tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595537203277298730.post6416593505909480012..comments2022-04-01T06:30:31.335+02:00Comments on Philosophia Buddhica: Buddhist Agnoiology? Agnotology in Buddhism?Dorji Wangchuk (Kuliśeśvara)http://www.blogger.com/profile/02042613761261634658noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595537203277298730.post-91864264772592877682014-11-06T11:32:32.177+01:002014-11-06T11:32:32.177+01:006th part:
Still just a hasty remark concerning the...6th part:<br />Still just a hasty remark concerning the “docta ignorantia“ (“learned ignorance“). The English “learned“ seems to allow a larger interpretation of “docta“. In German it is translated as “be-lehrte Unwissenheit“. This “belehrte“ could be interpreted more in the sense of the “instructed ignorance“. Perhaps, at first sight, this sounds strange, but if pondered more extensively we can learn to “appreciate“ ignorance because it gives “avidya“ also a positive connotation. Generally, I mean avidya has an ontologically neutral character. But through soteriological advices it often becomes enveloped with its negative aspect which consists in pushing forth the illusory/delusory play of cognition (the unfledged grasping of inherently projected points of references, “the mental glueing”), etc. The positive side of avidya is precisely its character of “instruction“. “Avidya instructs us and we become strengthened to instruct avidya“. Avidya also can be seen as the ontic guarantee of existence; thanks to avidya we have samskara, vijnana, nama-rupa, etc. of the pratityasamutpada-dynamism, recognized in its forward and backward rotation. Softly said, avidya has the “security-function“ of the impenetrable enigma of existence as such – and that´s perfectly good so.<br /><br />“There is nothing to be denied and nothing to be affirmed. See the real rightly, (for) one who sees the real is released”. [Nagarjuna, Pratityasamutpadahrdayakarika, stanza 7] <br /> <br />We could insinuate, the “secret” lies in the “soteriological handling” of “avidya” and the regulative, ultimate factor for this is what? <br />What else, faith! Sincerely, mikael. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595537203277298730.post-28368024309230477172014-11-06T11:30:49.502+01:002014-11-06T11:30:49.502+01:005th part:
But what, in the context of this attempt...5th part:<br />But what, in the context of this attempted elucidation to indicate the status of reasoning in the quest for truth and faith, makes me worry is the impression (but perhaps I´m again in error), that precisely the “advanced parts (!)“ of this suggested (reasoned) path structure, which, according to many (considered by “lineage-tradition as reliable“) sages, are absolutely necessary and could provide (at least the theoretical basis for) such a “liberating“ / “omniscient“ [please do not become perturbed by such a term, it must be understood in its technical contextualities] experience of “authentic faith”, are more or less “hidden away“ from public eyes (intentionally and/or unintentionally). <br />The reasons for this may be multiple (justified or not – but who wonders in thinking simply on the “faith-cheaters” in this world…); but there´s probably nothing we can do about it…;<br /><br />Now, in the course of this reflection, I´m just wondering how we could expect that sincerely inclined “seekers for truth” could assimilate “anutpatti-dharma-ksanti“ / “mi skye ba´i chos la bzod pa“ (“tolerance/readiness of/for dharma-non-arising“) [tolerance understood as the passive aspect of ksanti and readiness as the active aspect of ksanti] in their mind-stream without “advanced study-support and corresponding meditation”? <br />Since without “anutpatti-dharma-ksanti” the operational conversion of truth in practice (“the prized realization”) cannot be fulfilled with awareness (at least as I am meagerly able to understand it…).<br /><br />And further, when I think on the mentioned limited access to such necessary resources for support and encouragement, I cannot avoid the feeling of unease and unfairness; I must sadly confess, as long as the corresponding teaching/research materials for the indispensable philosophico-religious training are not completely accessible (perhaps “the academic ivory tower”?) for all interested people so long the development of mutual understanding will certainly be retarded. Evidently, on the other side, the access without restriction to the sources (scriptural and oral) doesn´t automatically guaranty the desired mutual understanding but it certainly will procure the chance for an improvement (if patience, endurance and open-minded curiosity are present) – Ahhhhhh, now I feel how depressive thought proliferations want to get the upper hand over me because probably I´m too idealistic with this vision; sincerely, mikael.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595537203277298730.post-32193732718375089862014-11-06T11:28:33.327+01:002014-11-06T11:28:33.327+01:004th part:
And by all these proposed excellent meth...4th part:<br />And by all these proposed excellent methods, we concomitantly know (or we already believe to know) that faith, in the end, can only be a subjective affair of mind-application, so strictly seen, it (faith) ultimately cannot be demonstrated “tangibly“ – it´s essentially a personal experience because the final leap must done individually! (and that´s the wriggling worm, the disconcerting point!)<br /><br />Anyway, whatever method we use (and I trust we have excellent methods!), one thing is certain, namely, we must communicate with others to get the necessary information/consultation/guidance and this naturally imply teaching as such. However, we know, teaching includes teaching- and learning-techniques and that further inevitably denotes/involves conceptuality, on whatever degree of subtlety and intensity; it´s impossible to bypass this natural behavior codex (“the undercover compassion of existence!”). Consequently, without teaching (hidden conceptuality!) faith cannot meaningfully be transmitted, let alone be achieved and therefore (!) we (as philosophically inclined aspirants) intensively believe that through spiral-elevating reasoning (“bhumi-processing advances“), reasoning itself will/can (if we trust the philosophical intuition and corresponding elaborations) procure faith (the true faith!); thereby reasoning itself can/will be resolved and consequently dissolved – “bammmm”, the sudden “turnover in cognitive immediateness“ (Faith!). <br /><br />[Hence, in the expression “blessed are the poor in spirit” as suggested in the last message, the word “poor” shouldn´t be taken as those who are “naïve, uncritical followers of faith”; rather the “poor in spirit”, in fact, signifies the “pure” (or “purified”, “purified of reifying conceptualizations”) and that means or should mean the “realization of sunyata”]. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595537203277298730.post-66944540049045779662014-11-06T11:27:26.760+01:002014-11-06T11:27:26.760+01:003rd part:
If this short indication seems to be adm...3rd part:<br />If this short indication seems to be admissible or makes sense then it should be recognized (or its worth thinking about) that it doesn´t suffice whether we can master “introductory“ and/or “intermediary“ (philosophico-religious) topics provided by “truth-pronouncement“ simply because thereby, owing to the topical emphases itself in these preliminary learning-stages, the “ultimate faith“ cannot (sorry, I know that´s again a delicate assumption where protests are foreseeable…) be achieved definitely. <br />Since for the definite (!) attainment of this aimed faith the “truth-receiver“ has to enter into the “advanced stage/level“ of the aspired “truth-assimilation”. However (and “regrettably”) this would imply a “thorough demonstration“ of faith in offering clearly and vividly the argumentations and “proofs“ (whereby a rationally-accompanied understanding becomes a sensitive reproduction and assimilation in one´s own mental capacity so that the natural evidence of faith never more can/will be questioned!) for this imperturbable, easeful state of mind. <br /><br />Yet (in our painful, regrettable feeling) what to do if the intellectual/rational capacity of the “faith-receiver” for such demonstrations isn´t (as hinted above) sufficiently prepared or manifests itself insufficiently? <br />The “truth-pronouncer” then has to opt for another, more incisive strategy which – certainly – by its appearing “fastness” seems to be more attractive, since the intellectual requirements are intentionally leveled down but simultaneously it expects from the corresponding “faith-receiver” the strict following of the “truth-pronouncing” advices and thereby this kind of “truth-transmission” becomes a risky mediation-affair because we know only too well the lack of discipline in our cognitive engagement with reality. So again this proposition of “truth-assimilation” has also its inherent pedagogical shortcomings. There will be other methods for gaining faith but no matter how well-designed, it always turns out to be “somehow insufficient” owing to the “inherent cognitive laziness” to surmount for becoming capable to follow the helping advices! <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595537203277298730.post-54060094454797337232014-11-06T11:26:29.892+01:002014-11-06T11:26:29.892+01:002nd part:
Well, again everything seems to be fine,...2nd part:<br />Well, again everything seems to be fine, so where is the problem? The problem (again perhaps only in my own foolishness) lies in the fact that the “truth-announcer“, if he/she really wants to induce his/her “total faith“ (and not an adopted “simulation/analogue-faith“) to others, has to bring the “truth-receiver” towards this “total faith” through conceptual formulations (pointers) and thereby has to enter (in trying to offer the maximum of a possible “truth-assimilation”) into the deepest and subtlest philosophical matters which our human intelligence ever since has “constructed“. <br />If this were not so then the quality and fidelity of the supposed faith seems to be highly controversial or incredible (it would be only a soteriological hypothesis, a wishful thinking, a fancy). <br /><br />So the question arises: “Must this painstaking procedure of reasoning be done? Or is this purely the seductive circle of reasoning?”<br /><br />We would say: “It depends!” We insist further: “On what?” The (probably deceptive appearing) answer is: “Precisely on this perplexing tension between reason and faith!” (Our whole existential struggle for “truth” is contained therein).