Evolving Dharma - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-29T10:12:00Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/evolving-dharma?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A53124&feed=yes&xn_auth=noFinally putting two and two t…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-02-14:5301756:Comment:544012014-02-14T16:20:27.473ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Finally putting two and two together: I was browsing the forum this morning and came across an old post, <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/polytheism-and-nonduality" target="_self">Polytheism and Nonduality</a>, which never generated any discussion, but which I now recognize is authored by the author of <em>Evolving Buddhism</em>, Jay Michaelson.</p>
<p>Finally putting two and two together: I was browsing the forum this morning and came across an old post, <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/polytheism-and-nonduality" target="_self">Polytheism and Nonduality</a>, which never generated any discussion, but which I now recognize is authored by the author of <em>Evolving Buddhism</em>, Jay Michaelson.</p> An interesting (and, within t…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-12-29:5301756:Comment:535082013-12-29T03:44:41.953ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>An interesting (and, within the Tibetan community, controversial) confessional from the "new" Kalu Rinpoche, reflecting on his past struggles, the problems with institutional Buddhism, and possible ways forward for his lineage.</p>
<p> <iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/z5Ka3bEN1rs?wmode=opaque" width="420" frameborder="0" height="315"></iframe>
</p>
<p>An interesting (and, within the Tibetan community, controversial) confessional from the "new" Kalu Rinpoche, reflecting on his past struggles, the problems with institutional Buddhism, and possible ways forward for his lineage.</p>
<p> <iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/z5Ka3bEN1rs?wmode=opaque" width="420" frameborder="0" height="315"></iframe>
</p> As evidence in support of my…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-12-12:5301756:Comment:533142013-12-12T21:18:44.568ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>As evidence in support of my meaning of the question in question, see <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/evolving-dharma?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A52685" target="_self">this short post</a> where I question Michaelson's notion of bare, interpretation-free experience. That led to my question in <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/evolving-dharma?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A53023" target="_self">this post,</a> just 2 posts later,…</p>
<p>As evidence in support of my meaning of the question in question, see <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/evolving-dharma?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A52685" target="_self">this short post</a> where I question Michaelson's notion of bare, interpretation-free experience. That led to my question in <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/evolving-dharma?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A53023" target="_self">this post,</a> just 2 posts later, wondering then how Michaelson handles right view given the foregoing. If one has spent just 2 minutes or less reading those two short posts then it seems unlikely to have led to the assumption that I didn't know what right view meant.</p>
<p>I'm thinking this is more a case of that uncle at family holidays, who not only doesn't keep up with the family but walks into the room during an ongoing conversation and takes one statement out of context. He then interrupts and pontificates on that statement with something entirely unrelated in an attempt to prove to himself and others how brilliant he is, while in effect just making as ass of himself.</p> "I was just trying to connect…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-12-11:5301756:Comment:530782013-12-11T18:15:35.520ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p><span style="font-size: 13px;"><span id="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386778559427_18737">"I was just trying to connect the dots for you on Right View and Dependent Origination as you did not understand the relation i.e. Right View is Dependent Origination."</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px;"><span>Seriously? Again you've misunderstood my question, which was asking if for Michaelson there was no right view, given his referenced statements. If you're going to make claims about what…</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px;"><span id="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386778559427_18737">"I was just trying to connect the dots for you on Right View and Dependent Origination as you did not understand the relation i.e. Right View is Dependent Origination."</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px;"><span>Seriously? Again you've misunderstood my question, which was asking if for Michaelson there was no right view, given his referenced statements. If you're going to make claims about what <em>I</em> mean then perhaps you should just read the few referenced posts to get the context.</span></span></p> theurj said:
If you're accus…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-12-11:5301756:Comment:530772013-12-11T17:49:15.218Zehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/e
<p><cite>theurj said:</cite></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px;">If you're accusing me of denying dependent origination then your mistaken view is being badly 'obstructed.' I've been a most vocal proponent of it from the very beginning of my online writings. And, I might add, a most vocal opponent of certain developmental models, or at least aspects of them. But you're a busy man making hard-earned money to keep up with these distinctions, so I can understand the lack of…</span></p>
