IS BUDDHISM THE 'WORD OF SIDDHARTHA'?

[Bradley West]

IS BUDDHISM THE ‘WORD OF SIDDHARTHA’?

What is ‘Dhamma’.


‘The ‘Dhamma’ the Cosmic Law is not a knowledge to be imparted or to
be acquired from so-called ‘sacred books’ but to be experienced within’.

Contrary to accepted belief, ‘Siddhartha’ who totally rejected blind faith was not the founder of Buddhist religion but the discoverer of the ‘Dhamma’ the Cosmic Law the ‘Dependent Origination’ a something ‘never heard before’. Hence to the world deeply engrossed in an enchanted world of religions, it came in a form so strange no one really understood the message it conveyed and so it remains to this day.

The ‘Dhamma’ and Buddhism are worlds apart, they have absolutely nothing in common. The ‘Dhamma’ is an empty process beyond space and time where there is nothing to be defined. Hence it is beyond the comprehension of the human mind and beyond ‘words’ and cannot be discoursed or found in so-called ‘sacred books or Suttas’. It is the source of your unique thought process the ‘Chitta’, and can only be experienced within. “You are your ‘Dhamma’ your world of duality. Experience it every moment to comprehend it to neutralize it to go beyond mind and matter”, said Siddhartha.

However, in contrast, according to Buddhism, the ‘Dhamma’ is the teachings of their ‘Buddha’ a wise man (refer our article ‘Was Siddhartha a Buddha?’) and to be faithfully observed as laid down in so-called sacred books or by listening to discourses of monks.

Buddhism as all religions is a concept of the human mind designed to deceive the ignorant. Hence it is imperative they constantly modify their teachings to keep abreast with the ever-evolving ways, beliefs, and cultures of the world for their survival, lest they become obsolete. The emergence of various Buddhist traditions or factions over time all claiming to represent the original message of their Buddha clearly reflects this trend. With the creation of Buddhism by desecrating the ‘Word of Siddhartha’ after his passing away, his original message was lost to the world of religions and their holy men. However, the ‘Dhamma’ is timeless and so is the method he discovered for the seeker to find his own ‘Way’ to go beyond this process.

Siddhartha was emphatic when he called on the seeker not to rely on hearsay or second-hand knowledge acquired from teachers, preachers, and so-called ‘sacred’ books and ‘Suttas’ for they are empty rhetoric irrelevant to the unique ‘Way’ of a seeker. Hence, to comprehend your ‘Dhamma’ the thought process that creates the illusion of ‘I’, Siddhartha disclosed the ‘Sattipatthana’ for you to experience within the reality of existence i.e. the body, feeling and ‘Chitta’ are just ‘Dhamma’ an empty process arising and passing away dependent on conditions, devoid of a ‘self’. With this basic realization, the seeker must guide his dualistic thought process his creator, on his ‘Middle Way’ with the ‘Mental Factor’ the concomitance Sila, Samadhi, Wisdom, to conquer him. The creator thus conquered creates no more the renunciation of ‘I’ the world of duality. The Buddhist concept of ‘suffering’ and ‘way out of suffering’ are illusions for ‘Dhamma’ is neither suffering nor bliss. Hence, Siddhartha for the first-time freed man from the shackles of religions and their ‘holy men’ who held sway over their unsuspecting followers using the ‘fear factor’ to enslave them to do their bidding.

Siddhartha neutralized his ‘Chitta’ but not that of others. He squarely placed that responsibility on the seeker when he said, “I am not a savior, find your own way”. Hence the ‘Middle Way’ together with the ‘Mental Factor’ comprise the one and the only ‘Way’ to deliverance ever revealed.

To neutralize the ‘Chitta’, one has to transform his whole life into a process of discovery constantly being aware of his thought process with the ‘Mental Factor’ as it arises and passes away dependent on conditions to guide it on the ‘Middle Way’. It is this unique technique revealed by Siddhartha that leads the seeker to final deliverance the realization of the ‘Emptiness’ of your so-called world. It is not about ‘doing’ meditation sitting and walking but ‘living’ in ‘meditation’ every moment of the ‘Way’. Hence such Indian ascetic and religious meditation practices as Jhana, Vipassana, Metta etc. are worthless to the seeker.

‘Temples, monasteries, meditation centers, holy men, sacred books are the tools of ‘Satan’ to lead you on his way. Take charge of your
life and be your own master’.

[jupiviv]

Hi Bradley.

‘The ‘Dhamma’ the Cosmic Law is not a knowledge to be imparted or to
be acquired from so-called ‘sacred books’ but to be experienced within’.

Why are you trying to impart it then? Let people be obsessed with knowledge and scriptures and eventually they will realise the folly and make amends. Except they don't, of course, and spiritual men come to tell them in excruciating detail what the Law or Process beyond understanding really is. That is also what happened in Buddhism. The good work done by the Buddha and probably some of his disciples was tainted by most of their mediocre scions. On the other hand, a few Buddhists like Nagarjuna and Hakuin upheld the Buddha's great legacy.

Contrary to accepted belief, ‘Siddhartha’ who totally rejected blind faith was not the founder of Buddhist religion but the discoverer of the ‘Dhamma’ the Cosmic Law the ‘Dependent Origination’ a something ‘never heard before’. Hence to the world deeply engrossed in an enchanted world of religions, it came in a form so strange no one really understood the message it conveyed and so it remains to this day.

The Buddha taught what every wise person teaches. The authentically wise teachings of Buddhism are no different from those of the Hinduism, Vedism/Brahmanism and various other shraman movements that preceded it, or of Christianity and Taoism. Also, how did a Cosmic Law that cannot be imparted or acquired suddenly become a mind-blowing discovery? Physician, heal thyself!

