What are you saying? - a Zen Story

What a dick...

I like this. It's as if the adept learns from the apparent sage or apparent Book that there is no sage and that there is no Book. I also agree that there's a cheap form of spirituality. There's the idea of the prayer that it is like pushing a button on the God machine. Then the God-machine squirts out wealth, health, victory in battle. Of course we want these things, but it's a bit strange to worship the same being that treat like a vending machine. Affirming this world as a whole, stubbornly, seems higher and deeper. "Naked I came and naked I return. Blessed be the name of the Lord (Reality, Life, etc.)"

That's how I see it too. I posted that Koan on Dharmawheel forum, and interestingly the first response on there was along the lines of 'what a dick....' A lot of people thought the young fellow had been insulting to the old man, but that isn't really the intention of the story, as you have discerned.

Moment ruining book burner... I get it, the world can burn, nothing is of any value besides the ideological commitments, and all those screaming in horror are just ignorant, deluded, and don't see the way.

Furthermore buddy says that he's happy with what he knows now, and couldn't possibly conceive of its improvement through a book, or any other means? Really?

Oh, I see the hidden wisdom in all that... I'm so far along the path!

I can see what the story is trying to say, and I can see what the younger man in the story was trying to communicate, which is a deep and important message....

and yet.....

I find myself agreeing with Wosret. The story, and the person in the story, are so concerned with their philosophies that they lose sight of what really matters - people, and their feelings.

I think it's a good example of why, although I am very attracted to Buddhism, Zen is my least favourite variety of it. Sometimes it seems to value harshness and blindness to the feelings of others, in the interests of being in some sense 'spiritually pure'.

Poor old Mu-nan. It's a bit silly to be so attached to an old book. But if we can't be tolerant of older people's harmless sentimental attachments then it's a pretty poor lookout.

If it were about an old book, then I would agree! What I took it to signify, was the importance of the inner meaning, rather than the external form. Like many koans, it is dramatized, but it is not about being cruel to an old guy.

The exclamation 'what are you saying?' is to remind Mu-nan of the importance of the fundamental tenet of Zen, which is 'direct pointing' and not reliant on words and letters (notwithstanding the voluminous literature which Zen has produced!)

The story, and the person in the story, are so concerned with their philosophies that they lose sight of what really matters - people, and their feelings.

On the contrary, it is Mu-Nan who is concerned with his philosophies, signified by his attachment to a book.

Reminds me of:

Can't see the connection, myself, but then, such stories are open to many interpretations.

Explanations notwithstanding, I agree with @andrewk. I understand the point but the presentation puts me off. The feeling that the teaching character is arrogant doesn't jive with my sense of what spirituality is all about. On that score, it brings to mind some of the darker uses of Zen such as when it was taught during WWII as a means to help Japanese soldiers overcome their aversion to slaughtering the enemy.

Well, that's a shame. I did realise the story was dramatic, but what appealed to me was the idea of cutting through the inessentials. I will take heed of what kinds of things to post.

The pupil teaches the master 'presence'. What the master is saying shows his attachment to the past, contrary, presumably, to the very teachings he seeks to preserve. The pupil demonstrates the preservation of the teachings in his own person by his rejection of the value of un-lived teachings. His response is a great kindness in both reawakening the master, and reassuring him that the tradition is still alive. Un-lived teachings are nothing but a burden to the world.

Reply to unenlightened

Burn all the books then?

Reply to Baden

Oh yeah! They're suicide bombers too! The first ones, the original inspiration, and true cause of all subsequent terror events! They hate our freedom, materialism, and "unlived" knowledge. They must take it upon themselves to awaken the world by destroying the things we care about.

Quoting Wayfarer

Well, that's a shame. I did realise the story was dramatic, but what appealed to me was the idea of cutting through the inessentials. I will take heed of what kinds of things to post.

Cutting through inessentials. Zen exists because it was part of Bushido. There was some sword play involved.

Zen Budhhists vary from the older sort in that they don't believe the pathways set out by Buddha are necessary for attaining enlightenment. They believed it can just sort of spontaneously happen. BAM!

I agree with them that people can bungle themselves getting all tied up in some asshole's writings. But I also agree with Zen's critics that it's attractive to some to believe that applying oneself to a path isn't worthwhile. Sometimes facing things about yourself and the world is difficult. A person may strongly desire to instead insulate themselves, perhaps by going on and on about racism to keep themselves from ever noticing what really going on down in there.

Quoting Wosret

Burn all the books then?

No, burn all the second hand inspirational psychobabble peddled by folks who don't practice what they preach. But only the best disciple should burn them in each case. It's not permission to burn someone else's valued traditions, only your own.

Reply to unenlightened

Burn all the books then? Lol.

Writing as one who often defends religious belief on these forums, and cops quite a lot of stick for so doing, I had thought that the iconoclasm of this anecdote would appeal to the contributors here. But instead, sentiment, or manners, prevailed - 'how inconsiderate!' But with no insight into what is at stake - why the story is told, what is important about it.

Mongrel:Zen exists because it was part of Bushido.

Not at all. 'Zen' is the Japanese version of the Chinese 'Ch'an', which pre-dated the absorption of Buddhism by the warrior classes in Japan by centuries.

Quoting andrewk

It's a bit silly to be so attached to an old book.

Not...really?

Quoting Wayfarer

Writing as one who often defends religious belief on these forums, and cops quite a lot of stick for so doing, I had thought that the iconoclasm of this anecdote would appeal to the contributors here. But instead, sentiment, or manners, prevailed - 'how inconsiderate!' But with no insight into what is at stake - why the story is told, what is important about it.

Eh... Rumi says you never escape shadow. Seeing the story in a mundane or vulgar way is part of the shadow created by too much piety. I'm not saying you're pious at all. I'm just saying it's there.. don't you sense that? Westerners sometimes start generating something kind of puke-worthy when they get their hands on asian religion. Poking fun at it just pops the balloon.

Quoting Wayfarer

Not at all. 'Zen' is the Japanese version of the Chinese 'Ch'an', which pre-dated the absorption of Buddhism by the warrior classes in Japan by centuries.

Yes, I know it originated in China. You could have taken my comment the way I intended.. that Zen exists today because it was embraced by the Samurai who ruled for a while. But you chose to bring me shadow. We do that for each other. We're so nice.

Reply to Wayfarer

I would enjoy it... if it were about an individual casting off a burden they didn't need.

But that's closer to the angtheist's (or religious dogmatist) demand to wipe anything which is not them out of existence-- yes, burn the book you've not read and wipe all ideas from the world because it simply could not contain any wisdom or be helpful to anyone. Then there won't be those pesky people who are different than you.

The anecdote goes against its (at least by your reading) own point. To be at ease with one beliefs is not destroy what you do not need (and is deeply important to others), but to know that you do not need it, so you do not feel compelled to "enforce" your ease upon others. The person truly at ease with their outlook wouldn't have been threatened by the book. They would have kept it for those to whom it might be important.

Mongrel:Poking fun at it just pops the balloon.

So we can go back to business-as-usual, right?

Willow:They would have kept it for those to whom it might be important.

The point of the story was about 'attachment to externals', so if he had kept it, there would have been no story to tell.

Yeah, good thing no one burnt the book it was in in order to one up out-enlighten someone.

Reply to Wayfarer The act of burning the book is external too-- the obsession with burning all the unnecessary ideas. He's attached to externals either way. So do we protect the things important to the people around us or do we destroy them?

I do agree with unenlightened's reading though. In that context, it works.

I am truly enlightened as I failed to read the OP. That's what wise people do bitch.

Quoting Wayfarer

So we can go back to business-as-usual, right?

Or go visit the ocean at the end of the lane. Whatever.

Rumi says shut the fuck up.

Quoting Wayfarer

I will take heed of what kinds of things to post.

No, don't be put off! You have set off an interesting discussion on philosophy of religion that, unlike almost all such discussions on philosophy forums, isn't just in some way or other about the existence or non-existence of God. I call that a major achievement!

Continuing the discussion: The 'direct pointing' aspect is part of what I mean when I refer to Zen as seeming harsh and uncaring. So many of the incidences of direct pointing related in koans appear to involve cruelty - making somebody kneel outside in the snow for three days before letting them into the monastery, hitting fidgety meditation students with a stick, dashing out of somebody's hand an offering that is made. The use of the term 'master' for a spiritual teacher also brings to mind authoritarian and military analogies. I don't think the Dalai Lama gets called Master does he?

Maybe I've been reading the wrong books and listening to the wrong podcasts, but I just don't recall coming across Zen materials that have any role for compassion. This contrasts with some other streams of Buddhism in which compassion is primary.

I think there is much wisdom that can be learned from Zen, as there is much wisdom that can be learned from Nietzsche (another somewhat harsh worldview). I try to imbibe that wisdom as best I can. But I would not wish either Zen or Nietzsche to be my guiding philosophy.

A question then - does the concept of bodhisattva get much airplay in Zen? As I understand it, the whole point of the bodhisattva concept is compassion for the unenlightened. A bodhisattva vows not to attain Nirvana until they can enable all others to do so too.

[quote=Wayfater] iconoclasm of this anecdote [/quote]

Contrasted with unenlightened's reading, I can't help but feel there's a lot of Western individualism going in the responses here.

Most seemed to have approached the story as if both men are of separate traditions. As if the book burning amounts to the victory of one individual's ideas over another.

Viewed instead as a tradition held by both, it makes a lot more sense. The burning is a reminder the tradition is lived rather than just laid down in text.

Yeah... but buddy was all like "see this hand written, one of a kind generational book, that was passed on to me by my teacher in a seven generation long tradition, which served as a pivotal character defining moment in my life? This book gives deep insights into the characters and minds of the past seven masters, and I painstakingly left my own mark, after years of work and consideration. I hope that it is useful to you, and even a fraction as meaningful as it was to me, it is incredibly valuable, nay priceless... if I had anything close to a child..."

And the other guy was all like "oh yeah... into the flames", and then responded sarcastically to his cries of shock and anguish.

Being in the same tradition doesn't stop buddy from coming off as an antisocial ideologue bully.

But the old dying man was sort of pushing it on him... like: "No no! You have to take it and show respect for the sacred documentation!"

Where's mcdoodle. Somebody should write a play.

I know, but he could have at least pretended to like it, and if at all possible, have the old man witness a variety of comical and inappropriate uses for it, degrading it over time. Gotta stretch it out over time, savor it.

Willow:Viewed instead as a tradition held by both, it makes a lot more sense. The burning is a reminder the tradition is lived rather than just laid down in text.

Absolutely! That is exactly what it is getting at.

Mongrel:Rumi says shut the fuck up.

Makes for bad forum conversations, though.

AndrewK:Maybe I've been reading the wrong books and listening to the wrong podcasts, but I just don't recall coming across Zen materials that have any role for compassion. This contrasts with some other streams of Buddhism in which compassion is primary.

I know perfectly well what you mean. This story, by the way, was reproduced in a very well-known paperback, called Zen Flesh, Zen Bones, by Paul Reps.



It was first published in the early 60's and was very popular during that period; that and Alan Watts' The Way of Zen were the two books that first interested me (and millions of others) in Zen.

But again, I don't think the point of the story is blatant disregard for an old man's feelings. The whole point about Zen (and granted it has been mythologised and polemicised) is 'direct pointing, outside words and letters'. So the story illustrates that the senior teacher had forgotten this elementary fact, and has been set straight by his student.

Don't forget elsewhere in this genre, exhortations such as 'if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him', and other exclamations comparing the Buddha and the patriachs to old fools and the scriptures to toilet paper. It is part of the polemical technique of Zen, and sometimes it is shocking, but it is always concerned with 'direct pointing'. What I admire about it, is exactly the way it deflates priestly cant and religiosity. Many of the iconic figures of Zen were tramps and vagrants. (And actually the comparison with Rumi is apt, the Sufis are very similar, for which they were often horribly persecuted by other Muslims.)

AndrewK:A question then - does the concept of bodhisattva get much airplay in Zen? As I understand it, the whole point of the bodhisattva concept is compassion for the unenlightened.

I post on Dharmawheel and have asked the same question there. And the answer is that it absolutely is. But it is a compassion can sometimes appear harsh, something that is sometimes referred to as 'ruthless compassion'. Zen is concerned with ultimate realities, what is not going to get burned off in the wheel of life and death. And oriental culture is very harsh in some respects, no question there. Obviously, when Zen was used to rationalise war crimes and imperial conquest, which it was (the definitive book being Zen at War, Brian Victoria), then anything like 'compassion' has been thrown out the window. But I would like to think that this was an aberration. There were also Zen priests who were imprisoned for conscientious objection. And generally speaking Buddhism is resolutely opposed to imposition of order by force or violence. The Buddha wasn't necessarily a pacifist, but there is not a single example of him recommending or using any kind of physical coercion or force throughout his teaching career.

deleted, wrong spot!

To introduce a dissenting voice here (although I'm not playing devil's advocate - this is my real opinion), the starkness of Zen Buddhism is part of what appeals to me about it. My normal approach to such things is to get all theoretical, but Zen just slaps that out of my hands. Perhaps that's why I like it - I'm the sort of dopey person who responds only to a sound smack upside the head, and Zen delivers that, literally and figuratively.

Also, what Unenlightened said.

Hey, I'm all for tough love when deserved, but most importantly, and significantly it isn't in this case. There are no significant stakes. He's being a dick to an old man, not actually to convey any wisdom, teaching, or anything helpful at all, in this case, he's wrong, and his beliefs are stupid. He's being a dick to someone, because of the wrong and stupid things he thinks.

Don't you also find the talk of tradition inconsistent and ironic? It's a misunderstanding of the teaching, and not properly living it to keep such a book, according to the tradition, even though the book is seven generations old... so like at least two hundred years. That's quite a tradition... also if the tradition is to badmouth the tradition, and teaching as something to be discarded, then aren't you actually failing to do that by ritualistically just going through the motions of saying what you're supposed to about saying what you're not supposed to? Wouldn't praising the tradition, and keeping a valued possession actually be more in line with the teaching?

Reply to Wosret True. Mystical traditions sometimes stray into moral ambiguity, though. The Tao Te Ching does. So does Rumi. Maybe this was the Zen lesson about how to be an asshole.

Reply to Mongrel

Now that's something I can believe he's a master of.

Zen conjures a setting of Japanese austerity, essentially a kind of brutal boot camp for the initiate.

Drill instructors always are characterized as assholes but that is part of the tradition.

Maybe the superior is getting a taste of his own medicine in a humorous way (if Zen makes everything easy, everything is already resolved).

Wosret:Wouldn't praising the tradition, and keeping a valued possession actually be more in line with the teaching?

'Keeping something' would not really be in keeping with the spirit of Zen, which is basically renuciate in orientation.

The legendary founding of Zen is an apocryphal story in which ??kyamuni (i.e. the Buddha) gives a wordless sermon to the sangha by holding up a single flower while remaining completely silent. No one in the audience understands what he means - except Mah?k??yapa, who smiles. This prompts ??kyamuni to say:

I possess the true Dharma eye, the marvelous mind of Nirv??a, the true form of the formless, the subtle Dharma Gate that does not rest on words or letters but is a special transmission outside of the scriptures. This I entrust to Mah?k??yapa.

Woodblock portrait of Mah?k??yapa.

So that is the 'legendary founding' of the tradition, which was then said to be have been transmitted 'mind to mind' by the patriarchs of the Ch'an and Zen tradition (although again, aspects of the history are apocryphal.)
-------------
Of course there's a paradox in the 'tradition of no tradition' and 'the teaching of no teaching'. But Zen thrives on paradox. The founding sutras of Zen Buddhism, like the Lankavatara Sutra, and the Diamond Sutra, are full of paradox.

Quoting Wosret

Oh yeah! They're suicide bombers too! The first ones, the original inspiration, and true cause of all subsequent terror events! They hate our freedom, materialism, and "unlived" knowledge. They must take it upon themselves to awaken the world by destroying the things we care about.

Hmm, have you been overdosing on Manga again, Wos? ;)

Reply to Baden

I wish...

I always find what seems to me to be a lot of formalized 'proving your enlightenment' and an unhealthy preoccupation with certification and lineage in Zen literature. So, I tend to interpret this story as showing the young, over-enthusiastic and lacking-in-subtlety upstart who is really, despite his apparent iconoclasm, a boringly conventional embodiment of political correctness, and simply does not recognize that such a significant artifact may be imbued with spiritual value and might warrant being highly valued, without any detrimental sense of attachment. For me Zen is just another organized religion, with all the attendant shortcomings, although of course, like all religions, not without its great sages and thinkers.

So if he had given the book to you, you would have taken it, bowed, and respectfully set it aside.... ;)

I can't say what I would have done. It would depend on the particular circumstances. Of course, the interpretation I gave is only one of a number of possible interpretations; you would have to have been there, and even then...

The cruelty thing.

