First off, does anyone want a cat? His name is Crum and he is the best cat in the world. He belongs to my neighbor, Kim. But she can’t keep him. He’s been staying at my apartment for the last couple days. But at some point I’m gonna need to leave for an extended period, and then do that over and over and over again. So this isn’t gonna last for long.
This cat is so sweet it’s unreal. This is a photo of him keeping me company this morning while I wrote what you’re reading now.
Oh. And someone find me a teaching gig in Southern California. Thanks.
Oh! And doesn’t anyone out there want me to come speak anywhere? It’s weird. I was getting so many offers I couldn’t handle them last year and now here in 2012 — nothing! Did I do something that offended everyone?
Now onto the main topic.
The nice folks over at Counterpoint Books sent me a review copy of Red Pine’s The Lankavatara Sutra: Translation and Commentary. Thank you, Counterpoint Books!
I gotta say that I was kind of intimidated at first. I don’t do sutras very well. I managed to dig through Dogen’s Shobogenzo and even write a book about it. But that doesn’t mean I’m one of those guys who sits around reading ancient Buddhist texts for fun. Generally speaking ancient Buddhist writings baffle me about as much as they baffle everybody else.
Take the Lotus Sutra — please! I mean, I know I’m supposed to love the thing. I know that Dogen loved it. People I know have read it and said it’s the greatest thing since sliced cheese. But I have never been able to get through the confounded thing. I can’t get past the part where the author is telling you the names of all the Bodhisattvas and their uncles and how many Buddha realms they’ve conquered and where they shop for shoes and why you should definitely copy the sutra a thousand times and how many dragon kings were sitting around while Buddha impressed everyone by shooting rays out of his forehead… and so on and on and on and on.
You think I’m making this up? Have a look for yourself.
So when I saw this book in my mailbox, I thought, “Good gosh, now I gotta read the thing!”
It turns out that the Lankavatara Sutra is much easier going than the Lotus Sutra. At least for me. It doesn’t take nearly as long to get to the point. And its philosophical doctrines aren’t expressed in extended metaphors or stories. In many ways it’s a much more modern sounding piece. The author of the sutra frames it as a long Q&A; session between a guy named Mahamati and Buddha. Of course, Buddha was long since dead by the time this sutra was composed. But the literary device works to express a lot of the then-developing theories in Buddhism that would later become the basis for much of what is taught in Zen Buddhist temples even today.
What really makes this book work for me is Red Pine’s (aka Bill Porter) introduction. It’s a very honest essay. The author even says that it was his need for the advance money from his publishers that really tipped the scales and finally got him working on the translation in earnest. Apparently he’d had it on the back burner for years. But when he ran out of other sutras to translate, he reluctantly went back to the Lankavatara.
I’m happy he did because it’s a very good book. It’s not an easy book to read. Nor would I recommend it to someone just starting out with Buddhist philosophy. Stick to Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind or even Hardcore Zen if you want that. Or you can try one of the books on my Zen Books That Don’t Suck page.
But if you’ve already got a foundation of basic Buddhist philosophy and you want to know where some of the peculiarly Zen stuff comes from, this is a pretty interesting and valuable book. It’s a fine resource for some of the earliest manifestations of what coalesced into the Zen approach to Buddhist teaching and practice.
For example, you know how I’m always ranting against people who try to sell the idea of instant enlightenment? Remember how I compared thinking you could get enlightened right away to thinking you could learn to play Eruption by Eddie Van Halen after a single guitar lesson? Some of you assumed I just pulled that out of my ass. Well, in fact, I did. But in the Lankavatara Sutra, Mahamati asks, “How is the stream of perceptions of beings’ minds purified?” Buddha answers, “By degrees and not all at once… like when people become proficient in such arts as music or writing or painting.” So there!
