Told A Monk About This Forum

[Brucenkhamen]

Except that liberation is also a concept of faith.

Ultimate liberation aka enlightenment is a concept of faith yes, however that wasn't what I was talking about rather that when one practises the path one notices before long that compared to before one is more liberated, call it partial or relative liberation if you like.

This isn't a matter of faith, it is to be experienced and is verifiable, without this I think most of us wouldn't or couldn't continue.

[rockyysdt]

Except that liberation is also a concept of faith.

Ultimate liberation aka enlightenment is a concept of faith yes, however that wasn't what I was talking about rather that when one practises the path one notices before long that compared to before one is more liberated, call it partial or relative liberation if you like.

This isn't a matter of faith, it is to be experienced and is verifiable, without this I think most of us wouldn't or couldn't continue.

That's short of the mark isn't it Bruce.

When Buddhists say they strive for liberation don't they really mean liberation from suffering (dukkha) by the cessation of re birth?

Deep relaxation without Buddhist doctrine can also take one to partial or relative liberation.

Enlightenment, re birth, khamma, Mara, realms, divas, hungry spirits, nothing inside, and extinguishing the ego are all elements of faith.

It's also a very good point by C. When we experience these for our selves, how can we evaluate whether they are real?

Edited January 16, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

That's short of the mark isn't it Bruce.

It is if you stop right there and just rest on your laurels.

When Buddhists say they strive for liberation don't they really mean liberation from suffering (dukkha) by the cessation of re birth?

I suffer a lot less today than when I started, if that's all there is too it then it's been worth it, I'm pretty unconcerned about rebirth really.

Deep relaxation without Buddhist doctrine can also take one to partial or relative liberation.

Deep relaxation can take you to a temporary state where you feel good, this is of course dependant on the causes and conditions that created the state of deep relaxation. If one has gained insight and a degree of liberation this goes deeper than that and is less at the mercy of causes and conditions, this is one of the criteria to measure by.

It's also a very good point by C. When we experience these for our selves, how can we evaluate whether they are real?

How do you evaluate whether anything is real?

[phetaroi]

I'd have to say I've come across very few westerners that express nearly as much faith as Fred.

It doesn't really bother me either way whether these things are literally true, metaphorically true, or not because as far as I can tell they have no bearing on practising the path to liberation here and now.

It doesn't bother me either, providing the person who is discussing it can see that there is a difference between something being literally true, or metaphorically true. Said in a different way -- either fact or faith is fine with me, the problem is not being able to distinguish one from another.

[lungmi]

Every Buddha has to be born as a man...since otherwise people will believe he can do things because he is superhuman.

However he is more than just a normal man, because he has been perfecting himself as a Boddhisatva for innumerable aeons...which is why when he was born he proclaimed that there was no being his superior in any of the 31 realms....quite true.

You perfectly demonstrate the concerns I have. I can accept all the teachings of Buddha that are based on his wisdom. His "advice" can fairly easily be proven by testing.

But then you want to bring in:

Innumerable aeons (for which there is not one iota of scientific evidence)

31 realms

To which my response is -- faith, faith, and faith.

And, as I have stated many times, nothing wrong with faith...just as long as you admit that "faith issues" are not the same as principles which can be proven.

In Authentic (not the Cultural) Theravada Buddhism there are no Boddhisatva. This is Mahayana, but never mind, the basic conviction is the same> reduce suffering, the way is different.

According to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, the Four Noble Truths are best understood, not as beliefs, but as categories of experience.

[lungmi]

Every Buddha has to be born as a man...since otherwise people will believe he can do things because he is superhuman.

However he is more than just a normal man, because he has been perfecting himself as a Boddhisatva for innumerable aeons...which is why when he was born he proclaimed that there was no being his superior in any of the 31 realms....quite true.

I find this epistemological arguing genuinelly enchanting. Obviously, it is the key discussion of Western philosophy for the last 30 years. It struck me how useful Foucault's History of Sexuality Volume 1 or, say, Todd May's 'Between Genealogy and Epistemology' would be to the monk.

FabianFred is arguing the transcendental card. While other writers are arguing for the indeterminancy of truth or the non-existence of truth. Indeed, I think one writer is arguing that the non-existence of truth is a transcendence. All interesting because the vocabulary of the Western philosphers is not picked up on, so it has a sense of innocence about it.