I agree with your characterisation of religion as duplicitous and manipulative, but the problem is deeper than that. Religion is a means of controlling that which seeks control to begin with. When people suffer, they want to ignore the things that make them suffer. Religion is just one of the many ways to do that. It cannot create by itself things like a community/cause to identify with and work for, or satisfactory explanations of how the world works and why there is suffering. There are many causes that lead to a person ignoring things that make them suffer in some way, and religion is a category which includes some of them. Siddhartha didn't free anyone from the shackles of religion, because it isn't the sole or even the most important cause of man's slavery to sin and untruth. Nor is man himself, i.e. in terms of his nature or propensities, such a cause. The ultimate cause, if there can be said to be one, is the All, but even that isn't the cause because it's all there is to begin with.

Wisdom is not the realisation of something previously unheard of, which "changes everything" - that is just another attempt to escape or ignore suffering. It doesn't matter if such an attempt - whether successful or not - is done in private or within a spiritual community headed by a guru. Wisdom is not a miraculous force that transforms suffering into bliss or the ordinary into the extraordinary. The real miracle is that wisdom exists despite, or to say the same thing, because of, all suffering and bliss and worldliness. The genuinely good aspects of any religion or religious tradition, insofar as they actually exist, emphasise this truth above all else.

Emptiness is not a cosmic lack of "self" or anything else. Do you think Emptiness is empty of something, or anything whatsoever? But Emptiness *is* everything to begin with, so there is nothing more or besides that it lacks! The concept of Emptiness wasn't created to hint at some hidden reality, but rather to point out the very obvious fact that human beings try to escape suffering by seeking something more than what is already there. This "something more" is what Emptiness lacks. It is an incomplete, and hence distorted, view of what is already pure and holy (i.e., already there). The key to wisdom is the blind and mad belief that samsara itself is nirvana. We must live truthfully for the sake of this world and not another, even though doing so will bring us misery, confusion, despair and doubt. That is our holy commandment, received in equal measure from all things great and small.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A nice post Jup, but perhaps wavering at the end. Let me put hot iron to it to see if anyone will scream.

...seeking something more than what is already there.
...for the sake of this world this world and not another
...all things great and small.

And as such still juxtaposing this world, a true world I suppose, with others which are less true or imaginary? Or things that are here, meaning in relation to you, in possession by you, admitted and felt to be there, compared to those that aren't? But the main aspect of a notion like totality demands including all that's hidden, invisible and yet unknown or what cannot be else than remain unknown by the nature of a universe unlikely to fold to our own demands in terms of comprehensibility.

One way to capture a notion like "something previously unheard of" which "changes everything" is not as escape but as outcome of giving up attachment (thing and idea conceptions) which includes our usual knowing, the forceful grip to interpret our world into our own making. The understandable consequence of this would be the ability to access and conceptualize or experience different notions, insights and things but radically different than before.

The call to enter a proverbial entrance cannot mean the revelation that there's no entrance and no realms after all. That, when fully embraced, would simply close up the entrance. And the human mind by its very nature will have to experience realms, their entrances and exists. Secrets found can be penetrated only to be replaced by larger, different mysteries to enter.

This is the veil of contradiction contained inside a statement like "samsara itself is nirvana". It would necessarily include all what's hidden, mysterious and unknown. And it cannot change the nature of all that. The idea here is that liberated minds will be free to venture into new places if so desired and of course, in so far capable and strong enough to make such journey, all dependent on time, place and opportunity. The one existence reveals itself never completely by definition.

[Pam Seeback]

Bradley West: Buddhism as all religions is a concept of the human mind designed to deceive the ignorant.

Buddhism is a design of the deceived, ignorant mind, therefore, the deception of Buddhism is not a conscious deception.

Hence it is imperative they constantly modify their teachings to keep abreast with the ever-evolving ways, beliefs, and cultures of the world for their survival, lest they become obsolete.

A consequence of unconsciousness of one's true nature.

With the creation of Buddhism by desecrating the ‘Word of Siddhartha’ after his passing away, his original message was lost to the world of religions and their holy men.

The glory of ignorance is that it is the fuel for its own burning up. Seen from the perspective of ultimate purpose, the more elaborate is the clinging to the doctrines and trappings of a religion, the brighter and hotter will be the flame of suffering. As Nietzsche discovered, only those who truly suffer their attachments to form find the way out.

[Bradley West]

Hi Jupiviv,
The article I submitted was not intended to impart anything as I am sure you would agree. On the contrary, it is an invitation to all who have become victims of religions and holy men. It may probably not appeal to the world inextricably trapped in blind faith.
The Dhamma is beyond space and time whereas the mind exists in space and time hence they are worlds apart. Unfortunately, your submission betrays your lack of understanding of this fact. As to wisdom or ‘Buddhi’, it is one of the three inseparable Mental Factors in the way of a seeker, but it certainly is not his final goal which is but to go beyond both ‘Wisdom and Ignorance’.
Like the Ostrich that sticks its head in the sand, religion is a form of self-deception. By committing yourself to seek a way created by others the so-called Buddhas, gods, holy men, teachers, and preachers how can you seek your own that is unique? Think about it, you will forever be going around in circles following the Buddhist so-called ‘Dhamma Chakka’ the wheel of Buddhism. It is useful to note such religious jargon as ‘Buddhi and Avijja’, ‘Samsara and Nirvana’, heaven and hell, merits and sins etc. are inseparable. You cannot have one without the other.
To all those who run after Buddhas, gods, holy men and their sacred books looking for a so-called way out of suffering, the following interesting story would serve as a fascinating eye-opener.

