble Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way/ by Khenpo Tsutrim Gyamptso. This deals with what Nagarjuna proves and the form of his argument. It does not explain the logical issues. . . . — FrancisRay

Thanks a lot! And much thanks to Wayfarer for tackling the issue of religion, authority, etc. so succintly.

And thanks for your helpful contributions. As for suffering, I'm not sure I would have survived certain experiences over the last few years without the practice of detachment. I can't image how anybody gets through life with a conscious effort to detach from it.

As an initial simple practice Sadhguru advises to breath out saying 'I am not the body', and to breath out saying 'I am not the mind'. Simple as that. . .

Earlier you said that thought leads beyod thought, and that the purpose of philosophical analysis is to reveal the limits of analysis. This is exactly the value of it. You could equally say that analysis takes us beyond ideology. — FrancisRay

That's one road one can take. We might also keep in mind that most people aren't all that philosophical. But for those of us who are, we start where we are and take that where we can. I started off in this reading Jiddu Krishnamurti, who is very wordy and analytical. That's the only channel I could hear on at the time. I didn't know there were any other channels! :-)

His position It is often said to be not a view but a non-view — FrancisRay

I used to call my view "aphilosophy", as in "not of philosophy". Like atheism is not of theism. The experiences I was pointing to are "aphilosophy" but the explanations obviously are not. So, as you say, a view about non-views.

Thus it sweeps away all our conjectures and beliefs and replaces them with the idea that we are unable to formulate the truth in our mind — FrancisRay

Yes, any "truth" we formulate in our minds is just a symbol. We could take 10,000 photos of me and put them on Facebook, but none of them could ever possibly be me, as they are all photos.

N uses analysis to prove the limits of analysis, thus proving that Reality conforms to a very particular descriptive metaphysical theory. This is a neutral metaphysical theory, which is the formal theory required for non-dualism and the Perennial philosophy. — FrancisRay

It appears that N is a real philosopher operating rather far above my level. Like I said, I seem to have some difficulty remembering what "metaphysical" means. :-)

What worries me about your view is that it might undervalue analysis — FrancisRay

That's fair. Well, I'm very analytical about debunking analysis. I'm a human being, contradiction oozes out of my every pore. :-)

Seriously, I'm really not trying to overthrow the kind of analysis you are discussing, or claim it's all wrong or bad or anything at all like that. Though sometimes I may say it kind of that way as a method of stirring the conversational pot, um, you know, uh, trolling a bit. I'm just trying to offer another optional way of looking at such issues. You know, contribute to the conversation somehow. My bottom line is to each their own, and whatever works is good.

A sceptical intellectual would want to know all this before risking going on a wild goose chase and taking up the practice. — FrancisRay

Well, to be a troll :-), one can always just try meditation and see if that seems like something one wishes to do more of. Perhaps the fear of a wild goose chase arises from the stated or implied promise of some kind of permanent solution, which would indeed seem to be a big project. Hippyhead holy dogma :-) states that thought is just another mechanical function of the body, and so like all other mechanical functions it's an issue of ongoing life long management. You know, we don't go searching for some kind of food which will end our physical hunger forever.

If we do not do the analysis we will miss this fact and be unable to understand metaphysics — FrancisRay

Ok, I hear you. No complaints with this. Personally, I'm not a real philosopher but instead a typoholic blowhard. So if I never understand metaphysics I'll honk about something else. But, that's me, not a rule for anyone else. This is a philosophy forum after all, so what you're discussing seems entirely appropriate.

I've often considered writing a collaborative book in the form of an edited) internet discussion with all sorts of views represented as a commercial philosophical adventure — FrancisRay

That's interesting. Considering market research for such a book, I was curious how this thread might go over on a Buddhist forum. Any idea?

Buddhism would be a way to re-unify life and death by revealing the underlying state common to both. — FrancisRay

Underlying state common to both life and death. If there's more that can be said about this from within the Buddhist perspective, interested here.

Yes, that's one way out of many; a common way for impatient or enthusiastic people to make themselves suffer. — TLCD1996

I find peace in the woods, become addicted to it, and then resent my neighbor's barking dog.

Therefore suffering arises from something a little more subtle than thinking — TLCD1996

The resentment of my neighbor's dog is made of thought. What else could it be made of?

Once one goes beyond thinking, there's still some suffering — TLCD1996

Ok, but isn't that called being alive as a human being? Isn't a notion that we should somehow transcend suffering altogether just another form of rejecting "what is"? I'll admit I'm uncomfortable with such an agenda, but I'm more than happy to talk about it.