I wonder if I am actually having a genuine Buddhist meditative existence by my interactions with French philosphy over the last 5 years.

I had Thai friends push me to go to a Buddhist camp by some Japanese monk in a temple in Thailand. They suggested he would listen to my arguments. I declined since to turn up to his camp would be to imply his superior knowledge over mine. I suspect my thoughts on knowledge are greater than his, and my reading wider, yet this would through the semiotics of the temple/monk/layman nexus of power/knowledge be regarded as arrogance.

Ask yourselves: how is that which you claim to know? Some of you speak of insight or 'analysis', but what is your epistemology to realise this 'analysis'. How can you know truth when you see it? Why do you believe you can find it? There are foundational assumptions of 'received knowledge' that imply superiority through some supernatural unknown. That is fine, but then, you do you know this to be true, how do you know it can exist?

I find Albert Camus' argument of the absurdity of life much more compelling than anything I hear from the works of Buddha. But I am open to doubt.

:jap:

I find Albert Camus' argument of the absurdity of life much more compelling than anything I hear from the works of Buddha. But I am open to doubt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't doubt.

http://mettarefuge.w...surdity-of-life

Adjahn Thanissaro (English Translator of one part of the Pali Canon, Wat Metta California, Dhammayuth Theravada)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder if I am actually having a genuine Buddhist meditative existence by my interactions with French philosphy over the last 5 years.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I started my Buddhist history with the Parable of the Good Samaritain (primary school), then Dr.Rieux (La Peste) de Camus (High School), then French Teacher (La Peste) at High school and now

I work in a Buddhist wat as traditional doctor. You see the interaction with the Teaching of Jesu and French Philosphy works. A student of mine was impressionated by Dr.Rieux, now he is Director for Thai Studies (Buddhism) at the University of Leeds.

Some links for further studies.

http://www.etudes-li...us-la-peste.php

http://en.wikipedia..../Roland_Barthes

http://pathpress.wor...syphus-a-cycle/

Edited January 16, 2011 by lungmi

[rockyysdt]

Every Buddha has to be born as a man...since otherwise people will believe he can do things because he is superhuman.

However he is more than just a normal man, because he has been perfecting himself as a Boddhisatva for innumerable aeons...which is why when he was born he proclaimed that there was no being his superior in any of the 31 realms....quite true.

You perfectly demonstrate the concerns I have. I can accept all the teachings of Buddha that are based on his wisdom. His "advice" can fairly easily be proven by testing.

But then you want to bring in:

Innumerable aeons (for which there is not one iota of scientific evidence)

31 realms

To which my response is -- faith, faith, and faith.

And, as I have stated many times, nothing wrong with faith...just as long as you admit that "faith issues" are not the same as principles which can be proven.

In Authentic (not the Cultural) Theravada Buddhism there are no Boddhisatva. This is Mahayana, but never mind, the basic conviction is the same> reduce suffering, the way is different.

According to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, the Four Noble Truths are best understood, not as beliefs, but as categories of experience.

If Theravada is closer and more faithful to the Buddhas teachings and Boddhisatva's are a Mahayana creation, then how could the Buddha live as one (Boddhisatva)?

Edited January 16, 2011 by rockyysdt

[lungmi]

Thanks to all posters. I initiated a discussion you accepted at a high level in the German tradition of Lessing (Nathan the Wise). Streitkultur /Culture of dispute.

Everyone can learn in an honest dispute. No one is winner, no one is loser, we are winner all together.

In the Dhammapada I read something what fits, but I cannot quote.

Open mind, open heart and open mouth- my wife told me- a devoted Buddhist with a lot of Cultural Buddhist believings.

I tolerate her and she tolerates me ("scientific" Buddhist).

(She is just fighting me, because I forget to give water to the flowers and the plants in our garden, She is right. I have to do my Bhuddist duty.)

[Gaccha]

Every Buddha has to be born as a man...since otherwise people will believe he can do things because he is superhuman.

However he is more than just a normal man, because he has been perfecting himself as a Boddhisatva for innumerable aeons...which is why when he was born he proclaimed that there was no being his superior in any of the 31 realms....quite true.

I find this epistemological arguing genuinelly enchanting. Obviously, it is the key discussion of Western philosophy for the last 30 years. It struck me how useful Foucault's History of Sexuality Volume 1 or, say, Todd May's 'Between Genealogy and Epistemology' would be to the monk.

