I love the Diamond Sutra. I read it every few years. To me, it's very funny. how can one read about all the absolutely galactic scale quantity of "merit" to be gained right next to explanations about the illusory nature of words without laughing?
It's layered like an onion. One layer is meant to free people from illbeing. Another layer is for error correction codes and to make the message 'viral'. Another layer opened my eyes to incontrovertible truth about the noisy approximations and lossy signals that comprise the the human experience. So many layers read rather mystically at first, but you can always cut through it and find out it's not magic, it's really the way things are.
From another angle, it's a blob of metadata around a packet that contains instructions to all sentient beings -- in my words: "Relax. Be compassionate to yourself and others. All barriers to compassion are illusions. Tell this to other people. If you need to reformat the content as a listicle to get through to grandma, that's cool."
There's other angles. It's a fascinating document.
I believe the massively intelligent person(s) who composed it had a sincere objective to help all life.
I never considered it as a text that attempts to show how quantity is always a kind of quality, so no matter how much you do something, it won't change how you exist in the world unless you change how you do it. What people are really after with weed and psychedelics is that kind of qualitative change, especially at the level of consciousness. But with dependent origination, changing how you in particular perceive the world does not actually change the world that you are a part of, and therefore doesn't lead to qualitative change of experience. What must be done, instead, is to change the world. True liberation is absolute.
> changing how you in particular perceive the world does not actually change the world that you are a part of
It's impossible to change yourself without changing the world, because those two things are not separate.
Further, much of the world exists only as abstract ideas in my mind. When I change how I relate to and perceive them, I do change them in every way that matters.
If by "you" you mean the totality of the universe that you are a part of, then changing "your" consciousness does change the world, but if you think of yourself as merely an individual subject--not a subject as substance--then nothing you do to "yourself" will lead to liberation, because others inability to find liberation creates a contradiction within your own.
Sure, if you discount the fact that other people exist, are conscious, have their own experiences of the same world and also experience joy, sadness, love, and suffering.
To assert that your perspective is the only thing that matters is to assert that nobody else matters.
its a matter of perspective. if everyone is one, no one indeed matters, nor exists. This is not discounting anyone nor any fact. what does not exist cannot be discounted.
For me the Diamond Sutra is the essence of Mahayana Buddhism.
> To me, it's very funny. how can one read about all the absolutely galactic scale quantity of "merit" to be gained right next to explanations about the illusory nature of words without laughing?
It’s all part of one of the central themes that accumulating merit is for the phenomenal world and ultimately meaningless for the transcendent.
“A bodhisattva does not need to build up virtue and happiness… A boddhisatva gives rise to virtue and happiness but is not caught up in the idea of virtue and happiness.”
> “A bodhisattva does not need to build up virtue and happiness… A boddhisatva gives rise to virtue and happiness but is not caught up in the idea of virtue and happiness.”
collorary: If you wonder if you are a bohisattva you are not.
> It’s all part of one of the central themes that accumulating merit is for the phenomenal world and ultimately meaningless for the transcendent.
I feel confused about something.
Even though you've read the prajnaparamita sutra and words like 'form is emptiness, emptiness is form', you say there is a phenomenal world and a transcendent world. But the phenomenal world can't be impermanent if it is not born and doesn't die. Although possibly apocryphal, the sutra of immeasurable meanings has a sentence like the nature of true reality is that appearance and no appearance not apart from each other. That is to say, it seems that the things like Bodhisattvas referenced in the Lotus Sutra may need to be understood with the background training that transcendent wisdom means that the phenomenal world is the transcendent world. It isn't that they don't exist but that Buddha's enlightenment was explained, as you know, to not have been obtaining anything distinct. I take it to mean that enlightenment needs to be in and about the entirety of real life.
It's been said sometimes to be a waste of time to debate whether a certain thing exists or doesn't exist because, for one, a thing cannot be said to exist to anything else in the universe if it is totally isolated, i.e. not been localized by any other system yet, and cannot be entangled with. A controlled experiment could be said to basically mean "one unknown to vary (hopefully)". But entanglement is a reality.