Light up your world within.
One day a man walking past his friend’s house noticed him desperately searching for something under the street lamp in front of his house. Out of curiosity he stopped by to inquire and was told that he had lost a valuable diamond ring. Joining the search, he questioned him as to where he had exactly lost it. “Inside the house”, came the reply. Puzzled, the man asked him “why are you then looking outside under the lamp post”? His friend promptly replied, “it is too dark inside the house but there is light out here”.
Sadly, this is precisely the predicament of a one who seeks his ‘Dhamma’ the source of his thought process in Meditation centers, monasteries, jungles, caves and sacred books instead of lighting up his own world the ‘Chitta’ within.
“To the blind, the light is always outside”

[Pam Seeback]

Bradley West: Sadly, this is precisely the predicament of a one who seeks his ‘Dhamma’ the source of his thought process in Meditation centers, monasteries, jungles, caves and sacred books instead of lighting up his own world the ‘Chitta’ within.
“To the blind, the light is always outside”

The one that teaches meditation? Not outside. The monasteries that provide silence so one can find their own? Not outside. The jungles, the caves, the sacred books that awaken the senses and the spirit? Not outside.

The Dhamma is beyond space and time whereas the mind exists in space and time hence they are worlds apart

Remove the false/imagined notion of space and time and what remains?

"To the blind, there is an outside." Seek and ye shall find is a singularity.

[jupiviv]

A nice post Jup, but perhaps wavering at the end. Let me put hot iron to it to see if anyone will scream.

So you're back from the hell realms, and have evidently spent some time at the BDSM Limbo! How is Alex btw?

...seeking something more than what is already there.
...for the sake of this world this world and not another
...all things great and small.

And as such still juxtaposing this world, a true world I suppose, with others which are less true or imaginary? Or things that are here, meaning in relation to you, in possession by you, admitted and felt to be there, compared to those that aren't? But the main aspect of a notion like totality demands including all that's hidden, invisible and yet unknown or what cannot be else than remain unknown by the nature of a universe unlikely to fold to our own demands in terms of comprehensibility.

As you know, "world" as I used it there carries the philosophical meaning viz. reality as it appears to us, and in this context that is ultimately reality itself. Whatever kind of world we find ourselves in, the standard and imperative of truth and virtue must arise within it. How is that contrary to "all that's hidden" etc.?

One way to capture a notion like "something previously unheard of" which "changes everything" is not as escape but as outcome of giving up attachment (thing and idea conceptions) which includes our usual knowing, the forceful grip to interpret our world into our own making. The understandable consequence of this would be the ability to access and conceptualize or experience different notions, insights and things but radically different than before.

Attachments are the things we are ignoring due to emotions etc. Our ignorance of those parts of reality doesn't make them uniquer than the parts we acknowledge. When we do become aware of their true nature, we greet them like a prodigal son.

The call to enter a proverbial entrance cannot mean the revelation that there's no entrance and no realms after all. That, when fully embraced, would simply close up the entrance. And the human mind by its very nature will have to experience realms, their entrances and exists. Secrets found can be penetrated only to be replaced by larger, different mysteries to enter.

This is the veil of contradiction contained inside a statement like "samsara itself is nirvana". It would necessarily include all what's hidden, mysterious and unknown. And it cannot change the nature of all that. The idea here is that liberated minds will be free to venture into new places if so desired and of course, in so far capable and strong enough to make such journey, all dependent on time, place and opportunity. The one existence reveals itself never completely by definition.

The question is whether these realms and mysteries lying in wait are just our attempts to externalise and eventually destroy what wisdom we do possess. To extend and clarify the point made above: the true nature of reality is not a reward for systematically remedying our ignorance of certain parts of it. In fact that kind of approach - the systematisation of ignorance and the process of its dissolution - underpins the westernised Eastern guru culture that our OP rightly despises (likely due to personal experience). Rather we experience reality insofar as we experience anything, and in the same way.

It is we who change, driven at first by the need to equalise (within our chaotic minds) the painful dualities of the world and finally by the sheer wonder at discovering that such equalisation is supererogatory. The unreal never is, the Real never is not.

[jupiviv]

The article I submitted was not intended to impart anything as I am sure you would agree. On the contrary, it is an invitation to all who have become victims of religions and holy men. It may probably not appeal to the world inextricably trapped in blind faith.

Your invitation isn't much use on a forum that explicitly rejects any faith in religions, men, and most importantly, women.

The Dhamma is beyond space and time whereas the mind exists in space and time hence they are worlds apart.

The Buddha would say that all things are manifestations of the mind, including the mind itself. So how can the Dharma reside anywhere but in the mind? Space and time are also creations of the mind, i.e., they are different ways of experiencing things. If you see an old man and remember a younger man who looked like him, there is time.

Sometimes, the narratives of past and future that a civilisation creates for itself clot together in a confusing and dissonant blob because the present cannot make them satisfyingly real anymore. The ephemeral and the inevitable are confounded as a matter of course. I'm not an Alex Jones fan, but he is occasionally insightful on the esoteric cultural stuff, for example this cathartic Breitbart op ed about Trump's inauguration. To paraphrase him, it's like time dilation. Or as Gurnemanz says to Parsifal when approaching the Grail:

Du siehst mein Sohn, zum Raum wird hier die Zeit. (You see, my son, here space becomes time.)

By committing yourself to seek a way created by others the so-called Buddhas, gods, holy men, teachers, and preachers how can you seek your own that is unique?

Wisdom, or the way to it, cannot be unique. Specific, personal circumstances will differ of course, but the process of becoming wiser is the same for everyone.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

So you're back from the hell realms, and have evidently spent some time at the BDSM Limbo! How is Alex btw?

No idea but surely there will be hell to pay when our enfant terrible discovers that politics and race were discussed without him!

As you know, "world" as I used it there carries the philosophical meaning viz. reality as it appears to us, and in this context that is ultimately reality itself. Whatever kind of world we find ourselves in, the standard and imperative of truth and virtue must arise within it. How is that contrary to "all that's hidden" etc.?

It appears as unwise to say "wisdom wasn't created to hint at some hidden reality" while hinting at "a very obvious fact that human beings try to escape suffering by seeking something more than what is already there", which, for some reason is not understood or seen by most. In other words it has all the qualities again of being hidden for all ends and purposes!

It is we who change, driven at first by the need to equalise (within our chaotic minds) the painful dualities of the world and finally by the sheer wonder at discovering that such equalisation is supererogatory. The unreal never is, the Real never is not.

