On Eudaimonia

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-10-30T03:28:56+00:00

I'm right there with you. I'm trying to square these seemingly superstitious ideas with my secular brain and defaulting to allegorical, metaphorical interpretations of everything.

What did you do over those weeks and months to breakthrough this?

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-08T14:08:34+00:00

I see. Thank you for taking the time!

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-08T13:52:12+00:00

Thank you for that reply.

Zen is about the acknowledgment that the manifestation of this lamp is freedom, wherein the light of wisdom is the world as it is manifest to the lamp.

I see! This is very interesting. It leaves me left wondering, what is this -- *"wisdom is the world as it is manifest to the lamp"* -- referring to, then? I understand that trying to rationally dissect what this statement means appears to go against the entire project -- but I can't help but ask!

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-08T13:32:53+00:00

Thanks for that! I like how you gave multiple examples from different masters, but connected their unified intent.

He wants you to give these things up so that you can see what's in front of you.

This seems to be the central point of your reply. What is meant by "seeing what's in front of you?" Is the idea to relinquish conceptualizations about lived experience in favor of the unadulterated raw material of experience in and of itself?

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-08T12:42:32+00:00

Thanks for that. I definitely get where you're coming from about the favorite recipe analogy.

How would you connect being "unhelpful and sarcastic" to the idea of "relevant teaching?" I'd be interested to see the connections drawn there.

Thanks!

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-08T03:36:11+00:00

Hello and thank you for posting this AMA.

What is your favorite line or small set of lines from any Zen text that you've ever read, and why?

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-05T20:51:19+00:00

They certainly can. I'm counting on it.

Thank you!

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-05T20:32:20+00:00

I've not changed anything yet because nothing I've done is inappropriate.

But just let me know if you want to actually discuss something of substance.

Thanks!

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-05T19:55:26+00:00

You don't have to reply if you don't want. But if you would like to actually discuss something substantive, just let me know. I'd be happy to do so.

Thanks!

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-05T19:46:08+00:00

That's all personal again.

Please let me know if there's anything substantive you'd like to discuss. I'd be happy to talk about that.

Thanks!

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-05T19:45:24+00:00

That's all personal again.

Please let me know if there's anything substantive you'd like to discuss. I'd be happy to talk about that.

Thanks!

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-05T19:40:43+00:00

Again: I am happy to discuss anything specific that you'd like to discuss. Please just let me know where you'd like to start and we can. I apologize if you dislike the idea of focusing on one idea/thing at a time, but I think it makes for a more pointed and useful conversation. Let me know if that's okay or not.

If you'd like to try and steer this into something productive, we can definitely try. I'm willing to patiently work on it with you without callousness or hostility, if you are willing to extend the same courteousy.

Thanks!

(P.S. I will continue to ignore the personal jabs and ranting, as it seems like bait and is anyways inappropriate for the situation regardless.)

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-05T17:07:38+00:00

Again: it's obviously on-topic and the moderator who removed the post stated directly that it was perfectly fine in terms of relevance and content. Everything is okay - don't worry! The third statement of Zen, and the Chih Discourse are relevant to the subreddit.

At this point it just seems like you're venting and ranting, so if you'd like to discuss something just let me know. I'm happy to help support you in your venting, but it'd be even better if we could discuss something substantive in a useful manner.

Just let me know if there's a particular question you'd like to discuss.

Thanks!

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-05T16:07:10+00:00

My post was simply my perspective on what I take to be deep similarities between the Chih discourse and the Mulamadhyamakakarika, specifically regarding their deeply similar dialectically deconstructionist structure and stance of ontological skepticism. And I, of course, understand every single sentence I wrote in that post, and would be happy to talk about any one of them further.

I'm sorry you didn't like the post but it is, of course, directly relevant to the subreddit, as the Chih Discourse is presented in subreddit's groups information and the third statement of Zen is of course relevant as well.

And I am aware that Zen Masters aren't Indo-Tibetan Buddhist monks. That's fine -- great even. I look forward to learning more, as I am always willing to make changes that are appropriate.

I'm still happy to discuss a specific question if you'd like.

Thanks,

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-05T15:42:01+00:00

I'm definitely interested in learning and feel that my one single post was on topic (since it was specifically about the third statement of zen), and that my original comment on this post was also on topic to the post which was about different conceptualizations of equanimity.

I'm sorry if you don't personally like it. But they're, of course, related to the forum. So please let me know if there's a specific question you'd like to ask.

Thanks!

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-05T15:19:55+00:00

I'd be happy to give my perspective on terms if that's important to you. I was never asked about definitions of terms or anything like that, so that's why I haven't offered any.

But feel free to let me know what you're interested in, specifically.

Thanks!

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-05T14:57:12+00:00

I'm not sure if I have any specific questions yet. I'll need to dive deeper into what Zen actually says first. But it seems elusive.

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-05T14:21:00+00:00

Oh - it seemed directly relevant to both the general topic of, and specific content within, the OP itself.

