Occidental and Oriental Philosophies

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And the closed-mindedness of PWI never fails to show itself. I KNOW GAL is a waste of time. I KNOW SAMA is a cesspool. But PWI is an insidious booby-trap. On the surface, it looks like a perfectly good place to discuss “meaty” subjects. But once inside, it’s no less a waste of time or a cesspool than the others.

There is a reason polite people refuse to discuss religion or politics. This is the ant farm that proves the wisdom. [/quote]

It’s because they are controlled by the tyranny of niceness. The only things that are worth discussing are religion and politics anyway.[/quote]

Don’t worry, I’ll never mistake you for being nice, or many other things for that matter Chris.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
If you really want to make him nuts, why don’t you outline all the “teachings of Jesus” that have their roots in Buddhism or Eastern thought? That will make his head implode :)[/quote]

Except his teachings don’t. I mean sure you can be intellectually dishonest and try and show they do, but ultimately the two philosophies are two different philosophies though they have commonalities.[/quote]

Google Jesus and Buddhism and you get over 4 million hits. Get your head from beneath some priest’s robe and at least argue with intellectual honesty and integrity. You always come off sounding like a cult member. You have no place in a honest discussion about anything if all you can bring to the table is your Catholic bias and dogma. We know your position. We’ve heard the song. You’re as repetitive and predictable as Trib.

EDIT:

I apologize for the attack. But if you’re going to be so closed-minded (and you are, but you’re in good company here in PWI), what may I ask do you have to add to any dialogue if you’re just repeating the same thing over and over? It’s boring. This is WHY people don’t discuss these things…you’re not changing anyone’s mind, so what’s the point?

[quote]ephrem wrote:

For some I don’t doubt that’s the case, but as a rule this statement is bullshit.[/quote]

Forgetting for a moment that the sentence at face value is nonsensical.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The community is their convent and they aid the outside world by prayer. That’s all they do, except for acting as a retreat for the curious.

My joy is fresh air and a clear mind. That makes me happy.
[/quote]

What about a big hit of DMT?
[/quote]

I’ve come to the conclusion that DMT is not my cup of tea (:
[/quote]

Acid’s better.
[/quote]

I haven’t done acid since I was 19 or 20 years old but I did quite a bit of it during my formative years (first dropped at 16, believe it or not). I loved it every single time, and, though I would not recommend it to most people, I think it is one of the few drugs that, when used appropriately, truly can have a net positive effect upon one’s life.

Even at 16, I was interested in the self-discovery and mystical aspect of the drug (I had just watched Oliver Stone’s excellent “The Doors” and fallen into complete infatuation with Jim Morrison), of breaking down the wall of the subconscious and consciously accessing it, analyzing and acting upon it. I remember writing in the desperate need to record the wisdom I was receiving (only to read what I’d written the next day and say wtf? :wink:

I would love to do it again if I had any clue where to secure it. It’s not exactly a street corner drug and I’m not even sure if I could get ahold of any if I knew a guy who knew a guy who knew where to get some stuff, here in Japan.

Sorry, not trying to take this thread somewhere else, but when you talk about the self at the level we are discussing, I think acid is actually probably pretty close to the topic at hand.
[/quote]

Yeah, it’s been a loooooooong time for me too, but I used to drop a lot, and loved it. But now I think I’d prefer shrooms but I really wouldn’t know where to get either. High School I guess, but that wouldn’t be creepy or anything :slight_smile: I am guessing college would be a good source, maybe it’s time I revist the whole grad school thing…

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I just don’t feel the need to purge myself of things to be happy. I am happy with things. Second, I understand and accept that my life can change and my whole world can be taken from me in the blink of an eye.
But living simply isn’t an exclusively eastern tenet, Christianity does to admire the simple life, free of possessions. There is no assertion though that you have to to be happy.

I am willing to bet if you gave up everything and lived a good clean buddhist life, you would be no happier. [/quote]

I don’t think I would be happier, that’s true. But that’s because I have no things of real value except my house, and that’s mostly the bank’s property still.[/quote]

So circling back around to the opinion I put forth earlier. After discussing the tenets of eastern philosophy, it seems mainly based on a moral philosophy of self edification. It seems that most of us agree that it’s tenets and if I dare say it’s dogmas are not necessary to meet the ends it claims to provide, provided you follow it’s prescriptions. Meditation, deep thought and truths are not exclusive to Eastern philosophy, it just doesn’t back up it’s truths. It kinda hopes it’s right, but just what’s been brought up has been woefully unconvincing. I certainly have not been convinced at any level that it’s even beneficial to know except as an exercise of history. Upon reflection and deep thought, I don’t see any value in it provided you have a substituted for seeking wisdom. I still believe it’s inferior in a multitude of ways. It’s truths are far from universal and absolute and it’s path is intrinsically tied in with religion were as in the west we can differentiate and or meld together.