If you are foolish enough to hire a personal trainer, you expect him to push you to do things you are reluctant to do, to hold you to a regime when you want to abandon it. You don't want him to indulge your weakness. The self cannot be transcended by such indulgence.

So when your trainer gets tired and weak, you become his trainer, and hold him to the standard he has set for himself as he has done for you.

The master has not mastered the pupil, but mastered himself, except that in this case he has slipped. The pupil is not looking to become the master of anyone but himself. Seeing the master slip, he hauls him back from the abyss and doesn't worry about a a little rope burn to the ego.

"Transcending the self"- it seems to be a meaningless idea...

Au contraire. 'When you've seen beyond yourself you will realise that you are very small and life flows on within you and without you' ~ George Harrison.

Quoting John

"Transcending the self"- it seems to be a meaningless idea...

Well you understand it in the context of physical training - crossing the pain barrier; not being self-indulgent. One 'pushes oneself' necessarily from a place of exteriority to the self that is being pushed. That is why the trainer is useful, apart from a certain expertise, as the psychological support against the weakness of oneself.

It's only a meaningless idea if you are entirely single-minded and at one with the universe.

Quoting unenlightened

Well you understand it in the context of physical training - crossing the pain barrier; not being self-indulgent. One 'pushes oneself' necessarily from a place of exteriority to the self that is being pushed. That is why the trainer is useful, apart from a certain expertise, as the psychological support against the weakness of oneself.

So for the record, this statement has absolutely nothing to do with Buddhism (Zen or otherwise). It appears to be some sort of S&M spirituality.

[quote=unenlightened]It's only a meaningless idea if you are entirely single-minded and at one with the universe.[/quote]As if you would know. Give me a break.

Quoting Mongrel

So for the record, this statement has absolutely nothing to do with Buddhism (Zen or otherwise). It appears to be some sort of S&M spirituality.

For the record, it's a statement about fitness regimes. Personally, I find declarations of meaninglessness applied to well used phrases a bit suspect. Especially when unaccompanied by any analysis of the internal contradictions that might make them so.

I hope you are familiar with the use of analogy. The basis of the analogy is that one subordinates oneself to a strict regime in order to achieve a goal fitness, or enlightenment. Both are somewhat difficult and serious undertakings that require that one take pains to achieve them. Neither has the least connection with S&M, and it is an uncharitable smear to suggest it.

I take it that you do not appreciate my thoughts. I'd be grateful if you would just ignore them, since you do not wish to engage with them.

Quoting Mongrel

As if you would know.

As if you would know what I am in a position to know. This is just childish isn't it. It is also a really misguided putdown on your part, since I am claiming that the phrase has meaning for the unenlightened - so I am indeed in exactly the position to know.

Quoting Mongrel

Give me a break.

Have a break.

Quoting unenlightened

I take it that you do not appreciate my thoughts. I'd be grateful if you would just ignore them, since you do not wish to engage with them.

It would have been appropriate for you to have prefaced your earlier statements with "These are my personal thoughts and shouldn't be construed as explaining anything about Zen Buddhism." In that case, I wouldn't have responded to your post.

Quoting unenlightened

since I am claiming that the phrase has meaning for the unenlightened - so I am indeed in exactly the position to know.

So again, it would be appropriate for you to offer your opinion on whether "transcendence of self" has meaning. Explain what it means to you. Perhaps offer that you've observed that in your language community, it has meaning x. Or if you wanted to be astonishing, you could have asked John why he supposes that the phrase has no meaning.

Again... if you want to reign in the authoritative tone, I'll be happy to ignore your posts.

Anything worthwhile about religions relates to the idea of transcending self, which is a lot harder to do than to say. Self is a pattern of habits, associations, graspings, ideas, and judgements - a cultural construct, a psychological mechanism, and the centre of our imaginary world. Seeing through that, letting go of it, surpassing it, is certainly the aim of Zen.

To study the buddha way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self.

Dogen Zen-ji, Genjo-koan.

Reply to Wayfarer Reply to unenlightened

I can see the point of the idea of self-transcendence in the ordinary sense of evolutionary change from one state to another. Also, I can understand the sense, as in the George Harrison quote, of seeing the countless others and the larger world, beyond the 'little' self.

In regard to the Koan, again, I think it shows the absolutist presupposition of Shoju, as to what state of mind Mu-nan was in and 'should' be in. Since there is no absolute 'final state' in the evolution of the soul, (and that is why I find the idea of self-transcendence in that implied sense meaningless) how could Shoju know that sentimental feeling would not be beneficial for Mu-nan at that point, or even know that it was under the influence of sentimental feeling that Mu-nan was acting in that moment?

In short I think individual's are responsible for their own development, and are in the best position to assess 'where they are at', the ability of so-called 'masters' to possibly facilitate spiritual growth notwithstanding.

Also, in relation to the burning of books; would Zen even exist as an institution today if not for canonical literature? I would say 'no', and wouldn't that purported fact, if accepted, warrant spiritual respect for anything that constitutes the preservation of the tradition for the future? Mu-nan's reaction may have had nothing to do with any sentimental feelings; he may simply have been angry on account of Shoju's simple-mindedness.

I did address the paradoxical quality of Zen - that it is 'a tradition that criticizes tradition'. (Although actually, the connotation of 'book-burning' hadn't occured to me, and besides, the volume that was burned was something like a 'teachers notebook' rather than a printed volume.) And again, the point of the koan is to drive home the central idea of Zen, 'direct pointing without recourse to words and letters'.

One of the unique characteristics of Buddhism is the analogy that Buddhism itself is simply 'a raft to cross the river'. To paraphrase: when the 'other shore' is reached, then all teachings are relinquished 1. So in this understanding, Buddhism, or any teaching, is like 'a finger pointing at the moon'. Zen, in particular, emphasises that perspective - 'don't get hung up on externals'. Of course as many scholars have pointed out, in so doing it has produced a voluminous commentarial literature! But there is also a constant theme in that literature, that 'words and letters' are simply signs and symbols, that are pointing to a larger and elusive truth. (And I don't think you see that awareness in, for example, the Christian tradition, it is one of the key differentiators of Buddhism in my view.)

John:I can see the point of the idea of self-transcendence in the ordinary sense of evolutionary change from one state to another.

What do you mean by 'evolutionary'? If you're referring to the 'evolution of consciousness', well and good, but that is not within the ambit of evolutionary biology per se.

But more than that, self-transcendence is the central insight of the great traditions. The 'sacrifice of the self' is the basis of the Christian faith - 'he that looses his life for My sake will be saved'. All of the spiritual traditions point to the transcendence of ego. The Christians talk in terms of union with deity, which is different from the Buddhist approach, but in both the key understanding is self-transcendence. That's what makes them a religious ethos!

Quoting Wayfarer

Although actually, the connotation of 'book-burning' hadn't occured to me, and besides, the volume that was burned was something like a 'teachers notebook' rather than a printed volume.

Yes, but it is a teacher's notebook handed down through seven generations; and what else is it that is destined to become the canonical literature? Blue Cliff Record? Transmission of The Lamp? There are many such compilations I believe. Perhaps the book the young idiot burned could have become one of them, and benefited future generations.

It's all very well to say that I no longer need the teaching, and abandon the raft, but what about those to come? How will they cross the river? In any case I think the idea of absolute self-transcendence is nonsense; if anything self-transcendence it is a never-ending spiritual evolution (and I wasn't referring to Darwinian understandings of evolution), there is no 'final state', as I said earlier. This makes the analogy of crossing the river somewhat inapt; it is more like crossing an endless ocean whose far shore ever recedes, and maybe changing rafts or vessels as they become progressively unsuitable for the conditions. In that case the abandoned rafts should not be burned or sunk but left floating for others that may benefit from taking them up as needed.

So, the transcendence of self is an ideal, and it can only be, if anything, the progressive relinquishing of a lower self to allow a higher self to begin to take control. There has never been a perfect man, not even Jesus.

John: In any case I think the idea of absolute self-transcendence is nonsense; if anything self-transcendence it is a never-ending spiritual evolution (and I wasn't referring to Darwinian understandings of evolution), there is no 'final state', as I said earlier.

That is where you will differ with the Buddhist understanding, insofar as that is what Nirv??a is. I won't attempt to persuade you, but I think it is worth pointing that out.

Reply to Wayfarer

OK, but even if it is granted, for the sake of argument, that there could be a final state; what about the future generations that might have benefited from the burned book? Isn't it shortsighted and selfish not to seek to preserve every possible spiritual resource for the future?

But iit is not a story about book-burning, per se. In fact, had I realised that it was, how shall we say, invoking the imagery of 'book-burning', then I never would have posted it, there many other koans that make a similar point :(

Personal trainers are terrible scams, and it isn't good for you to go to the gym and kick your ass, and be sore as shit the next day. Can you do that everyday? Were you comfortable with the things you did? Did you sacrifice form, stability, and control for more more more? Almost certainly you did, because if you don't feel the burn, if it isn't super difficult, and you aren't dead the next day they must be bad at their jobs. They give you what you want, which is not to be healthy and in shape, a life long constant endeavor. No, what you really want is to whip yourself, and make sacrifices and then to continue with business as usual. Think that they do that to themselves? Nope, but it's a fantastic selling point, because it's what people expect, and the super cereal about it think that trainers are shit unless they're yelling slogans at you in between yelling "push it!" "one more"!

Lions sleep for 21 hours a day, and are probably the laziest animals on the planet, but I still wouldn't fuck with one.

There's also the problem that there is no ideal proper human form, there is no proper way to do anything. We're all fairly similar, so lots will be applicable to most everyone, but more than likely some fitness expert will be pushing the stuff that they thought worked for them, with zero insight into what may work for you, and often wrong about the effects it had on them.

I of course don't do that, I see what people are actually doing, what they're feeling, I do, and feel it too, which is difficult only to the extent that it feels weird, wrong and unnatural at first, a tad uncomfortable too, and you have to constantly remember to do it and feel it all the time, but eventually you're doing it without thinking about it!

That's what I do, I care not for the inferior methods of others.

Reply to Wayfarer

It may not be the intention of the story to focus on the issue of book-burning, but nonetheless, a book is burned; and I don't see how that can be irrelevant the import of the story, and to what we might think about the characters.

Quoting Wosret

Personal trainers are terrible scams, and it isn't good for you to go to the gym and kick your ass, and be sore as shit the next day.

Actually the latest research in sports science shows that it is very good for you to do precisely that; but not so often that your muscles do not have time to recover and grow stronger.

Reply to John

Yeah, I'm sure that the latest research in bro science says just that.

I found that studying Tae Kwon Do while getting divorced is a quick way to get cut because you're exercising like crazy, but not eating. I guess the Auschwitz look comes next, but I never got that far.

Reply to Wosret

Ignore-ance at your own peril...bro...

:-}

Reply to John You know that you can die from over training? If too much of the contents of muscles gets into your blood stream, you can die. In lower amounts, and some amounts of course will get into the blood stream, it's still rough on the kidneys and liver, and makes you feel unnecessarily, and especially like shit. What were the benefits you never mentioned?

Reply to Mongrel

Yeah everyone's cut if they're lean enough. What's more interesting is where you hold your fat, which is indicative of your posture. If it isn't fairly evenly distributed, it's indicative of a postural asymmetry.

I like the idea of understanding the story as a wake up call. The student crassly helping the master, to realize the error of his attachment to the book.

I don't know if his crassness was necessary.

Maybe the student had to defy, to debase his master's legacy, to negate his master's value system, as one which he knows, that he is immersed in, and one that he needs no book to practice. The story as a negation (burning) of traditional values (book). His rebellious action as his first steps in a new direction.

Reply to John Reply to Wayfarer

To have a final state misreads the point. No-one has a final state. By death they are gone, before death they have not ended. So called "transcending the self" is really aiming to access one's significance that's not dependent on any particular state of the world-- the logical expression of one existence.

Or in Sartre's terms the existence which "proceeds" (or perhaps "is regardless") of essence.

The problem is that it's not about transcending the self. It's just approximating fiction. Rather than realise that infinite expressed by the self, it supposedly given over to some other act or idea-- God, a tradition, buying stuff, freedom, evolution, etc., etc. Even Sartre made this mistake, offering freedom as transedence of self, despite his identification of the infinite of self.

What is sought is not a final state, but a realisation of the self regardless of states. As such it's not really about one's tradition (e.g. religious, atheist, reductionist, idealist, etc.,etc.), but one's awareness of infinite self along with what one happens to be doing.

John:It may not be the intention of the story to focus on the issue of book-burning, but nonetheless, a book is burned; and I don't see how that can be irrelevant the import of the story, and to what we might think about the characters.

Point conceded.

Willow of Darkness, I have read your words - and yet I doubt them! Seems to me you're simply affirming egotism. But long and hard experience has taught me that whatever words I send your way will simply go into the blender. :(

Reply to Wosret

Note the qualifier: "overtraining". Having acknowledged that over-training could be detrimental to health and counterproductive for the goal of strengthening muscles, I will ask how many people have you heard of who are documented to have died, or even suffered serious detriments to their health, from over-training?
Google 'health benefits of strength training' and educate yourself a little if you are actually interested in the subject beyond issuing uninformed proclamations.
Alternatively if you can provides links to any research that has found that strength training as such is harmful to health, then please share them.
Also note that within the discipline two or three sessions 30 - 45 minutes in duration of moderate intensity muscle training, or one 10-15 minute session of high intensity training per week is commonly considered to be the optimum level for muscle strengthening and benefit for general health.

Reply to John

I see that you just misunderstood me. You can do a google search of death from over training. I heard of an entire basketball team being hospitalized from it.

Reply to Wosret

So, you are admitting that moderate strength training may be beneficial to health?

Reply to John

As long as you admit that not all pigeons are in on it.

There is a strong link between Asian Buddhism and martial arts, quite aside from the Bushido culture and the incorporation of Zen into Japanese militarism. I did karate training for 18 months in my early twenties - sucked at it - but it sure worked you out, and I really appreciated the cultural disciplines that came along with it. There's a particular kind of sensibility that it embodies.

Reply to Wosret

By the way I googled 'death from over-training' and all the articles I could find dealt with excessive cardio-vascular training, which is not the subject under dispute. The latest research-informed current thinking is that heart and general health is benefited by a very moderate weekly number of short sessions of high-intensity cardio-vascular exercise (such as hill-sprinting) and not long sessions of moderate intensity exercise, (such as jogging) and the potential negative effect of the latter is greater the more weekly sessions there are, and the longer those sessions are.

Reply to John

Factual matters are not really something that require arguing. If you are now saying, as you appear to be, that rhabdomyolysis cannot be, or never is caused by extraneous muscle exercises, then all I can say is that's certainly not what I've read. I did not read all of the articles I could find from "death from over-training", as there were seven million results... but I guess that I must be mistaken, but I encourage everyone to look into it.

Reply to Wayfarer

Agreed, I have always been interested in martial arts and have practiced Tai Chi for many years on and off. I have always enjoyed physical activities such as gymnastics (when I was younger) and bushwalking (still) (although I loath the 'tribalism' of team sport). Lately I have gotten into strength training for general health and particularly to enable me to continue working in landscaping (my only means of livelihood) for as many years to come as possible (I am 63 this year and still healthy, strong and fit).

Reply to Wosret

I have certainly not been saying anything about rhabdomyolysis, the first thing that comes to mind is that I have read there is some evidence it may be caused, in a very small percentage of people, by statins.

On Medline Plus (the first site that appeared on a search 'rhabdomyolysis') I found this:

Problems that may lead to this disease include:

Trauma or crush injuries
Use of drugs such as cocaine, amphetamines, statins, heroin, or PCP
Genetic muscle diseases
Extremes of body temperature
Ischemia or death of muscle tissue
Low phosphate levels
Seizures or muscle tremors
Severe exertion, such as marathon running or calisthenics
Lengthy surgical procedures
Severe dehydration

This thread has become very off-topic; but that seems somehow appropriate for a thread about Koans.
:)

Oh yeah, you remember reading about that within the last ten minutes...

Still trying to say that it has nothing to do with it, but is all about cartiovascular problems... what is "rhabdomyolysis"?

Reply to Wayfarer I expected as much, for the self is the most vile, worthless thing in according to the "religious" texts and ideas you suggest are the requirements for wisdom and insight. What could be more unwise than selves that matter?

Nothing, to such religious thought, for it renders the religious thought and associated traditions unnecessary for a fulfilling life. If the self means, ones does not need a new idea or tradition that promises fulfilment. Transcending the self is not required-- that book of tradition may be burnt.

What I spoke about is certainly compatible with egoism. There are Egoists who are aware of their infinte self (just as there are people from all sorts philosophies and faiths). Their mistakes about ethics don't mean their life is somehow less fulfilling. Just as the fictional nature of "transcending the self" doesn't undo how fulfilling it is to someone who believes in it-- what they believe might be a fiction, but their fulfilled self is not.