FabianFred is arguing the transcendental card. While other writers are arguing for the indeterminancy of truth or the non-existence of truth. Indeed, I think one writer is arguing that the non-existence of truth is a transcendence. All interesting because the vocabulary of the Western philosphers is not picked up on, so it has a sense of innocence about it.

I wonder if I am actually having a genuine Buddhist meditative existence by my interactions with French philosphy over the last 5 years.

I had Thai friends push me to go to a Buddhist camp by some Japanese monk in a temple in Thailand. They suggested he would listen to my arguments. I declined since to turn up to his camp would be to imply his superior knowledge over mine. I suspect my thoughts on knowledge are greater than his, and my reading wider, yet this would through the semiotics of the temple/monk/layman nexus of power/knowledge be regarded as arrogance.

Ask yourselves: how is that which you claim to know? Some of you speak of insight or 'analysis', but what is your epistemology to realise this 'analysis'. How can you know truth when you see it? Why do you believe you can find it? There are foundational assumptions of 'received knowledge' that imply superiority through some supernatural unknown. That is fine, but then, you do you know this to be true, how do you know it can exist?

I find Albert Camus' argument of the absurdity of life much more compelling than anything I hear from the works of Buddha. But I am open to doubt.

:jap:

I find Albert Camus' argument of the absurdity of life much more compelling than anything I hear from the works of Buddha. But I am open to doubt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't doubt.

http://mettarefuge.w...surdity-of-life

Adjahn Thanissaro (English Translator of one part of the Pali Canon, Wat Metta California, Dhammayuth Theravada)

>snip<

You'll be painfully aware that I could deconstruct or dissemble the essay of Ajarn Thanissaro... but I'm not going to do that. I want to look deeper for crossovers of Buddhist ideas and Western philosophy.

I could start by examining the genealogy of the notion of 'self' as extracted from Ajarn Thanissaro's piece. His 'self' concept seems to universalise and make it transcendent, while many Western thinkers have argued for its specificity in the domain of capitalism, as a construct of the modern society where people can carry out activities that imply a uniqueness, and a privatization of the self. I am saying that I think Ajarn Thanisssaro may be trapped or coopted by the dominant episteme of his time.

The 'Four Noble Truths' that he refers to fascinate. They are positioned as realities that the Buddha experienced, according to Wikipedia. But how do we know that which we claim to know? How do we know he was right? What grounds of knowledge are we using to determine this? If you claim a unique or received knowledge for Buddhism, then it is no better than the miracles of Christianity etc.

I think working through what can find 'truth', and if there is one or many to be found, is actually the only game in town. All the rest is fluff. AS soon as somebody says using 'insight' or 'analysis' I am trained to smell a rat. For it must follow, what basis of truth is being used to make the insight. You cannot use the method of insight to justify the insight. This is a recursive loop. If as an alternative, the truth is then positioned as the loop, then what truth generates that truth.

I wonder, and I'm not joking, that the works of Philip K Dick can assist. He plays around with notions of Reality to an extraordinary extent. See Ubik and VALIS, and Radio Free Albemuth.

:jap:

Edited January 16, 2011 by Gaccha

[lungmi]

Every Buddha has to be born as a man...since otherwise people will believe he can do things because he is superhuman.

However he is more than just a normal man, because he has been perfecting himself as a Boddhisatva for innumerable aeons...which is why when he was born he proclaimed that there was no being his superior in any of the 31 realms....quite true.

You perfectly demonstrate the concerns I have. I can accept all the teachings of Buddha that are based on his wisdom. His "advice" can fairly easily be proven by testing.

But then you want to bring in:

Innumerable aeons (for which there is not one iota of scientific evidence)

31 realms

To which my response is -- faith, faith, and faith.

And, as I have stated many times, nothing wrong with faith...just as long as you admit that "faith issues" are not the same as principles which can be proven.

In Authentic (not the Cultural) Theravada Buddhism there are no Boddhisatva. This is Mahayana, but never mind, the basic conviction is the same> reduce suffering, the way is different.

According to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, the Four Noble Truths are best understood, not as beliefs, but as categories of experience.

If Theravada is closer and more faithful to the Buddhas teachings and Boddhisatva's are a Mahayana creation, then how could the Buddha live as one (Boddhisatva)?