On the matter of God, Mahamati asks, “In the sutras the Bhagavan (aka Buddha) says that the tathagatha-garbgha (womb of the Buddhas) is intrinsically pure, endowed with thirty-two attributes and present in the bodies of all beings, and that, like a precious jewel wrapped in soiled clothing, the ever-present unchanging tathagatha-garbha is likewise wrapped in the soiled clothing of the skandhas, dhatus and ayantas and stained with the stains of erroneous projections of greed, anger and delusion. How is it that what the Bhagavan says about the tathagatha-garbha is the same as what followers of other paths say about a self? Bhagavan, followers of other paths also speak of an immortal creator without attributes, omnipresent and indestructible. And they say this is the self.”
Buddha says, among other things that, “The tathagatha-garbha is taught to attract those members of other paths who are attached to a self so that they will give up their projection of an unreal self and will enter the threefold gate of liberation.” This doesn’t mean there is no tathagatha-garbha. Just that Buddha considers it a better way to describe reality than to describe it as self.
Like I said, I’m working on a whole book to explain why I think it makes sense to use the word “God” in the context of contemporary Buddhism. And it’s not just to play nice with religious folks. But I’m not gonna try and get into that here. It’s just nice to see that this question goes back a very long way.
I highly recommend this book for people who want to deepen their understanding of Zen Buddhist philosophy.
Thanks John E.. Here's the link!
Five sure-fire tips to get yourself on the cushion every day by Brad Warner
CAPTCHA : pinglis : I kid you not
Kristien,
I was just sarcastically referring to the "Big Daddy" God that you have turned "he who shall not be named" into. You know, Mr. Great Being. Are you still into that fantasy, or have you found a better Way?
Pffft.
"Oh! And doesn't anyone out there want me to come speak anywhere? It's weird. I was getting so many offers I couldn't handle them last year and now here in 2012 — nothing! Did I do something that offended everyone? "
Told you I'd ask around for a paying gig (not just a bookstore or whatever like that) in the Philly area but you didn't say yay or nay if that's a good idea or whatever. So pfft. In a good-natured way. Of course. 🙂
Looks like a good book. Will have to check it out.
Yesterday @12.05pm anonymous provided video evidence that Brad is a pantheist. From that clip and from what Brad's occasionally written here I think anonymous may be right. I say the smart money is on "Brad Warner, pantheist."
Is that ok? Can Brad Warner be a pantheist and be ok? Is pantheism right? Is Brad Warner wrong? What's wrong with pantheism? Pantheism sounds ok to me. No? Am I wrong? Is pantheism wrong? What's wrong with pantheism?
Brad, are you a pantheist?
108 are you calling Brad a panthy?
To Anon 1:09 – 1:32
Thanks for your thoughts and poems. I thought I'd make a few responses as they touch upon some things of interest to me (and I've nothing better to do, while waiting for the plumber!)
You wrote:
Religion and all groups faith of course serve only to prostitute the awe, and the mystery we all feel as humans. they bottle our essence and try putting lid on the wonder we naturally feel. They fail of course. Religion points to the man behind the curtain in an attempt answer the mystery.
I suppose that when people do conceive of God as some being (often male) they might be involved in a limiting act which encourages themselves and others to be distracted from what you call the 'awe' and 'mystery' of their lives, settling instead for the seeming safety and comfort of a 'bottled' belief.
I think it's also reasonable to claim that certain belief systems often lead to such frames of mind and group ideologies that cause and have caused problems.
But I think it's too simplistic and one-sided to 'bottle religion' in such a way or by implication the experiences of those who practice certain religions. Intimacy with truth doesn't reside in the words or rituals but through them.
In a time of great need, say, someone's literal belief in even a cartoon-like Man-God persona, and in the meanings of a particular prayer, as they kneel beside their bed or towards an alter, can effect an act of 'surrender', an expression of intimacy with what goes beyond the ordinary framework of their lives. This may bring them back to that sense of awe and mystery you have expressed and also have a salvic effect on their lives and how they act with others.
In this sense 'religion' serves not so much to 'prostitute' the very thing it claims to help people understand or believe in, but really has the potential to serve up many types of experience – some good and some bad.
