Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00745)

Robert wrote: <<It's like a man with chronic nausea who 
hates to eat, even though he must eat to stay alive, and 
thinking that to be healthy must mean never having to 
eat. He doesn't know anything about the pleasure of
eating when the body is healthy. Similarly, the simple 
negation of experience is the poor man's view of ultimate 
reality, and it is contradicted by the reports of mystics, 
especially in the Vaishnava tradition, of features or 
"phenomena" of a different order, to be sure, but still 
describable, at least in outline, in familiar terms.>>

In essence, Robert, as I see it, you seem to talking about 
refining one's dualistic world/worldview, and your choice 
of words and general approach on this list tends to 
suggest, to me, that such refining is something that even 
Mahayana Buddhists ought to be engaging more in. It's as 
if you're saying that those following the esoteric tradition 
of the such as the Mahayana Buddhists ought to 
concentrate more on refinning dualistics, instead, as if the 
dualistic world were "real enough," somehow, in some 
refined sense, and as if thoughts about transcending 
dualistic worldviews were misleading, or negative.

There seems to be a mainstream suspicion to the effect 
that the Mahayanic references to such as "emptiness," 
"the undescribable," etc., are tantamount to some kind of 
fundamental negation. And there may be relevance in 
that view in the sense that, from a dualistic perspective 
(ie, "dualistic" as per the mainstream sense by which our 
worldview and reality is maintained by apparent/real 
basic opposites), so, from a mainstream/dualistic 
perspective your arguments, Robert, make a lot of sense 
to a lot of people (obviously enough?).

No wonder there are so many mainstream religions out 
there? However, in Mahayana Buddhism duality is 
regarded as mayavic, (in p/Principle), in that there are 
those who see the inherent limitations/simplicity (or 
mayavicity) of dualistics. Of course, on the other hand, 
Mahayana Buddhism (and there seem to be Mahayanic, 
or esoteric, versions of Theosophy, as well?), seems to 
have all along been confusing and "unrealistic" to 
mainstreamers who can't seem to quite see much in the 
way of maya (or fundamental illusiveness) in their 
mainstream (dualistic/exoteric) worldview.

My understanding is that there are reports that the 
so-called emptiness referred to in Mahayana Buddhism 
might also be referred to as a "plenum/void," apparently 
on the grounds that the "reality" experienced in that state 
of "Beingness" is so fundamentally different from 
dualistics, or from mainstream worldviews, that there are 
no direct enough, understandable enough, dualistic words 
with which to describe such "Beingness." As a result, 
(obviously enough?), there is a mainstream preference, 
on this planet at this time, for all kinds of mainstreaming.
Isn't all that obvious enough? Or did I overlook 
something, again?

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS I hope I didn't say anything that the Mahayana 
Buddhists might object to too much.