"Anyone who, for even a moment, gives rise to a pure and clear confidence upon hearing these words of the Tathagata, the Tathagata sees and knows that person, and they will attain immeasurable merit because of this understanding."
"If you are caught up in the idea of a dharma, you are also caught up in the idea of a self, a person, a living being and a life span. If you are caught up in the idea that there is no dharma you are still caught up in the idea of a self, a person, a living being and a life span. That is why we should not be caught up in the idea of dharmas, or in the idea that dharmas do not exist."
The analogy I like to use is that of the waves and the ocean. You can look and see both. You can tell where one wave ends and another begins. You can see the waves forming and dissipating. But can you tell where the ocean ends and the wave begins?
The sutra strikes down the idea of dualism and yet it at the same time it says:
"Do not think that when one gives rise to the highest, most fulfilled, awakened mind, one needs to see all objects as non-existent, cut off from life."
I like your summary. I also like Alan Watts' comment, that the mind is like a diamond, totally transparent but also the hardest, durable aspect of our existence.
I don't remember the title now, and it's hard to find them on YouTube these days.. but it's at the start of a section specifically on the diamond sutra. Maybe this one ? I will listen later to check
Same, I’ve had some very fortunate insights because of it. Any preferred translations? I’ve read the Watson one a couple times and just the other day was thinking of re-reading it since it’s been a few years, but maybe a different translation this time. I started looking at the Reeves translation but didn’t connect with it as I didn’t like how he dropped the Sanskrit terms in favor of things westerners would be more familiar with.
“This is how to contemplate our conditioned existence in this fleeting world:”
“Like a tiny drop of dew, or a bubble floating in a stream;
Like a flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
Or a flickering lamp, an illusion, a phantom, or a dream.”
conditioned in buddhism refers to the fact that anything that exists, originates from something else.
so any one thing you examine will be “conditioned” on the previous things that cause it to appear
cause and effect basically
this has some philosophical implications, since all you are as a person is a bundle of emotions, mental patterns, etc that are ultimately conditioned
this leads to the buddhist view of no self, where there isn’t something that makes you “you”. just a bunch of responses to stimuli. some of those responses are thoughts of a self.
the diamond sutra's point aiui is that what we call a self isnt a self in that a true self does not exist independently (from the causes, such as its essential nature, its foundation, and its environment)
i might even say a self has an essential nature defined by an origin which is composed of relationships. you can find all examples in nature if you look a little.
Dependent origination (Skt: pratityasamutpada, Pali: paticca-samuppada) is also known as conditioned co-arising and several other terms. Buddhism teaches that everything that exists is conditioned—dependent on something else. This applies to thoughts as well as objects, to the individual as well as the entire universe. Nothing exists independently. Everything is conditioned.
This concept is illustrated in the Buddhist teachings of the chain of dependent origination, which describes the factors that perpetuate the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. The twelve links in the chain are sequential, each factor causing the following one: Because of this, that arises. When this ceases, that also ceases.
The links form a never-ending cycle that binds us to suffering, and the goal of Buddhist practice is to escape from this vicious cycle. Though there is more than one version of the sequence of links, they commonly run this way:
- Ignorance
- Mental formations
- Consciousness
- Name and form
- The senses: sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste, and mind
- Contact
- Feeling
- Craving
- Clinging
- Becoming
- Birth
- Aging and death
One thing I got wrong about this for a long long time was that this chain isn't linear and it's not (necessarily always) local.
Many people will argue that it's either:
- a cosmological system (which largely contradicts the intentions of Buddhism, where most cosmological questions are waved away as being irrelevant to the goal of eliminating suffering)
- an immedate series of one-after-the-other events describing the overall process of mind (which doesn't hold up to basic observational scrutiny).
In reality it's more of a graph of influencing factors that depend on each other. Tuning one's handling of each factor leads to the reduction of suffering in the whole system.