People ask in the end simply the question of how to live, how to systematize those dualities and complexities. A constant struggle to define what is real (important, relevant, worthy) to us. And craving exactly more of that and less of the other. Even the definition of wisdom is supplied by these people as a wise way to live, the power to decide, knowledge to impart, etc.

So we can and should state, in agreement, that wisdom of the absolute does not offer any of that. It cannot crave the real since it's already the real thing and no other. It cannot fear the unreal as it can never become what's not. And it won't help a living thing?

[Bradley West]

Hi Diebert,
Your reply to Jupiviv dated 30/10 could not have been better. Congratulations.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: So we can and should state, in agreement, that wisdom of the absolute does not offer any of that. It cannot crave the real since it's already the real thing and no other. It cannot fear the unreal as it can never become what's not. And it won't help a living thing?

No it won't which is why wisdom of the absolute causes the end of life. Which is not realized until it is too late. :-)

[jupiviv]

As you know, "world" as I used it there carries the philosophical meaning viz. reality as it appears to us, and in this context that is ultimately reality itself. Whatever kind of world we find ourselves in, the standard and imperative of truth and virtue must arise within it. How is that contrary to "all that's hidden" etc.?

It appears as unwise to say "wisdom wasn't created to hint at some hidden reality" while hinting at "a very obvious fact that human beings try to escape suffering by seeking something more than what is already there", which, for some reason is not understood or seen by most. In other words it has all the qualities again of being hidden for all ends and purposes!

That is a false equivalence. Reality isn't ignored because its nature obfuscates ordinary consciousness. And again, how is that contrary to what you said about "all that's hidden"?

It is we who change, driven at first by the need to equalise (within our chaotic minds) the painful dualities of the world and finally by the sheer wonder at discovering that such equalisation is supererogatory. The unreal never is, the Real never is not.

People ask in the end simply the question of how to live, how to systematize those dualities and complexities. A constant struggle to define what is real (important, relevant, worthy) to us. And craving exactly more of that and less of the other. Even the definition of wisdom is supplied by these people as a wise way to live, the power to decide, knowledge to impart, etc.

Actually you asked two questions: how to systematise dualities, and how to live with them. They are in fact the *same* question i.e. "What is real?" The false distinction arises from the need to answer the real question.

So we can and should state, in agreement, that wisdom of the absolute does not offer any of that. It cannot crave the real since it's already the real thing and no other. It cannot fear the unreal as it can never become what's not. And it won't help a living thing?

Why not? Like I said it is we who change in our search for the absolute, so things are gained, lost, desired etc. along the way.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It appears as unwise to say "wisdom wasn't created to hint at some hidden reality" while hinting at "a very obvious fact that human beings try to escape suffering by seeking something more than what is already there", which, for some reason is not understood or seen by most. In other words it has all the qualities again of being hidden for all ends and purposes!

That is a false equivalence. Reality isn't ignored because its nature obfuscates ordinary consciousness. And again, how is that contrary to what you said about "all that's hidden"?

You first dismiss the notion of hidden realities and then introduce a kind of consciousness of the "ordinary" type which cannot see certain realities, meaning they remain, in fact, hidden to them. The contradiction in this might remain hidden because the nature of ordinary all-too-human thinking refusing to see the conflicts of their own making.

People ask in the end simply the question of how to live, how to systematize those dualities and complexities. A constant struggle to define what is real (important, relevant, worthy) to us. And craving exactly more of that and less of the other. Even the definition of wisdom is supplied by these people as a wise way to live, the power to decide, knowledge to impart, etc.

Actually you asked two questions: how to systematise dualities, and how to live with them. They are in fact the *same* question i.e. "What is real?"

Reading back I think that is exactly what I wrote or intended to write. But it's good to try to differ and find fault with it.

So we can and should state, in agreement, that wisdom of the absolute does not offer any of that. It cannot crave the real since it's already the real thing and no other. It cannot fear the unreal as it can never become what's not. And it won't help a living thing?

Why not? Like I said it is we who change in our search for the absolute, so things are gained, lost, desired etc. along the way.

Are you asking why not fear (for something) becoming unreal or are you suggesting it could actually help living things? In what way?

[jupiviv]

That is a false equivalence. Reality isn't ignored because its nature obfuscates ordinary consciousness. And again, how is that contrary to what you said about "all that's hidden"?

You first dismiss the notion of hidden realities and then introduce a kind of consciousness of the "ordinary" type which cannot see certain realities, meaning they remain, in fact, hidden to them.

I wasn't contrasting "ordinary" consciousness with some other kind or asserting it cannot see certain realities. To rephrase the argument you quoted - reality is hidden to someone to the extent they do not have ordinary consciousness of reality. You seem to have equivocated "ordinariness" with commonness or abundance but that is clearly not what I meant.

Actually you asked two questions: how to systematise dualities, and how to live with them. They are in fact the *same* question i.e. "What is real?"

Reading back I think that is exactly what I wrote or intended to write. But it's good to try to differ and find fault with it.

My point was that the subjective qualifier only when the "what is real" question is no longer asked in earnest. The reduction of its scope to relevance or helpfulness "to us" is - ironically - satisfying the remnants of the need to answer the original question.

Why not? Like I said it is we who change in our search for the absolute, so things are gained, lost, desired etc. along the way.

Are you asking why not fear (for something) becoming unreal or are you suggesting it could actually help living things?

I'm suggesting that wisdom isn't gained in a vacuum. Wisdom doesn't change our consciousness or reality in general, and doesn't grant us access to the sacred grottoes where eldritch Rhijn-maidens cavort. It does change how much more ordinarily conscious of ordinary reality one happens to be. Or to put it better it *is* that change, and the change necessarily inheres and comprehends a lot of one's life and character.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I wasn't contrasting "ordinary" consciousness with some other kind or asserting it cannot see certain realities. To rephrase the argument you quoted - reality is hidden to someone to the extent they do not have ordinary consciousness of reality. You seem to have equivocated "ordinariness" with commonness or abundance but that is clearly not what I meant.