The Buddhist Union of Germany and the Buddhist Union or Austria published a paper in the name of associated Buddhist groups of all schools. One page.

[lungmi]

I

Every Buddha has to be born as a man...since otherwise people will believe he can do things because he is superhuman.

However he is more than just a normal man, because he has been perfecting himself as a Boddhisatva for innumerable aeons...which is why when he was born he proclaimed that there was no being his superior in any of the 31 realms....quite true.

I find this epistemological arguing genuinelly enchanting. Obviously, it is the key discussion of Western philosophy for the last 30 years. It struck me how useful Foucault's History of Sexuality Volume 1 or, say, Todd May's 'Between Genealogy and Epistemology' would be to the monk.

FabianFred is arguing the transcendental card. While other writers are arguing for the indeterminancy of truth or the non-existence of truth. Indeed, I think one writer is arguing that the non-existence of truth is a transcendence. All interesting because the vocabulary of the Western philosphers is not picked up on, so it has a sense of innocence about it.

I wonder if I am actually having a genuine Buddhist meditative existence by my interactions with French philosphy over the last 5 years.

I had Thai friends push me to go to a Buddhist camp by some Japanese monk in a temple in Thailand. They suggested he would listen to my arguments. I declined since to turn up to his camp would be to imply his superior knowledge over mine. I suspect my thoughts on knowledge are greater than his, and my reading wider, yet this would through the semiotics of the temple/monk/layman nexus of power/knowledge be regarded as arrogance.

Ask yourselves: how is that which you claim to know? Some of you speak of insight or 'analysis', but what is your epistemology to realise this 'analysis'. How can you know truth when you see it? Why do you believe you can find it? There are foundational assumptions of 'received knowledge' that imply superiority through some supernatural unknown. That is fine, but then, you do you know this to be true, how do you know it can exist?

I find Albert Camus' argument of the absurdity of life much more compelling than anything I hear from the works of Buddha. But I am open to doubt.

:jap:

I find Albert Camus' argument of the absurdity of life much more compelling than anything I hear from the works of Buddha. But I am open to doubt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't doubt.

http://mettarefuge.w...surdity-of-life

Adjahn Thanissaro (English Translator of one part of the Pali Canon, Wat Metta California, Dhammayuth Theravada)

>snip<

You'll be painfully aware that I could deconstruct or dissemble the essay of Ajarn Thanissaro... but I'm not going to do that. I want to look deeper for crossovers of Buddhist ideas and Western philosophy.

I could start by examining the genealogy of the notion of 'self' as extracted from Ajarn Thanissaro's piece. His 'self' concept seems to universalise and make it transcendent, while many Western thinkers have argued for its specificity in the domain of capitalism, as a construct of the modern society where people can carry out activities that imply a uniqueness, and a privatization of the self. I am saying that I think Ajarn Thanisssaro may be trapped or coopted by the dominant episteme of his time.

The 'Four Noble Truths' that he refers to fascinate. They are positioned as realities that the Buddha experienced, according to Wikipedia. But how do we know that which we claim to know? How do we know he was right? What grounds of knowledge are we using to determine this? If you claim a unique or received knowledge for Buddhism, then it is no better than the miracles of Christianity etc.

I think working through what can find 'truth', and if there is one or many to be found, is actually the only game in town. All the rest is fluff. AS soon as somebody says using 'insight' or 'analysis' I am trained to smell a rat. For it must follow, what basis of truth is being used to make the insight. You cannot use the method of insight to justify the insight. This is a recursive loop. If as an alternative, the truth is then positioned as the loop, then what truth generates that truth.

I wonder, and I'm not joking, that the works of Philip K Dick can assist. He plays around with notions of Reality to an extraordinary extent. See Ubik and VALIS, and Radio Free Albemuth.

:jap:

The works of Philip K Dick can assist.

I have them all. We are all blade runners for a awakening.

Edited January 16, 2011 by lungmi

[Xangsamhua]

You'll be painfully aware that I could deconstruct or dissemble the essay of Ajarn Thanissaro... but I'm not going to do that. I want to look deeper for crossovers of Buddhist ideas and Western philosophy.

<<You'll be painfully aware that I could deconstruct or dissemble the essay of Ajarn Thanissaro... but I'm not going to do that.>>

Good. Who wants to read a deconstruction of Ajarn Thanissaro? We can all do that if we want to, but I think most people in this forum are trying to be constructive as well as analytical and critical. And some are not really interested in critique so much as sharing.