In reality it's more of a graph of influencing factors that depend on each other. Tuning one's handling of each factor leads to the reduction of suffering in the whole system.
Thich Nhat Hahn also wrote a lot about interdependence in an accessible way (I read a lot of his books when I was 18 or 19).
Indra's net is a vast, cosmic lattice that contains precious jewels wherever the threads cross. There are millions of jewels strung together to make the net, and each jewel has many facets. When you look at any facet of any jewels, you can see all the other jewels reflected in it. In the world of the Avatamsaka, in Indra's net, the one is present in the all, and the all in the one. This wonderful image was used in Buddhism to illustrate the principle of interdepedence and interpenetration.
I think there's some minor controversy over whether it's the oldest printed book. There are some printed fragments of the Lotus sutra and Dharani sutra that might be 100+ years older.
The article sentence mentions that this is in the British Library, and I assume it’s in the Treasures Gallery?
If you’re ever in London, you owe it to yourself to stop there. It’s a room on the first floor of the library, free to enter without any kind of ticket 7 days a week.
In this one room is the most incredible display of printed works you’ll ever find. Everything from a copy of the Magna Carta to Florence Nightingale‘s notebooks to Anne Boleyn’s Tyndale bible to Beatles lyrics on a napkin.
There’s no collection like it anywhere in the world and it’s all in one medium-sized room.
Ken McLeod[0] is teaching a 6 week class Tuesday evenings on the Diamond Sutra at The Alembic[1][2] in Berkeley. The first class was last week. It may be possible to join now and watch the first class online.
Ken recommends the Red Pine[3] and Thich Nhat Hanh[4] translations.
Osho has talked about many many more Buddhist topics (as well as tons of other topics, both "spiritual" or "religious", and other), including particularly, but not only, Zen (Buddhism).
He has talked, incisively, and extensively, about many Zen and other Buddhist masters' words.
Most of his work is interesting, IMO. Some people feel shattered, because their dearly held beliefs are shattered by his words.
For topics, see an incomplete list at the bottom of the page linkrd above.
Get your comment, and had a similar bias against him from “Wild Wild Country”. But when I read his work, was blown by how good it is. Definitely worth a try. My first Osho book was “Meeting with Remarkable People”.
>"Bringing logic to a risk and uncertainty analysis."
Your word salad doesn't faze anyone, least of all me. And anyway, what do you think "risk and uncertainty analysis" is, except logic? Do you analyse things with your gut or your butt (!), rather than with your nut (aka head)? Pathetic.
As for cults, I have come across more than one, and don't give a shilling for any of them - pun intended, he he.
you did not answer my point about the "contradiction between your second and fourth sentences" that I pointed out above in an earlier reply to you.
that means you are moving goalposts, a classic evasive technique used by people who know well that their arguments are not on solid ground. BIG FAIL, dude.
I did answer it. You insultingly changed the topic from cults to logic. I stated that the proper analytical framework for risk under uncertainty is probability, not logic. You didn’t understand the point so you insultingly labeled it word salad. The fact remains that you’re spending your time as an apologist for criminals. It must be hard going through life as a stupid person. I wish you the best of luck!
>I stated that the proper analytical framework for risk under uncertainty is probability, not logic. You didn’t understand the point so you insultingly labeled it word salad.
har de har har har :)
pompous meaningless phrases of yours like the one I italicized above, are definitely word salad, and need to be highlighted and condemned as such, you joker. nobody except fake philosophers needs any fancy "frameworks" for such a simple discussion. you are clearly off your rocker. and I say joker on purpose. your stupidity and fakery made me laugh and made my day. is that the only thing you can do in your life, making up meaningless crappy phrases to try to impress or put down people. neither intention worked, dummy and loser. BIG FAILURE, you are.
no, you definitely did not answer it. you are an out an out liar. it's a black and white point, there is no grey area about it:
I asked, in an above comment:
>there is a contradiction between your second and fourth sentences. can you even see it?
