Making peace with femininity

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by RobertGreenSky »

Dan wrote:... I agree with Nagarjuna entirely. The conventional and the ultimate must be understood in their own right before their emptiness can be fathomed. This means nothing more than understanding duality, non-duality, that one cannot be without the other, then eventually the fact that there's actually no difference between them.

If you agree entirely with Nagarjuna, then where did Nagarjuna agree with you, so to speak? Where is it he wrote something like 'the conventional and the ultimate must be understood in their own right before their emptiness can be fathomed. This means nothing more than understanding duality, non-duality, that one cannot be without the other, then eventually the fact that there's actually no difference between them.'

I just can't remember where that passage is. Can you direct me to it?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Dan Rowden »

Tell you what, Mr Quotation, let's have a debate about the nature and path of enlightenment and emptiness (that isn't about what dead people supposedly said) - with this one stipulation/condition: neither participant may at any time quote or refer to the ideas of another person (the participants excepted). How about it?
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by RobertGreenSky »

Dan Rowden wrote:Tell you what, Mr Quotation, let's have a debate about the nature and path of enlightenment and emptiness (that isn't about what dead people supposedly said) - with this one stipulation/condition: neither participant may at any time quote or refer to the ideas of another person (the participants excepted). How about it?
I refuse out of hand. The only way that debate could be on level ground is if I declare myself to be enlightened and I cannot do that. Further, I refuse to set myself up as any spiritual authority whatsoever. If you can't support your positions then just admit it, Rowden. Everyone already knows it.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Dan Rowden »

That was the most tortured piece of writing in the history of torturous pieces of writing. Perceptive readers will see through every iota of illogic.
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by RobertGreenSky »

Since I am not perceptive, why don't you spell out the illogic for me? What I think is apparent is that you do not like being held up to the mirror of the Buddha, Nagarjuna, Zhuangzi, and the Patriarchs, even though you have as much recourse to them as do I.

You announced yourself fit to walk with the Patriarchs. You made the claim and you have enjoyed rewards, but if there are also liabilities, then perhaps you didn't see far enough ahead when you made your claim.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Dan Rowden »

RobertGreenSky wrote:Since I am not perceptive, why don't you spell out the illogic for me? What I think is apparent is that you do not like being held up to the mirror of the Buddha, Nagarjuna, Zhuangzi, and the Patriarchs, even though you have as much recourse to them as do I.
The difference is I don't need such recourse. And the mirror you contend that you're holding is necessarily yours. I want to see what sort of craftsman you are.
You announced yourself fit to walk with the Patriarchs. You made the claim and you have enjoyed rewards, but if there are also liabilities, then perhaps you didn't see far enough ahead when you made your claim.
I was giving you an opportunity to demonstrate that you have sufficient understanding to judge said patriarchs truly. You can't do that by sourcing them. That is is the same as Xians using the Bible to make their case about the Bible.
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by RobertGreenSky »

Dan Rowden wrote:
RobertGreenSky wrote:Since I am not perceptive, why don't you spell out the illogic for me? What I think is apparent is that you do not like being held up to the mirror of the Buddha, Nagarjuna, Zhuangzi, and the Patriarchs, even though you have as much recourse to them as do I.
The difference is I don't need such recourse. And the mirror you contend that you're holding is necessarily yours. I want to see what sort of craftsman you are.

What sort of craftsman I am is already shown, as in answering Quinn on Hui-neng. It is also shown in your attempt to force a debate into a form that is not necessary. If I was not good at what I do, then why would you ask for those unnecessary terms?
Dan wrote:
Robert wrote:You announced yourself fit to walk with the Patriarchs. You made the claim and you have enjoyed rewards, but if there are also liabilities, then perhaps you didn't see far enough ahead when you made your claim.
I was giving you an opportunity to demonstrate that you have sufficient understanding to judge said patriarchs truly. You can't do that by sourcing them. That is is the same as Xians using the Bible to make their case about the Bible.

I have no need to judge the Patriarchs and again, my craftsmanship is clear. So is Quinn's lack of it, and he has lately used Nagarjuna, Hui-neng, Shen-hsiu, and Hakuin. If they're good enough for Quinn, they're good enough for me.