<<I want to look deeper for crossovers of Buddhist ideas and Western philosophy.>>

Why do you want to do that? Buddhist ideas are Buddhist ideas. They are both context-bound and universal. Most of us are interested in the universal ones, not so much in ancient Indian cosmology, angelology, etc.

But if you are interested in looking for crossovers, just do it. I wouldn't start with Thanissaro, though, as he's a preacher and, if my memory serves me correctly, is really speaking to people with some background in Theravada doctrine. In fact, I wouldn't really start with anybody. I thought of Paul Williams (on Mahayana philosophy), but he's not interested in real or putative crossovers with the West.

It's not really a project I would go for, but you could take a look at the pre-Socratics; they were closer to the Buddha in time and there was some interaction between the Hellenic world and India. And if the Buddha attended university at Taxila ...?

You'll find more connections perhaps with contemporary physics. Matthieu Ricard is good on this. Buddhist ideas have also migrated into post-Freudian psychology, but I doubt you'll find enough there to meet your stringent epistemological expectations. I sympathize with you, but at some point, critical doubt either disappears into absurdity (an inevitable outcome really), or it is reborn as critical belief, which allows for constructive thought without floating off into fantasy forms of faith.

Camus and other absurdists (I include myself among them) accept the final outcome of thinking logically about existence, but many feel there's plenty to think about and act upon short of that finality. The Buddhadharma has a lot to offer and is worth investigating in its own right.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[Gaccha]

>snip<

[You'll find more connections perhaps with contemporary physics. Matthieu Ricard is good on this. Buddhist ideas have also migrated into post-Freudian psychology, but I doubt you'll find enough there to meet your stringent epistemological expectations. I sympathize with you, but at some point, critical doubt either disappears into absurdity (an inevitable outcome really), or it is reborn as critical belief, which allows for constructive thought without floating off into fantasy forms of faith.

Camus and other absurdists (I include myself among them) accept the final outcome of thinking logically about existence, but many feel there's plenty to think about and act upon short of that finality. The Buddhadharma has a lot to offer and is worth investigating in its own right.

That is a very nice pointer. The books of Ricard are on my to-find-list. Are you aware of any Western philosphers going at it from the other direction? I know one book of Ricard is discussing similarities of ideas with his father, a French philospher. But what I mean, do you know of any modern philosphers that have followed the tropes of French academic work, and discussed Buddhism via peer-reviewed journals. I want to read Buddhism through the familiar lense of these tropes before moving in from the other side.

I got interested in this after being a guest of a Thammasat University course which reflected on Western philosphy (mostly pre-Socratic) and Chinese philosophy (mostly Taoism) in the area of politics.

[Brucenkhamen]

If Theravada is closer and more faithful to the Buddhas teachings and Boddhisatva's are a Mahayana creation, then how could the Buddha live as one (Boddhisatva)?

You are correct, the concept of a Bodhisattva does exist in Theravada simply as a Buddha to be, it's just defined differently and not seen as an ideal or goal in itself as it is in Mahayana.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Brucenkhamen

[Xangsamhua]

>snip<

[You'll find more connections perhaps with contemporary physics. Matthieu Ricard is good on this. Buddhist ideas have also migrated into post-Freudian psychology, but I doubt you'll find enough there to meet your stringent epistemological expectations. I sympathize with you, but at some point, critical doubt either disappears into absurdity (an inevitable outcome really), or it is reborn as critical belief, which allows for constructive thought without floating off into fantasy forms of faith.

Camus and other absurdists (I include myself among them) accept the final outcome of thinking logically about existence, but many feel there's plenty to think about and act upon short of that finality. The Buddhadharma has a lot to offer and is worth investigating in its own right.

That is a very nice pointer. The books of Ricard are on my to-find-list. Are you aware of any Western philosphers going at it from the other direction? I know one book of Ricard is discussing similarities of ideas with his father, a French philospher. But what I mean, do you know of any modern philosphers that have followed the tropes of French academic work, and discussed Buddhism via peer-reviewed journals. I want to read Buddhism through the familiar lense of these tropes before moving in from the other side.

I got interested in this after being a guest of a Thammasat University course which reflected on Western philosphy (mostly pre-Socratic) and Chinese philosophy (mostly Taoism) in the area of politics.