Any to attempt to express experience or understanding of the 'ineffable' or otherwise has us 'bottling' such in words and conceptions.
In this light, what is so different about your previous assessment of religion to your later:
I recognize that being happy in a comfortable social setting is a evolutionary trait of my species. That my body naturally craves specific foods for nutritional or maybe even psychological reasons. And that the intoxication of romance is most likely driven by the need to procreate.
Here you frame, or 'bottle' things, in terms of evolutionary biology. But however these make reasonable sense in terms of popular, contemporary scientific understanding, they can also be seen to be part of, while also reconstituting, reductive narratives – often put forth as in opposition to a 'religious' worldview.
For instance, what does it really mean to say 'my body naturally craves food'? This experience called 'craving' can be unpacked as dependent on biological processes, which can be unpacked as dependent on chemical processes and then on to the physical and quantum levels etc. All of which are ways to conceive of reality by reducing it to usefully manageable bits that can be strung together into something comfortable for humans to deal with and to some extent manipulate.
One might just as easily state 'atoms maintain larger structures such as Tetons or human beings through processes of recombination' or 'reality reconstitutes itself as form', or 'God is expressed through the processes of life manifest as discrete yet dependent forms' and so on. I could say that, as a human being, one of the ways my body expresses this is by what I feel and identify as 'craving'.
cont…
Indeed, why should 'craving' be only seen as some by-product or epiphenomenon of material processes? Why not 'craving naturally feeds(creates, maintains and dissolves) my body'? In other words craving can be seen to constitute atoms and molecules and human beings and the environment, as equally the other way round – what we call the material seen as epiphenomena of what we think of as our ideas.
Perhaps both sides are 'right' – and then what does that do to our temporal notions to do with 'process'?)
You wrote that your experience of seeing the Grand Tetons led you to think to yourself 'something much greater than me must have caused this.' I have had similar experiences. But it's an odd revelation, don't you think? After all, I don't suppose you or I go around at other times thinking we have 'caused' the rivers and mountains we view on occasion?
Such a common sense 'realization' appears to be 'humbling' because, perhaps, in the face of such experiences, we relinquish for a moment the little god we carry around in us for a sense of something greater, something beyond us, yet just as intimately us. After all, whose Grand Tetons were they as you perceived them and experienced what you have recollected at that particular time?
What I'm getting at, I think, is that the opposition of science v religion doesn't really make that much sense when we look more closely, and that we can see the same sort of things things going on in both.
Take the poems you offered. All of them as poems in English had cadences and rhythms which echoed religious forms – especially the King James Bible and common prayer book. Without this these poems would lose much of their primary force, their very concrete life, and become dry, prosaic statements.
For example, try reading the Lord's Prayer out aloud and then the Robert Weston poem.
…cont
My suggestion is that if you have intimately connected with and actualized this poem you have also intimately connected with and actualized the heart of a religious tradition – amongst other things.
I don't think this is merely a case of the 'spiritual' – one has to have in some way put one's body into it too.
Captcha: exokerap (probably!)
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anon #108,
It seems to me that pantheistic tenets directly contradict fundamental Buddhist tenets such as anatta and shunyata.
Brad's assertion in the video that "we're all manifestations" of "an underlying ground to the universe" that "is something alive" sounds very similar to "Atman is not separate from Brahman". That would be fine if he was purporting to explain Hinduism but not Zen Buddhism.
Am I wrong?
This comment has been removed by the author.
mysterion, your Mom is part of the problem! Next thing you'll say is that Jesus was a Jew..
Willie said:
Brad's assertion in the video that "we're all manifestations" of "an underlying ground to the universe" that "is something alive" sounds very similar to "Atman is not separate from Brahma [= Hinduism]"
Does sound similar, doesn't it. What if I say that all temporary manifestations, all phenomena, are manifested co-dependant aspects of a Universe, and that Universe has temporal, spatial and kinetic reality (= ‘lives’). What's that called? Is that ok?