What you ask is not reasonable on the face of it and so we can ask what are the likely underlying reasons. With Quinn annihilated on Hui-neng and you unable to support yourself in Nagarjuna, a possible answer is available.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by David Quinn »

RobertGreenSky wrote:On 'Hui-neng and Shen-hsiu vs. David Quinn', Quinn botched the interpretation not only badly but in a self-serving manner. The story has been told for centuries and it has been well-discussed.
The most famous incident in Huineng’s story concerns a dharma contest. One day Hongren challenged his charges to each write a verse (gatha) distilling their understanding of their “original natures.” He promised to read them and award his robe (a symbol of dharma transmission; some versions of the story include Hongren’s begging bowl) and the title “Sixth Patriarch” to the student demonstrating true realization. The task quickly devolved onto the shoulders of the head monk, Shenxiu, who, it was assumed, would be the Master’s likely successor. Shenxiu, however, was full of doubt and spent a tortured night considering his options. Finally he stole out and wrote his verse anonymously on the wall of the new dharma hall:

The body is the bodhi tree.
The heart-mind is like a mirror.
Moment by moment wipe and polish it,
Not allowing dust to collect. ...

A straightforward articulation of the necessity of diligent practice, Shenxiu hoped this verse would show the Master that his students had at least some understanding.

The next morning Hongren read the verse and praised it before the community. He burned incense before it and ordered them all to recite it before calling Shenxiu for an interview. In private he commended Shenxiu for his insight, stating that the verse showed he had reached the “gates of wisdom” but had yet to enter. He then suggested Shenxiu take a few more days to compose another verse worthy of being awarded the robe.

Meanwhile, Huineng was still working in the threshing room when a novice wandered by reciting Shenxiu’s verse. Immediately Huineng realized the author of the verse lacked full understanding. Venturing out to the dharma hall, he got someone to write his reply:

Bodhi originally has no tree.
The clear and bright mirror also has no support.
Buddha-nature is constantly purifying and clearing.
Where could there be dust? ...

Very soon word of this new verse spread and eventually the news reached Hongren. The Master came to read it and immediately recognized it as the work of Huineng and that this unknown prodigy was truly enlightened. However, he knew that passing his robe to an uncouth peasant would upset the monastic hierarchy. Therefore he publicly dismissed it as “not complete understanding.” Later, under cover of darkness, Hongren summoned Huineng for a secret audience in which he gave him further teachings. Passing on his robe, the Master admonished him to flee for his life, predicting, however, that eventually he would transmit the teachings. With that, Huineng fled south. After some months, Huineng was traced to a mountain by a band of pursuers intent on killing him and stealing the robe. Most of the pursuers turned back after climbing only halfway but one, Huiming (a former general) reached him on the summit. There, rather than slay the young master, he received the teaching and became enlightened. Thus being recognized as a true Chan Master, Huineng dispatched his new disciple to the north to spread the dharma and convert the populace.

- The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Huineng (Hui-neng) (638-713 CE), emphasis mine.

Quinn might like that version since he can pretend that Robert is the type of man who would have killed not only Socrates and Jesus but also Hui-neng.

Note that the author refers to Shen-hsui's support of 'diligent practice' rather than to putting an end to thought and trying to experience reality "directly", as Quinn described Shen-hsiu's position. Note that neither 'putting an end to thought' nor 'trying to experience reality directly' are mentioned as parts of 'diligent practice'. Note also 'trying to experience reality directly' and about which see below.
Huineng's central insight is in pointing out the transient or "illusory" nature of the physical world. "Bodhi has no tree," he said. Why not? Because our immortal souls are an entity apart from the physical bodies we inhabit temporarily. Wisdom, awakening and enlightenment are the attributes of this immaterial spirit, and exist with or without the body.

"Clear mirror" isn't the stand. Why not? Remember that Shenxiu compared the heart to the stand, which holds the soul - the mirror - in place. Huineng points out that this is but an artificial constraint. The soul is there whether or not there's anything holding it up. The heart - the stand - isn't required or even particularly important!

Huineng further points out that all the defilements and distortions of the material world are just as transient or illusory as these temporary mortal forms we assume. The polluting influences of the physical world come and go and cannot last, unlike the immortal soul. In other words, our essential, eternal selves are the only real entities in the universe. Money, material possessions, fineries, precious jewels... none of these are things we can take with us when we pass beyond. For all practical intents and purposes, they may as well not exist!

If one can completely come to grips with this basic truth expressed by Huineng (easier said than done... you still wanna win the Lotto and you know it), enlightenment can happen in an instant. Hence, the true path to Buddhahood isn't the direction of hard work and the acquisition of even more knowledge and scriptures, as indicated by Shenxiu. The truer path is along the road of intuitive insight, where we progress beyond mere logic and reasoning and become one with wisdom and understanding.

- At Truetao.org, How Huineng Became the Sixth Patriarch, emphasis mine.

