streaming consciousness…

Tagged: language Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

• 

  hardie karges 4:40 am on December 1, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: Boolean logic ( 4 ), Buddhism ( 437 ), consciousness ( 29 ), Four Noble Truths ( 18 ), Hardie Karges ( 248 ), language, meditation ( 198 ), mindfulness ( 35 ), neuron, philosophy ( 106 ), samadhi ( 13 ), sati ( 17 ), spirituality ( 27 ), thought ( 15 )   

  Buddhism 202: Thoughts and Thinkers 

  

  Samma sankappa, one of the Buddhist Four Noble Truths, is Right Thought = Good Thought, not No Thought. For no thought, maybe samma samadhi is better, Right (Good) Meditation. It’s very popular for New Age-y Buddhists to talk about ‘thoughts without thinkers and/or ‘thoughts that think themselves’, as if they were both particle and wave out there floating around looking for a pickup gig, but that implies that thoughts are bad, and the Buddha never said anything like that.

  I think that the confusion comes with the role of language in thought, and its somewhat checkered past. Because no one would dare say anything bad about sati, i.e. consciousness, mindfulness, or awareness. That’s sacrosanct in Buddhism. And it’s a form of thought, also, but without language. Dogs do it; cats do it. All animals do, to a greater or lesser degree. But: like Boolean logic, we invented language, and now that we have it, it’s hard to go back, at least not full time. And there’s no real reason to.

  Because thought can be a good thing, and the linguistic variety is likely the most powerful type, BUT: it can also be destructive, both to society and to the personality, aka ‘self’. On the metaphysical plane, not only is it not ‘non-dual’, with its definitive subjects and objects, but it’s also argumentative and unsettling, arguably war’s greatest weapon. And while I don’t advocate a return to the ‘non-dual’ lives of bonobos and chimps, I do strongly advocate daily meditation. Because, no matter how powerful linguistic thought can be, its non-linguistic cousin meditation can be much more peaceful. That’s samadhi.

  But this can be a contentious subject for debate, because, on the one hand, thoughts DO just pop up sometimes unannounced and often unwanted. And we DON’T always have total recall, much less immediate recall. But that doesn’t mean that we are passive listeners and watchers of thoughts as they pass in and out of our brains or minds, for lack of better words to portray a very abstract subject. Remember the old saying: ‘Practice makes perfect’? Well, neuroscientists have one, also: ‘Neurons that fire together, wire together.’ That means that we establish neural pathways that can be considered our own, in that they are distinct from that of others. So, yes, to a certain extent, thoughts have thinkers, and thinkers have thoughts. We’re the living proof.

   

  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 3:59 am on November 17, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: Buddha ( 49 ), Buddhism ( 437 ), Hardie Karges ( 248 ), language, meditation ( 198 ), philosophy ( 106 ), religion ( 161 )   

  Buddhism on the Half Shell: Dharma without Dogma 

  

  Beware stir-fried spirituality, vague ideas tossed in a pan and stirred ‘til piping hot. Buddhism is an open doctrine, true, but it needs a compass. And the Eightfold Path is that compass, of course, the prime phenomena of our lives listed and pointed in the direction of ‘rightness’, i.e. the correct and appropriate versions of the main foundations of our lives: thought, intent, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, and concentration. If non-duality can fit into that simple list, then fine; it is welcome. If not, then reshuffle your deck to find your place in lives where things actually exist and thoughts actually occur.

  For better or worse, Buddhism must live with the titles of its popular books, regardless of whether those actually describe the philosophy accurately or not. So, we must spend time explaining why ‘Buddhism is True’, and why there are a ‘Buddha and the Badass’ and how we can have a ‘Universe in a Single Atom’, whether any of that has anything to do with Buddhism or not. For the most part, those titles are just the consumeristic fantasies of book publishers, and the ideas inside their covers have little or nothing in common with them.

  But that’s a compromise we make. The real problem occurs when the ideas themselves get breaded and fried in almost total opposition to the original concept. So New Age Buddhists remind you to love yourself without bothering to explain, or even acknowledge, that we have no intrinsic Self, or even selves. Then they’ll tell you that our thoughts are not our own, while giving no clue as to where they actually come from, apparently just floating around, soul-like looking for a body to inhabit. But these are only minor inconveniences. The dharma can easily transcend most of that. I persevere.
   