I say Western philosophy is superior, more advanced and more mature than eastern philosophy. We have singular and absolute principles. We not only have truths but arguments to back up the truths and why it’s true and we know the difference between correlation and necessity.
I see Eastern philosophy as shallow, lower level and vague at best. It can tell us something about existence and reality, but not much, and nothing compelling.

I want somebody to prove me wrong. I propose the challenge to convince me that Eastern philosophy not only has value, but it better than it’s western counter part. So far, it’s not thrilling, but nice. uneventful and not very fulfilling.[/quote]

There is no self to edify, pat. This is the most important aspect you can’t seem to grasp. I think that is why you prefer western philosophy, because it doesn’t rattle the self-made cage of ego.

[/quote]

Fine we are part of the fabric of the universe. Part of the universal mind. Our little chunks encapsulated by ego and self-aggrandizement. But you see, there’s one thing about knowing that and there is another knowing how and why this may be true. Let’s say it’s true, everything is one and one is everything. Does that tell us anything, anything useful? I argue know. Berkley examined this very concept as did Descartes and others.
Their point, and it’s one you argued against before, so I find it rather ironic that you would accept it from is that nothing material can be proven to exist. It’s not a matter of whether it does or not, it a matter of epistemology. Since we cannot take our selves out of the equation, we cannot therefore prove our senses are giving us correct information and that’s a huge problem because we are woefully lousy sensory instruments. Therefore we can only ‘know’ things of the mind. From there, have collective knowledge (universal mind, one with the universe kind of shit), and you have individual knowledge, things only the ‘you’ can know.
Eastern philosophy tells us, it is ‘being’ and the ‘meaning of with-in’. To me it sounds on the surface profound, but in essence it’s ultimately meaningless. We are so special that ‘with-in’ necessarily means much.

BTW, I am trying to arouse people and evoke negative feelings but ultimately I want people to support and make a case for eastern philosophy, not attack my simpleton lack of actualization and unification with existence.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

There is no self to edify, pat. This is the most important aspect you can’t seem to grasp. I think that is why you prefer western philosophy, because it doesn’t rattle the self-made cage of ego.

[/quote]

I think this is where I was getting hung up before, and perhaps I am starting to understand what you are getting at.

I’m certainly not saying I agree, but it is an interesting topic to explore. Even if you don’t concede the absence of self, I think it would be edifying to explore a topic that western civilization tends to take for granted. Hmmm…reminds me of another topic that we’ve been tossing back and forth for months now, doesn’t it?

I’ll think about it a bit more and post back after work. [/quote]

It speaks to the argument I had against DesCarte, but it really pissed off my teacher. He said ‘I think, therefore I am’ I argued that he thinks therefore something is, but he couldn’t prove it’s ‘him’ that is. Professor was a DesCarte disciple and could do no wrong. I struggled in that class from that point on :slight_smile:

Once upon a time, when i was a student of anthropology, i had an optionnal course about Eastern philosophies.
At first, my position was basically the same as Pat’s in this thread.

I saw buddhism as a subtile form of nihilism, or at least of escapism.

I took me some time to figure that buddhism was not another “philosophy of passions” like Epicurism, Stoicism, Spinozism or Cartesianism.
First and foremost, buddhism is an epistemology and a phenomenology. A theory of the mind. (more akin to Husserl’s philosophy than anything else in Western philosophy).
It’s ultimate goal is understanding.

It’s not about transcending suffering per se (i’m not sure “suffering” is a correct translation of “Dukkha”). If anything, it’s a positive side effect.
The “quest” is about regaining our ability to see things (the Self included) as they truly are, not as they appears, distorded and illusory.

It’s about freeing yourself from the “five hindrances” : Sensual desire, Anger, Sloth, Restlessness, Doubt.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:
This thread displays a very weak understanding of true benefits of both Eastern and Wester philosophy. I want to address numerous misconceptions above, such as all Eastern philosophy having the same background and The strength of Western philosophy being that it’s all laid out, but I need much more time than I have for the next couple days. I hope someone comes along and brings up a few of my points before I get back to this.[/quote]

I suppose by Western philosophy you mean that which came from the Church. If that is in fact the case, the philosophy holds a paradox in which both the Red Army and the Buddhist monk can attack.