Reply to Wosret

If you are referring to the 'statin' thing I remember reading about it some years ago, because my father has been on statins for over thirty years and the tendons of both his biceps had some time before my reading about statins and rhabdomyolysis torn away from the bone on the upper side, and out of concern I did a bit of 'google' research.

I don't understand your last sentence...but to answer the question there (despite that I don't get the purpose of it); rhabdomyolysis is a muscle-wasting disease.

Willow:the self is the most vile, worthless thing in according to the "religious" texts and ideas you suggest are the requirements for wisdom and insight. What could be more unwise than selves that matter?

But it's not, actually. Why do you think Christians say that Christ died for sinners? Why do Mahayana Buddhist vow not to enter Nirv??a until all sentient beings are awakened?

Transcending the self is not about reviling or denigrating it. It is more a matter of seeing through the self's illusions about itself.

Reply to Wayfarer Because they don't believe the self matters unless saved by Jesus-- follow or you are worthless unrepentant sinner.

Mariner had a great thread on the PF before the crash about how Christianity expects a violence world because it lays bare the scapegoating of the individual and shows how absurd it is.

The essence of Christianity, however, is to scapegoat. God, in sacrificing Jesus, used the ultimate scapegoat. While this is great for showing absudity, it is also the ultimate example of what it's critiquing.

If scapegoating is mindless violence, then the sacrifice of Jesus is entirely unnecessary for sinners to be worthwhile-- God is the prime example of the problem.

Sinners ought not have to pay for their sin to be worthwhile. The violence committed in response to past sin cannot undo it. It would just be a scapegoat to appease the powerful. (God in this case).

To be a sinner AND to matter (as is true of all of us) is the most truthful position. The only one unburdened by the illusions past misdeeds can be paid for through death of a scapegoat.

Christianity cannot stand this idea- the love of the sinner not as someone to be saved, but as the self who has sinned. To the Christian the self of the sinner must be degenerate-- they need to be saved by Jesus.

A similar relationship to self exists in Buddhism, though tends not to be predatory. It offers a set of traditions and practices which are, on some level thought to required for better the self. The idea someone already matters in themselves is alien to them. Almost everyone supposedly needs to take steps to achieve Nirv?na. The idea there are many people who have already achived Nirv?na, who are going about the world with a self that matters is considered absurd and rejected as basis of the belief.

"Transcending the self" is about seeing through an illusion of the self. All those beliefs are about having a fiction about the self which removes the illusion of the worthless self. Jesus' sacrifice turns the degenerate self into something worthwhile by taking away our sin. Taking steps towards Nirv?na quells our frustration with ourselves.

But each leaves a fundamental illusion of self intact: the worthless self. Like we did before adopting an idea of "transcending the self," we still think our self is worthless-- why do you think we are so desperate to transcend it? " We posit our worth in terms of following an idea, text or tradition, rather than in terms of the self. Even as we break the illusion we don't matter, we are still caught under the spell that our selves are worthless.

Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness

But each leaves a fundamental illusion of self intact: the worthless self. Like we did before adopting an idea of "transcending the self," we still think our self is worthless-- why do you think we are so desperate to transcend it? " We posit our worth in terms of following an idea, text or tradition, rather than in terms of the self. Even as we break the illusion we don't matter, we are still caught under the spell that our selves are worthless.

Awesome post, Willow. I could write for a while giving examples of how what you're saying is true of both Christianity and Buddhism. I don't think it's quite the whole truth, though.

The symbolism behind a Gothic cathedral is that when entering, you shed your unique, earthly identity and enter the protected sanctum of the House of God. In the same way voting is a symbol of the establishment of the voice of the people, just walking into a Gothic cathedral is a symbol of unification with God. It would appear that the self must be pretty awesome to be worthy of blending with God. Bernard McGinn, an expert in Christian mysticism, explains Eckhart's teaching. It's that down deep inside, God was always there. It's the foundation of your being. We're all like dandelions growing out of the same spot. Each dandelion face rises up to peer into other faces, not realizing that every face is a facet of the same thing. By this scheme, transcendence of self is not exactly loss of self. It means realizing that you are me. Losing isolation, I guess.

Losing yourself is going beyond ego. Easy to say but very hard to enact, especially in a culture which puts ego at the centre of everything.

Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness

The anecdote goes against its (at least by your reading) own point.

The story comes to us from a book; it is a teaching story. It seems to teach that the story, nor the book are valuable, but that the value is elsewhere. It relates to the story about the finger pointing at the moon - don't worry about the finger, look where it is pointing. The finger does not reach the moon, or transmit the moon; forget the finger, look to the moon.

"If the book is such an important thing, you had better keep it," Shoju replied. "I received your Zen without writing and am satisfied with it as it is."

"I know that," said Mu-nan. "Even so, this work has been carried from master to master for seven generations, so you may keep it as a symbol of having received the teaching. Here."

The book, the story, is a 'symbol', a pointing finger. It does indeed work against itself; it points away from itself.

At the risk of creating another valueless story, I will pontificate about the moon.

[quote=Lao Tzu]The sage lets go of that and chooses this.[/quote]

The influence of Chinese philosophy has already been mentioned. Central to this is the notion of flow, first expounded in the I Ching, and later in the Dao and continued by Chang Tzu. Letting go of that is letting go of the past, and in letting go of the past one lets go also of the future because the future is the projection of the past. This connects directly to the Buddhist tradition because it forms the structure of desire. Desire consists of an image from the past which one seeks to achieve in the future. It gives rise to suffering because it makes the present unsatisfactory. This is the present; this is the moon.

It is a challenge to Western tradition, steeped in original sin and the work ethic and self-improvement and the life of the mind as thought. It is a challenge to every tradition, including itself. The challenge is to understand that life is now - to understand immediately. As the parrots in Huxley's Island say, 'Be here now.'

It requires letting go of all that which is everything one thinks one is or was or ought to be or will be; letting go of the valuable tradition.

I obtained not the least thing from unexcelled,
complete awakening, and for this very reason it
is called 'unexcelled, complete awakening.

Siddhartha Gautama,from the Vajracchedika.

Reply to Wayfarer "just as a man would tie to a post a calf that should be tamed, even so here should one tie one's own mind tight to the object of mindfulness"

Reply to Punshhh Hi Punshhhh glad to see you! That is from the Sathipattana sutta, I believe.

Hi wayfarer, it's nice to see familiar faces again after the other forum caught a cold.

Yes I think it is from the Satipathana sutra, (I am no scholar) I was thinking of the Ox herding pictures. This has been the most meaningful teaching for me from Zen.

From an article by Dr.Walpola Rahula

" This bhikku’s mind (i.e. the meditator’s mind),/which was for a long time scattered among such objects as visible forms (rupadisu arammanesu) does not like to enter into the path (street) of a subject of meditation (kammatthana-vithi), but runs only into a wrong path like a chariot yoked to an untamed (unruly) bull. Just as a herdsman, who desires to break in an untamed calf grown up with all the milk it has drunk from the untamed (mother) cow, would remove it from the cow, and having fixed a big post on a side would tie the .calf to it with a rope; and then that calf of his, struggling this way and that, unable to run away, may sit down or lie down close to the post."

I expect that at the front of the book which was thrown on the fire were some illustrations of tethered oxen, so that aspirants might ponder their task. Without the book the teaching may become lost.

@ TheWillowOfDarkness

I agree, like the tethered calf, the self is a being, an animal, a living entity, a soul, a creature. Something which exists, we know this because there are selves which don't have minds (in the sense we as humans experience mind).

So one can annihilate the self in our thoughts, our ego, our mind and we will still exist, we will still be here, (while our body lives). Infact little will have changed.

Reply to Punshhh I expect that at the front of the book which was thrown on the fire were some illustrations of tethered oxen, so that aspirants might ponder their task. Without the book the teaching may become lost.

What I think you're referring to, is the Ten Oxherding Pictures which are a traditional Zen teaching.

The book that was 'thrust into the brazier' was described as 'a book' to which the preceeding generations of teachers had added material. I don't think that it is intended to convey that this book was a scriptural text, and there was no mention of any specific content.

I have given it some thought and have concluded that it works well as a koan because of the juxtaposition of "what are you doing?" and "what are you saying?" and the shock factor conveyed. Rather like the unexpected thwack of a stick on your back. And as you say it is not scripture, but rather a collection of personal thoughts forming a lineage from teacher to student through the generations. So all that is being lost is this lineage some personal thoughts therein and an emotional attachment and significance of such a document.

There is a sense that those significant insights had by the teacher have been conveyed to the student already, verbally. That any significant insights conveyed from the previous generation by the teacher of the teacher along with the six generations before that would have been conveyed only verbally and any attempts to formulate them in the written word in the book would loose some verbal direct transmission and would rather become a confusing distraction from the task at hand.

Reply to Punshhh That's exactly how I see it.

MU!

( I say this while not wanting to reduce the conversation to a negation of conversation, which so often happens to threads about Zen. It would be nice to contribute to a conversation which doesn't end this way)

Reply to Wayfarer Like my father keeps reminding me, practice what you preach and were I there in their company when all this transpired I would've loved to point a finger at Shoju and scream at the top of my voice, "tu quoque fallacy!" but that would've been pointless, Zen being about breaking logic not fixing it! :up:

There's a lot of grey areas though...other deeper interpretations seem possible and likelier.

Quoting Punshhh

And as you say it is not scripture, but rather a collection of personal thoughts forming a lineage from teacher to student through the generations. So all that is being lost is this lineage some personal thoughts therein and an emotional attachment and significance of such a document.

There is a sense that those significant insights had by the teacher have been conveyed to the student already, verbally. That any significant insights conveyed from the previous generation by the teacher of the teacher along with the six generations before that would have been conveyed only verbally and any attempts to formulate them in the written word in the book would loose some verbal direct transmission and would rather become a confusing distraction from the task at hand.

I see another (additional) dimension, or possibility opened by the burning of the book. Of course the act of burning a book is sacrilegious or at the very least shocking but that’s part of the style. It’s a hyperbole coding for something less shocking: the necessary distance one should take with tradition. Maybe the student wanted to write his own book, based on tradition evidently (the oral teaching of his master is seen by the student as primordial), but also radically departing here or there from tradition. Maybe he was not content with writing comments in the margins of someone else’s book.

Reply to Olivier5 :up: I think that is correct.

It was pointed out on Dharmawheel by Meido-roshi that this is not a koan at all, but an anecdote. It was among those published by the very popular Zen Flesh Zen Bones by Paul Reps, which was a best-selling Penguin edition in the 1960's and 70's. (Hence I’ve retrospectively changed the thread title.)

I think that since the successor had no desire to keep the book he hadn't learned everything which the master had to teach. If he had learned everything, then just like those before him, he would have learned the value of the book. But I don't think the master chose an appropriate way to introduce the successor to the book, so it was really the master's fault for failing in teaching.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If he had learned everything, then just like those before him, he would have learned the value of the book.

But that doesn't allow for the fact that in Zen/Ch'an Buddhism the basic principle of the practice is 'special transmission outside the scriptures'. It is a 'mind-to-mind' or intuitive grasp of realisation, which comprises Prajñ?p?ramit?.

This is illustrated in the painting of the Sixth Patriach Hui Neng 'tearing up the sutras':



It seems shocking and even sacreligious but it's part of the iconoclastic approach of Zen. But it's also a paradox, in that while apparently deprecating scriptures, Ch'an/Zen has produced a voluminous literature, spanning centuries.

The Parable of the Raft

In one of the early Buddhist texts (those are the texts that are preserved in Pali, although these have also been translated to Chinese and Japanese where they're referred to as the Agamas), the Buddha compares his teaching (and by implication the whole of Buddhism) to a raft. In this simile, a traveller (the spiritual aspirant) sees 'a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other.' The 'great expanse of water' is Sa?s?ra, which needs to be 'crossed' in order to arrive at the further shore.

But in the absence of a ferryboat, the traveller says 'What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?'

Then, having 'crossed over', the Buddha asks, would the traveller say 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying it on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?"

To which the answer is, obviously, 'No, Lord!'

The simile concludes: 'I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."

I think this is one of the seminal texts which differentiates Buddhism from the Biblical religions, and religion generally - even many ritual forms of Buddhism itself - as they do indeed 'put the raft on a pedestal'. (Note also the image of 'the raft' being makeshift, hastily constructed with whatever is at hand. Nothing mass-produced or pre-planned!)

I thought there was no resurrection in Zen!

Quoting Wayfarer

But that doesn't allow for the fact that in Zen/Ch'an Buddhism the basic principle of the practice is 'special transmission outside the scriptures'.

What about the value of the "special transmission" which is the act of passing down the book? That is, the act itself. Obviously there is value in this act or it would not have been practiced by one after the other of the chain of masters. But the value is not within the book itself, it's in the act of passing down the book. At Christmas, we tend to give each other gifts, often meaningless things that no one really wants. We say that it is "the thought that counts". And so it is the act of giving which is significant, not the physical thing given.

This act of passing the book, is the 'special transmission outside the scriptures'. If the book is gone, then there will no longer be the act of passing down the thing which has no value, and this particular act of "special transmission" which does have value as an act of special transmission, will cease to be, because an essential part of the act, is the thing given, the book, and it is missing.

What is represented is that in the meaningful interaction between human beings, which is communication, the value, or meaning of the interaction, is not in the physical thing being transmitted (such as words), but it is in the act itself. The physical thing being transmitted, such as words, is absolutely worthless. Nevertheless, the act is dependent on, and cannot proceed without that worthless physical thing, the words, or in that story, the book.

This is the value of "the present". At Christmas, we tend to give each other gifts, "presents", often meaningless things that no one really wants. We sometimes say that it is "the thought that counts". And so it is the act of giving "the present" which is significant, not the actual physical thing which is given. However, without the physical thing there is no present, and no act of giving.

Oh sorry Wayfarer, I got carried away by the words, and posted the post before reading the rest of yours.

Quoting Wayfarer

I think this is one of the seminal texts which differentiates Buddhism from the Biblical religions, and religion generally - even many ritual forms of Buddhism itself - as they do indeed 'put the raft on a pedestal'. (Note also the image of 'the raft' being makeshift, hastily constructed with whatever is at hand. Nothing mass-produced or pre-planned!)

This is very similar to what I described above. The particular nature of the physical thing, which is the means, is fundamentally irrelevant. Here it is the makeshift raft, it might be the book, or the words in communication, or the present in my example. However, while the particular nature is irrelevant, the thing itself, is at the same time necessary. What is necessary is that there be something, some physical thing, what is irrelevant is the particular nature of that physical thing. You can look at it both ways. As necessary, put the physical thing on a pedestal. But since the particular nature of that physical thing is irrelevant, then portray it as a ramshackle, makeshift, hastily constructed raft or whatever.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What about the value of the "special transmission" which is the act of passing down the book?

The point of Zen is 'transmission outside words and letters'. It's an esoteric tradition so what is 'transmitted' is strictly speaking indescribable, certainly not a written text, even though Zen has them.

It's all rather hard to reconcile with your style of Aristotelian logic but The Logic of the Diamond Sutra: A is not A, therefore it is A has a stab at it.

Quoting Wayfarer

The point of Zen is 'transmission outside words and letters'. It's an esoteric tradition so what is 'transmitted' is strictly speaking indescribable, certainly not a written text, even though Zen has them.

The way I described it, the thing transmitted is not the written text. What is transmitted from one person to the other, is the meaning within the act of giving the book. That is the nature of meaning. The physical object is actually irrelevant, and the meaning is within the act. Yet the physical object is still necessary to perform and complete the act.

So for example, when we speak, the thing transmitted is not the physical words, just like in the story, the thing transmitted is not the book. There is meaning within the act of passing the book, which the book itself, as a physical object is irrelevant toward, just like there is meaning in the act of giving a present at Christmas, which the actual physical object given is irrelevant toward.

Reply to Wayfarer
The book is merely a symbol representing the meaning involved within the act of giving the book. It means that the master has chosen the successor, or something like that, like an act of anointment. So the book itself is actually meaningless, and might well be burned. However, at the same time, the book is a necessary part of that act and without it that same act with the same meaning cannot be carried out anymore.

I suspect an actual Zen practitioner would be chuckling at all the philosophical positions in this conversation.

BBC: "Zen is not a philosophy or a religion. Zen tries to free the mind from the slavery of words and the constriction of logic."

Quoting jgill

Zen tries to free the mind from the slavery of words and the constriction of logic."

Quoting Wayfarer

The point of Zen is 'transmission outside words and letters'.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It means that the master has chosen the successor, or something like that, like an act of anointment.

The succession of the Sixth Patriarch, Hui Neng, is a very lengthy story and not one which can easily be summarised, but I'll give it a try.