Therefore a stream-enterer may be free in a big way, but not totally — TLCD1996

Well, there's already a method of being totally free in a big way which is available to every person ever born. It's called death. Seriously, not being snarky here. What's the big hurry? We're all going to get there, no matter what we do, 100% guaranteed. Well ok, I guess this easier to say at age 68 than younger ages.

Suffering is something to be understood, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the way leading to cessation developed. — TLCD1996

I realize that this is Buddhist theory, which you put well. The problem we're having (or rather that I'm having) is that in my 68 years I've not yet met a single person for whom suffering has ceased. I'm open to the possibility that such people exist, for there are very talented rare end of bell curve people in every field of endeavor, but they would seem to be so rare as to be largely irrelevant.

Here's what I suspect is happening. Mozart gives a class on how to become a Mozart. Many people learn how to play the piano, but almost no one becomes a Mozart, because one has to be born in to such a talent. Point being, just because some rarely talented expert can transcend suffering permanently really tells us nothing about whether they can teach the average person to also do that.

That said, I don't think our views are really that much in conflict. I'm arguing primarily for a practical focus on suffering management. If such a focus should lead to suffering cessation, great, no complaints at all, that would obviously be good.

The resentment of my neighbor's dog is made of thought. What else could it be made of? — Hippyhead

Desires, intentions perceptions, feeling, sound, bodily sensations and movements, elements, past habits. There's a lot of ways to look at it.

And yeah, in a certain way one is trying to change what "is". That's why interpreting the Buddha's teaching as "total acceptance" should be recognized as an oversimplification (which we often see in modernist or Romantic contexts). There's plenty of instances where the Buddha or others are warning monks not to be heedless; to stop messing around or sitting idly, and put forth some effort. Then again, there are instances where the Buddha encourages his disciples to find joy in the practice and not make it oppressive or totally unpleasant, and to be patient. There needs to be a balance between acceptance and non-acceptance.

The thing is, assuming that death is the end or nobody has realized cessation are both things we don't know for sure. Of course some might demand proof before accepting (cough cough) anything here, but to that the Buddha said one would die without having learned anything or done anything. One just binds themselves to this skeptical cycle without realizing the dangers within that.

And of course, it's totally a matter of faith. But in my opinion, the skepticism grows weaker when one meets good models - regardless of whether or not one knows if they're awakened (I believe I quoted Ajahn Amaro regarding this earlier in the thread). As for me, one thing that led me to increased faith was the fact that my teacher Ajahn Pasanno (noting our relationship is not formal) was so apt at pointing out my suffering, teasing it apart and giving me different ways of working with it. To me, it takes a lot of wisdom and skill to do that. And also, his behavior and self discipline always seemed to be of high quality and I never saw much to complain about. To me he's a really special person, and his example is quite strong.

That, and knowing that my practice seems to be having good results, even if they are really slow to come.

So faith in the practice, and also a willingness to see one's death as something other than a reason to just sit back and relax, are really an individual matter and can't be forced. It's something that happens according to causes and conditions.

There needs to be a balance between acceptance and non-acceptance. — TLCD1996

I like this. The middle way, eh?

The thing is, assuming that death is the end or nobody has realized cessation are both things we don't know for sure — TLCD1996

Fair enough. Yea, just expressing my own faith based belief on the death issue.

To be clear, I'm not claiming no one has realized a cessation of suffering. There's no way I could know such a thing. I'm instead claiming that such a cessation would appear to be exceedingly rare.

And of course, it's totally a matter of faith — TLCD1996

The faith part seems to be related to the very ambitious goals.

But in my opinion, the skepticism grows weaker when one meets good models — TLCD1996

Ok, good point, yea, that would help. For the sake of discussion I'm willing to assume such experts exist. Mozart was real. But can Mozart teach me to be a Mozart too? That's less clear. But if you meet models who have succeeded in taking their students where you wish to go, ok, that surely helps.

So faith in the practice, and also a willingness to see one's death as something other than a reason to just sit back and relax — TLCD1996

Well, everyone has their own preferred flavor of faith. :-) And there's less proof of mine than yours, so there's that.

I was curious how this thread might go over on a Buddhist forum. — Hippyhead

Funny you should ask because Wayfarer is a moderator, or used to be one, at dharmhawheel.net, a popular Buddhist forum. He’d be the one to ask.

The unconventional views expressed in this topic, with the exception of Wayfarer and TLCD1996, may not be well tolerated. I’ve noticed an apparent avoidance of discussing rebirth/karma here, so that’s probably good...