you did not answer that question. you just tried to evade the topic by talking about cults and shilling for them. I am actually quite aware of cults and am totally against them, because they are fake and exploit people. I even have practical experience of them due to having lived in locations where they existed, though I was not a part of them. I observed them with interest, though, and made some observations and deductions, about both cults in particular, and human nature in general. some of those deductions are applicable to you, ha ha. go figure.
call me insulting? I think you are insulting instead, because you insulted my intelligence by using such a stupid and obvious evasive tactic, of moving the goalposts, and not answering a simple direct question that was asked of you.
so you are not only a liar, but you are stupid and a coward too.
also I notice that you sneakily avoided replying to the factual proof in my other comment, here:
, referencing the Wikipedia article about rajneesh and the Oregon incidents, where it clearly says that he was the one who complained to the US authorities about Sheela and those crimes, etc., and that Sheela was convicted, not him.
I won't waste my time by addressing any of your other points or continuing on this thread, because you clearly are a donkey and prejudiced and have preconceived notions and don't bother to consider the facts.
Osho was in the middle of an oath of silence during this time and not actually running the ashram or accused by anyone credible of having been part of the salmonella attack.
But in any event, isn't it possible that his commentary on religious texts (he was a religion professor first) is valuable even if he later became associated with controversial and/or toxic behavior?
Personally I don't look for saints in my religious pursuits. I look for beauty and good ideas. If you want a person to have no bad aspects I think you'll be disappointed with every person.
>Having completed his BA in philosophy at D. N. Jain College in 1955, he joined the University of Sagar, where in 1957, he earned his MA in philosophy (with distinction).[50] He immediately secured a teaching position at Raipur Sanskrit College, but the vice-chancellor soon asked him to seek a transfer as he considered him a danger to his students' morality, character, and religion.[13] From 1958, he taught philosophy as a lecturer at Jabalpur University, being promoted to professor in 1960.[13] A popular lecturer, he was acknowledged by his peers as an exceptionally intelligent man who had been able to overcome the deficiencies of his early small-town education.[51]
No. It is impossible. He clearly didn’t understand the texts if he later engaged in such terrible behavior. The point of the texts is to teach you the best behavior! Was that cult town in OR beautiful with the cult members patrolling it with machine guns? Was bussing in the homeless and giving them beer in exchange for votes a good idea? Is (apparently) abdicating responsibility to your chosen person a good idea? Is narcing on them at the last minute to save your own skin beautiful? Is taking people’s donations to buy yourself 10 rolls royces beautiful?
Citation needed. And I know what you are talking about, the Rajneeshpuram, Oregon (fka the Big Muddy) incidents. Ma Sheela, one of his inner circle, who went rogue (envy, power grab) was said to be the instigator, by some people.
If you call his following a cult, you had better first call the current Repugn(ant)icans / Resucknicans who asskiss draft-dodger Frump a cult, and who have done much more damage to the world, not just to the you-ess.
LOL, sure, blame Osho’s Michael Cohen. Did he not approve the members running around with machine guns and bussing in homeless people to astro turf the town election? I don’t have to do anything to call out evil cults, but yeah, I have been strongly anti-Trump since 2015.
In 1981, the Rajneesh movement's efforts refocused on activities in the United States and Rajneesh relocated to a facility known as Rajneeshpuram in Wasco County, Oregon. The movement ran into conflict with county residents and the state government, and a succession of legal battles concerning the ashram's construction and continued development curtailed its success. In 1985, Rajneesh publicly asked local authorities to investigate his personal secretary Ma Anand Sheela and her close supporters for a number of crimes, including a 1984 mass food-poisoning attack intended to influence county elections, an aborted assassination plot on U.S. attorney Charles H. Turner, the attempted murder of Rajneesh's personal physician, and the bugging of his own living quarters; authorities later convicted several members of the ashram, including Sheela.[18] That year, Rajneesh was deported from the United States on separate immigration-related charges in accordance with an Alford plea.[19][20][21] After his deportation, 21 countries denied him entry.[22]
The British Library online scan is fantastic and well worth a close look. They also have pre-restoration images of the scroll. Seeing it in person is a little disappointing since they only unroll a bit of it at any time.
