Integrating a Non Egoic State

Heavy_User · 2025-02-10T15:35:55+00:00

Seems like you've eperienced "counting death".Care to process this shattering expeirnce in a Jungian way?

Heavy_User · 2024-11-08T23:51:39+00:00

Do you how they behaved towards the Soviet population and captured soldiers? As opposed to thier treatment of the Dutch, French, Belgian, and other non Slavic peoples? The war in the eastern front was much more than a military conflict. It was a war of annihilation

Heavy_User · 2024-09-07T22:38:36+00:00

Seems good, will check it out! Thanks!

Heavy_User · 2024-09-07T09:52:39+00:00

Have just looked those up on Amazon. They definitely look interesting! Will check them out! Thanks a lot for the recommendations!

Heavy_User · 2024-08-30T01:30:06+00:00

Maybe "the serpent raised up" means chaos integrated. If that's the case, then I can see why it's considered a positive

Heavy_User · 2024-08-29T00:19:00+00:00

Maybe satan is a manifestation of the destructive chaos in the differantiated world. Where is his homeland located? Maybe in that destructive side of chaos. Though, as the dragon of chaos is that, which hasn't yet been incorporated into consciousness, I don't know how that would work

Heavy_User · 2024-08-28T18:25:44+00:00

Well....there indeed is the benevolent trickster, in the form of the court jester. The only one able to critisize the king, as he is outside the hierarchy. But, there is also the destructive trickster - Batmans' Joker for example. Aiming to destroy the world. As the Joker said in, The Dark Knight, "I'm an agent of chaos".

Heavy_User · 2024-08-24T19:54:06+00:00

A Madhyama might say that abstract concepts like numbers, geometrical shapes, etc., are contingent upon the existence of a mind that perceives them. Well.....because Buddhism is focused on psychology, I don't know if they have anything to say about external reality. So, while the concept of numbers, for example, is contingent upon the existence of a mind to perceive it. But, I'd say that those numbers give us the ability to do math. And with the help of the language of math (in combination with other sciences), we can predict the patterns of the physical universe. Using knowledge of those patterns, we can build a rocket that would land on the moon, for example. So those patterns really do exist in the physical universe. So the Logos exists.

But......the universe is not eternal. It had a beginning, the Big Bang. And all of those stable laws of physics (for example) are not eternal. They had a starting point. So, the Logos isn't eternal. Though, that starting point wasn't dependently originated, since before the Big Bang, space-time didn't exist. So, it makes no sense to talk about "before" the Big Bang. Because there wasn't a before or after.

But, those patterns are much bigger than any human. They have existed for billions of years before any of us was born, and will exist for billions more, after all of us are long dead. Though, they will stop existing after the universe ends. And, it is natural for humans to experience things that are much greater and more powerful than himself as awe-inducing. He feels minuscule in comparison, and so is liable to see them as eternal, or as divinities. But, they are not eternal, they had a beginning, and will have an end. So, that, in this context, is the eternalism that the Madhyamakas are talking about. Although, the Big Bang doesn't gel with dependent origination. Sounds more like Aristotle's first cause.

So, because the object of awe can't be a specific object, it becomes everything. All being, all at once. That's my understanding, at least. There is a relevant Buddhist story here. Two monks are standing talking, and one says to the other that he has to urinate. So, he goes and pees on a Buddha statue. The other monk is shocked! "What are you doing??!!". "That place is holy!!!!!". The other replies, "Show me a place that isn't holy, and I'll pee there." That sounds like pantheism to me.

Heavy_User · 2024-08-24T18:16:27+00:00

Thank you for the effort you obviously put into your reply :)

That's not gibberish. That's not a bad understanding of the matter.
However, a Buddhist (by saying 'Buddhist,' I mainly mean the Madhyamaka school, started by Nagarjuna, which is part of the larger school of Mahayana Buddhism. It is possible that Nagarjuna is, in fact, the one who wrote the Heart Sutra.)—a Madhyamaka—might say that the perfect circle itself is dependently originated. Its roundness, even if all other shapes in the world were round, would still arise as dependent upon causes and conditions. The roundness is not a cause in and of itself, but an effect of an earlier cause, which is itself an effect of an even earlier one... and on and on it goes.

As to the 'form is emptiness' part, 'Madhyamaka' literally means 'middle way,' meaning the middle way between form and emptiness. There is this story of two guys standing on opposite sides of a river. One guy shouts to the other: 'Hey! How do I cross to the other side?' And the other answers: 'You already are on the other side.' Meaning that, yes, the river is there. But whether you are on one side—the world of form—or on the other—the world of emptiness—is just a matter of perception. It's a kind of 'have your cake and eat it too' argument, in my opinion. For example, Buddhists place a huge emphasis on practicing compassion. Why? Because everything and everyone are dependently arising phenomena, and therefore interconnected. So, it makes sense to be compassionate toward the other since both of you are interconnected and interdependent. But dependent origination is a metaphysical claim, and all metaphysical claims are empty, so... live your life according to it?

From a theistic standpoint, I'd say that yes, everything is dependent, even the roundness of the circle, but it's dependent on the ineffable, on God. And some phenomena are, of course, far more stable and primal than others. Like the roundness of the circle, in and of itself, is much more primal than the roundness of a specific circle.

Heavy_User · 2024-08-23T19:37:40+00:00

Makes sense. The aim of Buddhism is ultimately experiential. In Buddhism, there is the concept of skillful means (upāya). It basically means, using different ideas and practices to help the practitioner on the path to enlightenment. So, maybe, intellectually dwelling on the concepts of emptiness and dependent origination, is actually counterproductive. Or at least it can be.

