Causal versus Nondual Nonduality

[Gadfly]

How's Tea & Crumpets U ?

You loser.

[Gadfly]

Stop please.

gaddy

[Gadfly]

You loser.

Ha ha ha ha - are you pulling your wire ?

[Gadfly]

Yes tell us all aobut Dukkha.

Youz a phoney.

[Justin Sane]

[Bright_Abyss]

Interesting point theurj...

I had never read Derrida that way; as some kind of pomo Nagarjuna?

I have always appreciated what I have read of him, but for some reason have always come away with a feeling of nihilism.

But I think you are right, why study the upanishads, when an ITP will do 'the trick' much better..?

(and by "the trick" I mean a letting go and opening to Brahman..)

Again, I like your questioning, and think what you are up to is worthwhile.

Keep up the goods...

Mike~
_________________
The Artist Formerly Known As PATHOS ~
http://integralpraxis.blogspot.com

[Justin Sane]

To follow up, I think it's a kind of active ignorance, not what we think of usually as ignorance being a passive condition. It takes energy to maintain this type of occlusion, unlike normally, where gaining knowledge takes energy and being ignorant means doing nothing, not studying. In this case, avidya takes work to maintain. Like shredding documents or burning books, avidya is a process that we actively pursue in order to hide the truth.

[theurj]

[jimsun]

Kela, you could include the debate between Rangtong (self empty) and Shentong (other empty) Madhyamaka schools in Tib Buddhism in this

from Wikipedia:

[jimsun]

Even Nagarjuna can't help himself every once in a while:

See this stotra

[jimsun]

This is interesting: Buddhism and Semiotics by Fabio Rambelli

[theurj]

It is clear that Ken uses Vedanta and Vajrayana as the main sources of his conversation about states. And per kela (and the sources of his research, which are the “authorities” in this field, not Ken) their view of the nondual is not the same as Nagarjuna’s Madhyamika. In fact they were and are quite opposed at the most fundamental level. To just mix and match the language of both at will is NOT an integration of both nor does it automatically become a both/and situation just because of Ken’s gifted and “spiritual” sounding rhetoric. Ken’s sources are most definitely of the “consciousness only” variety, where Nagarjuna’s (and Derrida’s) are of the variety that says not even consciousness is IT. (It is NOT a “state” of consciousness.*) Note that Ken’s sources were furious with Nagarjuna back in the day and accused him of nihilism much as Ken now does with Derrida. (In fact Vajrayana considers itself the “next level” beyond Nagarjuna.) Although Ken talks a good game to those that don’t know the difference.

And there really is not need to get our panties in a bunch because neither Nagarjuna’s nor Derrida’s “emptiness” negates all the relative formulations of AQAL. It just puts them in “perspective,” which is fine for Ken to do with everyone else’s perspective with his on the top. But when his perspective is recontextualized, look out, you’re a green pluralist. Hence my criticism of CPS as the measure of altitude, as it depends on how you define this “nondual” basis wherein altitude arises. By using CPS we’re getting the Vendanta and Vajrayana bias of “consciousness” as this basis, which of course has its practical consequences in Ken being king of the world at the top of the holarchy. I’m reminded of James Cagney in White Heat when he’s going out in a blaze of glory: “I’m on top of the world ma!” But we can’t really blame Ken, this is inherent in the “consciousness” paradigm-enactment of his chosen “practice.” This type of nonduality is a “compassionate conservatism” I can do without, even though it’s for “my own good.”

*And of course this has everything to do with how states and stages are “related,” another story for another day.

[theurj]

As stated previously at http://www.openintegral.net/blog/?p=107:

Recall from Braitsten above that both Nagarjuna and Derrida emphasize that emptiness is beyond views or perspectives and is itself not a view or perspective. But neither is it a “consciousness” without a perspective or a “pure perception” as Ken defines it. Hence the former places perspectives in an indeterminate context whereas the latter has a determinate and absolute consciousness at its root, a la vedanta, vajrayana and yogacara. There is a big difference here (or is that differance?) with practical implications and consequences. To recap Ken’s perspective on no perspectivity:

Footnote 7 to Excerpt C:

“Is there any perception that is not a perspective? Yes, I believe so, and it has to do with satori or nondual awareness (or pure Emptiness–consciousness without an object, which is therefore consciousness without a perspective), which I will explore in later excerpts. The conclusion of this integral reformulation of the wisdom traditions is that samsara (or the world of Form) is composed of perspectives, and nirvana (or Emptiness) is pure perception without an object or perspective. The union of Emptiness and Form is thus the union of perception and perspective, where in my pure perception I am one with everything that is arising (although as expressed through my own individual perspective, with which I am no longer exclusively identified). Finding Emptiness is a freedom from all perspectives (a nirvana free of samsara); a union with Form is finding the Fullness of perspectives that alone can express this Freedom (the nonduality of nirvana and samsara). Wisdom is transcending perspectives, compassion is embracing them all.”

From the current blog at http://www.openintegral.net/blog/?p=159

[kela]

First, you take what is essentially an interpolation of Shankara, then you lift it out of context (have you even read anything concerning Shankara's take on avidya) and then twist it to suit your own needs, misinterpreting Shankara's intent and completely distorting the Advaita doctrine of avidya in the process.

Good methodology here, dude.

[kela]

If you knew anything about Mahayana traditions or traditional Vedanta you would not be farting out of your mouth in the way you do here.

The same goes for your dismal, bankrupt interpretation of early Buddhism. You essentially read one book on Buddhism by Archie "Bunker" Bahm on the subject 30 years, and have continued to spew the same diarrhea from your mouth since then.

That's what I call a real vibrant intellectual life.