Came across this in Amazon at http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/0742534189

Buddhisms and Deconstructions (New Frameworks for Continental Philosophy) [Paperback] Jin Y. Park (Editor)

Product Description

Buddhisms and Deconstructions considers the connection between Buddhism and Derridean deconstruction, focusing on the work of Robert Magliola. Fourteen distinguished contributors discuss deconstruction and various Buddhisms--Indian, Tibetan, and Chinese (Chan)--followed by an afterword in which Magliola responds directly to his critics.

There's a substantial Wikipedia article on Magliola at http://en.wikipedia....Robert_Magliola

[fabianfred]

Whether it is faith or belief or whatever, we can find out the truth for ourselves ...by practice..... practice alone.

The Buddha was the doctor who gave us the cure for a disease.... but we have to take the medicine...not argue endlessly about its constituents, and whether we are really sick or not, and whether he is sure it works..... we have faith in him.

If we do not have faith in him, that he knows waht he is talking about, then we are not his followers, we are not Buddhists.

Westerners like to 'cherry-pick' Buddhism and use bits out of context which they feel comfortable with.... divorce the main things like meditation from the religion.....dilute and eventually corrupt it.

We know it is going to happen, that the teachings will eventually become so corrupted that in the future people will disbelieve in Nirvana, and even that there was such a historical being as the Buddha. The Buddha predicted it...it is just impermanence....and the same cycle happens to every Buddha's teachings.

[Brucenkhamen]

Whether it is faith or belief or whatever, we can find out the truth for ourselves ...by practice..... practice alone.

The Buddha was the doctor who gave us the cure for a disease.... but we have to take the medicine...not argue endlessly about its constituents, and whether we are really sick or not, and whether he is sure it works..... we have faith in him.

That works great with the teachings to do with understanding and training the mind,the true nature of experience, the right attitude, and behaviours etc, but that wasn't what Phetaroi was asking about.

How does one find out the truth about the existance of Mara, devas, gods, 31 realms, rebirth, 7 steps and then proclaiming future Buddhahood and all that jazz for ourselves ...by practice..... practice alone? Been having visions?

[lungmi]

Except that liberation is also a concept of faith.

Ultimate liberation aka enlightenment is a concept of faith yes, however that wasn't what I was talking about rather that when one practises the path one notices before long that compared to before one is more liberated, call it partial or relative liberation if you like.

This isn't a matter of faith, it is to be experienced and is verifiable, without this I think most of us wouldn't or couldn't continue.

The experience of our own life can show us where we attained liberation and where not. It's a dialectical process. More you see that the Teaching of the Buddha works in your daily life more you are confident to accomplish the next step, errors included.

[Gaccha]

>snip<

[You'll find more connections perhaps with contemporary physics. Matthieu Ricard is good on this. Buddhist ideas have also migrated into post-Freudian psychology, but I doubt you'll find enough there to meet your stringent epistemological expectations. I sympathize with you, but at some point, critical doubt either disappears into absurdity (an inevitable outcome really), or it is reborn as critical belief, which allows for constructive thought without floating off into fantasy forms of faith.

Camus and other absurdists (I include myself among them) accept the final outcome of thinking logically about existence, but many feel there's plenty to think about and act upon short of that finality. The Buddhadharma has a lot to offer and is worth investigating in its own right.

That is a very nice pointer. The books of Ricard are on my to-find-list. Are you aware of any Western philosphers going at it from the other direction? I know one book of Ricard is discussing similarities of ideas with his father, a French philospher. But what I mean, do you know of any modern philosphers that have followed the tropes of French academic work, and discussed Buddhism via peer-reviewed journals. I want to read Buddhism through the familiar lense of these tropes before moving in from the other side.

I got interested in this after being a guest of a Thammasat University course which reflected on Western philosphy (mostly pre-Socratic) and Chinese philosophy (mostly Taoism) in the area of politics.

Came across this in Amazon at http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/0742534189

Buddhisms and Deconstructions (New Frameworks for Continental Philosophy) [Paperback] Jin Y. Park (Editor)

Product Description

Buddhisms and Deconstructions considers the connection between Buddhism and Derridean deconstruction, focusing on the work of Robert Magliola. Fourteen distinguished contributors discuss deconstruction and various Buddhisms--Indian, Tibetan, and Chinese (Chan)--followed by an afterword in which Magliola responds directly to his critics.