Hui Neng was an illiterate rice farmer. (Say what you like about China, it has produced many of them.) One day he visited the market and overheard someone preaching the Diamond Sutra (which is the subject of the reference given above.) He immediately was struck by the profound truth of this Sutra, and asked where he might go to learn more about it. He was directed to a monastery, where, upon admission, and being an illiterate rice farmer, he was given the job of pounding rice in the monastery kitchen.

After some time, word went around that the current Abbott was due to retire, and was seeking a successor. Applicants were encouraged to pen a verse expressing their understanding of Dharma on the wall of the monastery.

Shen Xui, who was by all accounts the designated successor, wrote:

The body is the Bodhi Tree,
The mind is like a mirror bright.
At all times we must polish it.
So not to let the dust alight.

(The Bodhi Tree is the tree under which the Buddha realised enlightenment, and a symbol thereof.)

Hui Neng, being illiterate, couldn't read the poem, but had someone read it to him, and immediately composed a rejoinder, which he had someone write up for him:

Fundamentally there is no bodhi-tree
Nor a stand of mirror bright.
Since all is empty from the start,
Where can any dust alight?

When the Abbott was read the two verses, he knew immediately that Hui Neng's verse was superior, but the politics of the situation favoured Shen Xui, Hui Neng not even being ordained, and so a succession struggle ensued, but ultimately Hui Neng became the Sixth Patriarch. The account of his awakening and succession is immortalised as the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch. There's a scholarly account here.

@WayfarerQuoting jgill

Zen tries to free the mind from the slavery of words and the constriction of logic

I have this conception of the world of ideas being like houses in a quaint village. A person, if either as an honored guest or a passing beggar, gets the opportunity to visit these wonders of human ingenuity - fantastic designs evincing a delicate balance between efficiency and beauty, at once simple and complex and so on - and marvel at their form and figure but...there comes a time when fae must say faer goodbyes...and take to the streets, among others who too have left the comfort of their homes, and out in the open, in the cold air of winter or the blazing sun of summer, the houses no longer offer sanctuary. I suppose ideas are like oases in the desolate desert of reality, there only to offer brief respite, an occasion to smile and exchange pleasantries, but the greater part of the human journey is spent traversing the unforgiving, harsh, and dismal sands.

Reply to TheMadFool :up: Imaginative writing!

Reply to Wayfarer
Thanks for the explanation Wayfarer, it's appreciated. I think we all need to apprehend that there is so much meaning in actions which are not a use of words; words are just an accessory of convenience. If we fail to grasp this we do not understand the first thing about meaning.

I understand the urge, but this is a bit like people here discussing whether quarks do X, without studying physics and math. I mean, sure, some people here have meditated for a long time, I guess. But there is a discussion of what a story from a quite different culture means, meant to help people who have been meditating for decades. So, it's doubly culturally removed or perhaps trebly culturally removed. If you have been meditating, well get back to it. If not, start. I mean, if you are interested. If Buddhism is for you, then avoiding this dicussion is then also for you.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I think we all need to apprehend that there is so much meaning in actions which are not a use of words; words are just an accessory of convenience.

:up:

One of my favourite Buddhist authors, Gudo Wafu Nishijima, always stressed that S?t? Zen, the school established by Dogen, was very much a philosophy of action. That is expressed in Zen culture, through the arts of calligraphy, cooking, martial arts, and many other facets of everyday life.

Quoting Coben

I mean, if you are interested. If Buddhism is for you, then avoiding this dicussion is then also for you.

That's quite a condescending remark. I have endeavoured to present, and to stay true to, Buddhist sources throughout this discussion. Insofar as it's 'a discussion', then no, it's not meditation, nor is it living in a Zen monastery, but then, this is an Internet philosophy forum.

Quoting Wayfarer

That's quite a condescending remark.

Not if it's good advice. Then it would be good advice. Quoting Wayfarer

I have endeavoured to present, and to stay true to, Buddhist sources throughout this discussion. Insofar as it's 'a discussion', then no, it's not meditation, nor is it living in a Zen monastery, but then, this is an Internet philosophy forum.

One can point just as well in an internet forum.

Reply to Coben So your advice is that it's best to ignore this thread? In which case, you're not following your own advice. :wink:

Reply to Wayfarer Which also wouldn't make my advice wrong. But here's the thing: I am not a Buddhist and don't share some of the core goals with Buddhism. I don't mind interfering with what Buddhist practice is intended to lead to. So, I'm not being inconsistant. If you're really interested in achieving Buddhist goals, avoid the discussion.

Reply to Wayfarer Thanks for the :up: You're very generous with your compliments :smile:

I like your interpretation of the dhamma as a raft, to be used to cross the ocean of samsara and then to be discarded. What Shoju did makes complete sense from that perspective. In the profession that I'm familiar with that's what we call a disposable syringe - the medication once delivered, the syringe is to be disposed immediately, coincidentally they're incinerated. Did Shoju prefigure disposable syringes? I don't know.

It also reminds me of Hercalitus who's supposed to have said that the road up is also the road down and indeed it is, right? To cling to the dhamma after having attained nirvana would be akin to maintaining the road to it but then there's the chance, no matter how small, that a Buddha might take the same road back to samsara. Enlightenment is supposed to be a one-way trip - the aim is to reach one's destination and stay put like an immigrant and not to sightsee and, at some point, return where you were like a tourist.

What do you make of the following Zen quote:

[quote=Dogen]Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters.[/quote]

?

Thanks. G'day.

Reply to Wayfarer

I've come to reconsider what I said yesterday. I no longer believe that the physical object as a symbol (spoken word, written word, book, gift, or whatever) is a necessary requirement for a meaningful action. I now think that a meaningful action does not require the use of symbols or signs. This is contrary to the Western way of looking at meaning in general, as an aspect of language, and more specifically contrary to semiotics which attempts to reduce all meaningful activity to a usage of signs.

Even in Christian religions strong importance is placed on love, and love is judged by its actions. These actions are very meaningful but they do not necessarily employ the use of symbols. And if we look to what is considered to be the supreme act of love, the creative act of God, we find that there are physical objects involved, the creation, but the objects are not meant to be signs or symbols. Therefore we have very good examples of meaningful acts which do not necessarily involve the use of symbols, so the assumption that meaning requires the use of symbols or signs is unwarranted.

Furthermore, if we classify some meaningful acts as requiring the use of symbols, we will find that in a hierarchy of importance, these acts of using symbols are the lower levels of meaning. The meaningful acts of true love and creation which do not necessarily require the use of symbols are of a higher importance.

So look at Hui Neng's poem. He first dismisses symbolism as not fundamental. He then takes us to the nothingness which precedes creation, and all such symbolism, implying that the fundamental acts of creation are of greater importance than the acts which use symbols. Notice, that he was an illiterate farmer. Being nevertheless very wise, he probably recognized that the activity which creates agricultural produce, is of greater importance and therefore fundamentally more meaningful than the activity which uses words. And through his legendary actions we can find a demonstration that meaning is based in a form of activity which is other than a usage of symbols or signs.

Quoting TheMadFool

I like your interpretation of the dhamma as a raft, to be used to cross the ocean of samsara and then to be discarded

That's not my interpretation, it's canonical. As I said before, I think it’s one of the most distinctive ideas in Buddhism, I can’t think of a parallel in the Biblical religions.

Quoting TheMadFool

It also reminds me of Hercalitus...

Many similarities have been noted between Buddhist and process philosophy, of whom H. was an exponent. But that only goes so far.

Quoting TheMadFool

What do you make of the following Zen quote:

Pfhorrest asked about that recently. It’s a saying by Master D?gen, a much later Buddhist master who was the originator of S?t? Zen. It's a very pithy aphorism about the transformation of the understanding that the Zen practitioner goes through: first, naive realism (mountains are mountains); then the 'realisation of ??nyat?' (everything is inter-dependent, 'mountains' [i.e. anything] have no essential being); but then an integrated understanding, whereby mountains are seen as mountains again, albeit with subtle and mature insight.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So look at Hui Neng's poem.

That's a valiant attempt, but I don't think it quite penetrates the radical meaning of Huineng's stanzas. Zen places a lot of emphasis on 'subitism' which is a sudden and radical transformation or conversion. The gist of Huineng's stanza is that insight into the emptiness (??nyat?) e.g. lack of intrinsic reality, of all things, is itself the transformation that is sought. There is no person whose actions and discipline lead to an increasing wisdom, the very idea of the being who is to be perfected is itself undercut.

Actually the IEP article on Huineng is useful. It notes, under the heading non-duality:

[An] important theme that Huineng preaches concerns the fundamentally “non-dual” nature of existence. This, too, is prone to be misunderstood. Huineng never espouses a mushy notion that “All is One” so much as challenge the assumption that a person stands apart from her/his immediate situation. His target is the self-conscious sense of separation that tends to arise out of deliberative thinking and living. Thus, his focus is not so much theoretical as practical; one must not get caught up in speculative thought but realize ("make rea"l) Buddha, one’s true nature, and act accordingly. This fundamental unity comes through in his famous dharma verse through which he won Hongren’s robe. By countering Shen Xiu’s verse and with it's implied assumptions of duality, Huineng graphically tells us that we must not think of our minds as something distinct that “we” must polish to reflect truth. Rather, we are truth, immediately and directly.

My take is, our lives are generally the consequence of failing to realise this important and always-already fact!

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

He then takes us to the nothingness which precedes creation, and all such symbolism, implying that the fundamental acts of creation are of greater importance than the acts which use symbols.

Kind of. That is a comparison from the Western understanding of 'wisdom uncreate' which is similar in some ways. There is an early D T Suzuki book, Mysticism Christian and Buddhist, which compares Meister Eckhardt's 'nichts' and the 'abyss' of St John of the Cross to the Buddhist '??nyat?', the teaching of emptiness. Alas, Suzuki's theosophically-influenced analyses are no longer fashionable in Buddhist studies, but for those who are more familiar with Western cultural idioms, it does at least provide some touch-points between two vastly different traditions.

Reply to Coben

Which also wouldn't make my advice wrong.

Who is to know if your advice is right, or wrong?

Reply to Olivier5

I see another (additional) dimension, or possibility opened by the burning of the book. Of course the act of burning a book is sacrilegious or at the very least shocking but that’s part of the style. It’s a hyperbole coding for something less shocking: the necessary distance one should take with tradition. Maybe the student wanted to write his own book, based on tradition evidently (the oral teaching of his master is seen by the student as primordial), but also radically departing here or there from tradition. Maybe he was not content with writing comments in the margins of someone else’s book.

Apologies for my late response, but it is 4 years since I looked into this and I don’t have time now to refresh my perspective on this particular teaching. However more generally one of the core aims of Zen is the freeing of the mind from human conditioning. Books condition the reader, although they also inform the reader. Rather like a koan, how to read a book and not read a book. How to clap with one hand.

Reply to Punshhh No need to apologise, it’s my fault for not noticing how old this thread was.

Quoting Punshhh

like a koan, how to read a book and not read a book

Easy: you read it and then you forget it. :-)

I’m only half joking. In my experience, forgetting the details is a good way to focus on what’s important.

Quoting Wayfarer

That's not my interpretation, it's canonical. As I said before, I think it’s one of the most distinctive ideas in Buddhism, I can’t think of a parallel in the Biblical religions.

What about the Abrahamic triad's notion of The End Of Days otherwise known as Judgment Day? There seems to be this sense of finality, closure, and completion in these ideas. Not an exact match for Zen's burn-the-holy-books nonetheless there's an overall agreement in spirit if not in letter.

Quoting Wayfarer

Many similarities have been noted between Buddhist and process philosophy, of whom H. was an exponent. But that only goes so far.

It appears that despite the many obstacles to information exchange during the ancient era, some civilizations did manage to share their culture and ideas with others. In short, the similarities between Heraclitus and thd Buddha weren't a coincidcence.

Quoting Wayfarer

Pfhorrest asked about that recently. It’s a saying by Master D?gen, a much later Buddhist master who was the originator of S?t? Zen. It's a very pithy aphorism about the transformation of the understanding that the Zen practitioner goes through: first, naive realism (mountains are mountains); then the 'realisation of ??nyat?' (everything is inter-dependent, 'mountains' [i.e. anything] have no essential being); but then an integrated understanding, whereby mountains are seen as mountains again, albeit with subtle and mature insight.

A very sagacious way to interpret Dogen's words. I recall being in an oppresively hot and humid city somewhere in the tropics and one day I had something to do at an office, a 20 minute walk from where I was putting up. I remember the trip to the office was one of the most unpleasant 20 minutes of my life - by the time I reached my destination I was panting like a dog and drenched in sweat. I swung open the glass doors at the entrance and was greeted by the coolness of the air-conditioned lobby. I felt an immediate sense of relief and once inside, I managed to recover from the ordeal of the walk. I got my work done in within an hour and once again I found myself at the glass doors of the entrance but on the opposite side of course. I exited...it was as hot and humid as it was when I had entered. :chin:

Quoting TheMadFool

Not an exact match.....

:scream:

Reply to Wayfarer

That's brilliant. :lol:

Reply to Wayfarer :scream: You don't see any similarities then?

Reply to Wayfarer By the way, what do you know about this Yang Yi (born 947 AD - died 1020 AD) character, reportedly a Song Court official who, according to an article I read on the web, was instrumental in recasting Zen's image as so-called special transmissions [outside of scriptures] and this is, I believe, Koans and all, the current incarnation of Zen? Would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.

Reply to Punshhh Who is to know Buddhism is right or wrong? You're going to have to follow, to a great degree your intuition. I would suggest that anyone actually engaging in the practices and community of Buddhism, will realize that my advice is aligned with Buddhist teaching. It takes experience to know if advice is right and in this case intuition.

Reply to TheMadFool Some of your imaginative leaps are tangential, to say the least.

Let’s re-wind. Parable of the raft. What impresses me about this parable is its self-deprecating nature. The Buddha is, after all, teaching ‘a doctrine of salvation’ - release from all earthly sorrows. And yet, he compares ‘the dhamma’ that he teaches, to a makeshift raft, cobbled together from twigs and branches, and furthermore says that, once it’s served its purpose, it is to be let go, left behind. In some ways, it’s a very prosaic, even a homely, metaphor.

As for Yang Yi - I’m not familiar with the name. I understand that a lot of Zen’s telling of its own story has been greatly embellished over history, in fact the IEP article I mentioned on Hui Neng describes this. But Zen history belongs in the domain of ‘sacred narrative’, and doesn’t pretend to be what we would call objective. Not that it’s ‘only myth’, either.

Quoting Wayfarer

Let’s re-wind. Parable of the raft. What impresses me about this parable is its self-deprecating nature. The Buddha is, after all, teaching ‘a doctrine of salvation’ - release from all earthly sorrows. And yet, he compares ‘the dhamma’ that he teaches, to a makeshift raft, cobbled together from twigs and branches, and furthermore says that, once it’s served its purpose, it is to be let go, left behind. In some ways, it’s a very prosaic, even a homely, metaphor.

I did comment on this take on the dhamma and how it parallels Judgement Day or The End Of Days - in both cases we arrive at our destination, no? But you only :scream:

Quoting Wayfarer

As for Yang Yi - I’m not familiar with the name. I understand that a lot of Zen’s telling of its own story has been greatly embellished over history, in fact the IEP article I mentioned on Hui Neng describes this. But Zen history belongs in the domain of ‘sacred narrative’, and doesn’t pretend to be what we would call objective. Not that it’s ‘only myth’, either.

Well then I'm privileged and honored to inform you that Yang Yi (947 AD - 1020 AD) was a court official in the Song Dynasty of China who, because of the Ch'an masters he rubbed shoulders with, insisted and ensured that Zen be treated as special transmissions outside of scripture and...wait for it...also made it a point to stress on sudden enlightenment, both defining features of Zen today. What's your opinion of this?

Reply to TheMadFool I’d need to see the reference.

Quoting Wayfarer

I’d need to see the reference.

https://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/40b.5-Transmission-outside-the-scriptures.pdf

Quoting Wayfarer

Zen places a lot of emphasis on 'subitism' which is a sudden and radical transformation or conversion.

Subitism is an excellent topic for a thread of its own. It figures prominently into Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations" but remains unexplained, as hidden. Here there is basically a gap which develops between learning through repetition, and the sudden grasp of the eureka moment. The gap manifests from a description of the mechanics of learning. Wittgenstein describes the repetition feature as a machine, directly observable in instances like learning mathematical procedures and reading. But it is implied that even in such repetitive type learning, there is a moment of sudden apprehension when the person moves from simply memorizing the motions of the procedure, to actually understanding what is going on. So it appears like the two aspects, repetition of practice and sudden enlightenment, are features of all learning.

The following article attempts to place the two into the terms of Hegelian teleology, "means and ends". Consider that the Zen way of 'transmission outside words and letters', is portrayed as a removal of the means to the end, to achieve the end without use of the means. The article implies that this is impossible, but the Hegelian method is to consider each individual means as an end in itself, and so the gradual way becomes a succession of individual moments of enlightenment. But the subitists seem to warn us that this cannot be the true representation of enlightenment because it becomes an infinite procedure with no true finality.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/267922692.pdf

Reply to TheMadFool Thanks. I've read Piya Tan's articles previously, he seems a careful scholar.

