One more thing. Isn't is somehow ridiculous how serious we are these days?
You open any random post on X in certain parts and there will be somebody having a sophisticated opinion about something. Anything really.
And then you go to ask the Dalai Lama about his way of life and he tells you, you know, that he thinks that meeting smiling people on the street is better than meeting serious people. And he starts laughing his ass out.
I love this, I love the message (usefully profound to me), i love the story behind it, I love the outfit (looks more Amish to me but that works!) I looooove the background and I think I like your chosen take the best. Doing things for fun under constraints rocks!
As it happens, I've recently reread your https://vividness.live/emptiness-form-and-dzogchen-ethics article, and the main point seems to be that as soon as we disregard metaphysical confusions (kadag) "ethically accurate activity occurs spontaneously because we humans just are ethical" (lhundrup). Things don't seem to add up: if it's really so simple, then why is Dzogchen considered (by some) to be the highest, most unapproachable pinnacle of Buddhism, requiring many years of intense preparations before most people could even begin practicing it?
For what it's worth, in my opinion "ethically accurate" activity tends to spontaneously occur in some circumstances much more reliably than in others - basically whenever reasonableness is well-calibrated. But, clearly, that is far from always, and when it fails, meta-rationality is needed to the rescue, and people aren't just meta-rational.
Oh, I forgot the reply to this part! The main point is not that. It's that ethics must be both nebulous and patterned; and therefore no fixed method can be reliably accurate. Nearly no ethical thinking has taken that into account, although it's empirically obvious.
Hmm, I mostly agree with this; maybe entirely. But to explain some possible confusions:
> "ethically accurate activity occurs spontaneously because we humans just are ethical"
My opinion (fwiw) is that this is never guaranteed. I think it's probably the case that (some?) Dzogchen texts say or imply it is guaranteed. (I forget, would need to go check.) I would consider that unfounded eternalist religious dogma, if so.
I would say rather that we don't need explicit reasoning to choose to be ethical. It's natural. So is being unethical. And choosing to be ethical doesn't guarantee a good outcome. Those last two statements probably contradict official Dzogchen doctrines.
Often reasoning helps us act beneficially. However, it's not always, or usually, necessary. And the choice to be beneficent never requires reasoning; that generally is spontaneous, I think, whether Dzogchen is involved or not.
> if it's really so simple, then why is Dzogchen considered (by some) to be the highest, most unapproachable pinnacle of Buddhism, requiring many years of intense preparations before most people could even begin practicing it?
Well, there's a standard answer to that: it is because it is "too close, too accessible, too present, and too simple.” This makes perfect sense once it does, and presumably seems like complete nonsense otherwise. (I wrote about this in https://vividness.live/dzogchen-a-trackless-path-ken-mcleod-review although that probably won't help.)
> "ethically accurate" activity tends to spontaneously occur in some circumstances much more reliably than in others - basically whenever reasonableness is well-calibrated. But, clearly, that is far from always, and when it fails, meta-rationality is needed to the rescue, and people aren't just meta-rational.
>Well, there's a standard answer to that: it is because it is "too close, too accessible, too present, and too simple.” This makes perfect sense once it does, and presumably seems like complete nonsense otherwise. (I wrote about this in https://vividness.live/dzogchen-a-trackless-path-ken-mcleod-review although that probably won't help.)
Yeah, this sort of thing has always seemed fishy to me, for two main reasons. The first one is that it doesn't make evolutionary sense - if "pure awareness" is so great, then why haven't we evolved to better make use of it, or, from the other end, why is it both possible at all and yet so difficult?
The second one is that Buddhism tends to ridiculously over-hype whatever it has to offer (like you often note), and yet it has produced few bodhisattvas, if any. Having said that, the medieval bridge-building dude was admittedly pretty impressive, as is the fact that much of your writing is apparently a popularization of Mipham.
> if "pure awareness" is so great, then why haven't we evolved to better make use of it
Well, it may be great for us, but without conferring evolutionary advantage. In general, evolution isn't optimizing for our individual well-being. Suffering evolved to motivate us to do the necessary to survive long enough to reproduce. We suffer much more than necessary for that, and evolution doesn't care.
But why, though? Our intuitions about what's good and useful are strongly correlated with whatever conferred such advantage, so by default either "pure awareness" should be advantageous both by our and evolution's lights, or by neither.
>We suffer much more than necessary for that
I think I disagree. My impression is that motivated and altruistic people, such as yourself, overestimate how people in general are similar to you, and how much that sort of thing drives them. My cynical view is that for the average person the stick is more salient than the carrot, and suffering is evolution's all-purpose stick.
I also love the origin of the word KaDag - Ka is just the first letter of Tibetan alphabet! “Primordial” always sound to me like a big word, could be translated as “everything is pure from A to Z” 😝
One more thing. Isn't is somehow ridiculous how serious we are these days?
You open any random post on X in certain parts and there will be somebody having a sophisticated opinion about something. Anything really.
And then you go to ask the Dalai Lama about his way of life and he tells you, you know, that he thinks that meeting smiling people on the street is better than meeting serious people. And he starts laughing his ass out.
The banality of indestructible wakefullness.