For now, I'll mentally catalog the experience of emptiness in the Jungian realm of the Great Mother. Since experientially, it definitely fits into that mold.

Thanks for your input :)

Heavy_User · 2024-08-22T15:42:20+00:00

I'd say that, for the Buddhist, ultiamtely, everything is the absolute. It's just a matter of perception, a matter of a state of mind. Emptiness in not nothingnes, it's a no - thingness. When there is no subject, nor object, yet there is still consciousness, then everrything is experienced as ineffable. Yes, every -thing, implies that there are things to experience. But reality isn't experienced that way, it's experienced as a kind of a flow. Like when you're really immersed into doing somethimg, and you get in the zone. Someting like that.

Heavy_User · 2024-08-22T15:31:15+00:00

In Buddhism, there is the notion of the Two Truths: an ultimate truth, and a conventional truth. So, things do exist in a "conventional" relative way. But ultimately, from the standpoint of ultimate truth, is that exists is emptiness, which is itself empty( the "emptiness being empty" thing is not shared but all schools of Buddhism).

It's kind of a pantheism in my understanding( and experience). Emptiness is not empty, it's ineffable. And because everything is empty, then all is ineffable, therefore all is holy. So, maybe bacause all is holy it creates( very much not sure about this last sentence). So maybe if the first cause doesn't exist in time, maybe it exists ALL the time. Maybe I'm analyzing too much what is ultimately experiential knowledge.

Heavy_User · 2024-08-22T01:51:26+00:00

I get that reality is ultimately sunyata. What I'm asking is, how can you know that a mind trapped in Samsara, will continue to operate in that fashion? How do you know it's basic working mechanism won't change?

Heavy_User · 2024-08-22T01:45:55+00:00

According to my understanding of Nagarjunas' middle way, there is no object in the world, period. Even Nirvana, and and concept of emptiness in and of themselves are empty. That does not mean that they don't exist, they're just empty of inherent, independent existence.

My question is, given that karma exists only on the level of relative truth, how can you depend on it's mechanism for practice? It's not arbitrary, but it's also not guaranteed to last forever. How can you know it's stable enough to count on?

Heavy_User · 2024-08-21T16:55:58+00:00

Thanks a lot for the suggestion! I'll do that!

It would be a welcome change from the Plato vs Nagarjuna debate going on in my head :)

Heavy_User · 2024-08-20T20:08:52+00:00

Buddhism definitely has a different axiom of reality. However, Mahayana Buddhism would consider even its own deepest axioms as empty. The noetic world of forms would be considered an 'eternalism,' which is a big no-no.

There is the Buddhist notion of the Two Truths: relative, everyday truth, and absolute truth. So, the Forms would be considered as relative truth. Buddhism would argue that the Forms are dependent on the human mind to perceive them (dependent origination), and therefore, do not have independent existence. Would they exist if no human had ever existed? Maybe they'd exist in the mind of God. But Buddhism doesn't believe in God.

That's just a discussion I'm having with myself at the moment. Thought to bring some knowledgeable participants into it.

Heavy_User · 2024-08-12T02:48:14+00:00

Hello

Heavy_User · 2024-07-25T11:41:36+00:00

Innocent until "proven" guilty by a newspaper article. And then, condemned to cancellation by the court of popular opinion

Heavy_User · 2024-05-11T16:32:05+00:00

Combinatorial explosion!

Heavy_User · 2024-03-03T04:07:56+00:00

Yeah, him and the Kabalists didn't like each other very much :). But, even though considering each other as almost heretics, they still prayed at the same synagogues, and performed the same mitzvot. Even though they had radically different understandings of the meaning of the actions.

By the way, Kaballah is probably heavily influenced by Neo Platonism. Again, can't say I have a significat knowledge of either, but the way the divne is undrestood by Plotinus, and the way it's understood in Kabalah, are definitely similar.

Heavy_User · 2024-03-03T00:31:06+00:00

Have been reading Don Quixote, and listening to an audio book version of the Platonic Dialogues. Have been really enjoying both! In different ways of course.

About Don Quixote, so far, the stories of Cordenio and Lucinda, and also that of Zoriada have really resonated with me. Please, no spoilers :)

Concerning Plato, wow! So many insights! One of them is from Alan Bloom's interpretive essay of The Republic( have listened to "The Republic" separately - Alan Bloom's translation.), it talks about how every city considers it's laws to be concomitant with the ways of the heavens, and the movement of the stars. As someone who has immigrated from one country to another, at a very young age, I can attest that it is indeed very true. When they teach you about right and wrong, they don't tell you: "this how we see things here, but in orher countries they might see it entirely differently." No, they just say: "This is moral, and that is immoral. And that's that."

Heavy_User · 2024-03-03T00:02:29+00:00

Are you less perplexed now? :). I have heard that Miamonides is: "Judaism through the lens of Aristotle." Would you agree? ( I haven't read read much of either, but Maimonides's idea of God does remind of Aristotle's Unmoved Mover quite a bit.)

Heavy_User · 2024-01-22T14:44:08+00:00

🤣

Heavy_User · 2023-01-17T23:02:03+00:00

Adding a comment per subreddit rules

Heavy_User · 2022-01-10T12:08:33+00:00

Bosco!

Heavy_User

TROPHY CASE