That looks like a red herring, as far as calling any mode of consciousness more or less ordinary or special. For this topic I think it doesn't matter. You're still referencing hidden, more truthful or completer realities while earlier claiming that "wisdom wasn't created to hint at some hidden reality". It's not that I currently disagree with either but they both can't be true at the same time.

My point was that the subjective qualifier only when the "what is real" question is no longer asked in earnest. The reduction of its scope to relevance or helpfulness "to us" is - ironically - satisfying the remnants of the need to answer the original question.

Not sure how to parse that paragraph so its meaning remains uncertain. My comments would then be: I guess so?

I'm suggesting that wisdom isn't gained in a vacuum. Wisdom doesn't change our consciousness or reality in general, and doesn't grant us access to the sacred grottoes where eldritch Rhijn-maidens cavort. It does change how much more ordinarily conscious of ordinary reality one happens to be. Or to put it better it *is* that change, and the change necessarily inheres and comprehends a lot of one's life and character.

Well yes, nothing gains in a vacuum or remains uncaused or unchanged. So our minds change, for example, when intoxication changes the perception, like (not) wearing glasses changes things but not without effect or like remembering associated information about the objects. Since we cannot talk effectively about any wisdom or consciousness existing in some other, invisible realm outside the mind, it cannot be maintained that wisdom, a mindful act if nothing else, would not change consciousness or reality, or does not provide a sense of access to whatever it was that seemed inaccessible before.

Lets single this one out: "it does change how much more ordinarily conscious of ordinary reality one happens to be"

Sounds like the cult phrase " Paranoia is just reality on a finer scale." (movie Strange Days, 1995). And I think there's truth in that when waking up to intra-psychic sensations, which then believed to be real could lead to classical paranoia or turn out to be intuitively correct. In either case, actual internal processes are revealed. What I mean to say is that simply "more reality" does not have to be such a wise ambition level. Actually I'd suggest the mind might start to dissolve faster than it already would

[jupiviv]

I wasn't contrasting "ordinary" consciousness with some other kind or asserting it cannot see certain realities. To rephrase the argument you quoted - reality is hidden to someone to the extent they do not have ordinary consciousness of reality. You seem to have equivocated "ordinariness" with commonness or abundance but that is clearly not what I meant.

That looks like a red herring, as far as calling any mode of consciousness more or less ordinary or special.

No but *that* not only looks like but definitely is a straw man! You quoted me - I wasn't contrasting "ordinary" consciousness with some other kind or asserting it cannot see certain realities - and then claimed I was calling "modes" of consciousness "more or less ordinary or special".

You're still referencing hidden, more truthful or completer realities while earlier claiming that "wisdom wasn't created to hint at some hidden reality".

I said: reality is hidden to someone to the extent they do not have ordinary consciousness of reality. Unless your premise is that awareness of something changes its nature, this is also a straw man.

My point was that the subjective qualifier only when the "what is real" question is no longer asked in earnest. The reduction of its scope to relevance or helpfulness "to us" is - ironically - satisfying the remnants of the need to answer the original question.

Not sure how to parse that paragraph so its meaning remains uncertain.

Dissatisfaction arising from contemplation of "what is real?" causes one to eventually pretend it can be answered by doing or thinking whatever one finds most convenient and/or pleasurable.

Since we cannot talk effectively about any wisdom or consciousness existing in some other, invisible realm outside the mind, it cannot be maintained that wisdom, a mindful act if nothing else, would not change consciousness or reality, or does not provide a sense of access to whatever it was that seemed inaccessible before.

Are you asserting that since wisdom is already a part of reality, it therefore changes and/or provides access to reality? That would beg the question, as the putative agent of change a priori comprises what is changing.

Lets single this one out: "it does change how much more ordinarily conscious of ordinary reality one happens to be"

Sounds like the cult phrase " Paranoia is just reality on a finer scale." (movie Strange Days, 1995). And I think there's truth in that when waking up to intra-psychic sensations, which then believed to be real could lead to classical paranoia or turn out to be intuitively correct. In either case, actual internal processes are revealed. What I mean to say is that simply "more reality" does not have to such a wise ambition level. Actually I'd suggest the mind might start to dissolve faster than it already would

There is a clear distinction between what I referred to and the unique insights or experiences potentially resulting from morbid psychological characteristics or processes. The latter, at *best*, reveals certain parts of reality that are usually ignored due to multifarious causes. Those parts can be anything from a repressed memory of suckling on mammy's meth-frosted mammaries to the single manly tear shed by me when I saw Luke die after watching twin suns set for the last time.

The former (in previous paragraph) denotes an unusually high percentage of waking life spent experiencing *any* reality sans delusions or attachments, which in turn denotes perennial and interwoven processes of introspection, suffering and discovery of the myriad connections or contrasts between things, which finally denotes a simultaneously gradual and instantaneous realisation of the All.

[Pam Seeback]

jupiviv wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:10 pm
I wasn't contrasting "ordinary" consciousness with some other kind or asserting it cannot see certain realities. To rephrase the argument you quoted - reality is hidden to someone to the extent they do not have ordinary consciousness of reality. You seem to have equivocated "ordinariness" with commonness or abundance but that is clearly not what I meant.

Diebert wrote: That looks like a red herring, as far as calling any mode of consciousness more or less ordinary or special. For this topic I think it doesn't matter. You're still referencing hidden, more truthful or completer realities while earlier claiming that "wisdom wasn't created to hint at some hidden reality". It's not that I currently disagree with either but they both can't be true at the same time.