//excellent and informative paper. There’s a poster by the name of Astus on Dharmawheel who has expertise in these subjects.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover Thanks! Interesting Christmas reading.

Reply to Wayfarer
I went through the article quickly to get the gist of it, and I find it a good comparison. But I don't accept Hegel's dialectics of sublation. I don't agree with the process in principle because of the way that it fails to deal with the potential for contradiction. So when the article gets to the discussion of the infinite, I find that the classifications made, external/internal, subjective/objective, are not well supported.

Quoting TheMadFool

I'm privileged and honored to inform you that Yang Yi (947 AD - 1020 AD) was a court official in the Song Dynasty of China who, because of the Ch'an masters he rubbed shoulders with, insisted and ensured that Zen be treated as special transmissions outside of scripture and...wait for it...also made it a point to stress on sudden enlightenment, both defining features of Zen today.

I'm reading the Piya Tan article, which is very detailed, and quite lengthy (and I'm sure a good article as Piya Tan is a respected independent scholar). But as yet I've been able to find that specific reference in it; the name 'Yang Yi' doesn't seem to appear when I search the text. Maybe you could help out.//although I've now found the ref to yangyi, single name.//

It is certainly true that many of the core ideas of Ch'an/Zen were developed after the events they purport to describe, but, as I noted, Ch'an/Zen is not particularly concerned with what we would designate objective history (as the article itself notes towards the end).

It's unfortunate there is no one on the forum who has had the Zen epiphany, described in various ways. I did Zen meditation for about a year sixty years ago, but dropped out of the practice. A friend has been doing Zen for over thirty years and he describes the sudden enlightenment as a very stunning, even jarring moment. He then describes his mental state as "empty awareness" - and I argue that since he is seemingly aware of the state it cannot be empty. He also argues it is not a "mental state".

Quoting Wayfarer

Thanks

You're welcome.

Quoting Wayfarer

Yang Yi' doesn't seem to appear when I search the text.

This is most unfortunate. I tried searching for the PDF on Yang Yi (974 - 1020) sometimes written Yang I but no luck. I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it but let's not let that get in the way of our discussion; as you correctly pointed out it's tangential.

Resuming where we left off. What similarities/differences do you see between The Day Of Reckoning in Abrahamic religions and Buddha's advice to let go of the dhamma after it's served its purpose, its purpose being nirvana?

As far as I can tell, if the dhamma is only a means to an end, the end being Buddhahood, and if morality is a major aspect of the dhamma then, morality, goodness, has no intrinsic value of its own; goodness has the same worth as the food and water monks eat and drink to sustain themselves in their quest for nirvana - they're both only of instrumental value to enlightenment

Likewise, the notion of The Day Of Reckoning or Judgment Day reduces morality to nothing more than the fee one has to pay for a ticket to paradise. In this case too, morality is simply a means to an end.

Prima facie there seems to be something off about this because people like myself have this belief that morality possesses/should possess a value of its own independent of all other considerations that may apply to it, especially considerations that have to do with the idea of reward and punishment, this very idea (reward/punishment) robbing morality of any intrinsic value. However, if we dig a little deeper, we come to the realization that morality's raison d'etre is happiness and heaven and nirvana are its idealizations; so, it's alright for morality/the dhamma to be just a means (of reaching heaven or attaining nirvana).

Yet, we can't ignore the fact that according to Buddhism and the Abrahamic triad the first and foremost obstacle on our path towards nirvana and heaven is bad karma and sin respectively and both are essentially defined in terms of morality. In other words, if we let go of the dhamma after enlightenment or if we don't be careful about our conduct in heaven, we could acquire bad karma or sin and descend back into samsara or find ourselves journeying to hell.

Quoting TheMadFool

Yang Yi' doesn't seem to appear when I search the text.
— Wayfarer

This is most unfortunate

Oh, I did find it. Yangyi is mentioned on page 112, although I don't think he's credited with everything you attributed to him. But, as the essay says, the characteristic line 'transmission outside the scriptures' was indeed added as a consequence of various sectarian tussles over the preceding centuries, and it appeared in the Yangyi edition.

Quoting TheMadFool

What similarities/differences do you see between The Day Of Reckoning in Abrahamic religions and Buddha's advice to let go of the dhamma after it's served its purpose, its purpose being nirvana?

To me, the comparison seems preposterous, pardon me for so saying. Completely different. The 'Day of Reckoning' is apocalyptic and cosmic, 'the end days', the end of the world or of an epoch.

As I said, the Parable of the Raft is much more prosaic, and in my mind, much more believable, on that account. It's saying 'don't get attached to the idea of Buddhism'. Don't make an idol - which is ironic, as it certainly has happened, in my view. It's concerned with liberating insight. Really, there is no direct equivalent for 'liberating insight' in current Western religious culture, although some of the more mystically-inclined have it. There are some analogies for it in Western religious culture, but it's practical advice about unbinding the self from its attachments and projections. It's very down-to-earth, not apocalyptic and visionary.

Quoting TheMadFool

if the dhamma is only a means to an end,

It's nothing like that. It's not 'only' anything. The ultimate importance of realising the goal of Nirv??a is never deprecated or downplayed in Buddhism, not for a minute. The early Buddhist texts are full of exhortations, of warnings. 'Hasten and strive'. The consequences of not hearing, or not heeding, are dire in the extreme. Buddhist texts have voluminous and excruciating depictions of hell realms.

Recall that verse I quoted ends 'Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas.' To say nothing of non-Dhammas. So the hindrances - non-dhammas - are to be abandoned and overcome. It's almost like 'it goes without saying' that these have to be abandoned.

Quoting TheMadFool

goodness has the same worth as the food and water monks eat and drink to sustain themselves in their quest for nirvana - they're both only of instrumental value to enlightenment

That is gravely mistaken - 'instrumentalism' is one of the main attributes of modern materialistic culture, for which everything is a means to an end, but there is no real end! I think Buddhism would agree with the statement of Aristotelian virtue ethics, that virtue is its own reward. In any case, one does not practice compassion and cherish others for any instrumental reason or for another end, or to get somewhere or gain something. That attitude is always the diametrical opposite of the 'way-seeking mind'. One of the first Buddhist books I ever read, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, has many exhortations to 'abandon all ideas of gaining something'. That's what makes it a religious or spiritual practice. If it a strategy for getting something, even an imagined Nirv??a, then it's 'spiritual materialism'.

And Nirv??a is not 'heaven', it's not a domain of ethereal delights.

[quote=Nyanoponika Thera]The spiritual values advocated by Buddhism are directed, not towards a new life in some higher world, but towards a state utterly transcending the world, namely, Nibbana (Nirv??a). In making this statement, however, we must point out that Buddhist spiritual values do not draw an absolute separation between the beyond and the here and now. They have firm roots in the world itself for they aim at the highest realization in this present existence. Along with such spiritual aspirations, Buddhism encourages earnest endeavor to make this world a better place to live in.[/quote]

Quoting TheMadFool

according to Buddhism and the Abrahamic triad the first and foremost obstacle on our path towards nirvana and heaven is bad karma and sin respectively

'Avidya' (ignorance) is not the same as the Biblical notion of sin. It is a cognitive affliction rather than corruption of the will. (Although, see this). There are overlaps and similarities but also crucial differences. It's a subject of study in Comparative Religion. In any case, in Zen, the factor of liberation is 'insight into the true nature'. Yes, there are parallels especially with (e.g.) Meister Eckhardt's sermons, but Eckhardt cannot be taken to typify Christian doctrine (in fact he was charged with heresy).

Quoting Wayfarer

To me, the comparison seems preposterous, pardon me for so saying. Completely different. The 'Day of Reckoning' is apocalyptic and cosmic, 'the end days', the end of the world or of an epoch.

As I said, the Parable of the Raft is much more prosaic, and in my mind, much more believable, on that account. It's saying 'don't get attached to the idea of Buddhism'. Don't make an idol - which is ironic, as it certainly has happened, in my view. It's concerned with liberating insight. Really, there is no direct equivalent for 'liberating insight' in current Western religious culture, although some of the more mystically-inclined have it. There are some analogies for it in Western religious culture, but it's practical advice about unbinding the self from its attachments and projections. It's very down-to-earth, not apocalyptic and visionary.

A couple of things:

1. I have this suspicion that when the Buddha compared the dhamma to a raft to be gotten rid of after Buddhahood he didn't mean it just as a warning against getting "...[too] attached to the idea of Buddhism" as you say. I guess this/your interpretation is meant to align the Buddha's raft analogy with the Buddhist principle of avoiding attachments of all kinds. However, the way I see it, the Buddha, by advising us to do away with the dhamma (raft), after it's done its job of enlightening us, is actually diminishing or even nullifying the value of the dhamma and everything that goes into it. If this is the correct interpretation what bothers me the most is that morality, a vital element of the dhamma, is too thus diminished or nullified. This is too hard a pill for me to swallow because there's nothing keeping a Buddha from being a morally depraved asshole. If this condition - immorality in a Buddha - is impossible then it must be that the dhamma, especially its moral facet, still lives on in a Buddha. How then can the Buddha get rid of the dhamma, get rid of the raft as it were, after nirvana? In some sense, nirvana is the raft or, if you prefer, the dhamma. :chin:

2. When I compared the Buddha's raft to the the Apocalypse I meant to draw a comparison between how these religions treat morality - not as an end itself but only as a means; in Buddhism, goodness is the raft, just there to ferry you across samsara and in the Abrahamic triad, goodness is your boarding pass for the scheduled flight to paradise which should be anytime soon going by what some self-proclaimed prophets have been saying. This is what bothers me but I suppose it's a naive way to look at the world. We are, if one really gives it some thought, only concerned about [our] happiness - everything else is simply a tool in the shed, to be used and, according to the Buddha and other religions, once their purpose is served (nirvana attained, heaven reached), to be, without a second thought, flung into the rubbish heap of the no-longer-necessary. If this is incorrect, I'd like some information on what religions have to say about morality in heaven and after nirvana.

Quoting Wayfarer

It's nothing like that. It's not 'only' anything. The ultimate importance of realising the goal of Nirv??a is never deprecated or downplayed in Buddhism, not for a minute. The early Buddhist texts are full of exhortations, of warnings. 'Hasten and strive'. The consequences of not hearing, or not heeding, are dire in the extreme. Buddhist texts have voluminous and excruciating depictions of hell realms.

What you say doesn't help your cause here. If the dhamma, especially its moral dimension, is about avoiding hell then it is exactly what I said it is - just a means to an end, just a way of getting something done. However, to think of morality, as part of the dhamma, as something else - something of value in and of itself - is, on reflection, a naive point of view. For instance, I find it rather difficult to imagine goodness being sorrowful; that, as of now, seems self-defeating. Yes, there's the ethical entity known as sacrifice in which there's an element of loss/pain but even in this case, without the involvement of happiness, either to an individual or to a group, sacrifice would never in a million years be an act that people would label as good.

Quoting Wayfarer

Recall that verse I quoted ends 'Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas.' To say nothing of non-Dhammas. So the hindrances - non-dhammas - are to be abandoned and overcome. It's almost like 'it goes without saying' that these have to be abandoned

Surely if your best friend is going to cause problems for you, nothing need be said of your non-best friends. It makes sense.

Quoting Wayfarer

That is gravely mistaken - 'instrumentalism' is one of the main attributes of modern materialistic culture, for which everything is a means to an end, but there is no real end! I think Buddhism would agree with the statement of Aristotelian virtue ethics, that virtue is its own reward. In any case, one does not practice compassion and cherish others for any instrumental reason or for another end, or to get somewhere or gain something. That attitude is always the diametrical opposite of the 'way-seeking mind'. One of the first Buddhist books I ever read, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, has many exhortations to 'abandon all ideas of gaining something'. That's what makes it a religious or spiritual practice. If it a strategy for getting something, even an imagined Nirv??a, then it's 'spiritual materialism'.

And Nirv??a is not 'heaven', it's not a domain of ethereal delights.

You do realize that this is, what I like to call, the Buddhist conundrum - it's impossible to solve to the extent that I'm aware. You can't have/make "...a strategy for getting something [nirvana]..." because that would be self-refuting - desiring nirvana is a sign of attachment a big no-no in Buddhism. How then are we to attain nirvana? By stumbling onto it? By not being a Buddhist for to be a Buddhist is to affirm nirvana as a goal? How? My friend, how? While this is technically a logical paradox, I do sense a childish silliness in insisting this puzzle be solved before we can get anything done in Buddhism. What say you?

Quoting Wayfarer

'Avidya' (ignorance) is not the same as the Biblical notion of sin. It is a cognitive affliction rather than corruption of the will. There are overlaps and similarities but also crucial differences. It's a subject of study in Comparative Religion. In any case, in Zen, the factor of liberation is 'insight into the true nature'. Yes, there are parallels especially with (e.g.) Meister Eckhardt's sermons, but Eckhardt cannot be taken to typify Christian doctrine (in fact he was charged with heresy).

I know you're familiar with this but I'll mention it here anyway. I'm particularly fascinated by Nagarjuna's tetralemma which basically denies all possible epistemic stances one can take given any proposition.

So, If I say there's such a thing as nirvana, Nagarjuna would deny it. If I say there's no such thing as nirvana, Nagarjuna would deny that too. If I say there's such a thing as nirvana and there's no such thing as nirvana, again, Nagarjuna would deny it. If I were to then say that neither is there such a thing as nirvana and nor that there's no such thing as nirvana, Nagarjuna would deny this too, vehemently I imagine.

Suppose N = There's such a thing as nirvana and ~N = There's no such thing as nirvana, Nagarjuna's tetralemma duly applied would look like below:

1. N....No! So ~N
2. ~N....No! So ~~N = N
3. N & ~N....No! So ~(N & ~N) = N v ~N
4. ~N & ~~N....No! So ~(~N & ~~N) = N v ~N

As you can see, applying Nagarjuna's technique to a proposition, any proposition, results in the tautology p v ~p [N v ~N above]. p v ~p is also known as the law of the excluded middle but for the purposes of this discussion the takeaway is this - we can't either affirm nor deny any given proposition, whether that proposition is about a fly in a bottle or the Buddha's enlightenment, and that's just another way of saying I don't know whether it's p or ~p. That, to my knowledge, is the quintessence of what you call Avidya or Ignorance. I have a vague feeling that ignorance is the only valid epistemic stance we can stake a claim to. All claims to knowledge are therefore empty and devoid of substance. Remember Socrates, "I know that I know nothing." and the Delphic Oracle's pronouncement, "Socrates is the wisest of them all".

Quoting Wayfarer

The exclamation 'what are you saying?' is to remind Mu-nan of the importance of the fundamental tenet of Zen, which is 'direct pointing' and not reliant on words and letters (notwithstanding the voluminous literature which Zen has produced!)

Ah yes, the voluminous literature about nothingness. Sounds very familiar. :-)

I've come to summarize this phenomena, which I very much experience myself, with the quip "it's typically the sick who show up at the hospital".

If an articulate thought-a-holic thinks enough to uncover the limitations of that medium they may go looking for a solution. Upon finding what to them seems a solution (nature in my case) they may then have an incurable urge to think and write a big pile of words about what they've discovered. It's a bit like the alcoholic who tries to cure themselves of their addiction with a case of scotch. After all, drinking is what they know, it's what they're good at, it's what comes naturally to them.

Religions and related philosophies are very often led by such folks who both had a problem that required a solution, and who are articulate and/or charismatic enough to engage many others in that conversation. A marriage of illness and talent, if you will.

The field of psychology seems pretty similar. Some of the troubled among us can't relate to religion and so go looking for a solution to their problems in the field of science. They study psychology in college, and perhaps get degrees, and then become counselors. I know someone like that, hysterical from birth, incapable of a normal social life, but they have a masters in counseling, so now they play the role of expert to others. The crazy counselor, it's almost a cliche.

Whether through religion or science, there's a ton of the blind leading the blind going on, the patients imagining themselves to be the doctors.

To receive more sage wisdom, please read my 400,000 word article on the importance of silence!

Quoting Wayfarer

The point of any real spiritual teaching is simply to allow you to forget about your own self-importance and just learn to be (a) happy and (b) useful. In order to do that, you have to cut through a lot of social conditioning and various kinds of other crap that has encumbered you from childhood onwards.

To me, such statements always raise the question of whether the problem which we are addressing arises primarily from thought content, or from the medium of thought itself. One argument for the later theory is that human psychological suffering would seem to be universally present in every time and place, irregardless of the culture and philosophies of that time and place.

Mongrel:Rumi says shut the fuck up.

Quoting Wayfarer

Makes for bad forum conversations, though.

Well, not necessarily. If it's true that we should shut the fuck up, we could have practical discussions regarding effective methods of shutting up.