Not only does Western philosophy tell us to turn the other cheek, it tells us to sell our mantel and buy a sword. Western philosophy produced, at the same time, the most blood thirsty crusader but the meekest of monks.[/quote]

It’s such a misunderstanding of the topic. Philosophy is the father of all disciplines. Including religion. Everything, math, science, language everything essentially started as a philosophical question. What these disciplines do is answer a philosophical question and run with the answer. Math is just numerical philosophy. Science is empirical philosophy, literature is sound philosophy (we agree that certain sounds and symbols on a page mean a particular thing and then we are able to string these symbols together to make a greater meaning of collective symboilism. It in the case of spoken word, we basically grunt meaningfully. We just agree that certain grunts mean certain things and hence we are able to communicate). Religion, takes the philosophical position that God exists, that he has a will and a ‘personality’ and is personable and can be communicated with, and runs with that. It’s a discipline based on a philosophical position just like everything else.

You wonder how I could be a theist and practice seemingly meaningless rituals? Look at your own positions, understand their source and you’ll understand that your position is every bit as shaky or firm as mine. Every discipline makes a bet that the answer they gave to the base, original question behind it is the right answer. And we could all be wrong about everything.

the “I” in this quote is nothing more than a grammatical subject. It’s more than a thing (since it thinks) but it’s not yet a person.
To conclude that this “I” is actually a person, Descartes had to medidate once more, which allowed him to admit the existence of God and define a concept of the soul.

But every “Descarte disciple” should know that :stuck_out_tongue:

[quote]kamui wrote:
Once upon a time, when i was a student of anthropology, i had an optionnal course about Eastern philosophies.
At first, my position was basically the same as Pat’s in this thread.

I saw buddhism as a subtile form of nihilism, or at least of escapism.

I took me some time to figure that buddhism was not another “philosophy of passions” like Epicurism, Stoicism, Spinozism or Cartesianism.
First and foremost, buddhism is an epistemology and a phenomenology. A theory of the mind. (more akin to Husserl’s philosophy than anything else in Western philosophy).
It’s ultimate goal is understanding.

It’s not about transcending suffering per se (i’m not sure “suffering” is a correct translation of “Dukkha”). If anything, it’s a positive side effect.
The “quest” is about regaining our ability to see things (the Self included) as they truly are, not as they appears, distorded and illusory.

It’s about freeing yourself from the “five hindrances” : Sensual desire, Anger, Sloth, Restlessness, Doubt.

[/quote]

And they are hedging their bet’s that the methodology they employ can transcend the boundaries imposed by flesh, but they can prove it does and they cannot prove anybody ever has. They can claim it, but they cannot prove it. They sure haven’t produce language eloquent enough to represent it if they have.

[quote]kamui wrote:

the “I” in this quote is nothing more than a grammatical subject. It’s more than a thing (since it thinks) but it’s not yet a person.
To conclude that this “I” is actually a person, Descartes had to medidate once more, which allowed him to admit the existence of God and define a concept of the soul.

But every “Descarte disciple” should know that :stuck_out_tongue:

[/quote]

I’d say ‘thinks’ is a strong word. Willful or an actionable presence. But I would argue that it neither proves ‘soul’ or ‘God’. It proves something willful exists and even if self or soul could be identified, it’s still part of a larger thing. I think that collective mind would still be several rungs down or, at least one rung down from God.

[quote]ephrem wrote:

For some I don’t doubt that’s the case, but as a rule this statement is bullshit.[/quote]

Obviously you haven’t thought about this rule enough. :slight_smile:

The statement isn’t bullocks. And, just because their are exceptions, does not mean that the rule isn’t still a rule. The rule itself comes from their philosophy.

The Buddhist’s main goal? To remove their suffering. What’s the main goal of a Christian life? To know and love Jesus in Heaven.

How does the Buddhist do this? He lives the Middle Path. How does the Christian do this? Partakes in the sufferings of Jesus.

One is about doing to others for your self, while the other is doing to others for their sake.

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Google Jesus and Buddhism and you get over 4 million hits. Get your head from beneath some priest’s robe and at least argue with intellectual honesty and integrity. You always come off sounding like a cult member. You have no place in a honest discussion about anything if all you can bring to the table is your Catholic bias and dogma. We know your position. We’ve heard the song. You’re as repetitive and predictable as Trib.