• 

  hardie karges 4:13 am on November 10, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: anatta ( 22 ), atman ( 5 ), Brahman ( 3 ), Buddhism ( 437 ), emptiness ( 30 ), EVOLUTION ( 20 ), Hardie Karges ( 248 ), Hindu ( 8 ), Jain ( 5 ), language, philosophy ( 106 ), self ( 20 ), skandha ( 2 ), soul ( 10 )   

  Buddhism 202: Anatman on the Installment Plan 

  

  The fact that I’m not the same as I was before is at least partial proof of anatta, non-self, i.e. a heap of adjectives in evolution. The Sanskrit word skandha means something like ‘heap’, of course, that of which we are composed, without clearly defining exactly what that material is, though it would appear to fall in the category of ‘causes and conditions’, so more mind than matter, more substantial than material. Thus, I prefer to think of them as adjectives rather than nouns or even verbs, mere descriptions of what is to become.

  But this is immaterial (pun intended) to the substance of the original debate, mostly between Hindu Brahmins, Jains, and Buddhists, as to the permanence—or not—of a supposed ‘self’ or ‘soul’. For Hindu Brahmanists this was a cosmic ‘soul’ on a par with a God-like ‘Brahman’, while for the Jains this was an atomic soul that inhabited everything on a granular level. In response to these two choices, early Buddhists basically said, “Naah,” then moved on to bigger and better considerations.

  And, if this seems like a severe diminution of personality to the point that we (who are writing and reading this humble script) have no intrinsic existence, then I prefer to think about the freedom that this gives us rather than the limits imposed upon us. Because this emptiness is as close as we can come to infinity or eternity, and so the very opposite of limitation. There’s only one catch, though, already mentioned. It’s empty. There can’t be any sort of unlimited physical stuff. It’s simply not possible, sorry. Look on the bright side; there appears to be no current shortage of anything important. And we are a very conscious heap, in the process of evolution.

   
• 

  hardie karges 4:36 am on October 27, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: anatta ( 22 ), asceticism, atman ( 5 ), Brahman ( 3 ), Brahmanism ( 8 ), Buddhism ( 437 ), dharma ( 35 ), Hardie Karges ( 248 ), Hinduism ( 29 ), India ( 15 ), Indra ( 2 ), Jainism ( 13 ), language, meditation ( 198 ), Padmasambhava, philosophy ( 106 ), religion ( 161 ), spirituality ( 27 ), Upanishads, Vajrayana ( 22 ), Vedas ( 3 )   

  Buddhism is the Middle Path between Jainism and Brahmanism… 

  

  Brahmanism is what we now call ‘Hinduism’, but that term didn’t really exist way back when, only recently applied by the Brits to the plethora of sects and devotions which now constitute Hinduism. But it was in the midst of the Upanishad era at the time of the Buddha, which would redefine the previously Indra-based fire rituals which had reigned during the Vedic times. And with the advent of the new Upanishadic orientation, the resulting resemblance to Buddhism was profound—but still distinct.

  And so was Jainism distinct from both of them, at the same time that it shares much with them. But remember, that the ‘Hinduism’ that the Jain reacted to in the 6^th century BCE is not the same as modern Hinduism, either, and that is partly because of this same three-way dialogue. Jainism was largely a reaction against the Brahmanists’ fire sacrifices, they being extreme nonviolent vegetarians. But many modern Hindus are also vegetarians, with Buddhists characteristically somewhere ‘in between.’

  That’s the Middle Path, specifically between the extreme asceticism of the Jains and the lavish rituals of the ‘Hindus’, but also between the many gods of Hinduism and the total lack of them in Jainism. Technically Buddhists don’t really have them, either, but, you know… Later versions of Buddhism were not so strict about that, such as the Tibetan version of Vajrayana, which came direct from India sometime after the 5^th century and attested by Padmasambhava in the 8^th century.

