ENOAH

Just sitting in Zazen is Enlightenment. "Ordinary mind," is bodily aware-ing "freed" from the displacement of projecting mind. That's what I took Janu...

No disagreement from me, to that whole paragraph. Might even be, as in Kierkegaard's knight of faith, imperceptible to those who have not.

Yes. Understood Ok, and I see this position commonly in various forms. I respect it and desire it. But why? Why is it that "object" referenced as noum...

sorry, last of the choppy replies. I.e., is Kant not saying noumena, the "idea" of "things" not accessible to the senses, is as far as we go. Anything...

I'm just interested in your take on this. Same with my second "reply". I agree with you, insofar as the word fits; more like, you're enlightening me t...

Yes, I was agreeing, and hinting that this necessary conclusion is my problem with Schopenhauer, whether he meant it or not. But I can't believe he fu...

I understand. What are the real things in themselves? Are they just that? Real? Is it plural, as you suggested? If we "designate" the idea of God as n...

Confounded, if you ask me. But that's weirdly my limit reached with Schopenhauer. Everything "before" this Will, (that he on some levels "maligns") is...

I think, we falsely accuse our Bodies, when it is Mind which both constructed and projects gluttony. As for running off if there was no free will, aga...

yes, K. and you wouldn't say my read, though worded idiosyncratically, is inaccurate?

Your post is fascinating and compelled me. I am inspired by it to read Locke, beyond my stumbling through Anthologies. Thanks for that. My comments ar...

Why does it sound to me like K is saying, like the Body is an idea uniquely arising to the Subject, so to is the will; both ultimately, "explanations"...

Yes, and I meant "unknowable" as to the "in itself". Though, as you said, Apple "becomes" knowable. It is only in its construction/projection. Yes. I'...

Ok. Good to know that context. Makes even more sense. Yes, I see and agree it is reasonable. Thank you

First, this is currently where I'm settled. And it goes without saying, I speak without authority. We shouldn't have noumena. Noumena, only seemed to ...

I agree. That was me extrapolating.

Fair question. Deliberately, yet recklessly, I created the category "really" unknowable. My thinking emerges from these very categories I have been gr...

Does anyone know the historical first instance of this "need" for an "in itself?" Assume it is not intuitive. Was it Plato's forms and/or this anamnes...

Ok. Makes sense for Kant. But seems either extremely honest or extremely convenient. I tend to think the former. I.e., noumena is unknowable enough; h...

Fascinating on a few levels. Thank you!

and yes, I meant parable. But it felt like W. thought he was being Zen "koany"

:up: Much comfort in the Simpsons. A refuge against suffering.

Ok, I can see that in his "misuse" of the koan.

Wow. That bad eh? It is funny that I bypassed him. Hah! Maybe there was a reason. Too funny. Anyway dont worry. I'll be grappling with Schopenhauer fo...

Right. No I was honestly admiring W.s statements, but would never go so far as to stop at W. I was being ironic. Having said that, ironically, am now ...

Do you know if W was being deliberate; as a matter of fact? As "homage"? As a deliberately confusing inside joke?

Hah. Seriously? I genuinely found it compelling. Again, I'm clearly a novice. Explain if you wish. Otherwise I'll keep a more critical eye out.

I know little about W's life; you are likely right he was self absorbed. To produce so much from inner reflection would create a fixation. Could also ...

That was excellent. Wittgenstein answers the question. The rest of us are too busy embarassed by or ignoring the answer.

Yes that is clear to me now. Thank you. Yes, and this is also finally clear to me. S. goes beyond K at "disclosing" that "non empirical" with a "highe...

Ok. Thank you. You have put me on track re Noumena. Is there a "direct reality" for Kant? Does he even get into that? What were the "opposing" "realit...

Oh. Would Schopenhauer have seen the Will as Freud's ID? If so, there is nothing redeeming in us at the root? But where does reason or rationality fit...

Understood. So for Schopenhauer there is nothing like Brahman or another monistic ultimate reality besides Will which is more like a drive? Sorry, tha...

Right. Words are inevitably problematic. All the more so when I do not share your knowledge of the technical. Projections is misleading. Here's an ove...

Ok. Ive never considered that for Schopenhauer, yet I sensed he wasn't a Buddhist Scholar or anything even for his time. But maybe from what you've ma...

That is definitely the most Reasonable view. You cannot achieve anything outside of the phenomenal because there is no refuge in so called reality. Th...

Hard pill to swallow...hence the squaring of the circle. You may be right, more universally than just this. One thing for sure, it can't be accomplish...

Totally agree. I thought I was framing it in a way conceding to an orthodox view. Causation is misapplied. (But there is the added problem which I con...

I get why ultimately they must just be Will (I have in mind, none of the nuances peculiar to each philosopher. Most basic: will=ground of being; repre...

No doubt

Below is from your conversation above. That is the very point I "think" I am concerned about. Seems to me I should pause again. :smile: Sorry.

Sorry Wayfarer, I just noted your reveal. Thank you. And I see that you might note (not unlike Gnoman) that The "division" is not ontological, between...

Ok, if that's the case, then definitely he places suffering in the category of the real being, and unlike Buddhism, not in the category of Maya/Samsar...

Despite my efforts, and the generous input of others in this thread and otherwise, I have yet to properly grasp (or abandon) what I believe to be some...

:up: :up: Thank you! :

Unless the thing K said we couldn't possibly "know" we simply "are". Knowing belongs to the representations and it cannot "know" (represent) the prese...

Yes I understood that but rehashed it poorly. Ok, that is clarified now. Yes, this is where I have the most trouble and need to understand more thorou...

Of course. I'm getting carried away. I'll follow your good advice.

First, apologies to both of you. Please ignore if it is frustratingly butchering Schopenhauer. For my part, I am grateful to him. "And in all the othe...

I'm reading from Will and Representation. Now, I'm skipping around. Will. He speaks about as if it were an almighty scoundrel, etc. leading to the imp...