EDIT:

I apologize for the attack. But if you’re going to be so closed-minded (and you are, but you’re in good company here in PWI), what may I ask do you have to add to any dialogue if you’re just repeating the same thing over and over? It’s boring. This is WHY people don’t discuss these things…you’re not changing anyone’s mind, so what’s the point? [/quote]

I am deeply sorry for whatever hurt you that made you react in this way after I disagreed with you. If you want to discuss it privately you can PM me.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

the “I” in this quote is nothing more than a grammatical subject. It’s more than a thing (since it thinks) but it’s not yet a person.
To conclude that this “I” is actually a person, Descartes had to medidate once more, which allowed him to admit the existence of God and define a concept of the soul.

But every “Descarte disciple” should know that :stuck_out_tongue:

[/quote]

I’d say ‘thinks’ is a strong word. Willful or an actionable presence. But I would argue that it neither proves ‘soul’ or ‘God’. It proves something willful exists and even if self or soul could be identified, it’s still part of a larger thing.[/quote]

I would agree with this.
FWIW, this “re-reading” of Descarte’s Meditations is one of the main point of a lesser-known french philosopher : Michel Henry. (who happens to be a Christian too).
I’m pretty sure it could interest you.

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

For some I don’t doubt that’s the case, but as a rule this statement is bullshit.[/quote]

Forgetting for a moment that the sentence at face value is nonsensical. [/quote]

It’s the same schtick as saying, “not having a belief is still a belief in something”.

[quote]pat wrote:
Eastern philosophy tells us, it is ‘being’ and the ‘meaning of with-in’. To me it sounds on the surface profound, but in essence it’s ultimately meaningless. We are so special that ‘with-in’ necessarily means much.

BTW, I am trying to arouse people and evoke negative feelings but ultimately I want people to support and make a case for eastern philosophy, not attack my simpleton lack of actualization and unification with existence.
[/quote]

Eastern philosophy tells us nothing that you can’t find out for yourself. If you can’t trust your senses to tell you the truth than that includes any kind of philosophy and religion, including yours.

Why is one thing meaningless and the other meaningful if both are devoid of truth?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Yeah, it’s been a loooooooong time for me too, but I used to drop a lot, and loved it. But now I think I’d prefer shrooms but I really wouldn’t know where to get either. High School I guess, but that wouldn’t be creepy or anything :slight_smile: I am guessing college would be a good source, maybe it’s time I revist the whole grad school thing…[/quote][/quote]

Attention: I DO NOT recommend ANY of these drugs, by the way, to ANYONE, ANYWHERE! Although it probably sounds about as believable as using SWIM as a pronoun, the novella below is not by any means intended as a romanticization of the drug culture. I don’t do ANY drugs anymore and haven’t for about 10 years. I hardly even drink alcohol anymore and I do not drink to drunkenness ever. This is intended as an account of a short portion of a life that has been devoted to self-discovery and self-realization. That’s right, I said SELF. :wink:

Hahah! That’s nearly exactly the thought I had about needing to hang around high school kids. In high school and the first couple of years after I could get aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanything. Usually within of my requesting it.

I used both psilocybin and LSD pretty extensively over the period of a few years (relatively speaking, of course…for the curious, I have greater than 10 and less than 100 experiences with each. Certain other drugs I can only say that I have greater than 10 :wink:

I am aware of the differences between the two and, in my experience they are FAR different drugs that essentially achieve nearly the same result. My individual experience of acid was always completely different from that of mushrooms. I am not sure how reliable my memory is now, but with psilocybin, the waves of chest clenching euphoria were always far more intense almost to the degree that they would cause me some mild anxiety as that tension would appear to build and build impossibly much like when you are dizzy the room appears to spin and spin but never manages to make it all the way around. Those waves of euphoria came with acid, but they seemed always to remain at a level where I just felt Perfect, like I had actually caught ahold of that dragon you always hear about by the tail and instead of him slipping away again he came to me and gently coiled about me and melded to me.

LSD visuals were always FAR more intense than mushrooms. The tracers, the writhing pulsating colors of people’s mutable faces, like creatures of light crawling beneath their skin, the film reel in photographic negative of fireworks exploding silently in the darkness. We used to set the channel to pure snow and watch in rapt awe the shapes emerge from the plasmatic sparks. Sometimes there were animal scenes. A hundred birds falling from a hundred trees. A herd of infinite buffalo driven over a cliff like a waterfall. And pinwheels, so many pinwheels.

With mushrooms, I cannot remember anything so, heh, memorable. But the experience was no less powerful. I remember the feeling more as a melding of the physical and the emotional. Like I could feel all of this pent up power roiling inside of me that I could have directed and released like a wizard through my hands.

Okay, I know I got a little carried away just now and this probably seems more appropriate to an erowid trip report than to this thread; but I actually am going somewhere with this.