It seems as if the problem arises in the making of a distinction between consciousness and reality. What is seen or heard or smelled or touched or tasted or analyzed IS reality. One could just as easily say 'What I am conscious of is reality.' As for referencing more truthful or hidden realities, this is the hard walk of the desire for absoluteness (absolution?) that truth seekers take before they hit the wall of truth that consciousness, by virtue of its dependently-originated nature, cannot uncover forms that are not dependently-originated. Ironically, the discovery that consciousness is dependently-originated rather than absolute can provide, for consciousness, a dependently originated definition that resolves any guilt or remorse experienced when its non-absolute nature is discovered. But that subject is for another thread. :-)

In relation to the original post in this thread, his statement given below reveals that the poster has not yet arrived at the truth that reality (consciousness) cannot go beyond its defining nature (with the goal to 'neutralize it'):

The ‘Dhamma’ is an empty process beyond space and time where there is nothing to be defined. Hence it is beyond the comprehension of the human mind and beyond ‘words’ and cannot be discoursed or found in so-called ‘sacred books or Suttas’. It is the source of your unique thought process the ‘Chitta’, and can only be experienced within. “You are your ‘Dhamma’ your world of duality. Experience it every moment to comprehend it to neutralize it to go beyond mind and matter”, said Siddhartha.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I wasn't contrasting "ordinary" consciousness with some other kind or asserting it cannot see certain realities

What then you mean with the statement "reality isn't ignored because its nature obfuscates ordinary consciousness"?

You wrote the "incomplete, and hence distorted view of what is already pure and holy" and yet claimed there isn't any "hidden reality" to expose. But the possibility of having incomplete and distorted views don't seem that different from the idea of hidden realities existing. Unless you want to discuss the difference between reality and any particular view on reality. In case you want that discussion, keep in mind that wisdom trying to "expose" or reveal or teach anything, does not make any sense in relation to the absolute. Hence there's "wisdom of the Absolute" which isn't in itself absolute, therefore still dealing with views, realities, concepts, falsehoods and truths. In other words, all that wisdom does is exposing what's hidden and pointing to completeness.

Dissatisfaction arising from contemplation of "what is real?" causes one to eventually pretend it can be answered by doing or thinking whatever one finds most convenient and/or pleasurable.

And if some action or thought becomes convenient and pleasurable because it connects us with the meaningful, relevant and the embodiment of existence, of all what's deemed worthwhile, providing worth, it all makes way more sense. The key issue here is desiring reality and connecting to whatever to experience such. We are, after all, mainly created by & through connections.

Are you asserting that since wisdom is already a part of reality, it therefore changes and/or provides access to reality? That would beg the question, as the putative agent of change a priori comprises what is changing.

It doesn't matter how wisdom is exactly defined here: serving as explanatory, demonstrative, contemplative or transformative. In all cases some form of expansion can be logically deducted. And if it wouldn't effect anything, we could discard it right?

The former (in previous paragraph) denotes an unusually high percentage of waking life spent experiencing *any* reality sans delusions or attachments, which in turn denotes perennial and interwoven processes of introspection, suffering and discovery of the myriad connections or contrasts between things, which finally denotes a simultaneously gradual and instantaneous realisation of the All.

And as such the Jedi cannot die as young Anakin already exclaimed once. You can dry your man-tears now.

[Santiago Odo]

Buddhism as all religions is a concept of the human mind designed to deceive the ignorant. Hence it is imperative they constantly modify their teachings to keep abreast with the ever-evolving ways, beliefs, and cultures of the world for their survival, lest they become obsolete. The emergence of various Buddhist traditions or factions over time all claiming to represent the original message of their Buddha clearly reflects this trend. With the creation of Buddhism by desecrating the ‘Word of Siddhartha’ after his passing away, his original message was lost to the world of religions and their holy men. However, the ‘Dhamma’ is timeless and so is the method he discovered for the seeker to find his own ‘Way’ to go beyond this process.

I am still a little amazed that such bizarre statements can be made by intelligent people. Such a glossary statement defining that 'Buddhism and all religions' are this and that seem rather naive. The statement is false on the face. Therefor, all that stems from it is potentially false, in any case questionable.

The person who is making this statement -- this group of statements -- has to appear and subject himself to inquiries. What is the function, in that person, of these odd and tendentious assertions? What is the purpose of them? Clearly, a *teaching* is presented -- at least it is suggested -- yet what is it? Usually, when it comes to Westerners who walk into the trap offered by strange and murky neo-Buddhist metaphysics, one ultimately discovers a power-monger of sorts. That is, someone working some angle that has a function. Always, I have found, the function is non-creative. It attempts a form of creativity through a posture of negation, but the entire effort ends up at an impasse. One paints oneself into a corner. The world remains, and oneself in that world, with all the important decisions related to one's responsibilities, but this strange player, as it were, isolates himself within inane considerations devoid of value.

If there is an "original message of Buddha", the writer claims to know what it is. A grand claim surely. True, this sort of quasi-philosophical somewhat Buddhist conversation will likely have relevance for someone, somewhere, who can then devote, say, 10 years+ to never-ending logorrhea on a topic of no value and no resolution. Also true: that is a function all to itself! In fact, that is the function! It's not to 'get anywhere' as, by definition, there is no *where* nor *getting* there.

I am already exhausted from the long journey! Please, please, there must be an Inn-of-Illusion that I can check into?!

This is really the main reason I took up basket weaving. It has really opened up a whole world of knowledge and, indeed, of wonder. The different ways the coils are woven together; the different plants and their life-histories; the going out and the collecting of them; the inner-silence I steep myself in like a mellow teabag. Ah, if it weren't for basket-weaving I am not sure what would have become of me . . .

But there is a story I want to tell you. Once, a clever donkey lost a precious diamond in his mansion. He had not paid his utility bill so the mansion was dark. But there was a municipal lamppost outside and, at night and by way of underground tunnels, the wiring of the lamp was connected to the mansion and, lo and behold! the clever donkey had light from then on and evermore. What, you ask, became of the diamond? You doltish chela! A curse upon your house! Who the fuck cares? The point is that he had free utilities from then on. What the heck does a diamond do for one? It even needs light to sparkle.