Captcha = deolees. No? Never mind.
Mysti –
I think I know what you mean about Buddha being a Hindu. But my guess is that he was a very naughty boy who didn't pay attention during Hindu lessons.
I've no idea what this "self-aware" Universe thing is about, BTW.
Shodo @ 10:09 PM, don't expect Brad to issue "spoilers" on this book he's working on. This is how he did the initial marketing for his "sex" book as well as found various topics to include. We are the guinea pigs.
I'm not saying this is "wrong" or anything, in fact its a pretty good way to sample an audience/do research.
Perhaps it's a controversial topic (I guess "sex" was, …yawn) but the whole "debate" -even the idea OF a debate, bores me, I'm afraid. Just sayin'.
Believe whatever you want to believe, just don't get any on me.
Anon #108,
I mostly agree with you up until "(= ‘lives’)".
To me, the word "lives" specifically means that something performs metabolic processes. Certain parts of the universe (such as me and you and a dog named Boo) can clearly be classified as living or alive but I don't think that classification can accurately be extended to include the universe as a whole (if I'm correctly understanding the meaning of what you wrote). Additionally, even though metabolism is simply "a set of chemical reactions", they are so specific that I don't think one could reasonably say that all chemical reactions are an indication of life.
My current, and continually revised, description/definition of the universe, its constituent parts and/or reality is something along the lines of "the impermanent, non-continuous, interdependent arising of conditional phenomena". I don't think that conflicts with any generally accepted Buddhist dharma but I welcome all comments and criticism.
Mysterion,
Do you believe that your entire body is self-aware or just your brain?
Uncle Willie: Some Native Americans, specifically the Lakota, consider the universe to be "alive" in the same sense as the old European Alchemists did.
Everything is "wakan" = sacred, in the sense of everything being on a basically level playing field, ie; this is not more or less important or insignificant than that, no distinctions between animate and inanimate.
Rocks, for example, are Inyan, first born (of matter) and therefore the grandparents of everything materially manifest.
……………………..
During an ayahuasca/harmaline session almost 15 years ago I was laying outside on the ground near a guardian cedar tree looking up at the beautiful clear night sky and it hit me that the stars watch over us like ancient, patient grandparents. This realization penetrated matter to the core (for me at the time), revealing the building blocks of "the impermanent, non-continuous, interdependent arising of conditional phenomena."
'Course, I was trippin' my balls off…
John Mumbles said:
Shodo @ 10:09 PM, don't expect Brad to issue "spoilers" on this book he's working on. This is how he did the initial marketing for his "sex" book as well as found various topics to include. We are the guinea pigs.
Very true…
That is why i sure hope Brad defines his terms well. Buddhism is at it's core non-theistic… I can pretty much gather that Brad's definition will be a strange one, and that any theist will think "oh, well if that is what he means by God then that doesn't match my theistic definition"…
It will probably be something like God = love… or God = creativity, or God = the ground of being or some other strange thing.
One may wonder why folks don't just use love, creativity or whatever phrase they craft up, rather than try to inject god into it.
Buddhism can admit to a "ground of being" while also asserting that this ground of being is "empty" of individual or innate
"thingness" or selfhood.
John E.,
Technically speaking, the stars that we can see (and the rocks around us) are more like ancient, distant cousins than ancient, patient grandparents.
"You are recycled stardust. The atoms in our bodies were manufactured in stars or supernovae and recycled by supernova explosions."
http://paul-a-heckert.suite101.com/origin-of-the-chemical-elements-a23458
I find that even more amazing and awe inspiring than any amount of anthropomorphic poetry.
