[lbo-talk] Ambigious Doug

Dwayne Monroe idoru345 at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 25 10:02:40 PDT 2003


Carrol wrote:

Can one not say of the spiritual that, "In fact, this word explains nothing. It is at most a rhetorical form, one of the various ways of paraphrasing facts"?

**********

I don't know. Your guess is as good as mine.

I believe however, that the Buddha's point is straightforward: supernatural personages (such as gods, ghosts and other entities that are unbound from the 'laws' of the physical world) and events (visions, etc), even if actual parts of the structure of things and not merely dreams, are not the source of, or the solution to humanity's self-destructive delusions.

The phrase,'ignorant craving', translated from Sanskrit, contains layers of subtlety which, for explanation, require far too much text to go into in this forum. It is sufficient to say that there is no dismissal of exterior causes, such as pain or deprivation or oppression as sources of suffering and no 'blaming the victim'.

The focus of classical Buddhism however, is the psychological and an elevation of our normal state of awareness to a sharper, more finely tuned plateau. Again, a robust explanation would be far too wordy and so, I refrain.

To place these assertions in context, I recommend, if anyone is so inclined, reading the Prajnaparamitra sutra, also the Fire Sermon at Benares and solid commentaries on the Buddhist interpretation of causality.

Apparent nonchalance about 'spiritual' matters will make more sense once those texts are understood.

DRM

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list