There's a substantial Wikipedia article on Magliola at http://en.wikipedia....Robert_Magliola

Thanks again.

I found a nice quote:

"What is interesting about Buddhism, from a deconstructive point of view,is that it is both onto-theological (therefore what-needs-to-be-deconstructed) and deconstructive (providing a different example of how-to-deconstruct). What is interesting about Derrida's type of deconstruction, from a Buddhist point of view, is that it is logocentric.

What Derrida says about philosophy, that it "always re-appropriates for itself the discourse that delimits it", is equally true of Buddhism. Like all religions, Buddhism includes a strong onto-theological element, yet it also contains the resources that have repeatedly deconstructed this tendency. Thanks to sensitivities that Derrida's texts have helped to develop, it is possible to understand the Buddhist tradition as a history of this struggle between deconstructive delimitation and metaphysical re-appropriation, between a message that undermines all security by undermining the sense-of-self that seeks security, and a countervailing tendency to dogmatize and institutionalize that challenge."

----The Deconstruction of Buddhism

by David R. Loy

[lungmi]

Pre- Socratic greek philosophy had a man whose name was Heraclitus. At the time of the Buddha his cosmology had convergences with the Teaching of the Buddha and Taoism.

The end of the Velama Sutta

“…and though he developed universal lovingkindness, the fruit of cultivating the awareness of anicca-even for the moment of a finger snap-would have been greater.”

Anguttara Nikaya, Navakanipata, Sutta 20

and Heraclitus

"Ever-newer waters flow on those who step into the same rivers ."

Everything changes and nothing remains still .... and ... you cannot step twice into the same stream"

We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and are not."

[fabianfred]

Whether it is faith or belief or whatever, we can find out the truth for ourselves ...by practice..... practice alone.

The Buddha was the doctor who gave us the cure for a disease.... but we have to take the medicine...not argue endlessly about its constituents, and whether we are really sick or not, and whether he is sure it works..... we have faith in him.

That works great with the teachings to do with understanding and training the mind,the true nature of experience, the right attitude, and behaviours etc, but that wasn't what Phetaroi was asking about.

How does one find out the truth about the existance of Mara, devas, gods, 31 realms, rebirth, 7 steps and then proclaiming future Buddhahood and all that jazz for ourselves ...by practice..... practice alone? Been having visions?

Meditators often do see visions of their past lives or other realms...which would be proof for them...and them alone, since they could not prove what they experienced to others. By practice we can reach the goal, whereupon the 31 realms, Mara etc. are irrelevant.

[Brucenkhamen]

Meditators often do see visions of their past lives or other realms.

I can't say I've ever come across any who claim to, except perhaps over excited beginners.

Even so a vision doesn't provide proof of anything, except perhaps an overactive imagination. After all if a vision were proof of anything then theists and new age types would have a monopoly on truth.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Brucenkhamen

[Gaccha]

Pre- Socratic greek philosophy had a man whose name was Heraclitus. At the time of the Buddha his cosmology had convergences with the Teaching of the Buddha and Taoism.

The end of the Velama Sutta

“…and though he developed universal lovingkindness, the fruit of cultivating the awareness of anicca-even for the moment of a finger snap-would have been greater.”

Anguttara Nikaya, Navakanipata, Sutta 20

and Heraclitus

"Ever-newer waters flow on those who step into the same rivers ."

Everything changes and nothing remains still .... and ... you cannot step twice into the same stream"

We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and are not."

I seem to have found in the short piece by David Loy the person I was looking for. Someone in Buddhism attacking all the onto-theology of Buddhism. His name was Nagarjuna and his core text was the Mulamadhyakmikakarika. He writes there was/is no Buddha and attacks nothingness as itself an onto-theological trope. The attack on metanarratives is itself a metanarrative. Nirvana is the everyday world. Nirvana is sunya.

Here is the core 20 or so pages, freely available on the internet, but I've stuck them into a PDF format.

LOY The Deconstruction of Buddhism.pdf

:jap:

[Gaccha]

Meditators often do see visions of their past lives or other realms.

I can't say I've ever come across any who claim to, except perhaps over excited beginners.

Even so a vision doesn't provide proof of anything, except perhaps an overactive imagination. After all if a vision were proof of anything then theists and new age types would have a monopoly on truth.