I was curious how this thread might go over on a Buddhist forum. — Hippyhead

There are/were many such discussions on Dharmawheel.

The unconventional views expressed in this topic, with the exception of Wayfarer and TLCD1996, may not be well tolerated. — praxis

Thanks Praxis. Perhaps that's part of what I was wondering. You know, on a philosophy forum everything is up for challenge. Not always so on sites dedicated to particular disciplines.

I’ve noticed an apparent avoidance of discussing rebirth/karma here — praxis

As a hopefully comic interlude, I would like to introduce a new term: Karma Hog

This is what we call a person who is so kind, so compassionate, and so in service to others that they're sucking up almost all the karma available within reality, leaving little left over for buttheads such as myself.

I call my wife this all the time. She'll be up at 3am feeding (again!) seven orphaned baby squirrels that just came in, and if I catch her at it I'll scowl, point an accusing finger, and snarl "DAMN KARMA HOG!!!"

She thinks this is pretty much as stupid as everything else I say, but she's a good sport about it.

DAMN KARMA HOG!!!

"I started off in this reading Jiddu Krishnamurti, who is very wordy and analytical.

Yes he is. But a reliable teacher. I see it isn't only trees and armadillos from whom you learn.

"Hippyhead holy dogma :-) states that thought is just another mechanical function of the body, and so like all other mechanical functions it's an issue of ongoing life long management. You know, we don't go searching for some kind of food which will end our physical hunger forever."

We do if we have any sense. I'm with TLCD on the issue of suffering. The trick would be continue thinking but stop suffering. Abandoning thought to prevent suffering would be like cutting off your legs to avoid having to trim your toenails.

"That's interesting. Considering market research for such a book, I was curious how this thread might go over on a Buddhist forum. Any idea?
.
The trouble it causes would probably be in direct proportion of the number of Theravadans present. They deny the Middle Way teachings and give the sutras a different interpretation, and they get pretty hot under the collar when challenged. It is a disgrace that this split exists but Theravada pays no attention to metaphysics, which is to reason and logic, so nothing can be done about it. Even Nagarjuna could not unify the Sangha. . .

"Underlying state common to both life and death. If there's more that can be said about this from within the Buddhist perspective, interested here.

I'll reply with an essay. See below.

"Isn't a notion that we should somehow transcend suffering altogether just another form of rejecting "what is"? I'll admit I'm uncomfortable with such an agenda, but I'm more than happy to talk about it.

Oh no. In a sense suffering is a rejection of 'what is' since suffering is not truly real. It is not necessary to stop thinking, only to become detached, desireless, egoless etc. If you examine the Buddha, Lao Tsu, Sri Ramana Maharshi, Mooji, Spira and other well-known teachers you'll see they do a lot of thinking and are quite good at it. I wonder if your view on this issue is result of listening to Krishnmurti, since he is an unusual teacher who many people find too analytical and wordy, or too steeped in thought. . , , , . , .

"To be clear, I'm not claiming no one has realized a cessation of suffering. There's no way I could know such a thing. I'm instead claiming that such a cessation would appear to be exceedingly rare.

A total and permanent cessation may be rare for this is the buddhahood, but a partial cessation is commonplace and one of most accessible of the benefits of the practice.

It seems unfair to some people that we are not all equally well-equipped to attain the cessation of suffering, or not equally close to it, but total cessation is enlightenment, and if it was easy to be enlightened the space-time universe wouldn't be here.

You asked about the substrate that is the continuum underlying life and death and is our immortality. This would be the ‘spirit that rolls through all things’ Wordsworth feels in his heart as he walks around Tintern Abbey in the Wye valley, the very same spirit you feel as you walk the woods paying attention to life and the Great Spirit of the native Americans, the One that is All known as Wakantanka.

This substrate or Source would be the only phenomena that is truly real. It would be everywhere at all times because the extended space-time world would not be truly real. This is what we learn in Buddhist practice if we have some success. This would be how God is able to watch every sparrow that falls. He would be unable not to watch.

Human beings would not be exceptions to the rule. Lao Tsu is able to know the truth about the origin of creation by ‘looking inside himself’. Inside us, prior to our intellect and discursive mind, and cleverly veiled by our intellect and discursive mind, would be the source of our intellect and discursive mind. This is not subject to life and death.

A brief way of stating all this is to say that Reality is a Unity, but this word often causes misunderstandings. It is not easy to understand the meaning of ‘Unity’ and at limit impossible. To properly know the intended meaning of this word we would have to properly know the true nature of
Reality.