Thank you for pointing out that you were tripping your balls off when you had that realization. 🙂
"Buddhism can admit to a "ground of being" while also asserting that this ground of being is "empty" of individual or innate
"thingness" or selfhood"
shunyata is only an explication of anatman, one of the three marks of existence
no ground
I have no problem with Brad's using dualistic or pantheistic language as "bridging" language as upaya to people
I myself have had to do so, one woman was a catholic so I used words that she could relate to,
I asked her if "God" is "One" and "All things are One" what are you??
she had to pause before speaking
she dared not say "God", but if she had it could not feed her ego because she would be no more this "God" than anyone else or anything else,
"God" is shit on a stick !!
but we must remember these are all just words,
I know what "God" really is,
it's a three letter word and a concept
Symphony of Science – 'We Are All Connected'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk
I'ts "obvious."
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"shunyata is only an explication of anatman, one of the three marks of existence"
Shunyata does not mean that there is no ground of experience, only that this ground is "empty" of self- or thing-ness.
Much of the conflict between Buddhists and non-dual Vedantists centers on the use of words like "Self" and "ground of being". Yet most advaitins are also advocates of anatman, in that they do not acknowledge the existence of any individual self, Divine or otherwise.
They call the supreme reality "the Self" not to name an actual reified "thing" or God, but as a directional pointer. They point to the "place" where one finds out this truth, which is in the self-position, where we presume the ego to be, and declare that this is where the investigation into reality should be directed. How is this different from Buddha's admonition to "be a refuge unto yourself"?
Hey Shodo, "I can pretty much gather that Brad's definition will be a strange one, and that any theist will think "oh, well if that is what he means by God then that doesn't match my theistic definition"…"
But that's the point, see, to stir up "controversy" so there is some modicum of interest in the subject matter of the book.
"Buddhist Author Believes In God" and whatever idiosyncratic view that might be as opposed, say, to the Dalai Lama's opposite (but waaaay more lucrative?) approach.
As if, just because a person is coming from "a Buddhist perspective," their opinions one way or the other matter more than someone else's.
Yeah, Uncle Willie, somewhere here on this blog maybe a couple years ago I think I ran down the alchemist's (but by no means ltd to them) point of view that everything is made of the same stuff, just reconfigured endlessly, -a great recycling operation! Long time ago I ran across this concept in Brian Swimme's The Universe Is A Green Dragon, something about the fire you see in a match is the same fire you see in the stars, all reaching back to the Big Bang, or Extra Loud Fart, or whateveryouwannacallit.
P.S. FWIW: As far as arbitrary names go I've always preferred Blake's Nobodaddy to "God." More poetry in that…and humor.
This comment has been removed by the author.
What did the Zen Master say to the hotdog vendor?
"Make me one with everything".
The vendor hands him the hotdog and says, "That'll be $2".
The monk hands him a five and after a few minutes asks for change.
The vendor replies, "Change comes from within!"
Does the pusscat have a home yet?? Such a noble little face.
I venture to suggest that Eriugena's Periphyseon is an excellent source book for some fascinating thoughts on God. And the English translation I have is such fun too! "Quite so."! And Meister Eckhart is essential, frankly. There's nothing new under the sun.
john e mumbles said:
"But that's the point, see, to stir up "controversy" so there is some modicum of interest in the subject matter of the book."
Yup. It's akin to that poster advertisement that has in a huge font the word "SEX" and in much smaller words "and now that I have your attention…" at the bottom…
I expect a strange definition of god. One that no theist would accept.
What would be the R E A L L Y interesting book is one where brad argues for the existence of some great cosmic being of theism… I would totally read THAT book:3
Mysterion,
The reason that I asked if you believe that your entire body is self-aware or just your brain was because I was trying to understand what you meant by your statement that the universe is self-aware. I wondered if you meant that because human beings are self-aware, not separate from the universe and aware of the universe, then the universe is self-aware through the agency of human beings. I was trying to draw an analogy between that and the human body. I would still like to know more details about your assertion that the universe is self-aware.
If you truly "hold no beliefs dear", does that mean that you don't believe any of the things that you write here, either?
MICHELANGELO AND WILLIAM BLAKE WERE RIGHT!!!
