Beyond Rationality
Rationality is the faculty of Reason. It involves the abolition of the self, the ability to be logical and consistent, the suppression of emotion, and the capacity to entertain new beliefs. A rational person is creative, but understands that her creativity may be wrong. She does not base her beliefs on fallacies.
It seems that this is a picture perfect description of the path to Buddhist enlightenment: someone who is 100% rational is a Buddha. In the West, so as to avoid confusion from people who think that enlightenment and Buddhahood are emotional states (and not cold logic), we might call such a person a Genius.
So, what Beyond Rationality is is a Genius/Buddha. Is it possible to know if we ourselves are Enlightened? Or is self-knowledge the only way to know for sure? Can an irrational person's judgement of someone else's potential be trusted?
It seems that this is a picture perfect description of the path to Buddhist enlightenment: someone who is 100% rational is a Buddha. In the West, so as to avoid confusion from people who think that enlightenment and Buddhahood are emotional states (and not cold logic), we might call such a person a Genius.
So, what Beyond Rationality is is a Genius/Buddha. Is it possible to know if we ourselves are Enlightened? Or is self-knowledge the only way to know for sure? Can an irrational person's judgement of someone else's potential be trusted?
Comments (17)
Not at all. Rationality is indeed the faculty of reason, but this fact has nothing to do with the 'abolition of self'.
Furthermore, in many places in the Buddhist scriptures, it is said that the enlightenment of the Buddha is 'beyond mere reason'. Buddhists, generally, employ rational argument very well, and indeed in the early buddhist texts there are very many cases of reasoned argument. But the state of wisdom or jnana which is the aim of the Buddhist path is not itself within the scope of reason as it requires insight into dependent origination and related principles.
The idea that anyone could be "100% rational" seems to be extremely delusory. In any case how could you ever know if someone were "100 % rational" unless you were 100 % rational yourself? And then how could you ever tell that you were "100 % rational"? Perhaps a robot would be.
People that claim that emotions are problematic merely display aversion, and tend to look down on, and display disgust towards people they see as passionate. Since ridding themselves of emotion is impossible their own emotions simply become unconscious and their delusional inviolate self image spawns an aversion and distain and cripples their sympathy towards others...
Hi, So like Star Trek Next Generation== Data? Did you ever wonder why Buddha is chubby... the middle way must be OK.
ahem, the icon you're thinking of doesn't depict the Buddha, but a Chinese figure who is something like the Buddhist deity of good fortune and prosperity, named Budai (derived from a legendary Chinese monk).
There is a fast track method for enlightenment though. They say drink deep from the Ganges river and you will attain instant enlightenment, no hard work involved.
A terrifying beast.
I think I said that, as the title of this thread is "Beyond Rationality".
Quoting WayfarerI believe that once reason is mastered, one has reached the beginning. It's like a karateka gaining a black belt. All the moves are known, and now there is room for perfection.
Quoting WosretThe amount of effort that one puts into enlightenment creates momentum, and this momentum is more than enough to sustain life. Clinically depressed people have little motivation, and in most cases they can put on a happy face.
Quoting CavacavaI think this was already mentioned, but "Fat Buddha" is different than Gautama Buddha. It's similar to mistaking Santa Claus and Jesus. Anyway, the Middle Way to enlightenment does not refer to the life of an average person. Rather, it is a criticism of the extreme methods people tried to use to trick themselves into emotional states that they then called "enlightenment". Some people would be gluttons. Others would starve themselves. Some surrounded themselves with riches. Others would live on nothing but what they could forage. Siddhartha Gautama just sat under a tree and thought carefully about the world. He was still just a beggar, wise as he was.
Quoting JohnThat's a problem, and it needs one to trust oneself. How can you trust anything you learn or know if you can't justify your thoughts with knowledge about the Real?
Quoting TheMadFoolI don't know if the rationality of religion is done in good faith, since religions seem to have as little problem justifying irrationality as rationality. How can you trust a belief system where 1 in 3 words is a bold-faced lie?
The problem seems to be that you cannot give a 100% rationally deduced reason for believing that you are 100 % rational. In fact you cannot give a 100 % rationally deduced reason for any belief whatsoever, and thus it would seem to follow that neither you, nor any one else, can be 100 % rational.
Deductively, one counter-example is sufficient for disproof of a premise. Once proven wrong, the rational thing for a person to do is to admit that one had been irrational, and change their beliefs to match their newfound knowledge. Supposing this was a minor belief, it requires a very small fix to prevent a complete collapse. After the change, one should be 100% rational again. If it was a major belief, there may be no realistic fix.
However, it is clear that nobody is 100% rational all the time. It's a never-ending journey to perfection: no person is a Buddha all the time.
There's a big difference between 'not rational' and 'beyond rationality' and you haven't written anything that indicates you know what that might be.
Should check out antonio damasio. Hes pretty good, and argues that intentionality, emotion, motivation goes all the way down through life. We do need to attain the void in order to be truly rational, but its a process of emptying. Forgetting. Deletion. Thinking is taking thing apart, but most importantly putting them back together again. Forgetting it and getting on with life. Through signfication, stress, training, and attention youre prompted to take thing apart. Find out how they work, view them in isolation, with controlled relations... but kept too long, and they decay... treasured too deeply, and everything is seen in relation to them, and they become the nexus through which all things are understood and related to.
Everything begins and ends in the immeasurable, qualitative, but in the middle there, they too need to be forgotten.
There is something to say about passion overcoming us, and preventing us from thinking, but passion is also what prompts thinking.
Rationality is inescapable. Religion is weird because of it's said to be based on faith which I think is a misconception. Why? If I'm not mistaken, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad performed miracles as proof of their divine connection. So, despite religion being touted as faith-based, it's actually not. That's not to say religious arguments are convincing.
Anyway, about what is beyond rationality, I have a feeling that we haven't yet maxed out on what consciousness can achieve. Can we achieve higher levels of consciousness or does our biology set limits? Will AI succeed where we fail? Are there super-intelligent aliens? How do we reach higher conscious states?
Too many unanswered questions....
I always like the term [i]transrational[/I], which I think was coined by Ken Wilber.
Don't need to be particularly rational to have a transrational experience. Indeed, "what is the sound of one hand clapping" is not a rational question.