Quoting Hippyhead

The point of any real spiritual teaching is simply to allow you to forget about your own self-importance and just learn to be (a) happy and (b) useful. In order to do that, you have to cut through a lot of social conditioning and various kinds of other crap that has encumbered you from childhood onwards.
— Wayfarer

To me, such statements always raise the question of whether the problem which we are addressing arises primarily from thought content, or from the medium of thought itself. One argument for the later theory is that human psychological suffering would seem to be universally present in every time and place, irregardless of the culture and philosophies of that time and place.

You’re overlooking the obvious fact that some people are more fucked-up than others, regardless of the culture and philosophies of any time and place.

Quoting TheMadFool

How then are we to attain nirvana? By stumbling onto it? By not being a Buddhist for to be a Buddhist is to affirm nirvana as a goal? How? My friend, how? While this is technically a logical paradox, I do sense a childish silliness in insisting this puzzle be solved before we can get anything done in Buddhism. What say you?

That it's not a 'puzzle' to be solved, or a game to be played. But there's an unavoidable paradoxicality in Buddhism, which 'goes with the territory'. There is no such thing as Nirv??a, that's for sure, because Nirv??a is not a thing - no-thing.

Quoting Hippyhead

Ah yes, the voluminous literature about nothingness.

And article TMF linked to clears this up a bit. It says that the notion that Ch'an 'rejects scripture' is based on a mistranslation. Really the whole idea is a direct parallel to the Biblical verse, 'the letter kills while the spirit gives life'.

Quoting jgill

It's unfortunate there is no one on the forum who has had the Zen epiphany

My take would be that perhaps we should forget about Zen epiphanies, sudden enlightenment, radical transformation and other such grandness.

I'm reminded of those who dream of going to Hollywood and becoming a big star so they'll be popular, when a more serious project might be to make a few new friends. Ok, so a tiny number of people do become big Hollywood stars, that does happen. What relevance does that have for the vast majority of us? Such conversations seems more amateur hour than advanced here.

It's unclear to me whether it's appropriate and useful to rip all the fancy talk becoming trips to shreds, or wiser to leave folks in peace to chase their own dreams. Well, ok, so I know the answer to that, but my own "it's the ill who tend to show up at the hospital" situation is still clinging to the ripping to shreds stuff a bit. Ok, ok, more than a bit. :-)

Epiphanies are real. Of course there are also ‘false epiphanies’. And simply because one has an epiphany, doesn’t mean enlightenment.

One of the Zen teachers I follow, Meido-roshi, frequently comments that it’s not that difficult to have an initial experience of satori (which is a term for epiphany), but that it’s extraordinarily difficult to integrate it and develop it fully so that it becomes stable and deep.

My experience with meditation, generally, is that some of the insights and major ‘aha’ moments, came very quickly and, seemingly, effortlessly. When I first started to consciously try and sit in meditation twice daily, I would be surprised by spontaneous feelings of bliss arising in the most unexpected situations - standing in a checkout queue or waiting for the bus. That was what made me realise I was working with something real. But, as all Zen teachers say, experiences come and go, it’s a mistake to chase them, hanker for them, or try and hang on to them.

I stuck with a regular meditation practice for a lot of years. 2020, it fell away. I encountered obstacles and hindrances which undermined my commitment. I also started attending a Pureland service. That is a Buddhist school called Jodo Shin-su, which deprecates any effort to practice meditation whatever. But I think I need to go back to it. In some ways, it’s a very difficult discipline to stick with - after all, Buddhist meditation is practically the definition of un-fun. But I’m still very drawn to the S?t? school of Zen, and want to return to that form of practice in the New Year. Like the Nike ad - ‘just do it’.

Quoting Wayfarer

Epiphanies are real. Of course there are also ‘false epiphanies’. And simply because one has an epiphany, doesn’t mean enlightenment.

One of the Zen teachers I follow, Meido-roshi, frequently comments that it’s not that difficult to have an initial experience of satori (which is a term for epiphany), but that it’s extraordinarily difficult to integrate it and develop it fully so that it becomes stable and deep.

Which person who's ever gone to high school can forget reading about the great Greek mathematician Archimedes running stark-naked and dripping wet through the streets of Syracuse screaming "Eureka! Eureka!" after having had an epiphany on how to determine if king Hiero's golden crown had been debased (or not)?

Too, I recall reading about other people from all walks of life - mathematicians, writers, artists, etc. - having their own Eureka moments, these then either solving the main problem itself or a sub-problem that's critical to finding a solution to the main problem. I'm sorry I don't have any specific names I can cite but that's a [personal] memory issue, nothing to do with the facticity of my claims.

In a Zen context, the idea behind koans, all paradoxes in their own right, is to bring the student into immediate contact with the heart/crux of the issue which is that the world doesn't make sense or that if one thought it did, that's an illusion. Thus, by constantly assaulting the student's understanding or what fae thinks is understanding with puzzles/conundrums in the form of koans, the teacher forces the student's mind to rethink/reassess the entire situation and that too without the aid of faer much-trusted aide, rationality/common sense. In essence, the koan is a simulation of the worst-case scenario - you're stripped of all your familiar tools of analysis, unceremoniously kicked out of your comfort zone, and plopped down in unfamiliar territory; it's like being lost in rough seas without a compass. Is this an environment conducive to epiphanies?

Reply to TheMadFool I've never been through Koan training, and likely never will. My point was simply that epiphanies do occur and they can be real indications of a breakthrough or catharsis, or, shall we say, a reconfiguration of one's outlook.

As for the epiphanies that arise through meditation, I'm reminded of this exchange:

Practitioner: 'I've learned there are things you come to understand through meditation that you can't see any other way.'

Questioner: 'Oh yeah? What are they?'

Practitioner: :confused:

Quoting Wayfarer

I've never been through Koan training, and likely never will.

Why? What's stopping you? In for the penny, in for a pound. Right?

Reply to TheMadFool I am not currently enrolled in or formally practicing Zen meditation under a teacher, which is the only context within which koan practice is meaningful.

Quoting Wayfarer

I am not currently enrolled in or formally practicing Zen meditation under a teacher, which is the only context within which koan practice is meaningful.

Oh, I see. A teacher must earn faer keep too. Is there no possibility of doing koan practice one one's own - go solo with koans so to speak?

Why don't we two, if you're up to it, analyze the notion of Satori (sudden enlightenment) against the backdrop of koans (paradoxes) and epiphanies (Eureka moments)?

For my money, Satori is - bottom line - an epiphany but it differs from other epiphanies in scale and thus grandeur. Archimdes' Eureka moment, though a great scientific feat, is restricted to a particular area of knowing which is, if you'd like to know, buoyancy. Satori, on the other hand, is the mother of all Eureka moments in that once one experiences that aha moment, everything, and I mean everything, will begin to make sense. Whatever truth or theory that Satori emobodies is the fountainhead of all knowledge and explanations. Up to this point it's been about the enlightenment aspect of Satori.

Satori also has to be sudden i.e. Satori shouldn't be attained by a long process involving chains of reasoning (sorites), each step carefully considered and reconsidered. Au contraire, Satori is supposed to be like a bolt from the blue, striking us, I gather, when we least expect it.

Given this is how Satori is conceived of, what role do koans play in all this? Koans, if Google is to be believed, are either paradoxical or are riddles sans solutions and therein, I suspect, lies the rub. Ask around and I bet you'll never find a person who has, in every sense of the word "figure", everything figured out. Why is this the case?

Firstly, what does it mean to figure things out? In the simplest sense, to figure things out means to comprehend things. Comprehension, insofar as current paradigms matter, has a lot to do with consistency and coherency. If anything is inconsistent/incoherent then, the received opinion is that it hasn't been understood. This is a big hint as to why a person, to quote myself, "...who has, in every sense of the word "figure", everything figured out." is nonexistent. The world is itself incoherent/inconsistent as indirectly evidenced by the absence of such a person.

Therefore, to my reckoning, if we are to aim for Satori, we should get to the heart of the matter - the underlying inconsistency/incoherency in our world - ASAP and that's what koans do. Koans, by, sometimes gently and other times cruelly, exposing us to incoherency and inconsistency, help us catch a glimpse of both the nature and magnitude of the problem on our hands - the problem of innate inconsistency or incoherency of the world.

Furthermore, it might even be true that koans are actually scaled-down models of our world, designed specifically to capture that one essential feature of the world that stands in the way of our efforts to comprehend (the world), that one essential feature being incoherency/inconsistency. That would mean that, ultimately, at the end of the day, all things considered, realizing this inherent inconsistency/incoherency is precisely what enlightenment is. The point of a koan then is not to kickoff a search among the students for a coherent answer but to make them realize the incoherent nature of our world. :chin:

Reply to TheMadFool Quoting TheMadFool

Why don't we two, if you're up to it, analyze the notion of Satori (sudden enlightenment) against the backdrop of koans (paradoxes) and epiphanies (Eureka moments)?

I don't know why but I really like speculating about this specifically so I'm going to chime in.

To start, our experience is always, and immediately filtered automatically by our brains. You can easily test this by trying to read what I am writing as individual letters without actually reading the words, or harder yet by trying to listen to what someone is saying without automatically understanding it.

All of these "models" we employ arise out of thin air spontaneously. They are sort of like Jordan Peterson's "Order" or the pragmatists' notions of how we think. We automatically filter experience so as to allow us to act. These filters or models are by nature fallible and are always intended for a particular purpose. If you are walking in a forest and you see a lion your brain will instantly make the distinction "Threat" and "Not threat" and will put the lion in the former. You can't just not see the Lion as a seperate thing from the background and you can't not see it as a threat (nor should you!)

We usually get attatched to these models. It is difficult for us to actively seek out alternative views or to seriously consider them because no one wants to be in the "pre-model" chaotic state. As far as I understand it Enlightenment or Satori is being able to see these models as they are, and not to grow attatched to them. It is to develop the ability to sit in this "pre-model" state (which is what I believe "Dao" is) and to understand that whatever model you employ to be able to act is not some objective infallible thing, and so not to grow attatched to it. Koans are trying to accomplish this by breaking the models. You come up with a hundered different "models" to explain the Koan which in turn shows you how inconsequential these models are, so you don't get attatched to them.

For perspecitve, the other way to deal with the chaotic "pre-model" state is to come up with the "perfect model". Some sort of "infallible knowledge" similar to what Descartes was trying to go for. These two ways are not contradictory. It's just that the more you fear uncertainty, the more angst you have, the more motivated you are to want the "pefect model" whereas if you are fine with uncertainty you will likely opt for a less rigorous model, as you won't need much more than that.

I've said this on another thread before, but it seems there is a big cultural rift between the East and West in this regard. In the East the primary way to deal with suffering is to learn to live with pain and uncertainty, in the West, the primary way is to try to get rid of them (heaven).

Reply to khaled Thanks for your input but the question is, if we're trying to come up with a model of the world, what model fits the bill, comes up with the goods so to speak? I'm probably referring to that "perfect model" you're talking about. Either there is such a model or there is not. I'm going to bet that there isn't for the simple reason that if there were, it should've been made available to us, the more than willing audience. So, there is no "perfect model" that describes the world or predicts the future of this, our, world. Why, may I ask?

Quoting Wayfarer

Epiphanies are real. Of course there are also ‘false epiphanies’. And simply because one has an epiphany, doesn’t mean enlightenment.

Whatever epiphanies and enlightenment may be, I'm not claiming they are not real, as I'd have no way to know that. It seems reasonable that in this field, as in any other, there will be rare people out at the end of the talent bell curve who accomplish things not available to most of us. Mozart in music, Einstein in physics etc.

It may even be possible that such experiences, whatever they may be, are widely available in the appropriate situations. Again, I don't know, and am not arguing against the possibility.

What I'm questioning is whether all this philosophical fancy talk, sophisticated concepts, complex understanding, ie. all the stuff that philosophers love, is an ideal way to approach such topics. It smells like exertion in the wrong direction here.

As I've likely said too many times already, it seems to boil down to whether the problems we are addressing arise primarily from the content of thought, or the medium of thought.

To the degree the problems arise from bad philosophy, incorrect understandings etc, then philosophical fancy talk may prove useful.

My own inclination is that the primary source of such problems is the medium of thought itself. As evidence I would point to the universal nature of human suffering. To the degree this is true, then piling on more and more and more philosophical fancy talk may be like the alcoholic trying to cure his addiction with a case of scotch.

As example, imagine for a moment that it was somehow proven beyond any doubt that philosophy is a step backward in addressing these issues? What would be our response? If we were to choose to continue to do philosophy anyway, that would suggest it is the methodology of philosophy which is our priority and not the topic itself. There's no crime in that, but to the degree that were true, we shouldn't expect to make much meaningful progress on investigating the topic, as we're not really that interested in it.

Quoting Hippyhead

As example, imagine for a moment that it was somehow proven beyond any doubt that philosophy is a step backward in addressing these issues? What would be our response? If we were to choose to continue to do philosophy anyway, that would suggest it is the methodology of philosophy which is our priority and not the topic itself. There's no crime in that, but to the degree that were true, we shouldn't expect to make much meaningful progress on investigating the topic, as we're not really that interested in it.

I shouldn't have to point this out but there are various ways of investigating something, and investigation can be understood as something besides that which is investigated. Investigating a murder, for example, isn't necessarily committing murder, or philosophical discussion about ethics isn't necessarily practicing ethical conduct.

It's foolish to think that investigating something can't be beneficial to the practice of what's being investigated.

Quoting Hippyhead

What I'm questioning is whether all this philosophical fancy talk, sophisticated concepts, complex understanding, ie. all the stuff that philosophers love, is an ideal way to approach such topics.

It's a philosophy forum.

Reply to TheMadFool The Piya Tan article you linked to above has a good brief account of the development of Koan. I learned from it that the Chinese name was derived from the ‘cases’ overseen by magistrates.

The point about ‘working with’ a koan is however that it fully occupies your attention for days or weeks of intensive contemplation. There’s no single outcome or answer, it’s not like a logical syllogism. Only the teacher is able to gauge the degree to which you’ve penetrated the meaning.

Quoting TheMadFool

what does it mean to figure things out?

The way I think of it is that scientific and mathematical hypotheses have a left-hand and right-hand side. On the left, the prediction, equation, hypothesis. On the right, the result, proof, observation. Of course the mathematical sciences have brought this technique to an amazingly high pitch. We all use it every moment of the day. But notice that the separation of knower and known, subject and object, is assumed or implicit in all such analyses.

But the scope of Buddhist enquiry is different - it concerns the factors that give rise to suffering, and the cessation of suffering, with a minute analysis of those factors as they arise in experience. In that sense it’s empirical, but very different to modern empiricism, because it’s also based on critical awareness of the operation of the six sense spheres and the underlying conditioning factors which cause our reaction to them. This is not ‘objective’ in the normal sense, but it’s also not ‘subjective’ in that it doesn’t only pertain to one person or another, as these processes are universal, they're the same for everyone. Hence the perceived connections between Buddhism and phenomenology, which is similarly about rigorous investigation of first-person experience.

But as far as 'realising Zen' is concerned, it is really a very difficult and elusive goal. I'm like a lot of people who read 'zen books' in my formative years, and felt it offfered a kind of short-cut to spiritual awareness. Alas, not. Which is not to say I haven't benefitted from studying it and from meditation, but it has to be admitted there's a lot of scope for self-delusion in such engagement and fulfilment of the goal is by no means certain.

this is worth a read.

[quote=Harold Stewart]Those few who took the trouble to visit Japan and begin the practice of Zen under a recognized Zen master or who joined the monastic Order soon discovered that it was a very different matter from what the popularizing literature had led them to believe. They found that in the traditional Zen monastery zazen is never divorced from the daily routine of accessory disciplines. To attenuate and finally dissolve the illusion of the individual ego, it is always supplemented by manual work to clean the temple, maintain the garden, and grow food in the grounds; by strenuous study with attendance at discourses on the sutras and commentaries; and by periodical interviews with the roshi, to test spiritual progress. Acolytes are expected to develop indifference to the discomforts of heat and cold on a most frugal vegetarian diet and to abstain from self-indulgence in sleep and sex, intoxicating drinks and addictive drugs. Altogether Zen demands an ability to participate in a communal life as regimented and lacking in privacy as the army.[/quote]

Quoting Hippyhead

What I'm questioning is whether all this philosophical fancy talk, sophisticated concepts, complex understanding, ie. all the stuff that philosophers love, is an ideal way to approach such topics. It smells like exertion in the wrong direction here.

Yes, if the goal is in fact to head towards the goals of Buddhist practice. I agree with you here. It can lead to illusions of understanding things. Which can only be understood after long practice. Then, also, it create an intellectual fog that any future practices must get through. The 'Oh, is this subject/object monism.' type internal commenting and expecting and incorrectly expecting as being like X, will get in the way of actually experiencing X.