Note that in Hui-neng's view 'enlightenment can happen in an instant', clearly showing that Quinn botched that part of the interpretation. Note also, 'the true path to Buddhahood isn't the direction of hard work and the acquisition of even more knowledge and scriptures, as indicated by Shenxiu', and which is what is 'diligent practice', clearly showing not only that Quinn mistakenly compared Shen-hsiu with Unidian and myself but that David Quinn agrees with Shen-hsiu. The issues between Hui-neng and Shen-hsui are the issues discussed here, and not disagreement on 'putting an end to thought' as Quinn absurdly interpreted. If there is conflict between major Zen figures on 'putting an end to thought', let's see it. Hui-neng is the proponent of 'Sudden Enlightenment' and David Quinn not only didn't know it, he also falsely attributed it to Shen-hsiu, and he also criticized it thinking it was Shen-hsiu's position. David botched the whole of this. He didn't know Zen history or Zen philosophy and he ridiculously interpreted the material for his own ends.
Your style of debate is far too literal and convoluted to deal with, and I've lost interest. Your post here reminded me of the debate we had a few years ago, which I have no desire to repeat. So this is the end for me.

See you in another life.

-
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by RobertGreenSky »

Goodbye, David and Dan.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Dan Rowden »

I still want that debate, dammit! :)
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by RobertGreenSky »

You would have had half a chance. :)

See Chapter Two, On Equalizing Things. I could have answered me on all of it, but then I alone am the World-Honoured Oggleby. Be good, Dan.
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by samadhi »

Dan,
I still want that debate, dammit! :)
Hey, I'm up for it if your willing, it should be fun!

You won't run and hide again, will you? lol ...
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

RobertGreenSky wrote:I refuse to set myself up as any spiritual authority whatsoever.
For a person who wants to be taken seriously on a philosophy forum, this is suicide. It's a blatant admission that you don't really know what you've been talking about this whole time -- which, then again, should have been obvious at least from back when you started bragging about how great you are at bullshitting.

...But I guess Robert has already fallen out of the thread. I hope that doesn't make me look like I'm speaking retrospectively. This sentence was just a terrible admission.
User avatar
BMcGilly07
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:33 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by BMcGilly07 »

Dan Rowden wrote:Tell you what, Mr Quotation, let's have a debate about the nature and path of enlightenment and emptiness (that isn't about what dead people supposedly said) - with this one stipulation/condition: neither participant may at any time quote or refer to the ideas of another person (the participants excepted). How about it?
I thought this a perfectly reasonable request. It would reveal the mettle of each participant; as would a refusal.

Note: edited second sentence.
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Alex Jacob »

That's a good observation, Trevor. It is really quite a bit like celebrity and notariety. Or like acting. Or like being a musician. If you are in front of people, and if you have their ears and eyes, you better not lose sight of that. People want things to look at, colorful things to pass in front of them, they want to be captivated, they want to see your skit. Everyone who appears on the stage will quickly learn this truth, or you perish.

Glad to see you back here, BTW.
Ni ange, ni bête
Ataraxia
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Ataraxia »

Alex Jacob wrote: People want things to look at, colorful things to pass in front of them, they want to be captivated, they want to see your skit. Everyone who appears on the stage will quickly learn this truth, or you perish.
'People' do, yes.

But not people interested in philosophy,clear thinking and getting to the heart of matters;people who come to forums like this.They can ussually see the 'skit',it is of no interest to them,ultimately.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Dan Rowden »

Sam,
samadhi wrote:Dan,
I still want that debate, dammit! :)
Hey, I'm up for it if your willing, it should be fun!
Well, David and I were recently talking about reviving the old "Cage" forum for one-on-one debates/discourse. This may prove a useful segue into that. The main feature we had in mind for the new version would be that each post would take the form of an essay (with a word limit) rather than the direct "quote and respond" theme that we see in most threads. That format tends to become unwieldy and overly complex. So, we were thinking of a style not unlike that of the infamous Larkin debate where direct reposes to something said by the other participant would just take normal literary form within each essay. We were thinking that each debate pair could make up their own rules, more or less, but for me I'd like to stick with the idea of no quoting or referring to the ideas of others at any time. I think that's a somewhat challenging yet interesting stipulation.

I believe I'll be chugging an ale with David tomorrow so we'll iron out the format details then. In the meantime, perhaps you'd like to think about a debate idea? It would need to be something where we differ sufficiently to sustain a decent "combative" dialogue.

Thanks for the offer.
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by samadhi »

Sounds good. I will think about it. I'm sure there is something we disagree on!
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

In the Oprah/Eckhart thread, you two were just arguing about the value of emotions versus thought, whether or not spiritual teachings should cost money, and the possibility of a greater intelligence in the universe.... Plenty of disagreement.
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by samadhi »

Yeah, spiritual teaching and money would be my first choice. We're plainly in disagreement and, given our culture, it's a relevant topic.