Aside from, admittedly, my just wanting to have a great time and feel awesome, my best friend, with whom I shared ALL my experiences during that period of my life, and I always used psychedelics as entheogens. As I mentioned, though we were still in high school, the movie The Doors was massively instrumental in moving us, for better or worse, to everything we could to rip down the walls of our consciousness. To strip away our protections, our excuses, our false reasoning, the lies we told ourselves. We wanted to peel away the layers of motivations and drives and fears and desires until all that was left was the pure being.

Lofty. I know.

I could go on and on (obviously!) but I’ll end with this: The psychedelically assisted forays into the subconscious came to an end when, out of no where, my best friend had a really weird, really bad trip using mushrooms. I was with him the whole time and couldn’t understand what was happening (and never would). After that he never wanted to use those kinds of drugs again and I just stopped bothering because I wasn’t interested in pursuing that kind of experience alone.

I had not achieved, perhaps, what I had hoped to, but I am absolutely sincere in my assertion that not one bad thing came of use of those drugs during that time in my life. And, because I was looking for something, I sincerely feel that I did realize certain aspects of my intention. I didn’t become some kind of enlightened spiritual master, of course. I do not think it is possible to do so from drugs and even if it were I was much too immature and ignorant at the time to attain any such thing.

I do feel, however, like I “opened” myself up. So that I was no longer able to lie to myself or that I was able to recognize certain things in myself that would have remained hidden to me for many more years but for these experiences.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

I do feel, however, like I “opened” myself up. So that I was no longer able to lie to myself or that I was able to recognize certain things in myself that would have remained hidden to me for many more years but for these experiences.

[/quote]

The value of psychedelics is this^ but I also think psychedelic drugs do not contribute to uncovering the truth about buddhist notions of self.

The use of these drugs can infact hinder realisation and epiphany with respect to ‘self’.

Nevertheless, as a therapeutic tool [whilst being great fun too] shroom and LSD are wonderful [in the right set/setting ofcourse].

Nice to have something in common (:

[quote]kamui wrote:
Once upon a time, when i was a student of anthropology, i had an optionnal course about Eastern philosophies.
At first, my position was basically the same as Pat’s in this thread.

I saw buddhism as a subtile form of nihilism, or at least of escapism.

I took me some time to figure that buddhism was not another “philosophy of passions” like Epicurism, Stoicism, Spinozism or Cartesianism.
First and foremost, buddhism is an epistemology and a phenomenology. A theory of the mind. (more akin to Husserl’s philosophy than anything else in Western philosophy).
It’s ultimate goal is understanding.

It’s not about transcending suffering per se (i’m not sure “suffering” is a correct translation of “Dukkha”). If anything, it’s a positive side effect.
The “quest” is about regaining our ability to see things (the Self included) as they truly are, not as they appears, distorded and illusory.

It’s about freeing yourself from the “five hindrances” : Sensual desire, Anger, Sloth, Restlessness, Doubt.

[/quote]

Thanks kamui. You have a real talent for being able to succinctly crystallize difficult concepts.

Your last two paragraphs describe exactly what I was attempting to achieve psychotropically in my story above.

And my earlier posts in this thread are reflected in your first two paragraphs here. I was looking at the ideas as leading ultimately to a sort of “pure” nihilism and perhaps pantheism.

I still think, though, that there is probably some talking past each other going on here. Or, more likely, probably, I still do not get it :wink:

Question to follow.

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Eastern philosophy tells us, it is ‘being’ and the ‘meaning of with-in’. To me it sounds on the surface profound, but in essence it’s ultimately meaningless. We are so special that ‘with-in’ necessarily means much.

BTW, I am trying to arouse people and evoke negative feelings but ultimately I want people to support and make a case for eastern philosophy, not attack my simpleton lack of actualization and unification with existence.
[/quote]

Eastern philosophy tells us nothing that you can’t find out for yourself. If you can’t trust your senses to tell you the truth than that includes any kind of philosophy and religion, including yours.

Why is one thing meaningless and the other meaningful if both are devoid of truth?[/quote]

That’s not my criticism of Eastern philosophy. My criticism is it states “truths”, doesn’t back them up, and some practitioners have leveled the accusation that if you don’t accept a give truth, it’s because you haven’t thought about it enough. I don’t believe this fallacy has a name, if it does Kamui please let me know, because it’s not in my database of fallacies. I will call it the dogma fallacy. It’s true and your an idiot if your don’t think so.

I don’t believe either are meaningless and both do recognize truth, I say western philosophy is more advanced and better developed.