Is there an English translation that is considered particularly important (perhaps comparable to the King James version of the Bible?) or particularly well translated?
especially as combined with Buddha's explanation in his subsequent Lotus Sutra that he realized he was like the father of all beings, I find the recent discovery of treatment for structural dissociation and parts work to be a highly interesting corollary to the Diamond Sutra.
Most of the artifacts in British museums are stolen.
Sometimes those artifacts are not just historical, they have real world use today, like idols or religious objects used in active worship . They still don’t return it
British policies and views around this issue has always been terrible .
John Oliver had a segment summarizing the situation
many countries (especially China) have nationalization laws which makes the state the owner of any cultural artifact so claim of legal ownership by a British institution sketchy at best.
it would be quite difficult or even impossible to be able prove provenance. Highly doubt any religious or state institution which was the custodian of the piece pre British times , legally sold with documentation to anyone that can be proved today, so ownership would default to the state .
these are national laws not in UNESCO treaties so cannot be enforced outside national borders .
the prc has recently enacted export control regulations to prevent strategic technologies from falling into the hands of geopolitical rivals such as the usa. among the first four items on the list, presumably included as a sort of joke, are papermaking techniques and movable type
Likely not a joke, rather a pointed "look how ridiculous it is to try and contain basic technology" and also an implicit that China did not lose out its power position due to "stealing of Chinese technology".
also, item #6 is gunpowder; i think the chinese government wanted to remind the so-called west that all their wars have been fought with chinese technology for centuries
I'm pretty sure the document is not directed at anyone in the West (big hint: it's not in English) but rather for internal consumption. Hence also listing traditional Chinese medicine, which is irrelevant for the West, even historically, but plays an important domestic propaganda role as an equal-opportunity competitor to "Western" (i.e. evidence-based) medicine.
As for the technology used to fight wars, as early as the Ming dynasty, cannons were re-imported from Portugal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongyipao . Technology transfer has rarely been a one-way street.
it's a law, not a press release; both are largely motivated by public relations, but the dynamics are very different. in particular none of china's laws are in english, as i imagine none of the laws of your country (nigeria?) are in chinese
a lot of the particular traditional chinese medicines mentioned are not at all irrelevant to the west
Being unable to trust my ability to translate and parse the linked document, what particular traditional chinese medicines mentioned are relevant to the west?
he's fine, but iirc he said it was the worst pain he'd ever felt. it used to be a common athletic doping drug
the overall summary is that we're not talking about powdered rhino horn here. traditional 'western' medicine contains a mix of treatments that are ineffective (unicorn horn, usually bleeding), effective but dangerous (calomel, aconite, cocaine), and effective and safe (magnesia, willow bark). the same is true of traditional chinese medicine. the things listed here are all effective, perhaps too effective. i've had nightmares about cordycepin ever since i was a little kid studying organic chemistry
Books like this are a advocate that a countries cultural heritage should be spread around the world to survive localized bildersturm and destruction by fanatics . Oh and digital copies,while the real thing gets hidden.
It's layered like an onion. One layer is meant to free people from illbeing. Another layer is for error correction codes and to make the message 'viral'. Another layer opened my eyes to incontrovertible truth about the noisy approximations and lossy signals that comprise the the human experience. So many layers read rather mystically at first, but you can always cut through it and find out it's not magic, it's really the way things are.
From another angle, it's a blob of metadata around a packet that contains instructions to all sentient beings -- in my words: "Relax. Be compassionate to yourself and others. All barriers to compassion are illusions. Tell this to other people. If you need to reformat the content as a listicle to get through to grandma, that's cool."
There's other angles. It's a fascinating document.
I believe the massively intelligent person(s) who composed it had a sincere objective to help all life.