Perhaps not visions, but Buddha did appear to claim to "remember his past lifetimes as far back as he wanted" (David Loy). But your epistemological doubt still stands.

[lungmi]

Nagarjuna

and the Buddhist Tetralemme, the Daoist Tetralemme and Derrida, Roland Barthes Julia Kristeva Serge-Christophe Kolm and not forget Georges Dereveux, bref the polyvalent logic in epistemology gave me the "liberation" to go my own way and I see many people now here in Thailand without this academic background to be members at the same level of the brother/sisterhood in Buddha.

David Loy is an active member of the INEB (International Network of Engaged Buddhists)

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/loy8.htm

The academic discussion can be useful .........but...........

[fabianfred]

Meditators often do see visions of their past lives or other realms.

I can't say I've ever come across any who claim to, except perhaps over excited beginners.

Even so a vision doesn't provide proof of anything, except perhaps an overactive imagination. After all if a vision were proof of anything then theists and new age types would have a monopoly on truth.

Proof, proof, proof....I'm sick of Westerners demanding proof for everything. I've said a million times that there is only personal proof. If you cannot do the work then you will get no proof....period!

Careful...your ego is showing..."I can't say I've ever come across any who claim to, except perhaps over excited beginners.".... implying that because you've not had any then no-one can.

[phetaroi]

Meditators often do see visions of their past lives or other realms...which would be proof for them...and them alone, since they could not prove what they experienced to others. By practice we can reach the goal, whereupon the 31 realms, Mara etc. are irrelevant.

That doesn't answer the question, and you know it. In fact, to anyone actually seeking truth, your response simply casts a shadow on your whole philosophy. Spiritual smoke and mirrors.

[phetaroi]

Proof, proof, proof....I'm sick of Westerners demanding proof for everything. I've said a million times that there is only personal proof. If you cannot do the work then you will get no proof....period!

Careful...your ego is showing..."I can't say I've ever come across any who claim to, except perhaps over excited beginners.".... implying that because you've not had any then no-one can.

I find blind faith to be more a statement of ego than searching for facts. And while you may be sick and tired of Westerners searching for proof, it's the Easterners tendency to not seek proof that is probably a major factor in the degree to which animism has infiltrated Buddhist thought.

Edited January 17, 2011 by phetaroi

[Brucenkhamen]

Proof, proof, proof....I'm sick of Westerners demanding proof for everything. I've said a million times that there is only personal proof. If you cannot do the work then you will get no proof....period!

I've never demanded proof of anything, I'm perfectly content with uncertainty and see no reason or benefit to present aspects of scripture that are beyond the realm of normal human experience as if it were fact.

If you are sick of it then note feeling... feeling as it arises and passes away.

Careful...your ego is showing..."I can't say I've ever come across any who claim to, except perhaps over excited beginners.".... implying that because you've not had any then no-one can.

Actually if you reread my sentence you'd see I said "I never come across anyone", so perhaps you could say "because you've never met anyone who had any then no-one can", I'm not sure how that's evidence of ego more likely evidence of not getting out enough.

Even so if I did have a vision as I'm trained in Mahasi techinique among others I'd just note the arising and passing away of mental phenomena that are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not self. Trying to attach significance to such mental phenomena is only a function of craving.

[lungmi]

Proof, proof, proof....I'm sick of Westerners demanding proof for everything. I've said a million times that there is only personal proof. If you cannot do the work then you will get no proof....period!

Careful...your ego is showing..."I can't say I've ever come across any who claim to, except perhaps over excited beginners.".... implying that because you've not had any then no-one can.

I find blind faith to be more a statement of ego than searching for facts. And while you may be sick and tired of Westerners searching for proof, it's the Easterners tendency to not seek proof that is probably a major factor in the degree to which animism has infiltrated Buddhist thought.

Animism/Shamanism is the basic religion of mankind (Mircea Eliade). High respect for nature (by intuition) even without "scientifical knowledge". A Hmong friend told me that after the death of his mother he didn't kill any animal for two moons, scaring he kills his mother. When he killed a

wild pig he cut off his ears to fix them at the next tree. (I only take your meat because I want to survive, but your "soul" still stays at home, in your area. Some American Indians still are doing the same when they kill an animal, from Inuit I heard the same. Don't forget the All Blacks of New Zealand with their Maori War dancings before a rugby match.

The perverted form of animism is Consumerism.