  But both Jains and Hindus were crazy about souls, Jains finding them everywhere and Hindus finding them cosmic, Atman, preferably in union with the cosmic dharma principle Brahman. But Buddhism found little of value in any of that, and so chose non-self anatta. So, they all evolved into different sects with different orientations, and we generally all get along nicely. The main difference is that Hinduism tilted toward a nationalism which international Buddhism could never assimilate. And Jains, ‘winners’ in Sanskrit, were ultimately the losers.

   
• 

  hardie karges 4:23 am on August 23, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: dharma ( 35 ), dhyana ( 5 ), Forest Temple ( 4 ), Hardie Karges ( 248 ), language, meditation ( 198 ), prison ( 2 ), PSYCHOLOGY ( 13 ), solitary confinement, solitude ( 2 ), Theravada ( 52 ), Zen ( 31 )   

  Buddhism Loves a Sangha, but Loves Solitude, too… 

  

  Western psychology thinks solitary confinement is torture. Buddhism thinks it’s pretty nice—sometimes. Go figure. Because that’s exactly what meditation is, is it not? That and concentration, yes, exactly, at least in meditation’s original purest form, which is maintained to this day in Theravada Buddhism, so important there that it’s often called Vipassana by its association. And it’s true. I couldn’t believe it the first time I did a retreat in a Thai forest temple, laymen silent unflinching for hours, monks even longer.

  I haven’t witnessed that degree of meditative absorption in the Tibetan or Chinese temples where I have experience and knowledge, but it might certainly exist there. And Zen might be another level of attainment, since the name derives from dhyana, after all. All of which goes to make a distinction with the typical Western ‘guided’ meditation, which, whatever its benefits, I simply wouldn’t consider true meditation, maybe more like a ‘dharma talk’ if done well. But if it’s not a Buddhist meditation group, then it might not be a Buddhist talk. Hindus are still trying to reclaim Buddhism as their own.

  But the point is that, while solitude might be torture for some, it doesn’t have to be. And it’s more likely to be, I think, if you’re accustomed to living your life in crowds and constant confusion. For someone raised on a farm out in the countryside, what’s a little solitary confinement? Sounds like Sunday afternoon. Solitude can and should be something good, healthy, and productive. If they don’t teach meditation in prisons, then they certainly should. It just might save somebody’s life sometime.

   
• 

  hardie karges 4:35 am on July 27, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: Buddhism ( 437 ), Hardie Karges ( 248 ), knowledge, language, meditation ( 198 ), perfection, present moment ( 5 )   

  Buddhism 491: Everything Teaches a Lesson  

  

  The difference between a blessing and a curse is often only a matter of centimeters or seconds. Attaching a name explains little. Because we only know the final flowers of fruition upon completion, that is perfection, as related in the perfect tense of many languages, better described than the past tense of our own, which is misleading, to think that time can conveniently be divided into three dimensions like space, i.e. past, present, and future, analogous to length, width and breadth, convenient if not correct. 

  And if that plays into a convenient and comfortable ‘present moment’ narrative of the moment (no pun), then so be it. Because if all reality is mostly unknowable, then the future is the best example. But here’s the kicker: so is the present. The only thing that we can truly know is the past, because it is perfected, i.e. completed, complete with neural twin, through which it can be examined. You can’t do that in the present. The present may be singular in its experience, but that doesn’t imply knowledge. That implies attention, absorption, perception, and concentration. 

  Knowledge only comes from perfection, i.e. completion, a much nicer word than mere past, which implies old, mold, withered and weathered. Perfection is much friendlier. So, is that fruit a blessing or a curse? In Buddhism, everything is an opportunity to learn something, so, in effect, nothing is truly a curse. And if it feels that way, there are two possibilities: your feeling is incomplete, or the act itself is incomplete. Either way, perfection is only a step away. Be patient and be diligent. 

   
• 

  hardie karges 3:41 am on June 23, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: Buddhism ( 437 ), compassion ( 14 ), defilement ( 3 ), depression ( 6 ), dukkha ( 16 ), Hardie Karges ( 248 ), kilesha ( 11 ), kindness ( 16 ), language, meditation ( 198 ), sadness ( 3 ), suffering ( 29 )   

  Buddhism: Dealing with Dukkha, Suffering…  

  

  Depression and sadness are not the same thing. Still Buddhism can help with both. Dukkha, suffering, is a very broad concept, as all the modern reinterpretations prove. Still, it all comes down to unhappiness, as the modern Sanskrit (and Hindi and Nepali) words confirm: दुःखी, dukhi, nothing about stress, dissatisfaction, or my favorite word ‘bummer’: haha. Thank you, Google Translate. But if you think you’re clinically, i.e. chemically, depressed, always sad, you might want to get a clinical diagnosis, and solution, in addition to anything that Buddhism might be able to do for you. 