From a Biblical perspective the nature of God is seen as reflected in aspects of the created order. Yes, God to a certain degree does have the nature of space, wind, emptiness, mist, air, sky, force, energy, light, darkness so congenial to Buddhist/Hindu/New Age types. However humans as being made in the image of God, the most complex, intelligent structures known, are seen as the best representation of what God is like – especially a human at their highest development, a mature, wise, good, vital 50+ man or woman. I knew a dynamic, spiritual woman in her sixties. She reminded me of a female God the Father.
To me saying God is less than personal and NOT like a man is dumbing God down, making God less than what he is, flattening the divine out, a less than human orgasmic gas. In a true sense since humans are made in the divine image, there is a humanness intrinsic to God, though divine humanness is a infinite multidimensional cube compared to our simple squares.
There is much wisdom and truth in Michelangelo’s and William Blake’s renditions of God as his a dynamic, active, wise older man. Far from being simplifications of God they present his depth, his danger, his joy and
What the F… The Rapture!! The Rapture!!!!
Mysterion asked…
What did the Zen Monk sat to the hot dog vendor?
sat me down with everything?
Uncle Willie said…
It seems to me that pantheistic tenets directly contradict fundamental Buddhist tenets such as anatta and shunyata.
Nobody says that such a pantheistic "god" would be free from impermanence (anicca). In such a configuration, I don't see the problem, even though I am personally a bit hostile to attributing the Universe the three letters name…
As for a creator, I am quite fond of the creator god of the Ojibway, Nanabush, the Great Hare, a goofer, a trickster, and (probably) the model for the cartoon character Bugs Bunny…
captcha: enesema…
@Broken yogi
Advaita Vedanta:
BRAHMAN
God, the Supreme Cosmic Spirit or Brahman is the One, the whole and the only reality. Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are false. Brahman is at best described as that infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent reality that is the divine ground of all Being.
ATMAN
The soul or the self (Atman) is identical with Brahman. It is not a part of Brahman that ultimately dissolves into Brahman, but the whole Brahman itself.
Salvation
Advaitins believe that suffering is due to Maya, and only knowledge (called Jnana) of Brahman can destroy Maya. When Maya is removed, there exists ultimately no difference between the Jiva-Atman and the Brahman.
Buddhism:
Pratitya samutpada (Sanskrit), often translated as "dependent arising," is central Buddhist insight. Common to all schools of Buddhism, it states that phenomena arise together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect. It is variously rendered into English as "dependent origination", "dependent co-arising", "interdependent arising", or "contingency".
The enlightenment (or bodhi, a word that means "to awaken") of the Buddha was simultaneously his liberation from suffering (dukkha) and his insight into the nature of the universe – particularly the nature of the lives of sentient beings (principally humans and animals). What the Buddha awakened to was the truth of dependent origination / interdependence.
This is the understanding that any phenomenon exists only because of the existence of other phenomena in an incredibly complex web of cause and effect covering time past, time present, and time future. This concept of a web is symbolized by Indra's net, a multidimensional spider's web on which lies an infinite amount of dew drops or jewels, and in these are reflected the reflections of all the other drops of dew ad infinitum.
Stated in another way, everything depends on everything else. A human being's existence in any given moment is dependent on the condition of everything else in the world at that moment, but in an equally significant way, the condition of everything in the world in that moment depends conversely on the character and condition of that human being. Everything in the universe is interconnected through the web of cause and effect such that the whole and the parts are mutually interdependent. The character and condition of entities at any given time are intimately connected with the character and condition of all other entities that superficially may appear to be unconnected or unrelated.
Three Marks of Existence
Anitya – impermanence, is one of the essential insights or Three Marks of Existence in Buddhism. The term expresses the Buddhist notion that every conditioned existence, without exception, is inconstant and in flux. According to the impermanence doctrine, human life embodies this flux in the aging process, and in any experience of loss. The doctrine further asserts that because things are impermanent/transient, attachment to them leads to suffering Dukkha. Under the impermanence doctrine, all compounded and constructed things and states are impermanent.