We can know this because we are Reality. What else could we be? ‘Within’ each of us, prior to our sense of individuality, is a spark of God, the pristine awareness, let us say, from which the world emerges. Without this spark we are nothing. Thus Iman Ali, the first Shia Imam, asks us why we think we are puny beings when ‘within us the universe is enfolded’.

The only way to know this substrate is to ask ‘Who am I?’ and keep asking until we find out.
Nagarjuna proves that this Ultimate has no positive attributes or properties and is a Unity in this sense or, as Plotinus puts it, a ‘One with no Second’. This would be why metaphysics does not endorse a positive result.

Thus you simply are this substrate and Ultimate. That is to say, as Schrödinger puts it, ‘I am God’ as are you. The appearance of ‘you’ and ‘me’ would be just that, an appearance. As such it is possible to look beyond. The Ultimate, Brahman, Wakantanka or Source, the goal to which Buddhist aspire, is not, as Jesus puts is, ‘Lo! Here or Lo! There’. It is who we are. It seems obvious that everything is Reality but it’s quite easy to forget.

This would be the reason why anyone is capable of feeling ‘the spirit that rolls through all things’, whether they are on the plains of the mid-West before the white man arrived, on the Tibetan plateau in 500 BC, roaming the hills outside Jerusalem at the time of Jesus or right this minute wherever we happen to be. It is an omnipresence. A full realisation of this is said to be our birthright. Not a gift of God to His selected cronies but our inevitable destination if we persevere.

We can all sense The Great Spirit of the native Americans to some degree as an intuition or feeling, but those who never walk in the quiet woods paying attention, or never stand in wonder and awe under a starlit night sky, as is becoming increasingly difficult to do in this decadent age, may, I suspect, lose their ability to tune in to the Great Spirit, which is to say their inner feelings and intuitions that point to their true nature. .

Thus I fear for the future, or would if I thought the global economy was going to survive much longer. Martin Heidegger expresses the same fear as early as the 1930’s, foretelling that Man will become so entranced by all his fancy new gadgets in this atomic age He would lose his abilities and forget He is an essentially meditative species.

Yes he is. But a reliable teacher. I see it isn't only trees and armadillos from whom you learn. — FrancisRay

JK and I were 50 years ago, but yes, I was influenced by his writing.

Abandoning thought to prevent suffering would be like cutting off your legs to avoid having to trim your toenails. — FrancisRay

Yes, but I've not suggested abandoning thought, except temporarily. Abandoning it permanently would clearly not be possible, and if possible, not advisable.

The trouble it causes would probably be in direct proportion of the number of Theravadans present. — FrancisRay

Ah, I see. Well, I have no idea who the Theravadans are, but this sounds like the kind of ideological divisions which inevitably arise in every ideology. As I've said, probably too many times, I find the universal nature of that phenomena to be instructive.

It is not necessary to stop thinking, only to become detached, desireless, egoless etc. — FrancisRay

In the ideal abstract, ok, that's an interesting concept. In the real world of human beings, rarely possible. I'm really not trying to convert you to anything, but just reporting my own situation. I find widely accessible solutions to be the most interesting.

If you examine the Buddha, Lao Tsu, Sri Ramana Maharshi, Mooji, Spira and other well-known teachers you'll see they do a lot of thinking and are quite good at it — FrancisRay

Perhaps you've noticed, I do a lot of thinking too! Whether I'm good at is a matter of some dispute. :-) We're all doing a lot of thinking, just coming to different conclusions on some points, while enjoying considerable agreement on others. I see my job as a thinker, a forum poster, to try to add something to a conversation. So if you say tomato, I may very well say tomawto, if I believe that doing so might present constructive alternatives for some readers. You know, if I was a deeply educated party line Buddhist I would not be needed here, as readers already have you.

I wonder if your view on this issue is result of listening to Krishnamurti, since he is an unusual teacher who many people find too analytical and wordy, or too steeped in thought — FrancisRay

My view on this issue arises primarily from the fact that I find myself too analytical and wordy, and too steeped in thought. And so as a young man I was attracted to the same. Krishnamurti was broadcasting on the only channel I could access at the time. He performed a useful function of alerting me to other channels, which I then proceeded to explore on my own. At this point 50 years later it's no longer possible for me to separate his influence from other influences. It doesn't matter to me too much, so not a problem.

but a partial cessation is commonplace and one of most accessible of the benefits of the practice. — FrancisRay

I'm all for that. When hungry, pick up some food and eat it.

I'm going to have to break my rule again in order to apologise (dammit). I should not have asked you to go away. .