  Because what Buddhism can do best for you is to make you feel better about your current condition, seeing it as impermanent, as it certainly is, and even unreal, as it also arguably is. More importantly, it can help you realize that many of these conditions are the result of your own kileshas, errors, defilements, or shortcomings (not sins), in particular the defilement of avarice, or craving, or attachment to the passing show of superficial satisfactions of consumption, lust, and hatred.  

  These are problems with solutions, though, specifically training your mind to find its satisfactions elsewhere. Once you’ve found satisfaction in kindness and compassion, after all, why would you want to return to the crude contrivances of drunkenness, braggadocio, and one-upmanship? If you’re like me, then you probably wouldn’t. Subtle satisfactions that ease the sufferings of others can also have the added benefit of easing your own suffering, later if not sooner. We’re all in this together. 

  hardie karges and jmoran66 are discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    jmoran66 4:52 am on June 23, 2024 Permalink | Reply

    Another great post. I read it several times in succession, then went back to it again later.

    • 

      hardie karges 5:17 am on June 23, 2024 Permalink | Reply

      Thank you…

• 

  hardie karges 4:03 am on May 26, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: Buddhism ( 437 ), dissatisfaction, dukkha ( 16 ), Existentialism, First Noble Truth ( 5 ), Google ( 2 ), Hardie Karges ( 248 ), India ( 15 ), language, meditation ( 198 ), Middle Path ( 55 ), mindfulness ( 35 ), nirvana ( 13 ), philosophy ( 106 ), rebirth ( 37 ), reincarnation ( 14 ), religion ( 161 ), Sanskrit ( 22 ), spirituality ( 27 ), stress ( 2 ), suffering ( 29 ), Virtual Reality ( 9 )   

  Buddhism 499: Sometimes Some Things Are Lost in Translation  

  

  Beware re-translations. The Buddha spoke a Sanskrit-related language. Sanskrit never went extinct. ‘Dukkha’ still means ‘suffering’, sorry. Many Western Buddhists try to manipulate the message, however slightly, to make it more appealing to Western tastes, but that says as much about Western tastes as it does about Buddhism. The issue in question, of course, is the First Noble Truth, which states something as innocuous—and obvious—as the fact that suffering exists, nothing more, nothing less, UNLESS: you want to make that jagged little pill a little easier for someone from Hoboken to swallow. 

  Because if the principle of suffering is important enough to list it first and foremost as the foundational principle of your new religion, then that’s easily hyperbolized into such platitudes as ‘Life is Suffering’, ‘All Life is Suffering’, and so on, which is understandable, but somewhat depressing for many Western tastes accustomed to fast food and Ferris Wheels (for those of us raised on Existentialism, it’s not such a problem). But the easiest way to mitigate that circumstance is to soften the edges of that term ‘suffering’ to make it sound more like ‘dissatisfaction’, ‘stress’ (ahem), ‘spot of bother’ (maybe ?), or my favorite: ‘bummer’, haha. 

  Okay, so I’m joking a little bit, but the modern notion of ‘stress’ was surely unknown in 5^th C. BCE India, so that’s a bit of a joke, also. But the effort at mitigation is certainly allowable under the Buddha’s own notion of ‘skillful means’, so it’s just a question of what’s appropriate. Bottom line: dukkha means ‘suffering’ as surely today as it did 2500 years ago, as a quick trip to Google Translate will quickly prove (yes, they have Sanskrit). The problem is that many Westerners see life as something ‘fun fun fun’ and so actually want rebirth or reincarnation (if not eternal life), while many traditional Easterners downplay any attachment to this cosmic play of samsara, while seeking release in Nirvana. 