<p><cite>theurj said:</cite></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px;">If you're accusing me of denying dependent origination then your mistaken view is being badly 'obstructed.' I've been a most vocal proponent of it from the very beginning of my online writings. And, I might add, a most vocal opponent of certain developmental models, or at least aspects of them. But you're a busy man making hard-earned money to keep up with these distinctions, so I can understand the lack of understanding.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px;">e said: </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px;"><span>Edward I was responding to your question in this thread. "</span><span class="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386778559427_18608" id="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386778559427_19451">So this path [Right View] is defunct in an evolving dharma?"</span><span id="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386778559427_18737"> I don't read all your posts and so am not privy to all your opinions. I was just trying to connect the dots for you on Right View and Dependent Origination as you did not understand the relation i.e. Right View is Dependent Origination. BTW the 8-fold path is considered 1-path not 8 separate paths. It's like an 8 cylinder engine...when all are firing you motor down the path. You're welcome. </span></span></p> @HH
Nothing is stopping peopl…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-12-11:5301756:Comment:532302013-12-11T17:45:55.825Zehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/e
<p>@HH</p>
<p><span id="yui_3_13_0_ym1_11_1386778559427_78">Nothing is stopping people from pooling their resources and forming employee owned companies now in the current system. </span><span>Looking at the list of most notable employee owned companies , I believe only 1 (Publix) is a fortune 500 company and it doesn't even make anything, it distributes food. You would think that all the fortune 500 companies would be employee owned because people who espouse Green values are far superior than…</span></p>
<p>@HH</p>
<p><span id="yui_3_13_0_ym1_11_1386778559427_78">Nothing is stopping people from pooling their resources and forming employee owned companies now in the current system. </span><span>Looking at the list of most notable employee owned companies , I believe only 1 (Publix) is a fortune 500 company and it doesn't even make anything, it distributes food. You would think that all the fortune 500 companies would be employee owned because people who espouse Green values are far superior than Orange aren't they...what's wrong? Why isn't this so? Why do a few people with determination, vision and a willingness to work hard almost always outperform the herd? Look at the dying Detroit car industry. You would think 100 successful employee owned car companies would have come out of the ashes. But Elon Musk, an outsider risking his own cash, created one hell of a ride. I drove a Tesla Model S over the holiday...it is a potential game changer!</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>In my experience everyone needs a manager...otherwise people either slack off or don't have a corrective feedback mechanism for mistakes. It is just about impossible to look objectively at your own performance.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span><span>Let's look at this profit making for a few business that many accept as a truism. If we look at any medium to large company, the amount of profit is small in comparison to the amount that is paid in materials, labor, overhead, etc...that is put back into the "system". If you look at any income statement, the money paid to the evil devils i.e. management, ownership or stock holders is a rather small amount comparatively. Ashton Kutcher was recently railing on Walmart for keeping 5% of their profit. If you risked your hard earned cash in an investment would a 5% return make you sing and dance? </span></span></p>
<p></p> @E
nobody has plans on paper…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-12-09:5301756:Comment:532282013-12-09T06:04:57.786Zhologram holomovementhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/hologramholomovement
<p>@E</p>
<p>nobody has plans on paper to engineer anything. the entire economy as it is now could go on just as it is, but without owners and executive managers running the show and taking all the profits. it's called economic democracy, or socialism if you will. the workers can manage themselves and take the profits themselves too, just fine thank you.</p>
<p>this self-management of the work that workers already do, would be transitional towards an economy that is not just managed but also…</p>
<p>@E</p>
<p>nobody has plans on paper to engineer anything. the entire economy as it is now could go on just as it is, but without owners and executive managers running the show and taking all the profits. it's called economic democracy, or socialism if you will. the workers can manage themselves and take the profits themselves too, just fine thank you.</p>
<p>this self-management of the work that workers already do, would be transitional towards an economy that is not just managed but also structured by workers themselves, in cooperation with other workers and between different businesses and industries, who would have the long term interests of the commons (environment and community) as the primary goal, rather than the current structure of 'profit for the individual few and fuck everyone else thank you very much'.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p> If you're accusing me of deny…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-12-08:5301756:Comment:530742013-12-08T17:10:13.719ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>If you're accusing me of denying dependent origination then your mistaken view is being badly 'obstructed.' I've been a most vocal proponent of it from the very beginning of my online writings. And, I might add, a most vocal opponent of certain developmental models, or at least aspects of them. But you're a busy man making hard-earned money to keep up with these distinctions, so I can understand the lack of understanding.</p>