Quoting praxis

It's foolish to think that investigating something can't be beneficial to the practice of what's being investigated.

Depends on the tradition and practices. In Buddhism, many of the forms, and nearly all of them in practice, there are warnings about being in your head, trying to understand things that one has not laid the meditative groundwork for, creating ideas of things one has not experienced. That these can be blocks, slow down advancement. There's also a huge aspect of hubris.

Reply to Coben

I’m pretty sure that most people understand that there’s a difference between “being in your head” and the various practices of meditation, and that a person can practice meditation for a time without being in their head and at other times think freely without practicing meditation.

I think it’s true that we can develop a habit of introspective thinking or self-conditioning that is not conducive to meditation, or rather, deep meditation, and that a sustained practice of mental austerity may be most conducive deep to meditation (samadhi, satori, realizing emptiness, or whatever). Nevertheless, there’s really no reason that investigating the practice can’t be beneficial, is there? Religious folk make all sorts of claims and warnings, many of which are known to be false.

Harold Stewart:Acolytes are expected to develop indifference to the discomforts of heat and cold . . .

I was once told by a practitioner that there were several dogs beneath the thin floor of their meditation building that kept up a racket. They were told to get used to it. :smile:

Quoting praxis

I’m pretty sure that most people understand that there’s a difference between “being in your head” and the various practices of meditation, and that a person can practice meditation for a time without being in their head and at other times think freely without practicing meditation.

Yes, and if I'd said one cannot do both these things this would be a good point. The context of the thread is a Zen Story and what it means. In Zen you will not find it recommended, in fact you will find the opposite, that one sit around and discuss in abstract terms what stories mean that likely to not fit where you are in your process. You will find the other activities, the non-meditation practices or dailty activities, to be practical, grounded, and ones to focus one's attention on. Getting and preparting the food, for example, and being present for that. There are suggestions in every branch of Buddhism I've encountered to focus away from abstract thought and also there is this idea that doing so ABOUT the spiritual ideas and stages and meansing can interfere with growth.Quoting praxis

Nevertheless, there’s really no reason that investigating the practice can’t be beneficial, is there?

I don't really see the type of discussion in this thread as investigating the practice. And sure, religious people can be be wrong, but implicit in most of the posts I read here is 'there is wisdom in this story, what is that wisdom?'. Well if the working assumption is that these guy have wisdom and the issue is what is the specific wisdom and at the same time these traditions recommend against precisely this sort of activity, to me it doesn't make sense. For people who are not interested in achieving Buddhist goals or who simply want to use Buddhist ideas and stories as inspriation for their philosophical thinking, then it can certainly make sense.

Obviously people will do this, I can't stop them, and frankly I don't really want to. I'm not a fan of Buddhism, though I have a lot of experience with it. But, I wanted to point out the issue.

There are in fact a lot of subjects where if the idea in the background is 'this expert is wise' and then also, I am moving towards the goals of this expert, and the person is up in their head, there's a problem. All sorts of physical activities, from sports to carpentry, and then also all sorts of activities where you simply have to have built up knowledge to understand what you are talking about: particle physics, neuroscience, whatever. I think the talking and writing as if one knows or has the tools to understand is actually an obstacle. In Buddhism, well, they come right out and say this, especially in Zen.

Quoting Wayfarer

It's a philosophy forum.

And so we can apply reason to the discussion, and inspect and challenge the value of philosophy for a particular task just as we would anything else. If philosophy itself is judged to be above challenge, then it's not a philosophy forum but a dogma forum.

I would certainly agree that no none is obligated to pursue such an approach, and that "to each their own" and "whatever works" are a good rules, but we can note for the record that it's possible to discuss such subjects without the philosophical fancy talk. Should we conclude the problem of human suffering arises more from the nature of thought than the content of thought, then this is more of a mechanical issue than it is a conceptual one.

It seems reasonable to view the mind as just one more organ of the body which requires ongoing management to operate at an optimal level, and such management can be approached in a purely mechanical manner. For example, overthinking can be regarded in much the same way we consider overeating, or under sleeping.

An obstacle to such a mechanical perspective is that it's not glamorous, and the pursuit of glamour is largely what philosophical fancy talk on such issues is really about. A philosophical approach to human suffering can make vague promises about all kinds of exalted states and permanent solutions sold by impressive authority figures claiming to be experts etc. A philosophical approach has an appealing ego feeding story line which a mechanical approach can't match.

To return to the philosophical approach, we might start by examining the evidence provided by the universal nature of human psychological suffering. If everyone suffers to some degree or another, doesn't that suggest that the primary source of such suffering is something all humans have in common? What could that be other than thought itself?

To return to the philosophical approach, we can ask what it is about the nature of thought that may make overthinking a source of suffering.

We can go round and round and round analyzing all of this for years, for centuries. Or, we could get serious.

The person who is dangerously overweight may wish to analyze what deep philosophical factors brought them to this point, and perhaps that could have value for some. But in the end, if they are serious, they're going to have to eat less, exercise more, or both.

Quoting Coben

Yes, if the goal is in fact to head towards the goals of Buddhist practice. I agree with you here. It can lead to illusions of understanding things. Which can only be understood after long practice.

From the mechanical perspective, the required understanding can be reached pretty much immediately through the use of common sense, by anyone who is at least a bit serious.

If eating too much is giving me indigestion, the solution is to eat less.

If thinking too much is making me nutty, the solution is to think less.

Quoting Coben

For people who are not interested in achieving Buddhist goals or who simply want to use Buddhist ideas and stories as inspriation for their philosophical thinking, then it can certainly make sense.

This seems like a good solution. If a poster can state that their goal is not to solve a problem but rather to talk about it, ok, fair enough, go for it. If such a dividing line is made clear I withdraw all complaints and comments etc.

Quoting Wayfarer

The point of any real spiritual teaching is simply to allow you to forget about your own self-importance and just learn to be (a) happy and (b) useful.

It can be argued that the reason that few of us ever learn how to forget about our self importance is that the self importance is built in to the nature of what we're made of psychologically, thought. It's proven remarkably difficult to think oneself out of an obsession with "me", probably because such thinking feeds the division machine which creates and sustains the "me".

As example, while Buddhism appears to be a sincere well intentioned attempt to transcend our obsession with "me", we can observe that Buddhist principles and practices appear to be overwhelmingly about "me and my situation, me and my situation, me and my situation".

Wayfarer:In order to do that, you have to cut through a lot of social conditioning and various kinds of other crap that has encumbered you from childhood onwards.

In order to prove that this is possible, and scalable, it would be helpful to provide examples of those who have transcended the obsession with "me" by this method. While admitting vast ignorance of Buddhist culture, what I tend to see in all related traditions is that the acknowledged experts of a tradition are typically sitting on pillows in sheltered situations surrounded by adoring supporters. And you know, even I could appear transcendent in such favorable conditions.

If Buddhism is to be a kind of science and not just another dogma chanting religion, it would be very helpful if the experts of these methods would move out of the ashram, tell the adoring supporters to get lost, move in to a one bedroom apartment in a not so great part of town, and work 50 hours a week for minimum wage shoveling french fries at McDonalds. Their roommate should be a real scientist who carefully documents the emotional life of the Buddhist expert in such real world conditions. If the roommate could be an annoying sort of person that would add additional value to the experiment. :-)

I really don't think most Buddhist experts are scam artists. But it does seem reasonable to wonder why such experiments aren't a routine part of Buddhist culture.

Quoting Coben

I don't really see the type of discussion in this thread as investigating the practice. And sure, religious people can be be wrong, but implicit in most of the posts I read here is 'there is wisdom in this story, what is that wisdom?'. Well if the working assumption is that these guy have wisdom and the issue is what is the specific wisdom and at the same time these traditions recommend against precisely this sort of activity, to me it doesn't make sense. For people who are not interested in achieving Buddhist goals or who simply want to use Buddhist ideas and stories as inspriation for their philosophical thinking, then it can certainly make sense.

There is just as much necessity to determine where the wise man goes wrong, as there is a necessity to follow the direction of the wise. No one is capable of perfection in guidance. Just because the person is wise, does not mean that we ought to mimic every action of the person, or follow every word. The wise, like the geniuses, are the ones who surpass the boundaries of existing knowledge, so it is very important to determine where they are wrong and where they are right in those endeavours. If our attitude is to think, Einstein said it, he's a genius therefore it must be correct, we will all be misled.

This is how philosophy proceeds, we look at the wisdom presented by the various respected philosophers (wise man), and discern correct from incorrect within those writings. And even if we look at the actions of various religious or mystical practices, as to whether, or whether not, to engage in them, we still must discern desirable from undesirable, just like we do with philosophical writings.

It appears to me, like modern western culture has led us down a pathway where the individual person's need to develop the philosophical capacity to discern good from bad is completely ignored, or even hidden from us. It's as if we are taught that this moral capacity just comes naturally, through instinct. We can automatically discern good from bad without the need for philosophical training. It is also implied that the authorities are necessarily correct, or else they wouldn't be authorities. I hope that the presence of president Trump serves as a wakeup call, as to how deceptive this idea can be.

So if a wise man says to you "don't doubt my wisdom for it is true wisdom, therefore you ought not doubt it", and the man has proven himself to be truly wise, by amassing a multitude of followers, would you say that we ought not question that man's wisdom? Because this is what you appear to be saying.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

There is just as much necessity to determine where the wise man goes wrong, as there is a necessity to follow the direction of the wise.

I certainly could have missed it but that wasn't what I was reacting to in the thread. It seemed to be trying to find out what the wise person meant via symbols and metaphors in the story. .Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

No one is capable of perfection in guidance. Just because the person is wise, does not mean that we ought to mimic every action of the person, or follow every word. The wise, like the geniuses, are the ones who surpass the boundaries of existing knowledge, so it is very important to determine where they are wrong and where they are right in those endeavours. If our attitude is to think, Einstein said it, he's a genius therefore it must be correct, we will all be misled.

I don't make that assumption at all. But 1) it is one of the core ideas of Buddhism, especially Zen Buddhism, and again, it seemed like people were trying to glean the master's meaning, not to critique it.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is how philosophy proceeds, we look at the wisdom presented by the various respected philosophers (wise man), and discern correct from incorrect within those writings.

Then someone could have said 'no, Buddhism is wrong about that, those recommendations are incorrect.' But that wasn't the response.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It appears to me, like modern western culture has led us down a pathway where the individual person's need to develop the philosophical capacity to discern good from bad is completely ignored, or even hidden from us. It's as if we are taught that this moral capacity just comes naturally, through instinct. We can automatically discern good from bad without the need for philosophical training. It is also implied that the authorities are necessarily correct, or else they wouldn't be authorities. I hope that the presence of president Trump serves as a wakeup call, as to how deceptive this idea can be.

I haven't presented this as a moral issue, nor, I think have the others. It seems to me a practical issue. If the goals of Buddism and this, is behavior X a good one. Buddhism itself suggests it is not effective and in fact it is counterproductive to X. Unless one is saying the Buddhism is wrong about that, it is odd to be on the one hand treating a story in a sense as scripture while at the same time ignoring what the same sources say about analyzing and abstracting and focusing on mental verbal thinking.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So if a wise man says to you "don't doubt my wisdom for it is true wisdom, therefore you ought not doubt it", and the man has proven himself to be truly wise, by amassing a multitude of followers, would you say that we ought not question that man's wisdom? Because this is what you appear to be saying.

No, that's not what I am saying. I think the above should make clear what I am saying. In a context where people are treating something as authority and trying to work out what it means, it seems odd to me that what they are doing goes against those same authorities without at least, at the same time saying they are not authorities to be completely trusted. They would also, it seems to me, say why they trust the wisdom of the story, but have decided the Buddhism is incorrect on other issues. It's a bit like if I find a group of people treating a teaching story of Ghandi as total authority while at the same time advocating hitting people who disagree. I would immediately want, in that situation to say, Hey, you are treating G as an authority while ignoring an even more to G idea around non-violence. It seemed to me Ghandi was saying that non-violence is not only a more moral approach but a more practical one. If you think his other story is correct and threat it like scripture, why are you ignoring his core idea. And honestly are you in a place to judge either one yet?

But sure, if someone had said. Oh, the teaching stories have wisdom I trust, but that stuff in Buddhism about avoiding thinking about states and processes and getting bogged down in abstract ideas about practice there the Buddhists were wrong. Fine. Then they have taken a stand against a portion of Buddhism, not implicitly like they have here, but explicitly. Now one can ask, so 'why do you think the wisdom in that story is correct or correct for you and what you want?'

There's a cake and eat it too happening here.

Shoju, you are the only one who will carry on this teaching. Here is a book. It has been passed down from master to master for seven generations.

Isn't the old master attempting to hand Shoju a badge of authority? Shoju seems to take a purest position by throwing the badge of authority in the fire.

Is the old master perhaps wiser than the story suggests? Does the old master realistically recognize that if a teacher is to have any students they must put on some kind of show to attract the students, because the students are after all students, and not themselves masters.

And so the teacher says something like, "I am a great master and I will teach you how become something grand and glorious etc etc" Grand and glorious sounds appealing to the "everything is all about me" students, so they gather round and give the teacher their attention.

Hopefully somewhere down the road the master weens the students of these becoming trips, but before that can happen the students have to be reached where they currently are so that they will listen to the master.

This is an argument with my own positions. Like Shoju I tend to gravitate towards the purest positions, but the survival of the major religions over thousands of years is pretty strong evidence that a certain amount of show business is an essential ingredient of the stew.

Quoting Coben

I certainly could have missed it but that wasn't what I was reacting to in the thread. It seemed to be trying to find out what the wise person meant via symbols and metaphors in the story. .

You must have missed my posts then. I was trying to determine whether the person's action, of burning the book, demonstrated a valid point. First I said the successor was wrong to burn the book, because as a symbol, the book was necessary to transmit meaning, regardless of whether the meaning is directly represented by the symbol as in the case of literal language. But then I reconsidered, and concluded that this idea was just part of my western attitude, and the influence of semiotics, the notion that all instances of meaning require signs or symbols, as a language. Then I realized the vast multitude of meaningful acts, agricultural production, labour in general, and creation, which are meaningful acts, and are fulfilled without the need for signs or symbols.

Quoting Coben

I haven't presented this as a moral issue, nor, I think have the others. It seems to me a practical issue. If the goals of Buddism and this, is behavior X a good one. Buddhism itself suggests it is not effective and in fact it is counterproductive to X. Unless one is saying the Buddhism is wrong about that, it is odd to be on the one hand treating a story in a sense as scripture while at the same time ignoring what the same sources say about analyzing and abstracting and focusing on mental verbal thinking.

You cannot divorce any practical issue from morality. Any practical question involves issues of right or wrong, correct or incorrect, good or bad, and these are all ultimately grounded in morality. That's what Aristotle demonstrated. Any means itself is an end, but also, any end can be viewed as a means to a further end, until you get to the ultimate end, which he posited as happiness. Therefore, ultimately only moral principles can determine whether behaviour X is a good one. The Buddhist seems to be saying that we cannot resort to scripture or language in any form, (these being always a means to a further end), to provide such guidance. Of course, we cannot refute this by applying principles based in words, because that would be begging the question. So only by turning to the practice itself can we determine its moral character. But that's already consistent with good ethics anyway. It's what Plato insisted, judge the action, not the narrative.

Quoting Coben

No, that's not what I am saying. I think the above should make clear what I am saying. In a context where people are treating something as authority and trying to work out what it means, it seems odd to me that what they are doing goes against those same authorities without at least, at the same time saying they are not authorities to be completely trusted. They would also, it seems to me, say why they trust the wisdom of the story, but have decided the Buddhism is incorrect on other issues. It's a bit like if I find a group of people treating a teaching story of Ghandi as total authority while at the same time advocating hitting people who disagree. I would immediately want, in that situation to say, Hey, you are treating G as an authority while ignoring an even more to G idea around non-violence. It seemed to me Ghandi was saying that non-violence is not only a more moral approach but a more practical one. If you think his other story is correct and threat it like scripture, why are you ignoring his core idea. And honestly are you in a place to judge either one yet?

This is the subject matter of hypocrisy, and it is not a simple field of study. I think that you are intentionally making it even more complex in the way that you portray Buddhism. I think you represent Buddhism as intrinsically incoherent in relation to hypocrisy, as unknowingly promoting the sort of activity which they say ought to be avoided. However, if the point is to deny the authority of words, then the saying that the authority of words ought to be avoided, itself must be disqualified. So for example, the master might present you with a story in words, and tell you not to think about anything presented in words. You see the inherent hypocrisy? But since both are presented in words, the story, and the instruction not to think about the story, the student has the choice of which to reject. Or, the student can reject Buddhism altogether, as hypocritically incoherent. But that's just a feature of your representation. Anytime you use words to represent philosophical principles which advocate transmission of meaning without the use of words, hypocrisy cannot be avoided. In reality, it is more evident that what Buddhism advocates is to accept the meaningful act for what it is, a meaningful act. But since such acts are prioritized in relation to importance, we cannot necessarily hand priority to the acts which use words. But in no way does this necessitate that we ignore the meaning of acts using words, as it does not exclude them from the classification of meaningful act.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

However, if the point is to deny the authority of words, then the saying that the authority of words ought to be avoided, itself must be disqualified.