Anatman = no-self. Buddhism teaches that all empirical life is impermanent and in a constant state of flux, and that any entity that exists does so only in dependence on the conditions of its arising, which are non-eternal. Therefore, any Self-concept, any sense one might have of an abiding Self or a soul is regarded as a misapprehension; since the conceptualization of the Self or soul is just that.
Buddhism holds that the notion of an abiding self is one of the main causes of human conflict, and that by ceasing to reify our perceived selves, we can come to a state of perfect peace/wellbing.
“The young brahmin Vasettha said: ‘This is the only straight path, this is the
direct path, the path of salvation that leads one who follows it to union with
Brahma, as is taught by brahmin Pokkharasati!…
“’But, Vasettha, is there then a single one of these brahmins learned in
the three Vedas who has seen Brahma face to face?’ ‘No, Reverend Gotama.’
“’Well, Vasettha, when these brahmins learned in the Three Vedas
teach a path that they do not know or see, saying: “This is the only straight
path…”, this cannot possibly be right. Just as a file of blind men go on,
clinging to each other, and the first one sees nothing, the middle one sees
nothing, and the last one sees nothing – so it is with the talk of these brahmins
learned in the Three Vedas…. The talk of these brahmins turns out to be
laughable, mere words, empty and vain.’
“’Well, Udayin, what is taught in your teacher’s doctrine?’ ‘It is taught in our
teacher’s doctrine: “This is the perfect splendour (upamo vanno), this is the
perfect splendour!”
“’But, Udayin, what is that perfect splendour?’
“’Venerable sir, that splendour is the perfect splendour which is
unsurpassed by any other splendour higher or more sublime!”
“’But, Udayin, what is that perfect splendour which is unsurpassed by
any other splendour higher or more sublime?’
“’Venerable, sir, that splendour is the perfect splendour which is
unsurpassed by any other splendour higher or more sublime!’
Nothing to add. Just great conversation so far!
Los Angeles artist-musician (Destroy all Monsters) Mike Kelley passed away a few days ago, an apparent suicide. "No. I never believed in anything," he said "I'm having a really hard time in my life right now with a lot of personal and family problems and I don't need more art-world bullshit to make my life difficult. I'm overworked and exhausted."
http://youtu.be/lsd1bWZ1Xbo
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chas (Mysterion),
Thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate that your answer "showed me your true face". I'll admit that I am one of the people on here that sometimes (often?) gets tired of your seemingly "academic pontificating" and multiple hyperlinks. I prefer when you just write what YOU really think (or feel or have experienced) instead of repeating what "respected academics" have said, even if it's only what you think or believe for the duration of the time that you are writing.
Respectfully,
Willie
I prefer butter & salt to mustard. on my brussel sprouts.
mysterion said in 2007: "As a point of fact, where believing starts, thinking stops. Beliefs are 'crystallized structures' in your brain which are resilient to change.
That is why you cannot engage a True Believer (TM) in a discussion – there IS no discussion with a dead rock." – Sunday, June 24, 2007 HCZ Blog
What is this thing you hold so closely to if not a long held confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof?
If it quacks like a duck..
"No. I never believed in anything"
that's usually the problem with dualism, it gives a false choice between the false dichotomies of eternalism and nihilism.
you hear this all the time from christians "either there is a "God" or it's all just meaningless"
hopelessness, which trivializes our precious human lives and our precious human friendships
Buddhism is Middle Way between the extremes of these two views.
Science Saved My Soul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk
mysterion said on HCZ Blog 2007: Beliefs are 'crystallized structures' in your brain which are resilient to change. Some beliefs can, like glass, be shattered.
mysterion said on HCZ Blog 2012: "beliefs are crystallized structures in the brain which are resilient to change. beliefs can be "shattered"
Five years later and almost word for word.. and you're saying you don't believe it?
Hey Brad,
I've read your four Buddhist books.
I'm eager to read your new book on God. Have any idea when it'll be out? And will it be released as physical copies or will it just be an e-book exclusive like your last work of fiction?