Siddhartha was emphatic when he called on the seeker not to rely on hearsay or second-hand knowledge acquired from teachers, preachers, and so-called ‘sacred’ books and ‘Suttas’ for they are empty rhetoric irrelevant to the unique ‘Way’ of a seeker. Hence, to comprehend your ‘Dhamma’ the thought process that creates the illusion of ‘I’, Siddhartha disclosed the ‘Sattipatthana’ for you to experience within the reality of existence i.e. the body, feeling and ‘Chitta’ are just ‘Dhamma’ an empty process arising and passing away dependent on conditions, devoid of a ‘self’. With this basic realization, the seeker must guide his dualistic thought process his creator, on his ‘Middle Way’ with the ‘Mental Factor’ the concomitance Sila, Samadhi, Wisdom, to conquer him. The creator thus conquered creates no more the renunciation of ‘I’ the world of duality. The Buddhist concept of ‘suffering’ and ‘way out of suffering’ are illusions for ‘Dhamma’ is neither suffering nor bliss. Hence, Siddhartha for the first-time freed man from the shackles of religions and their ‘holy men’ who held sway over their unsuspecting followers using the ‘fear factor’ to enslave them to do their bidding.

Can you say the phrase Mind Fuck? Actually, I have the corrected utterances of Siddartha and he said exactly the opposite. This I can prove. But I like this:

"Siddhartha for the first-time enslaved a neo-Buddist by laying over him the shackles of twisted convoluted rhetoric and tricked him into becoming a ‘holy man’ who eventually gained sway over many unsuspecting followers using the ‘BS factor’ so to enslave them into do his bidding. He made a Fortune!"

Good work I say! But I ask: Who was smarter? The donkey in the quoted Sacred Fable, or the salesman of convoluted 'Siddharthan' rhetorics?

[jupiviv]

You wrote the "incomplete, and hence distorted view of what is already pure and holy" and yet claimed there isn't any "hidden reality" to expose. But the possibility of having incomplete and distorted views don't seem that different from the idea of hidden realities existing.

An instance of unconsciousness of something does not equate to the thing itself being innately hidden to ordinary consciousness and therefore distinct from ordinary reality.

Unless you want to discuss the difference between reality and any particular view on reality. In case you want that discussion, keep in mind that wisdom trying to "expose" or reveal or teach anything, does not make any sense in relation to the absolute. Hence there's "wisdom of the Absolute" which isn't in itself absolute, therefore still dealing with views, realities, concepts, falsehoods and truths. In other words, all that wisdom does is exposing what's hidden and pointing to completeness.

If I'm interpreting you correctly, I agree. Wisdom of the All is not the All. It can only deal with finite things, never the sum of all finite things. The reason it cannot do that is because the All comprises it and cannot be separated from it, and that fact does reveal something about the All, or wisdom, or other finite things individually or in general, as you will.

And if some action or thought becomes convenient and pleasurable because it connects us with the meaningful, relevant and the embodiment of existence, of all what's deemed worthwhile, providing worth, it all makes way more sense. The key issue here is desiring reality and connecting to whatever to experience such. We are, after all, mainly created by & through connections.

The connection has to be between consciousness and reality for it to be called wisdom.

Are you asserting that since wisdom is already a part of reality, it therefore changes and/or provides access to reality? That would beg the question, as the putative agent of change a priori comprises what is changing.

It doesn't matter how wisdom is exactly defined here: serving as explanatory, demonstrative, contemplative or transformative. In all cases some form of expansion can be logically deducted. And if it wouldn't effect anything, we could discard it right?

My point was that nothing changes reality by being a part of it.

You can dry your man-tears now.

Impossible without prolonged access to the blue milk of human kindness, with which you are evidently overflowing. So...?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

An instance of unconsciousness of something does not equate to the thing itself being innately hidden to ordinary consciousness and therefore distinct from ordinary reality.

To paraphrase you: "world" as we discuss it here carries the philosophical meaning viz. reality (as it appears to us). This is not about the scientific issue of locating all the actual physical processes of causality like to make sure we did not miss some hidden variable.

(...)In other words, all that wisdom does is exposing what's hidden and pointing to completeness.

If I'm interpreting you correctly, I agree.

Do you also agree with my attempted summary: "... all that wisdom does is exposing what's hidden"? How does that compare to your earlier notion that wisdom is not hinting at any "hidden realities". Unless you were thinking of fairy land, x-ray vision or supernatural perceptions of course. But I'd like to think that we're not in that type of conversation.

The connection has to be between consciousness and reality for it to be called wisdom.

But what would you call anything in a disconnected state then? How and where could it exist? A typical delusion is still perception, still has causality.

My point was that nothing changes reality by being a part of it.

Change is part of reality, even its very nature. How could it not change by anything being part of it?

[jupiviv]

An instance of unconsciousness of something does not equate to the thing itself being innately hidden to ordinary consciousness and therefore distinct from ordinary reality.

To paraphrase you: "world" as we discuss it here carries the philosophical meaning viz. reality (as it appears to us). This is not about the scientific issue of locating all the actual physical processes of causality like to make sure we did not miss some hidden variable.

You're right it isn't about that.

(...)In other words, all that wisdom does is exposing what's hidden and pointing to completeness.

If I'm interpreting you correctly, I agree.

Do you also agree with my attempted summary: "... all that wisdom does is exposing what's hidden"?[/quote]

Yes, depending on the definition of "hidden". So let us go back to my original question (in bold):

...seeking something more than what is already there.
...for the sake of this world this world and not another
...all things great and small.

And as such still juxtaposing this world, a true world I suppose, with others which are less true or imaginary? Or things that are here, meaning in relation to you, in possession by you, admitted and felt to be there, compared to those that aren't? But the main aspect of a notion like totality demands including all that's hidden, invisible and yet unknown or what cannot be else than remain unknown by the nature of a universe unlikely to fold to our own demands in terms of comprehensibility.