Emotion/rationality with regard to enlightenment would be a another one we disagree on and a worthwhile discussion.

The greater intelligence I'm not sure could really be developed. Both of us would pretty much be winging it. Also not as juicy as the above two since there is no direct experience involved.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Dan Rowden »

I'd go the middle one; it has more depth than the others. I'm sure between us we'll come up with a good working title/theme.
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by RobertGreenSky »

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:
RobertGreenSky wrote:I refuse to set myself up as any spiritual authority whatsoever.
For a person who wants to be taken seriously on a philosophy forum, this is suicide. It's a blatant admission that you don't really know what you've been talking about this whole time -- which, then again, should have been obvious at least from back when you started bragging about how great you are at bullshitting.

...But I guess Robert has already fallen out of the thread. I hope that doesn't make me look like I'm speaking retrospectively. This sentence was just a terrible admission.
Robert will continue to read and - obviously - post comments although it will be quite a while before I again actively engage David or Dan - my craftsmanship, not mentioned in your post, having been well-displayed. I'm looking forward to seeing Dan and Sam debate although I decided earlier I would offer Dan the debate on his terms, at Olio. He picked the terms; I pick the venue; fair enough? Perhaps some other time then.

Hui-neng is spiritual authority; the Dalai Lama is spiritual authority; arguably someone who has proclaimed himself enlightened is spiritual authority; I cannot set up like that and your comment reveals both misunderstanding and perhaps also at least a trace of pretentiousness, in suggesting that someone prance about calling himself an 'authority'. My craftsmanship having been displayed, perhaps I could reasonably label myself an authority at least as regards Genius Forum, but then I try to avoid that sort of thing; it's positively 'mental' in my view.

If you think I bullshitted, Trevor, then you answer for Quinn in the Hui-neng argument. Let's see your craftsmanship.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Robert,
Hui-neng is spiritual authority; the Dalai Lama is spiritual authority; arguably someone who has proclaimed himself enlightened is spiritual authority; I cannot set up like that and your comment reveals both misunderstanding and perhaps also at least a trace of pretentiousness, in suggesting that someone prance about calling himself an 'authority'.
I attacked that particular line of yours because it contradicted your entire attitude to that point. There was more than a little cynicism in my comment. You obviously wanted to be taken seriously as someone who is capable of dismantling David's arguments: doing so without claiming any spiritual authority yourself was ridiculous. You must think you have some aptitude with these matters; otherwise, you'd show a lot less confidence.
If you think I bullshitted, Trevor, then you answer for Quinn in the Hui-neng argument.
I don't answer for others; nor do I debate the writings of people I've never read.
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by RobertGreenSky »

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Robert,
Hui-neng is spiritual authority; the Dalai Lama is spiritual authority; arguably someone who has proclaimed himself enlightened is spiritual authority; I cannot set up like that and your comment reveals both misunderstanding and perhaps also at least a trace of pretentiousness, in suggesting that someone prance about calling himself an 'authority'.
I attacked that particular line of yours because it contradicted your entire attitude to that point. There was more than a little cynicism in my comment. You obviously wanted to be taken seriously as someone who is capable of dismantling David's arguments: doing so without claiming any spiritual authority yourself was ridiculous. You must think you have some aptitude with these matters; otherwise, you'd show a lot less confidence.

David was dismantled on the board. The analysis needed no ridiculous claim of spiritual authority to justify it. Are you a spiritual authority? Are all of you Dalai Lamas? None of you write as if you were. The way you have it, I would have to be enlightened to argue with Quinn. Note mine above, on refusing to argue with Dan. You're not very good at this, are you? So am I a bullshitter or not? If I am, then get your ass to proving it. Be sure to claim spiritual authority while you do it; I love that.
Trevor wrote:
Robert wrote:If you think I bullshitted, Trevor, then you answer for Quinn in the Hui-neng argument.
I don't answer for others; nor do I debate the writings of people I've never read.

Why not? Looks like Quinn did.

Our actions ripple, Trevor. You knew yourself that you were not well motivated, and so were the results of your action likely to prove beneficial or to prove harmful?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Dan Rowden »

RobertGreenSky wrote:I'm looking forward to seeing Dan and Sam debate although I decided earlier I would offer Dan the debate on his terms, at Olio.
Oh, you mean in the "Trevor Salyzyn Memorial Mental Hospital and Debating Forum"?
He picked the terms; I pick the venue; fair enough? Perhaps some other time then.
Yes, I believe "some other time" may be the most appropriate.
Locked