  What to do? Nothing, really, because Buddhism should not be concerned with gaining adherents or scoring points, but merely offering some solace and refuge for those who need such. The world is what it is, and you’re probably going to die, regardless of any and all medical advances (though Virtual Reality is a remote possibility). Therefore, even the best scientific advances can only be limited in scope, and satisfaction with those limits is much better than trashing ourselves and/or the planet in frustration. As always, the middle path offers a practical solution: enjoy life, but don’t get too attached to the wheel. Accept some limits without total submission to them. Persevere. The middle path is long and winding.

   
• 

  hardie karges 4:59 am on April 21, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: Buddhism ( 437 ), CHRISTIANITY ( 161 ), dharma ( 35 ), Hardie Karges ( 248 ), Hinduism ( 29 ), India ( 15 ), language, meditation ( 198 ), nature ( 17 ), Thai language ( 2 )   

  Buddhism 202: Nature is the Law of Life  

  

  Nature is a law, not a mountain. Rivers and oceans have no more independent existence than you or I. But this is a bone of contention among religions, now, isn’t it, and possibly the main point of division between competing philosophies? Because, if an eternal soul divides Hinduism from Buddhism in India, then the same issue is what divides almost all Western religions from their secular counterparts. After all, isn’t that why most Asians become Christians? Eternal life is Christianity’s main selling point internationally.

  But Nature tends to get a pass from such easy distinctions. Mountains are sacred and rivers aren’t bad. Beaches draw the riffraff, but sublime locations can still be had, if one cares to take a walk and distance oneself from the madding and maddening crowds. And isn’t that what makes a place spiritual, anyway, the silence and the solitude and the serenity implicit in such sublime locations? Bring in the tourist hordes, and the nicest places can quickly go downhill fast, training wheels optional. 

  But that’s neither here nor there from the standpoint of the law that is dharma. The only important thing from the standpoint of dharma is the fact that these phenomena occur in regular and predictable ways, subject to certain causes and conditions. Thus, nature is not random, not entirely, anyway, and not within the time scales utilized by human perception. The implicit beauty is just eye candy for hungry hearts. More important are the principles that govern such relationships. In Thai nature is ธรรมชาติ, dhammashart, the law of life… 

   
• 

  hardie karges 3:49 am on March 31, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: Buddhism ( 437 ), craving ( 15 ), Hardie Karges ( 248 ), language, life ( 33 ), meditation ( 198 ), memories ( 2 ), memory ( 3 ), philosophy ( 106 ), POETRY ( 12 ), religion ( 161 ), thoughts, WRITING ( 13 )   

  Buddhism 499: Thought as Language and Memory…  

  

  The things we’re most attached to are our memories. If you can let go of them, then you can let go of anything. But the attachment here is insidious, because it is not strictly voluntary, but more customary, even essential. Because, like computers, we are in many ways defined by speed and memory, the two measurements which simultaneously both limit us and liberate us. What is more basic to our ability to think than language? Memory, of course, even if it’s always the past. Language is optional in the proto-consciousness of our lingo-less ancestors. Memory is not. 

  That’s the strict definition of thought, or awareness, but the sentimental attachments are more problematic. That’s when we become attached to our memories for purely sentimental reasons, or even worse: craving. Craving has long been identified as the chief cause of suffering in the Buddhist worldview, and that isn’t likely to change any time soon. The memories themselves aren’t usually the source of craving, of course, but the objects they represent are, insomuch as all memories are memories OF something. 

  So, here we are, featherless bipeds with a difference: we think like crazy, literally, mostly through the medium of language. In fact, in some people’s eyes, thought is indeed identified with language, as if no thought existed prior to language. I’m not sure how to prove it one way or the other, but I take it as an act of faith that that is not the case. Surely the animal kingdom conducts activities that can only be regarded as thought-driven, given the logic and forethought inferable.  

  Certainly, they have memories, and just as certainly, they have no language. But can we say that they are happier because of their lingo-less existence? Maybe. As always, the sweet spot lies somewhere in the middle. Dogs won’t cure cancer, but they may have less of it to begin with. Still, they’ll likely never live to the ripe old ages that we now consider normal. So, the best bet is to stop the thought stream periodically with meditation, and use memory as a substitute sometimes, but not as a practice of sentimental craving. Bingo. Sounds like an enlightened practice to me.