As you know, "world" as I used it there carries the philosophical meaning viz. reality as it appears to us, and in this context that is ultimately reality itself. Whatever kind of world we find ourselves in, the standard and imperative of truth and virtue must arise within it. How is that contrary to "all that's hidden" etc.?

The connection has to be between consciousness and reality for it to be called wisdom.

But what would you call anything in a disconnected state then? How and where could it exist? A typical delusion is still perception, still has causality.

And that is why only the connection between consciousness and reality is wisdom.

My point was that nothing changes reality by being a part of it.

Change is part of reality, even its very nature. How could it not change by anything being part of it?

Change isn't a separate thing within reality. Things change in relation to other things, not the All.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

As you know, "world" as I used it there carries the philosophical meaning viz. reality as it appears to us, and in this context that is ultimately reality itself. Whatever kind of world we find ourselves in, the standard and imperative of truth and virtue must arise within it. How is that contrary to "all that's hidden" etc.?

The worlds appearing as knowledge, sense or experience do not equal knowledge, sense or experience of ultimate reality. If that was the case, ultimate reality would become another thing, perhaps a very connected or complex thing but still a thing with limitations, relativity, interpretation and subjectivity attached. It would also stop at death which would be at odds with its nature.

In other words, the notion that the world, the apparent reality is also totality and completeness is not wrong but more like meaningless when discussing wisdom as function, as some goal oriented behavior or display of something. And I refer again to your statement that wisdom was not hinting at any "hidden realities" which I found to be problematic in its many implications. Unless you meant something entirely else with the phrase, like it's not hinting at "nonsense" or "dreams". Even hinting at some plain, common, shared or universal "reality" is problematic as it would devaluate and turn wisdom into the next flower or pencil.

The connection has to be between consciousness and reality for it to be called wisdom.

But what would you call anything in a disconnected state then? How and where could it exist? A typical delusion is still perception, still has causality.

And that is why only the connection between consciousness and reality is wisdom.

But what other connections are there in existence? And if it's the only one: is there anything left disconnected somewhere? And after you answer that, please explain what reason there remains to call it wisdom and not something else?

My point was that nothing changes reality by being a part of it.

Change is part of reality, even its very nature. How could it not change by anything being part of it?

Change isn't a separate thing within reality. Things change in relation to other things, not the All.

The All does not change but that's not in relation to anything else changing as it would imply there would be another thing beyond the all. Therefore the All, absolute reality is not a thing which can be in a state of change or non-change. It cannot be said to change but it cannot be said to be constant.

"The All which changes is not the All which never changes".

Once the above line is understood, it's clear why the mind ultimately fails with this and language can only dance around it. But all great skill, like all logic, precision, effort, dedication, patience and the abstract, can dance quite close to the edge at times.

[jupiviv]

As you know, "world" as I used it there carries the philosophical meaning viz. reality as it appears to us, and in this context that is ultimately reality itself. Whatever kind of world we find ourselves in, the standard and imperative of truth and virtue must arise within it. How is that contrary to "all that's hidden" etc.?

The worlds appearing as knowledge, sense or experience do not equal knowledge, sense or experience of ultimate reality. If that was the case, ultimate reality would become another thing, perhaps a very connected or complex thing but still a thing with limitations, relativity, interpretation and subjectivity attached. It would also stop at death which would be at odds with its nature.

Yes, the knowledge of a single thing or process certainly isn't knowledge of ultimate reality per se. And yet knowledge of finite things is the only kind of knowledge there is! Since finite things are ultimate reality to begin with, understanding them completely is the same as understanding ultimate reality - what is there to begin with.

In other words, the notion that the world, the apparent reality is also totality and completeness is not wrong but more like meaningless when discussing wisdom as function, as some goal oriented behavior or display of something. And I refer again to your statement that wisdom was not hinting at any "hidden realities" which I found to be problematic in its many implications. Unless you meant something entirely else with the phrase, like it's not hinting at "nonsense" or "dreams". Even hinting at some plain, common, shared or universal "reality" is problematic as it would devaluate and turn wisdom into the next flower or pencil.

This argument is almost Alexian in its peremptory agitation about ontological slippery slopes! The movements and transformations that lead to wisdom being imparted by ordinary things are not meaningless. Those things in and of themselves don't express wisdom, but all that they imply, all that they lead one to recollect or contemplate, all that is sacrificed and forborn in order to think of them in this way - in short, the All. And yes, that doesn't require any "hidden realities" if they are defined as being elusive to ordinary consciousness as well as possessing some unique quality that reveals or clarifies the nature of reality and/or one's place within it. None of what I've said in this thread implies that a pencil becomes wisdom if one learns how to use it to relieve anal itches.

The connection has to be between consciousness and reality for it to be called wisdom.

But what would you call anything in a disconnected state then? How and where could it exist? A typical delusion is still perception, still has causality.

And that is why only the connection between consciousness and reality is wisdom.

But what other connections are there in existence? And if it's the only one: is there anything left disconnected somewhere? And after you answer that, please explain what reason there remains to call it wisdom and not something else?

Consciousness isn't the only thing that exists, so a connection between non-consciousness and reality isn't wisdom.

My point was that nothing changes reality by being a part of it.

Change is part of reality, even its very nature. How could it not change by anything being part of it?

Change isn't a separate thing within reality. Things change in relation to other things, not the All.

The All does not change but that's not in relation to anything else changing as it would imply there would be another thing beyond the all. Therefore the All, absolute reality is not a thing which can be in a state of change or non-change. It cannot be said to change but it cannot be said to be constant.

No disagreement here. Nothing changes or preserves reality by being a part of it.

[Santiago Odo]

I am not sure why anything more would ever have to be said after this:

The All which changes is not the All which never changes.

It is logically untenable, but still gorgeous and commendable.
__________________

Note: One thing that is beginning to grate on me, Diebert, is this long -- it must be intentional and planned, a deliberate *female* silence -- interval between when an important comment is posted and when you deign to respond to it.

Can you commit to responding within a 24 hour time frame? Thank you.