On 12/9/2014 11:52 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
>
It seems to me that the same issues you brought up about verifying
such claims pertain to the question of how could a human know such a
thing in the first place? Most traditions that propose such theories
seem to resort to: God wrote this book to account for how a human
could get this kind of detailed mechanism that is not within our
experience.
>
The Buddhist /Consciousness Only/ (vijnanavada) tradition of Asanga and
Vasuandhu (the so-called second Buddha) is not based on a book that
"God" wrote - it is based on an experiential and logical basis. First,
we need to examine the valid means of knowledge (epistemology is the
investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion) and
decide whether some forms of knowing are valid or not. So, let's review
the valid means of knowledge again, since Curtis apparently missed out
on the previous discussion. What are the valid means of knowledge?
1. /Sense perception and analogy/
2. /Verbal knowledge/
3. /Inference/
Most of what we know we experience with sense perception, mainly with
our eyes and our ears, and sometime through touch and taste, but mostly
our eyes and ears. We see that gravity sucks and that things fall down.
We know things from hearing teachers and through reading texts - the
verbal knowledge. And through observation with know things through
inference. And, we obseve that the material world has an order - not
from an apple tree do we get a turnip. We all have a constructed
character of knowing - we all agree that tables are tables and doors are
doors and most of us experience the same things. So, from this order we
infer that there must be some kinds of laws that govern the universe. If
there is order, we infer that there is intelligence - that knowledge is
structured in consciousness.
Are we agreed so far? Everyone experiences the world mostly with their
senses. But the physical world contains numerous contradictions. Are
some senses more reliable than others?
Through observation of the world over time we take notes with our
senses: we see a flower; watch an event; hear a sound or a voice and
from our sense impressions we deduce and analyze. But, sometimes the
sense do NOT perceive the world exactly as it is. When sense perceptions
do not agree, or are contradictory and conflicting, which sense should
we accept as true? How do we decide between conflicting senses? If
appearances derived through one sensory channel appear contradictory, it
is natural to appeal to other senses for corroboration.
According to Vasubandhu, consciousness is the ultimate reality - without
it people would not be conscious - there would be no perception. This is
a dirt simple fact of life requiring no further proof. No sane person
would claim that they don't exist, unless they were insane or demented -
it's just not rational. We are conscious of ourselves enough to know
that we exist and are self-conscious. We are our self and hardly anyone
denies that they are sometimes self conscious.
/"Pure consciousness is the only Reality. By its nature, it is
Self-luminous." (XIII, 13). "Thus shaking off duality, he directly
perceives the Absolute which is the unity underlying phenomena
(dharmadatu)."/ (VI, 7) Sharma, p. 112-113
>
So for me the focus shifts from the theory itself to what is the
reasoning process behind differentiating books from mythology to a
book we could have confidence was guided or directly dictated by a God
to explain how the world actually works. Most people don't need a
detailed argument about Greek mythological gods today, although in
their time they were propitiated with sacrifices and ceremonies like
the Vedic gods. Somehow this Vedic tradition has slipped through the
cracks for some people and treated as if they are different type of
books that humans wrote or passed down orally in verses, from those we
commonly identify as mythological literature.
Can you describe how you make such a distinction if you do?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <seerdope@...> wrote :
It appears that at least some who seek or feel that they are have
realized an enlightened state --- and talk and walk within the broad
framework of vedic / hindu / yogic / buddhist / tantric traditions,
have very limited understanding of the types and range of karma within
those traditions(1) resulting in odd pronouncements and claims, as
well as a glaring absence of understanding of what realization and
liberation actually mean within the traditions in which they practice.
At times further obfuscated by their critics' lack of such.
The lack of understanding of the distinctions between prarabdha and
sanchita karma is an example. To me, that presents a large red flag
-- regardless of whether I accept the theories of karma,
reincarnation, realization, liberation, etc. That is, if a person has
consistently practiced methods with these traditions, uses the
vernacular of these traditions to describe their experiences, and use
criteria from these traditions to claim various attainments -- then,
for me, it is highly inconsistent and strong warning signal if their
understanding, words, experiences, self-appraisals of their actions
and its effects indicate little to no conceptual and experiential
understanding of the distinct types of karmas -- which is perhaps the
most fundamental core factor which affects any realization or
liberation within these traditions.
I can appreciate these inconsistencies and act accordingly (2) without
myself necessarily accepting the theories of karma, reincarnation,
liberation, etc.). That is I hold them as hypotheses which, while
having some explanatory power, are not particularly suited to repeated
large scale double-blind placebo based studies. Nor are a lot of
other things in life -- so one muddles along as best they can. Over my
life, I have observed a number of interesting points of possible
supporting evidence. All of which I realize may be spurious
correlations and worthless. On the other hand, these have at least
kept the door open on my rational, skeptical mind to the possible
validity of these traditional knowledge theories.
From these traditions' view ("traditionally") if one is incarnate,
everyone, including fully realized, liberated ones. all still have
prarabdha(3) karma that must be lived out. No way around it. Further,
every incarnate being is generating kriyamana karma (karma generated
in this life) to the last breath. And kriyamana karma has or will have
its full effect, regardless of one’s state, realized/liberated or not.
Bad Kriyamana karma
will have corresponding effects. There is no free lunch, no freebies,
no license to act badly. Kriyamana karma may return quickly, or later
in this life, or simply add to the large stockpile of sanchita karma
yet to be taken on in prarabdhic chunks in future lives. However,
with various practices, when identity with tightly bound sense of
individuality lessens or ceases, returning karma may be experienced
more as a drop in a bucket than a torrential rainstorm.
Traditionally, burning off ones karma has nothing to do with this
life, that is one does not burn off prarabdha and kriyamana karmas.
It is sanchita karma, the underlying, hidden from view karma that is
burned off (or seeds in causal body "roasted") -- the mountain of
karma yet to be resolved 1) in future lives, and or 2) through
effective practices in this or future incarnations.
(Old MMY story -- MMY: "you all have a mountain of karma". Charlie
Lutes: (apparently assuming he was far ahead of the pack): "M. do I
have a mountain of karma left?". MMY: "No Charlie. You have more like
a huge mountain range of karma left.")
A lot of practices such as those that promise and look towards
"support of nature" and focus on success in worldly life as distinct
signs of spiritual progress, as well as practices such as sponsoring
yagyas, etc. are focussed on reducing the intensity of this current
life (prarabdha and kriyamana) karmas. Not a bad thing in itself.
However, it is possible one can pursue such practices and feel better,
life becomes more successful, obstacles are removed, etc -- without
materially affecting sanchita karma, and thus not affecting ones
progress towards realization and liberation.
And such practices can expand ones identity, loosen the shackles of
the mind and apparently provide a sense of freedom -- which may be
confused with real liberation --- without much affecting the remaining
range of sanchita karma and the need to keep coming back to resolve
such past karma.
Traditionally, liberation / realization is not obtained until sanchita
karma is fully burned / resolved / roasted. Thus if someone claims
liberation (within vedic / hindu / yogic / buddhist framework of
practices, descriptions, vocabulary, etc) but has no clue about
sanchita karma, caution may be prudent.
(1) And while there are variations of understandings the key points
regarding karma seem fairly consistent
across the considerable number of sects and paths across these
multiple traditions.
(2) as in my quip "Run Forest Run" -- a line I liked in (what I I
believe was) a prior Curtis post (lets call it an homage instead of
plagiarism).
*//*
(3) Traditionally the intensity of some types of prarabdha and
kriyamana karma can be reduced through various practices but generally
not eliminated.