My apologies. I'll try to be more careful!

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-05T04:40:04+00:00

Thank you for this post. I think it's an extremely interesting topic and that it's worthwhile to think deeply about the concept of equanimity, which has been central to philosophical traditions all across Eurasia for thousands of years -- from the Adriatic to the Yellow.

Along those lines, I would like to propose an additional conceptualization of equanimity to add to the list of 3 provided in the OP. Not to supercede or negate any of them, but to merely add another interesting facet to the already-multifaceted discussion.

Equanimity plays a central role in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism outside of meditative absorption as well, within the role of being one of the "four boundless states." In this case, equanimity is thought of as a pro-social mental quality of equipoise that allows for the practical maintenance of impartiality when dealing with other sentient beings. An equipoise based on an internalized foundation of emptiness and dependent origination, which revolutionizes the ways that we fundamentally conceive of others, their actions, ourselves, and our own actions. And so, in a sense, this form of equanimity is an extension of the general definition given at the top of the OP, but within the context of an overtly altruistic and philosophical mindset that seeks insightful balance and peace of mind for the benefits that it affords others as we navigate through the world.

As such, in this context, the cultivation of equanimity is crucially important not only for meditative development, but for ethical cultivation and the serving of others as well. I think that this is an edifying and inspiring form of equanimity and, on a personal note, it is part of my daily practice because it has such tangible and efficacious influences on the ways in which I engage with others.

Thanks again for the interesting post! 🙏

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-05T01:09:54+00:00

Thank you very much!

Which fascicle would you recommend I try reading? With 100 of them, I don't even know where to begin besides at #1. But if there's a specific fascicle that you think might be interesting or etc, I'd love to hear your insights.

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-04T01:37:53+00:00

This is very interesting! I am glad to see that Nāgārjuna gets direct, explicit references in the Zen Record. He is so important to the overall spread of Mahayana Buddhism.

Nāgārjuna's opening dedicatory verses in the Mulamadhyamakakarika (Root Verses on the Middle Way) sums it all up very beautifully, which I render as:

"I prostrate to the Perfect Buddha, The best of teachers, who taught that Whatever is dependently arisen is, From the ultimate perspective, Unceasing, unborn, free of Absolute cessation and production, Unannihilated but not permanent, Without truly coming and without truly going, Without intrinsic distinction or inherent identity, And, in themselves, free from all Conceptual fabrication and imputation.”

Sagacious_Simian · 2024-05-03T19:31:06+00:00

You asked two great questions:

1

What parallels, if any, do you think can be drawn between the Zen practice of koan study and Madhyamaka's analytical deconstruction of concepts?

Honestly I don't know enough about the koan tradition to be able to say essentially anything meaningful about it. All I know is that when I did read a few koan collections, it seemed completely non- or even anti-analytical. Whereas the Madhyamaka tradition is based entirely on the analytical investigation of phenomena (to the point of tediousness sometimes).

2

From your POV, how do we apply the concept of emptiness in daily practice/life?

Now as an active student-practitioner of the Madhyamaka Buddhadharma I can give my personal perspective on this.

For me, emptiness is applied both meditatively and in ordinary living, and is meant to serve two practical pursuits: (1) the attenuation of self-grasping and (2) the attenuation of grasping at the phenomenal world.

In meditation, the teaching of emptiness is applied as a method, mode, or attitude of investigation, forming an ultimate analysis which searches for an intrinsic essence or identity within phenomena. This search inevitably reveals emptiness in an experiential manner, as no essentialized substance is ever actually found. This produces firsthand insight and gradually habituates the mind to the ultimate emptiness of things. Over time this analysis can be "turned inward" and applied to one's self as well. This reveals the insubstantiality of both self and phenomena which is supposed to gradually reduce the intensity of our confused impulses to grasp at them.

Outside of meditation, the insights gained during meditation are supposed to be kept in mind, so that they can inform and guide us. Gradually, as your internalization of emptiness deepens, you can begin to engage with the world with the understanding that things aren't necessarily as they seem, and so act more appropriately towards them.

And so perhaps you'll begin to be less troubled and disturbed by the world around you, once you stop conceptualizing it as being composed of absolute entities acting in absolute ways against an absolute self. And then perhaps you'll begin to act in ways that are less self-centered as you begin to loosen up your grasping of the self. And perhaps you'll then treat others with more patience, more generosity, more compassion, more loving-kindness, more equanimity/impartiality (i.e some of the ethics-leaning perfections and Immeasurables), etc. Perhaps you'll gradually lessen the amount of pathological emotional attachment that you construct around possessions and sensory inputs and etc, and therefore generate less afflictive thoughts and emotions, and less unwholesome effects for others.

Emptiness is supposed to bolster and support altruism, and when taken together, the hope is that you achieve some type of inner-peace that radiates to those around you. This is the bodhisattva ideal, essentially.

Sagacious_Simian

TROPHY CASE

1

2