streaming consciousness…

Tagged: catuhskoti Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

• 

  hardie karges 4:31 am on July 27, 2025 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: Buddhism ( 428 ), catuhskoti, CHRISTIANITY ( 160 ), Hardie Karges ( 239 ), karma ( 49 ), logic ( 14 ), lovingkindness ( 16 ), meditation ( 189 ), metta ( 25 ), sangha ( 12 ), tetralemma ( 9 )   

  Buddhism on the Installment Plan (with Quick Easy Payments) 

  

  If Science conquers Death, then Buddhism may be out of work, but I doubt it. Because, for all the rap about Buddhism being pessimistic, the truth is that it’s not; it’s realistic. Now, that may contrast sharply with the goo-goo eyed optimism of Sunday School Christianity (any denomination) and their doctrines of eternal life and passionate love, but it’s only being realistic—and rational. You’re going to die. Get over it. For an adult, that’s the starting point of any life equation. You’ve got x amount of years to produce y amount of children and z amount of money, so you better get started, because time’s wasting.

  Or not. Buddhism always allows for negation in any of its tetralemma style catuhskoti logic, so, if that’s negative, by definition, then so be it. Negation is often the only certainty, just as Emptiness is often the only Eternity. And that is why Buddhism is so often defined by its meditation, which is essentially doing nothing—creatively, watching thoughts come and go while breath counts the time and plays rhythm. But it’s only a partial renunciation, unlike the Jains’ total immersion, from which they seldom emerge. That’s the Middle Path, neither total leisure nor lack, buffet nor snack.

  Buddhism is so ‘right’ simply because it’s so simple. Avoid extremes and be nice; seek friends. Because that’s the heart of Buddhist ‘love’, metta, friendship. Ex-Christians try to soup it up by invoking ‘lovingkindness’, with Mary and babe at the breast, but really, it’s just friendship, non-possessive and cool, not hot, male or female, jewelry or not. Feel free to try it at home. It’s non-toxic. Or form a group. Some call it sangha. Others call it family. And don’t forget to wash your karma.

   

  Reply Cancel reply

  Required fields are marked *

  Name *

  Email *

  Website

  Notify me of new comments via email.

  Notify me of new posts via email.

  Δ

• 

  hardie karges 10:25 am on July 24, 2022 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: Aristotle ( 3 ), Brahmanists, Brahmin ( 5 ), Buddhism ( 428 ), catuhskoti, Hardie Karges ( 239 ), logic ( 14 ), religion ( 158 ), social media ( 13 ), tetralemma ( 9 )   

  Buddhism is a World of Feeling, Thoughts Optional 

  

  

  Be kind to humans and other sentient beings, even when they are obnoxious, egotistic, pompous, and overbearing. And this is a tough row to hoe in the age of social media, I know, but that makes it even more important, doesn’t it? I think so. Because the pressure in this social media age for anyone who wants to be an ‘influencer,’ is to crack wise first, and smooth hard feelings later, if ever. But that’s not the correct order of things, I don’t think, not these days or ever.

  Because we are all ‘influencers,’ to some extent or other, but if we’re all sticking our egos in everyone’s faces all the time, then who is left to bear witness? So, we all have a stake in this game, regardless of whether we’re professional or not, because those lines are becoming blurred—at best. This is nothing if not a world of feeling, and I think that’s how Buddhism best makes sense. Because there was no world of reason back then, much less science, even if the Buddha was aware of the power of reason and tried to incorporate it into his practice.

  But reason at its best requires inscrutable logic, and the Indian tetralemma, in Greek, or catuhskoti, in Sanskrit, was far from perfect, and violated the Law of the Excluded Middle of Aristotelian logic, more familiar to our Western thought. But the Indian choices of ‘This,’ ‘That,’ ‘All of the above’ or ‘None of the above’ might ironically have led to the Buddha’s famous Middle Path, which Greek logic only approached with a roundabout dialectical synthesis that came much later.

  There’s more to life than logic, though, of course, and a close examination shows a classical Indian world-view heavily based on feeling and introspection, the deeper the better for the really big questions. That’s the world that the Buddha was raised in, and that was his method by trade, as prophet to the ages. When in doubt, think it out. Though many modern non-dualists may deny that the Buddha ever really intended anything, much less own his thoughts, I think it’s safe to say that he certainly did.

  If the Buddha’s thoughts had had no thinker, then I doubt we’d have Four Noble Truths and twice that number of folds and twists to our middle path of salvation, as defined by the cessation of suffering, at least partially, if never quite total. In every case, too, it’s a world of feeling and perception that is described, defined by name and form, and articulated by consciousness. The Brahmins and Brahmanists saw a world of Cosmic self in union with Brahma. The Buddha begged to differ. That’s the world he lived in, and that’s the world that he bequeathed to us.
   
• 

  hardie karges 10:52 am on June 12, 2022 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: Buddhism ( 428 ), catuhskoti, Einstein ( 11 ), global hunger, global warming ( 16 ), Jesus Christ ( 5 ), Law of Excluded Middle, nidanas ( 2 ), Plato ( 17 ), tetralemma ( 9 )   

  Buddhist Dependent Origination and the Law of Excluded Middle 

  

  

  We worry about Global Warming, and even Global Hunger, but what about Global Hatred and Global Anger? Because the seeds of one are in the other, and there really is no solution short of a comprehensive solution. I mean, is there any real likelihood that Global Warming could ever be solved without also solving other global problems at the same time? It’s not likely. Such is the nature of the Buddhist Law of Dependent Origination, that we are caught in a web of causal connections, even if the details are sometimes best left to the imagination.

  Because the Buddha’s world was one based largely on perception, and introspection, in that order, from the simplest to the most complex, and in which rationality was something radical and revolutionary. But that’s exactly what the Buddha attempted, a full two hundred years before Aristotle, albeit with mixed results. Because Aristotelian logic is an ‘either/or’ choice between any proposition and its negation. There is no middle option with the Law of the Excluded Middle. But Buddhism is all about that middle option, that sweet spot between extremes.

  So, Buddhist logic, aka catuhskoti, aka tetralemma, in addition to the proposition and its negation, also allows both—or neither. Given such logical options, pure perception is likely to be the more accurate description of reality. And that’s what Buddha attempts with the twelve nidanas that comprise the Buddhist Law of Dependent Origination. But words can’t accurately describe a law of nature, so the progression from ignorance, formation, consciousness, name and form, etc., may not necessarily make total sense in the particulars what makes perfect sense in general.

  The Buddha’s path of knowledge was deep introspection, which is the best that you can do without science. Einstein was a master of it with his thought experiments. And Plato did much the same with his Socratic dialogs, forerunner to the modern dialectic of Hegel and others. Jesus’s parables and the Buddha’s sutras accomplish much the same thing, but more in the personal and ethical sphere than in scientific breakthroughs. Einstein’s ‘happiest moment’ and ‘biggest blunder’ were special relativity and the Cosmological Constant, respectively. The Buddha’s were the middle path and the underestimation of women. He was only human, after all.