<p>If you're accusing me of denying dependent origination then your mistaken view is being badly 'obstructed.' I've been a most vocal proponent of it from the very beginning of my online writings. And, I might add, a most vocal opponent of certain developmental models, or at least aspects of them. But you're a busy man making hard-earned money to keep up with these distinctions, so I can understand the lack of understanding.</p> theurj said: And what about '…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-12-08:5301756:Comment:533062013-12-08T16:50:22.820Zehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/e
<p><cite>theurj said: </cite><span style="font-style: italic; font-size: 13px;">And what about 'right view,' as discussed</span> <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/ladder-climber-view?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A42382" style="font-style: italic; font-size: 13px;" target="_self">here</a><span style="font-style: italic; font-size: 13px;">? Right view is one of the Buddhist eightfold paths. So this path is defunct in an evolving dharma?…</span></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><cite>theurj said: </cite><span style="font-style: italic; font-size: 13px;">And what about 'right view,' as discussed</span> <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/ladder-climber-view?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A42382" target="_self" style="font-style: italic; font-size: 13px;">here</a><span style="font-style: italic; font-size: 13px;">? Right view is one of the Buddhist eightfold paths. So this path is defunct in an evolving dharma?</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-style: italic; font-size: 13px;">e said: </span><span style="font-size: 13px;">Here is a short sutra on Right View.</span></p>
<div class="yiv1642344645yqt5622111825" id="yiv1642344645yqtfd40754"><div id="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_5631"></div>
<div class="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_3255" id="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_5630"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html" id="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_5629" name="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_5629">http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html</a></div>
<div class="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_3256" id="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_5628"></div>
<div class="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_3257" id="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_5627">Kalupahana sees this as the basis for Nagarjuna's MMK as this is the only sutra mentioned in it.</div>
<div class="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_3257"></div>
<div class="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_3257"></div>
<div class="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_3258" id="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_5621"></div>
<div class="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_3259" id="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_5937">In the 2nd paragraph there is an interesting take on the fundamental duality of existence (eternalism) and non-existence (anihilationism). Then Right View as the 4 Noble Truths in the 3rd paragraph. In the 4th and 5th paragraph Right view is Dependent Origination. Let the Mahayana in you smile... Right View is Dependent Origination is Emptiness.</div>
<div class="yiv1642344645yqt7833561864" id="yiv1642344645yqtfd18033"><div class="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_3260" id="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_5938"></div>
</div>
<div class="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_3261" id="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_5939"><div class="yiv1642344645yqt7833561864" id="yiv1642344645yqtfd91529">If we look at Dependent Origination the pair we want to focus on is "<span style="font-size: 13px;">From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play." So it does not matter if we look at birth as a literal womb birth or an ego birth...you, the IPS developmentalist, can stick in whatever developmental schema (8 to a 1000 levels with room for as many as your little heart wants and imagination can dream up) between birth and death and it won't change the import of the 4 Noble Truths or specifically the Truth of Dependent Origination one iota. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_5941"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1386518873250_5942">btw Michaelson and Folk practice within the Burmese Visudhimagga interpretation of Theravada. There are less orthodox (non Visuddhimagga based) ways of practicing meditation within Theravada that don't rely so heavily on the 16 "insight" knowledges which were added 1000 years after the inception of Buddhism.</div> Balder said: I'm also suspic…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-12-08:5301756:Comment:532232013-12-08T16:43:15.185Zehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/e
<p><br></br> <cite>Balder said: </cite><span style="font-size: 13px;">I'm also suspicious of the claim to bare, interpretation-free experience ...</span></p>
<div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p></p>
<p>e said: In Loy's book on Non-duality he explicates 3 ways non-duality has classically been approached: perception, action and thought (there are others). He feels perception shorn of thoughts dualistic overlay can yield an insight into non-duality. He finds support for this in Buddhism, Advaita…</p>
</div>
</div>
<p><br/> <cite>Balder said: </cite><span style="font-size: 13px;">I'm also suspicious of the claim to bare, interpretation-free experience ...</span></p>
<div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p></p>
<p>e said: In Loy's book on Non-duality he explicates 3 ways non-duality has classically been approached: perception, action and thought (there are others). He feels perception shorn of thoughts dualistic overlay can yield an insight into non-duality. He finds support for this in Buddhism, Advaita and Taoism. I agree...it's simply a doorway...a ungated gate.</p>
</div>
</div>