I'd rather you stayed, as a useful voice of scepticism, but I just wish you;d listen to what people are saying. Internet forums are wonderful places for learning but the process fails when one starts arguing for a pet theory and stops listening. The fact that all of us here are in close agreement except you should give you pause for thought. If you find yourself unwilling to pause for thought then this should give you pause for thought. . .

Ah, I see. Well, I have no idea who the Theravadans are, but this sounds like the kind of ideological divisions which inevitably arise in every ideology. As I've said, probably too many times, I find the universal nature of that phenomena to be instructive.

Exactly! If Buddhist doctrine is not universal then it is nonsense. Theravada is an ideology, or so it seems to me, while Mahayana or 'Greater Vehicle' is the search for truth; It is not possible to be a serious metaphysician or meditative practitioner and maintain an ideology.

However, formal metaphysics is like mathematics. One just has to shut up and calculate and there is no arguing with the results. This is why I don't like your laissez faire approach. It is unscientific. If we use our reason we find we do not have a free choice as to what to believe. This is exactly what Nagarjuna proved, for the sake of unifying the sangha.

You asked about the substrate that is the continuum underlying life and death and is our immortality. This would be the ‘spirit that rolls through all things’ Wordsworth feels in his heart as he walks around Tintern Abbey in the Wye valley, the very same spirit you feel as you walk the woods paying attention to life and the Great Spirit of the native Americans, the One that is All known as Wakantanka. — FrancisRay

Thanks for following up. Ok, that which some call God, and which is identified by many other names as well.

It would be everywhere at all times — FrancisRay

As my Catholic upbringing also suggested.

This would be how God is able to watch every sparrow that falls. He would be unable not to watch. — FrancisRay

Joni Mitchell called God "the tireless watcher", a phrase I always enjoyed.

In recent years Hippyheadism has speculated that this phenomena is space. Ever present at every scale, both real and non-existing, transcending simplistic human dualism, perhaps tirelessly watching. This Thing we're looking for, embedded in the fabric of reality, right in front of our faces at all times. But often missed, because we are distracted by the all little symbols which point to it.

Like I said, speculation, but to the degree true, perhaps a unification of theism and atheism. Theists access this Thing with their hearts, while atheists access It with their minds.

may, I suspect, lose their ability to tune in to the Great Spirit, — FrancisRay

The urbanization of humanity may be the biggest news to come out of the 20th century. That said, the Thing we are discussing is claimed to be everywhere, so perhaps those who have paved over all their trees :-) will adapt, and find another way. We humans do things like that.

In recent years Hippyheadism has speculated that this phenomena is space. Ever present at every scale, both real and non-existing, transcending simplistic human dualism, perhaps tirelessly watching. This Thing we're looking for, embedded in the fabric of reality, right in front of our faces at all times.

Why do you assume spatial and temporal extension is real? This is a denial of Buddhist doctrine. In Buddhism space is defined as 'non-obstruction'. No suggestion that it is a thing. The phrase 'advaita' implies there are not two places or two times. . .

Exactly! If Buddhist doctrine is not universal then it is nonsense — FrancisRay

I was, well, referring to the universality of ideological conflict within every ideology.

Therevada is an ideology. Mahayana is search for truth; — FrancisRay

Which often looks kinda like that. :-) My ideology too, same thing, all ideologies. Divide, divide, divide.

One just has to shut up and calculate, and there is no arguing with the results. — FrancisRay

Any house built by one man can be burned down by another.

This is why I don;t like your laissez faire approach — FrancisRay

Not quite accurate. I spend what seems a million hours a year in my "church". I show up, I put in the time, I do the work. Just not exactly the same work you do, that's all.

And, however my approach might be described, I have no objection to anyone not liking it. To each their own, whatever works. I'm describing one of many options, not a "one true way".

PS: (though weaknesses in my personality and writing style may sometimes give that impression. my bad.)

Why do you assume spatial and temporal extension is real? This is a denial of Buddhist doctrine. In Buddhism space is defined as 'non-obstruction'. No suggestion that it is a thing. The phrase 'advaita' implies there are not two places or two times — FrancisRay

Ok, I'm agreeable to learning about this.

Please recall, I did explain that my space theory is just speculation. Interesting to me. Sometimes a conversation starter. Could change at any moment.

I appreciate your openness and I too apologize, for my silly behavior.

As for my pet project, I count all in agreement. The only blurry part that remains is around the issue of the necessity of ultimate authority in Buddhism. Perhaps I need to emphasize that this pertains to traditional forms and not an individual’s own interpretation that may stand apart from traditional beliefs and practices. Maybe that will clear up the miscommunication.