15 Reader Responses

1. alistair Says:
   July 2nd, 2005 at 5:38 pm

   you will get into trouble with liberals by suggesting the trancendance of compassion. you will also get my support. the gamerules of trancendance fly directly in the face of humanitarianism as well as consumerism or greed and even pity or sorrow. if you want enlightenment you must follow the directions on the package precisely.otherwise you void all warranties, expressed or implied. that`s why i have a problem with the dali lama preaching peace etc. seems hypocritical. or maybe just political.

2. Occult Investigator Says:
   July 2nd, 2005 at 5:58 pm

   Maybe a better way to phrase it is simply: there’s no way to know say what enlightenment is like. It bursts semantic systems… Is compassion is a semantic system?

3. alistair Says:
   July 2nd, 2005 at 7:16 pm

   yes, but because the gamerules of buddhism are created semantically, we have to negotiate semantically to discuss it. we could use math or physics as a choice if we were so versed, but i know i`m not, so i won`t.
   compassion is an emotion. a valid neuro-chemical response to stimulus. we can use word patterns to try to attain a consensus about what we all feel, but the feelings exist outside of semantics. the feelings existed long before the words that describe them.(or maybe a split second.) the proof of this is in the fact that babies have feelings before language forms sufficiently for them, as a way of communicating.
   change happens at the kinaesthetic level.stability happens throught the visual and auditory.
   words have a way of debating feelings out so that we become robots. we deprogram through feelings.
   have you ever heard of joseph chiltern pearce?

4. JK Says:
   July 2nd, 2005 at 8:09 pm

   yes, but because the gamerules of buddhism are created semantically, we have to negotiate semantically to discuss it. we could use math or physics as a choice if we were so versed, but i know i`m not, so i won`t.

   Which perhaps helps to underscore the power of the koan.

   Meaningless on the linguistic surface until you explore the feelings such absurdities invoke.

5. alistair Says:
   July 2nd, 2005 at 8:11 pm

   like latin mass?

6. JK Says:
   July 2nd, 2005 at 8:35 pm

   Yes. Totally like Latin mass. Except I would not trust a priest to do what is right, only to do what he must. And what he must do isn’t necessarily what is right.

   Koans on the other hand, seem to place the onus of experience on the experiencer, not the koan spinner. The hogwash is still there, but it seems to be directed towards another purpose. The priest is not needed, as he embodies a rigid structure of “mass” manipulation. Whereas a Zen master divorces himself from an outcome in a greater interest in seeing nature unfold. Suggestions vs. Instructions.

   Both look to demarcate boundaries, but some boundaries are more porous that others.

7. Gary Says:
   July 2nd, 2005 at 10:25 pm

   I dunno about all this. I think you guys may be on the wrong tack. Where to start?

   My knowledge of Buddhism is only in a neophyte stage but I’ve been practicing it all my life. I have only come to realize this a year or two ago.

   Alistair says:

   the gamerules of trancendance fly directly in the face of humanitarianism

   I don’t think they do at all. Buddhism is a journey in which, allegedly, we will learn to help ourselves by helping others. They way to transcendence is only through humanitarianism. If by that word you mean a concern for human welfare, especially as manifested through a love or compassion for mankind.

   Eventually, there will be a transcendence of compassion too, I agree. As the ego is surrendered EVERYTHING must go. But I suspect this is amongst the last baggage to be jettisoned. Though it’s not sustainable I suspect the system maybe set up as a reverse pyramid scheme of sorts. The guys at the top are giving all the compassion to the teeming masses beneath. (BTW I’m not suggesting any hierarchy here) Souls launch towards an end of time, (or for you Tom Robbins Fans out there, Today IS Tomorrow), towards being one with one or towards nirvana at such a meager rate that pyramid is kind of sustainable.

   Alistair also mentions:

   if you want enlightenment you must follow the directions on the package precisely

   I can see no reason why this is true at all. There are so many paths to enlightenment. Buddha himself mentions this fact all the time. I think perhaps what you are thinking is that choice begins to narrow as you lighten your karmic load. The soul learns which things to do and which to avoid which I guess looks like you have to follow specific directions. Eventually we start to head in the same direction with similar behaviors but how we arrive at learning these behaviors is probably infinite.

   Alistair finally suggetst:

   dali lama preaching peace etc. seems hypocritical.

   Peace is not at all hypocritical. I assume that by promoting peace you believe he is undermining suffering? I am not sure what you mean so I’ll go on this assumption. Peace is a goal in line with humanitarianism and therefore in alignment with compassion. Even with relative peace, (political, social etc.) I am sure there would be plenty of suffering to go around. It seems natural to me to promote peace. Not just from a buddhist stand point but from a human one.

   Is this too long? I don’t usually post to blogs. I’ll handle some more in another comment.

8. Occult Investigator Says:
   July 2nd, 2005 at 10:32 pm

   Post as much as you want Gary. Fine by me. Allow me to reply to a couple points:

   I think you guys may be on the wrong tack

   Do you mean all of us, or just Alistair, since you responded to his arguments only? Either way, how does this mesh with what you said elsewhere:

   There are so many paths to enlightenment. Buddha himself mentions this fact all the time.