<br /><br />Now, in this context it doesn´t help in smartly answering that since it (the way of reasoning) is a “philosophical construction“ for arriving at faith (and construction signifies conceptualizing through ideational performances where our cognitive immediateness will/must be sacrificed) then why to waste one´s time with such a “proliferating nonsense of conceited conceptualizations“, precisely because such a smart-appearing assertion made by such (which I would identify as) a cunning „faith-imitator“ or “faith-cheater“ simply shows his/her disguised self-deception/self-belying insofar as this person cannot “explain“ or “make convincingly clear“ his/her “faith-assertion“. Either one has authentic faith or one does not have it (but such a drastic judgment seems to be of no help in this issue because most probably we are always somewhere in between…). <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595537203277298730.post-3728065601704405832014-11-06T11:25:14.149+01:002014-11-06T11:25:14.149+01:00Hi,
thank´s for these critical, embracing reflecti...Hi,<br />thank´s for these critical, embracing reflections; just some attached thoughts (split into 6 parts) about the complexity with “avidya“ in relation to the “mystifying” tension between reason and faith; hope that these remarks do not appear as too obstinate; if yes, sorry...; <br /><br />1st part:<br />I think, there is a big difference between giving the “truth“ to others and receiving the “truth“ from others! [Let us cautiously assume that there is a “truth“ and a “truth-possessor“ (regardless the philosophico-religious system) transmitting this “truth” to “truth-receivers”].<br /><br />The fundamental "problem", if I´m not mistaken, consists in or is engendered by the "truth-pronouncement" itself, namely, it´s a question of "understanding" (it always turns around this perplexing notion of understanding, this “vicious circle“ must be broken or at least should become more obvious). Let me try to paraphrase it a little bit, perhaps recordable as the “pedagogical paradox“:<br /><br />The “truth-announcer“ gladly offers the “truth“, the “truth-receiver“ eagerly receives the “truth“. But in “truth“ it never can happen like this. Why? Because the “truth-announcer“ demands/expects from the “truth-receiver“ to have faith in this “truth-pronouncement“ (without understanding), further to apply this faith in thinking and acting (again without really understanding), hence, self-confidently to build up faith as the ultimate basis of existence! <br /><br />Yes, no doubt, that´s the noble objective of (religious) teaching but we should never forget or think away how the “truth-announcer“ him/herself has attained this faith? <br />Evidently the answer will come promptly: “Exactly by the same learning process as succinctly described above!“ Really?<br /><br />But it isn´t as easy as it looks. Because the “truth-announcer“, if he/she has achieved “authentic faith” or is really able to live in/with faith, has undergone a thoroughly structured “spiritual formation“ (monastic or academic) which allows (if followed “painstakingly”) precisely to find and actualize this faith! <br />We might think, well, that´s alright and sounds normal, so where is the problem? Ultimately there is none but conventionally there appear many troubles (at least to my ignorance). <br />Namely, the “truth-announcer“ preaches the truth in simultaneously knowing that the “truth-receiver“ cannot really understand the “truth“! [and most probably will not understand the “truth“ because of not having or not getting the same “exceptional possibility“ of a “systematically structured spiritual (or scholastic) education or formation“]. <br />So, what does the “truth-announcer“? He/she develops a pedagogical strategy (upayakausalya) to make the “truth“ understandable or plausible for the “truth-receiver“, hence a gradual way, a step-by-step approach of “truth-assimilation“ will be mapped out. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595537203277298730.post-70894469264705234472014-10-27T14:03:13.423+01:002014-10-27T14:03:13.423+01:00But you know it's important to translate docta...But you know it's important to translate docta ignorantia as the two-syllable <i>learnéd</i> ignorance, and not just a kind of ignorance that you learned. At least that's my understanding. It refers to limitations the learned doctors have to their knowledge. Anyone who has spent much time in the academic world knows there is a whole lot of it there.<br /><br />Someone recently wrote a study of ignorance that I have to confess I haven't read. In it I wonder if he is learnéd enough to know about this special kind to which people who write "studies" are especially susceptible. It's been argued that science has to deal with ignorance (the ignorance of the scientist herself) on a daily basis, otherwise they won't be able to find out the truths of the matters (without the ignorance there could be no revelation...). If a person can't admit ignorance they won't be motivated to work on their knowledge... Hmmm, I'm not sure I know what I'm talking about.<br />DDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.com