As I said, the Western pun is so good 😁
I love this, I love the message (usefully profound to me), i love the story behind it, I love the outfit (looks more Amish to me but that works!) I looooove the background and I think I like your chosen take the best. Doing things for fun under constraints rocks!
I like the first one the best, I’m smiling from ear to ear :)
As it happens, I've recently reread your https://vividness.live/emptiness-form-and-dzogchen-ethics article, and the main point seems to be that as soon as we disregard metaphysical confusions (kadag) "ethically accurate activity occurs spontaneously because we humans just are ethical" (lhundrup). Things don't seem to add up: if it's really so simple, then why is Dzogchen considered (by some) to be the highest, most unapproachable pinnacle of Buddhism, requiring many years of intense preparations before most people could even begin practicing it?
For what it's worth, in my opinion "ethically accurate" activity tends to spontaneously occur in some circumstances much more reliably than in others - basically whenever reasonableness is well-calibrated. But, clearly, that is far from always, and when it fails, meta-rationality is needed to the rescue, and people aren't just meta-rational.
> the main point seems to be
Oh, I forgot the reply to this part! The main point is not that. It's that ethics must be both nebulous and patterned; and therefore no fixed method can be reliably accurate. Nearly no ethical thinking has taken that into account, although it's empirically obvious.
Hmm, I mostly agree with this; maybe entirely. But to explain some possible confusions:
> "ethically accurate activity occurs spontaneously because we humans just are ethical"
My opinion (fwiw) is that this is never guaranteed. I think it's probably the case that (some?) Dzogchen texts say or imply it is guaranteed. (I forget, would need to go check.) I would consider that unfounded eternalist religious dogma, if so.
I would say rather that we don't need explicit reasoning to choose to be ethical. It's natural. So is being unethical. And choosing to be ethical doesn't guarantee a good outcome. Those last two statements probably contradict official Dzogchen doctrines.
Often reasoning helps us act beneficially. However, it's not always, or usually, necessary. And the choice to be beneficent never requires reasoning; that generally is spontaneous, I think, whether Dzogchen is involved or not.
> if it's really so simple, then why is Dzogchen considered (by some) to be the highest, most unapproachable pinnacle of Buddhism, requiring many years of intense preparations before most people could even begin practicing it?
Well, there's a standard answer to that: it is because it is "too close, too accessible, too present, and too simple.” This makes perfect sense once it does, and presumably seems like complete nonsense otherwise. (I wrote about this in https://vividness.live/dzogchen-a-trackless-path-ken-mcleod-review although that probably won't help.)
> "ethically accurate" activity tends to spontaneously occur in some circumstances much more reliably than in others - basically whenever reasonableness is well-calibrated. But, clearly, that is far from always, and when it fails, meta-rationality is needed to the rescue, and people aren't just meta-rational.
Yes, I agree.
>Well, there's a standard answer to that: it is because it is "too close, too accessible, too present, and too simple.” This makes perfect sense once it does, and presumably seems like complete nonsense otherwise. (I wrote about this in https://vividness.live/dzogchen-a-trackless-path-ken-mcleod-review although that probably won't help.)
Yeah, this sort of thing has always seemed fishy to me, for two main reasons. The first one is that it doesn't make evolutionary sense - if "pure awareness" is so great, then why haven't we evolved to better make use of it, or, from the other end, why is it both possible at all and yet so difficult?
The second one is that Buddhism tends to ridiculously over-hype whatever it has to offer (like you often note), and yet it has produced few bodhisattvas, if any. Having said that, the medieval bridge-building dude was admittedly pretty impressive, as is the fact that much of your writing is apparently a popularization of Mipham.
> if "pure awareness" is so great, then why haven't we evolved to better make use of it
Well, it may be great for us, but without conferring evolutionary advantage. In general, evolution isn't optimizing for our individual well-being. Suffering evolved to motivate us to do the necessary to survive long enough to reproduce. We suffer much more than necessary for that, and evolution doesn't care.
>without conferring evolutionary advantage
But why, though? Our intuitions about what's good and useful are strongly correlated with whatever conferred such advantage, so by default either "pure awareness" should be advantageous both by our and evolution's lights, or by neither.
>We suffer much more than necessary for that
I think I disagree. My impression is that motivated and altruistic people, such as yourself, overestimate how people in general are similar to you, and how much that sort of thing drives them. My cynical view is that for the average person the stick is more salient than the carrot, and suffering is evolution's all-purpose stick.
Actually, the one you have at the top now is my favorite.
Nice change of pace from Meaningness. I guess if more "Vampires" won't come, this is the next best thing :-)
I like the first one most of the because of the smile at the end.
nicely done!
In the second one, it sounds to me like initially you drop the pitch just enough such that it’s ominous in a way that grabs attention.
I love this. Says so much about you and dzogchen (I think) at the same time.
Love the Western pun 😁
🤣 this made my day!
I also love the origin of the word KaDag - Ka is just the first letter of Tibetan alphabet! “Primordial” always sound to me like a big word, could be translated as “everything is pure from A to Z” 😝
This is hilarious 👁️😆
I like the third one, but the first one works too.
Same! Love the third one because it feels more "serious" and in character.
Thank you!