   So how is it that you’re able to know if somebody’s on the right track or not if there are so many possible correct ones?

   You also wrote:

   Eventually, there will be a transcendence of compassion too, I agree. As the ego is surrendered EVERYTHING must go.

   So, in other words you agree with Alistair’s basic point?

   PS. I’m just asking questions, not criticizing. Questions are fun. Thanks for leaving a comment and I hope you leave many more.

9. alistair Says:
   July 2nd, 2005 at 11:35 pm

   it is tough to reconcile, as a human with feelings, but to transcend means to go beyond. meta-compassion, meta-humanitarianism. a semantic trap possibly? it just seems that that is what all the mystics are saying, down through the ages. we are all just men and women having feelings, some of which are compassionate and humanitarian, until sometime, in the literal sense of the word, we transcend those feelings. then we dont operate with attachment to them any more.
   it is useful, through yoga and other approaches, to let go of negative and restricting feelings, when we unbind from them we feel better. but isn`t that sort of fudging the buddhist position if we are selective in terms of which stuff we choose to let go of?
   and i am in no way saying that peace is hypocritical.
   gary, what i mean is that the whole bundle of ego attachment is the barrier to enlightenment. not the convenient selection of our favorites.
   when you pack your bags and leave home it takes commitment.

10. Gary Says:
    July 2nd, 2005 at 11:50 pm

    I know that things can easily get misconstrued when using electronic blood for ink so let me say that I’m not at all attacking Alistair and I hope it doesn’t appear that way.
    From being an avid reader of your site, Tim, I would assume that your motivations for questioning is honorable (and admirable), and not of some lesser origin.

    “Wrong tack” was the wrong tack to take for me. The talk of Bodhicitta in general and Bodhistava’s in specific got me going and I thought the thread had too quickly gone from transcending existence to the meaningless of compassion. That’s what I meant by wrong tack.

    Because there are so many paths to enlightment, I agree, that there is probably no “wrong tack” to take. I meant the discussion, in an unattainable objective sort of way, took the wrong path from what you started out talking about. BTW, I don’t at all think that there is anything wrong with meandering and tangental discussions but I guess I wanted to focus on Bodhicitta not simply semantics.

    So, in other words you agree with Alistair’s basic point?

    Yes, I guess I agree with Alistair’s basic point but I sensed a limiting tone to his post (which, of course, may or may not be there), and it got my hackles up. So, while it seemed that I disagree with him on some levels I also agree with him. God, I love dualism. I think I was unsure just what his basic point was.

    So how is it that you’re able to know if somebody’s on the right track or not if there are so many possible correct ones?

    In terms of elightenment knowing if someone is on the “right” path to enlightenment let me say I don’t think it matters if you know or not. It’s the helping thers that matters. It’s important to know when to and when not to help. To have the wisdom and experience to decide to help or not and to be aware of your motivations to help is key. Helping others could be karmic in nature and it could be selfless, it could be a manifestation insecurity and it could be any mixture of the above.

    However, in the context of a simple discussion being sure we are taking the right tack is important. Now, not to split my own hairs but every discussion would be part of the path to enlightenment so there is probably no real wrong tack. But balance is probably the key here; living in both worlds is important the spiritual and the physical but also sometimes just one.

11. Gary Says:
    July 3rd, 2005 at 12:08 am

    I agree Alistair, all the baggage must go not just those bags that are convienent or offensive. But the order in which it goes is where the fudging is ameliorated. I suspect that it is the order in which it goes that makes it possible to go. Popular Buddhism focuses on tossing the bad baggage because Buddhists have learned that it essential to the process and wants to pass it on. I have no need to discover the wheel if my neighbor already has and is willing to teach it to me, (and I am interested in wheels).

    Ultimately, it looks like Buddhism is saying I’m looking at for numero uno by way of looking out for others. One approaches enlightenment for one’s own benefit by benefiting others. A closed system and a good one.

    This is mostly conjecture, I realize, but even if I can’t prove some of the underlying tenets of Buddhism I’m gonna gamble sometimes with my beliefs and move on from less than 100% solid ground. Like previously mentioned I lived it my whole life and then found someone had written it down a long time ago and I don’t at all believe in coincidence.

12. Occult Investigator Says:
    July 3rd, 2005 at 12:20 am

    I like the idea you touch on here Gary, that the order with which you get rid of attachments may be important. Maybe holding onto compassion is the one that lets you let go of all the others, and then eventually you may even let that go…

13. Gary Says:
    July 3rd, 2005 at 12:22 am

    Tim, I don’t think compassion is only a semantic system. Words are like fibers. Syntax is like netting. When one uses a net to capture a rain cloud and only collects dust and moisture it’s not the fiber’s fault. The words we have are good it’s the syntax that fails us.

    Alistair says something very interesting:

    compassion is an emotion. a valid neuro-chemical response to stimulus. we can use word patterns to try to attain a consensus about what we all feel, but the feelings exist outside of semantics.

    Compassion maybe a valid neuro-chemical response learned by our body’s actions but that doesn’t mean that’s all it is. I don’t think you are implying this but maybe you are. I don’t think it is fair to limit any emotion to cold hard science. Life is too short to worship too hard at either of the altars of cold science and rigid skepticism.

    I guess where I’m going is if feelings exist outside of the limitations of semantics just how far outside? I would offer that they exist outside of our very selves, I mean why just leave them in the mind? Certainly, empirics are not compelling enough for the open mind. Platonic shadows on the cave wall come to mind.

    Alistair also says:

    the feelings existed long before the words that describe them.(or maybe a split second.) the proof of this is in the fact that babies have feelings before language forms sufficiently for them, as a way of communicating.

    I like where you are going with this but I think I must disagree with the proof part. This fact that babies can’t communicate their ideas doesn’t mean they can’t think them. This doesn’t constitute proof. In fact, babies begin communicating long before they start any language process. It seems to me that they are communicating from the get go and quite sufficiently for their needs at the time. Communication is an ongoing process that only becomes more complex. But I don’t disagree with your point.

14. alistair Says:
    July 3rd, 2005 at 6:24 pm

    i meant that babies had the feelings before they formed language to communicate them. it wasn`t my intention to suggest that therefore they weren`t communicating. that wasn`t what i suggested became proven by observing them either, merely that language doesn`t form feelings. it merely conveys them.the baby example illustrates that.
    as to how far outside of the semantic net that feelings lie.who`s to say. i will leave that one to the romantics.
    and yes empirics are too limiting for the open mind. i am willing to attempt the journey to the mouth of the cave, away from the shadows.
    when i wear the guise of the romantic i am apt to say that we are constructed entirely of feelings.absolutely nothing but. the semantic shell brushes the edge of sensation in a highly inefficient transductive state, reporting mumbled and garbled lies meant to satisfy the inquirer long enough for all to nod and go along to the next thing.

15. davee Says:
    July 4th, 2005 at 2:23 pm

    hi all, i’m a recent student of madhyamaka and would love to offer some more contemplations into the discussion. hope you don’t mind!

    first, can concepts be used to ignore our feelings? so if we feel hurt, do we sometimes use opinions about the hurt (”it’s their fault”) to push away the feeling of hurt (and rev up a feeling of anger for example)?

    next i’d like to consider that the word “compassion” may be slightly different than the conventional use of the word in english. what if by compassion one means the removal of barriers to feelings that arise when one has awareness of suffering? can there be awareness of suffering without conceptual contemplations? or is some awareness of suffering pre-conceptual?

    then, if we take “emptiness” to mean the “absence of conceptual elaboration to experience” then does that then include the absence of the felt experiences entirely? or would that make you even more subject to the felt experiences because you no longer had any conceptual armor with which to ignore them?

    when i was a small child, though my memory of this is poor, i did not always understand why people were hurting but i had a keen awareness of when people didn’t feel well. i suspect we as humans can just tell when someone doesn’t feel well and we have an innate empathy that can occur. but then we add conceptual opinions about the world and while that empathy can still be in our awareness often other things get in the way: like we dislike a person, or we’re attracted to them so we’re scared to talk with them, or we think we’ll just make matters worse, or it’s none of our business, etc. etc. so we’ve added conceptualization as armor so we can ignore an innate empathy in our awareness.

    now imagine we intentionally chose to drop the armor and practice feeling the innate empathy. that practice would get us into a habit of piercing the conceptualization in general. that might lead us to the ability to experience without conceptualization entirely. the relative practices then would lead to the absolute bodhichitta. or if instead we practice the absolute practices, of seeing the world without attachment to conceptualization, our armor would drop naturally as we see it’s falsity, and we would then be left with only the felt experience that arises spontaneously. but would felt experiences of empathy arise without conceptualization about the experience of others? the buddhist teachers claim they do. so absolute bodhichitta leads to the union of emptiness and compassion.

    personally, i’ve had a few moments of experiencing what i think was emptiness after very long meditation retreats and i had incredible tenderness and compassion for others for awhile after. but not about the ‘content’ of what they were dealing with, it was just easy to see some base level of discomfort and lack of ‘well-being’ in everyone. that awareness is below conceptualization i suspect. the tenderness was so powerful i could barely talk to people. i think this was because all of my usual armor of “me” and “mine” and relating to people through an idea of who i was and who they were was gone. all that was left was awareness and the empathy occurred naturally / was self existing without conceptualization.

    now, that said, i’ve also heard that a bodhisattva realizes that their conceptual framework of the “world” is illusory, a conditional conceptualization, simply the play of illusion. but they also then practice for the benefit of others, and vow to help others. so they’re making an illusory vow to help illusory people stuck in illusory suffering. but other people clearly do have mind consciousness just like the illusory “us”, and we remember what that suffering was like.

    here’s a related story:

    there were two omniscient boys, both asleep in the same room. one awoke from a nightmare then realized that it was only a nightmare. but he then looked over and saw with his omniscience that the other boy was also having a nightmare. he naturally wanted to help the other boy wake up from the nightmare.

    the boy who awoke was the buddha. the boy who is still in the nightmare is you.