Yes, and then the entire house of cards collapses, and we are left with nothing.

In my mind at least, it seems relevant that the vast majority of reality at every scale consists of space, that which we commonly refer to as nothing. Thus, a philosophy which has succeeded in destroying itself, a philosophy which has become nothing, might be considered a philosophy well aligned with the nature of reality. And isn't that generally the bottom line goal of philosophy?

Philosophers might be compared to astronomers. Astronomers are typically focused on physical things, while philosophers are typically focused on conceptual things. In both cases most of the attention is aimed at that which makes up the tiniest fraction of the picture. As example, the space which separates the above words from each other is essential and dominates this page, but is taken for granted and deemed not worthy of mention.

Why is our attention drawn away from the vast majority of reality and towards the tiniest fraction? Why the compelling preference for something over nothing?

We are made of thought. Thought operates by dividing reality in to conceptual objects. We are a thing making machine.

Quoting Wayfarer

This is not ‘objective’ in the normal sense, but it’s also not ‘subjective’ in that it doesn’t only pertain to one person or another, as these processes are universal, they're the same for everyone

The logico-epistemological format of this sentence which you employ often, almost all the time, is intriguing to say the least.

You said, "this is not objective...but it's also not subjective..." Subjective is the opposite of objective, in fact they're contradictory. Suppose that O = it's objective; then ~O = it's not objective= it's subjective

The trademark logico-epistemological format of Buddhism is expressed in the statement ~O & ~~O = Neither O Nor Not O = Neither is it objective Nor is it Not objective = "this is not objective...but it's also not subjective..." [your words]. This is the so-called Middle-Path or in Sanskrit, Madhyamaka achieved by what is known as double refutation; as you can see O has been refuted and ~O too has been refuted in ~O & ~~O. It must take constant training and mindfulness to maintain this logico-epistemological stance and I commend you on it. As far as I can tell, it's become somewhat of a habit with your good self. Congratulations if you treat that as an achievement.

The Madhyamaka or the Middle-Path is reportedly achieved through Nagarjuna's Tetralemma aka Fourfold Indeterminacy (Pyrrhonism) and it's here that I face difficulty because I couldn't arrive at the ~O & ~~O position [neither is nor not is, the essence of the Middle-Path] despite multiple attempts at logically manipulating the 4 propositions of Nagarjuna's tetralemma.

According to Pyrrhonism and Nagarjuna, given a proposition p, there are only 4 possibilities
1. p [p]
2. ~p [not p]
3. p & ~p [p and not p]
4. ~(p v ~p) [neither p nor not p]

Nagarjuna denies/rejects all 4 possibilities and so,

1. p.............................................................NO! So, ~p [not p]
2. ~p...........................................................NO! So, ~~p [not not p]
3. p & ~p.....................................................NO! So, ~p & ~~p [neither p nor not p]
4. ~p & ~~p = ~(p v ~p)..............................NO! So, p & ~p [p and not p]

By denying all 4 possibilities, Nagarjuna effectively renders both a proposition and its negation as errors. Given a proposition p, Nagarjuna's stance would be, neither p nor not p. In two-valued logic i.e. one in which there are only two truth-values T and F, neither p nor not p would violate the law of the excluded middle (p v ~p) because neither p nor not p is equivalent to [~(p v ~p)] and that is just another way of saying that there's a third option in addition to p and ~p which, as far as I can see, is what Madhyamaka means.

What is this third option? Well when we deny the the law of the excluded middle, in classical logic we get a contradiction like so, ~(p v ~p) = (~p & ~~p) = (p & ~p) and that's why, my intuition suggests, Zen Buddhism, koans and all, is about paradoxes which are, all things considered, contradictions or, at the very least, attempts at contradictions.

What say you?

Quoting Coben

The context of the thread is a Zen Story and what it means. In Zen you will not find it recommended, in fact you will find the opposite, that one sit around and discuss in abstract terms what stories mean that likely to not fit where you are in your process. You will find the other activities, the non-meditation practices or dailty activities, to be practical, grounded, and ones to focus one's attention on. Getting and preparting the food, for example, and being present for that. There are suggestions in every branch of Buddhism I've encountered to focus away from abstract thought and also there is this idea that doing so ABOUT the spiritual ideas and stages and meansing can interfere with growth.

I think you know that this isn't really true because in all the activities that you list you've neglected to mention things dharma talks and the like, which are quite abstract and full of spiritual ideas. There may be some really austere Zen temples in the world but they're rare, and even so, must still be replete with abstract religious thought, because an essential feature of religion is meaning. Religious clergy of any tradition must supply meaning in the form of abstract spiritual ideas.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It appears to me, like modern western culture has led us down a pathway where the individual person's need to develop the philosophical capacity to discern good from bad is completely ignored, or even hidden from us. It's as if we are taught that this moral capacity just comes naturally, through instinct. We can automatically discern good from bad without the need for philosophical training. It is also implied that the authorities are necessarily correct, or else they wouldn't be authorities.

I would go a step further and say that individual moral development is suppressed because moral development leads to independence.

Quoting Hippyhead

From the mechanical perspective, the required understanding can be reached pretty much immediately through the use of common sense, by anyone who is at least a bit serious.

If eating too much is giving me indigestion, the solution is to eat less.

If thinking too much is making me nutty, the solution is to think less.

The problem with relying on common sense is that it can be dangerously simplistic.

We are social beings with the capacity of reason, which means that we must necessarily apply reason to social living, and therefore in order to live well we must develop our reasoning. Trained animals do fit in society, but they can cause a lot of trouble if mismanaged or if conditions change.

Quoting praxis

I think you know that this isn't really true because in all the activities that you list you've neglected to mention things dharma talks and the like, which are quite abstract and full of spiritual ideas.

The ones I have sat through - and I am quite sure this is standard practice - were 1) moving often from the abstract to the concrete and 2) led by experienced teachers and 3) it was meant to be tailor-fit to the specific listeners - their level in terms of meditation and focus, where they were in the process. Not, for example, like what is happening in this thread. Number two and three are built into the system. I would guess that number 1 is also.Quoting praxis

Religious clergy of any tradition must supply meaning in the form of abstract spiritual ideas.

Sure, under, in this case, what they consider well controlled and guided circumstances and in a community where abstract mulling is generally and regularly suggested to be something to avoid.

And heck, I'll throw out another problem in a Zen context for analysing stories. In the West we have a container model of language. The communication contains the truth. In Zen the point of stories is what they ELICIT. And that's why level of listener and setting are so important. It's not what the story means, it's what hearing the story does - which may include the meanings in the tools that elicit.

You get the 'right answer' or 'right interpretation' in words in your head and that may very likely be an obstacle.

Quoting Wayfarer

Anything worthwhile about religions relates to the idea of transcending self, which is a lot harder to do than to say.

We haven't yet demonstrated that transcending self is even possible, except perhaps for a tiny few who are so rare as to be largely irrelevant. It seems that before we invest many more centuries in discussing the transcendence of self it would be rational for someone to provide some compelling evidence such a thing is possible, and scalable to more than a rare few.

It seems far more rational and serious to focus on managing the reality of self. But such a topic isn't that glamorous, so let's just forget it and get back to the fun fancy talk.

The fact that transcending the self is so elusive could be quite instructive, as it suggests the primary obstacle lies not in the content of thought (that which can be changed) but rather in the nature of thought (that which can not be changed). This is actually good news (except for philosophers) as thought itself can be managed by relatively simple mechanical means.

Quoting Wayfarer

Self is a pattern of habits, associations, graspings, ideas, and judgements - a cultural construct, a psychological mechanism, and the centre of our imaginary world.

And it is this same collection of graspings which urges us to go to war with what we're made of, to try to overcome and defeat it. We're like the silly person looking for the magic food that once eaten will forever end our physical hunger.

Quoting Wayfarer

Seeing through that, letting go of it, surpassing it, is certainly the aim of Zen.

And so, to be credible, Zen teachers bear the burden of demonstrating that reaching such a goal is possible. We can gauge the degree to which Zen teachers believe in the value of their methods by how seriously they are attempting to meet that burden. I don't claim to know what efforts are being made to provide such evidence and would welcome education on that point.

Quoting Coben

....and in a community where abstract mulling is generally and regularly suggested to be something to avoid.

It's the ill who typically show up at the hospital.

So it seems it would often be chronic overthinkers who have suffered from that excess who would go looking for solutions, and perhaps wind up on the Zen teacher's doorstep. If there is a big sign posted on that door that says "NO THINKING ALLOWED!" then the student will likely turn away because, as an overthinker, they have a thousand questions which they probably feel the need to analyze.

If the goal of the Zen teacher is to serve the student they would seem to have no choice but to meet the new student where they currently are, which would seem to entail a lot of abstract mulling.

So perhaps the old master's desire to maintain the authority of the book has a valid purpose? Could the book, traditions, the teachings, the authority structures, the costumes, the ceremonies, the implied promises of something wonderful etc be the bait which lures the abstraction fueled becoming addicted student in to the trap of "dying to be reborn"?

You know, if you're trying to catch a mouse you use cheese as bait, not a cat.

Quoting Coben

I'll throw out another problem in a Zen context for analysing stories. In the West we have a container model of language. The communication contains the truth. In Zen the point of stories is what they ELICIT. And that's why level of listener and setting are so important. It's not what the story means, it's what hearing the story does - which may include the meanings in the tools that elicit.

You get the 'right answer' or 'right interpretation' in words in your head and that may very likely be an obstacle.

Insight or intuition is highly valued in Zen, if that's what you're essentially referring to, but it's hardly alien to the West. If you're talking about koans, I don't know much about them. I understand them to be a form of contemplation (meditation).

Quoting TheMadFool

What say you?

I don't understand symbolic logic, so there's no use asking for my comments on it. As for 'neither objective nor subjective' - the philosophical point is conceptually simple but difficult to articulate.

Let's go back to the basics, the first text in which the idea of 'middle way' is articulated. Again, very simple. It is represented in the Ananda Sutta. (I won't reproduce it here, although it's very short.)

The summary is, the Buddha is asked straight out: 'is there a self?'. And he doesn't answer. Then he's asked 'is there not a self?'. For the second time, he doesn't answer.

Then the questioner, Vachagotta, gets up and leaves. Ananda, Buddha's attendant, asks why he didn't answer, and he explains that answering 'yes' or 'no' the question 'is there a self?' would be misleading. To say there is a self, would be 'conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism.' To say there is not, 'would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism.'

First point to notice, is that the Buddha doesn't answer. It is said that he maintains 'a noble silence'. He doesn't offer a theory or a yes-or-no answer. Now, the character of Vachagotta is 'a wanderer' i.e. a forest-dwelling mendicant, who invariably plays the role of asking philosophical questions. In fact there turn out to be a number of such questions, the answer to which is invariably silence. You can find a listing here. This is where 'the parable of the poison arrow' comes in, discussed previously.

So, in relation to 'eternalism' and 'annihilationism', the principle is llke this. In the Buddha's day, there were 'ascetics and brahmans' who taught that there is an eternal and changeless soul that migrates from life to life. This is usually taken to refer to Hindu beliefs. In that religious culture, observance of the appropriate rites and conduct will lead to an endless series of propitioius rebirths. That is what is rejected as 'eternalism'. 'Annihilationism' is basically a form of nihilism, it says that at death the elements return to the soil and there are no consequences of actions (karma) performed in this life. (It is, incidentally, also the default view of secular culture, which is why 'secular Buddhists' generally reject the teaching of rebirth.) Those are the 'two extreme views' which the 'middle way' rejects. It evolves into a philosophy of the nature of existence, to wit:

By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "non-existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one.

So, that's the origin of 'middle way'. I would say more but this is now a long post. The only other point I'll mention is that there's an essay by a Theravada scholar on Emptiness which is a very good introduction to an often highly elusive idea.

It would be good to then discuss how this is developed in relation to 'objective and subjective' in the later tradition, but that will have to wait.

Quoting praxis

Insight or intuition is highly valued in Zen, if that's what you're essentially referring to, but it's hardly alien to the West

I don't think I said it was. I do think there is a different view of the purpose of language in Zen. That often text or speeches are considered lss containers of truth but eliciters of experience. What I am saying is not paraphrasable as 'insight and intuition'. .Quoting praxis

If you're talking about koans, I don't know much about them. I understand them to be a form of contemplation (meditation).

I wasn't speaking specifically about koans,but they would be included in eliciting-language.

Quoting Hippyhead

So perhaps the old master's desire to maintain the authority of the book has a valid purpose? Could the book, traditions, the teachings, the authority structures, the costumes, the ceremonies, the implied promises of something wonderful etc be the bait which lures the abstraction fueled becoming addicted student in to the trap of "dying to be reborn"?

You know, if you're trying to catch a mouse you use cheese as bait, not a cat.

I think most of the overthinkers, which would be everyone in a way, know what they are getting into. They've thought about it. The idea that they are going to change their relation to thinking is not a problem. But a lot of mulling about, say, breaking down the subject object split or sartori or what the symbols in a certain story mean, that could get in the way. They you end up looking for in meditation and checking and comparing with internal images and hallucinations of what you think you are going to experience, for example.

This is true in many types of practices.

Quoting Hippyhead

If the goal of the Zen teacher is to serve the student they would seem to have no choice but to meet the new student where they currently are, which would seem to entail a lot of abstract mulling.

I think they get tossed a few bones, but a lot of abstract mulling is not going to be encouraged.

Quoting Hippyhead

If the goal of the Zen teacher is to serve the student they would seem to have no choice but to meet the new student where they currently are, which would seem to entail a lot of abstract mulling.

There might well be a sign over the portal of most Zen monasteries NO PHILOSOPHIZING. (Anyone who has attended one of the 10-day Vipassana retreats would know that philosophical questions are likewise discouraged.) If you try asking tricky philosophical questions to a Zen teacher they’ll most likely whack you or assign you to cleaning duties.

That said, it is possible to wax philosophical about Zen, there’s plenty of philosophical depth in it. But in practice, the emphasis is always on action, on praxis.

Quoting Wayfarer

There might well be a sign over the portal of most Zen monasteries NO PHILOSOPHIZING. (Anyone who has attended one of the 10-day Vipassana retreats would know that philosophical questions are likewise discouraged.) If you try asking tricky philosophical questions to a Zen teacher they’ll most likely whack you or assign you to cleaning duties.

Ok, thanks for this education, that sounds good.

As best I can understand it, the source of the philosophizing is the transformation agenda being sold, which in new age hippy lingo is often referred to as a "becoming trip".

What I've been attempting to suggest in my posts is that the glamorous (and perhaps unrealistic) transformation agenda could be replaced with a common sense management agenda. Now the student is not on an ego feeding becoming trip journey from A to B but instead just attending to routine mental "cleaning duties". Philosophy no longer needed.

In my view, so long as the problem is defined as arising from the content of thought (a need to understand this or that) then students are inevitably going to think about that which they are supposed to understand, and then ego is likely to hijack the process, providing yet more distraction.

If the problem is instead defined as arising more from the nature of thought (in my view is a more accurate analysis) then we are no longer looking at a philosophical problem, but a far simpler mechanical issue. The model for this perspective is readily available in the manner in which we relate to every other function of the body. You know, we don't turn being physically hungry in to a complex and sophisticated philosophical problem requiring years of study under a master and all of that. Instead, we are simple, practical and direct, and go get something to eat. It seems to me psychic hunger can be addressed in much the same manner.

An Argument Against

The problem I see with my comments above is that trading a transformation agenda for a management agenda tends to strip the glamour out of this, and then nobody is interested, as we can see on these topics through out the forum and beyond.

Thus I remain open minded to a notion that religions that have lasted thousands of years may know what they're doing in all their various techniques for maintaining the glamour. You know, the ceremonies, the costumes, the fancy talk, the authority figures, a transformation agenda with it's promise of great riches awaiting ahead etc.

I would refer here to Catholicism, a tradition I am far more familiar with than Buddhism or Zen. Philosophers will often say Catholicism isn't logical etc etc. Ok, but the thing is, human beings aren't logical either, generally speaking, but emotional creatures. Thus, any analysis which attempts to be purely rational (as I'm attempting in my posts) is reasonably declared out of touch with reality.

Point being, any religion that took my advice above might very well collapse in just a few weeks.

Quoting Hippyhead

Why is our attention drawn away from the vast majority of reality and towards the tiniest fraction?

We are inclined toward things which have value. And it's the rare things which have high value.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is the subject matter of hypocrisy, and it is not a simple field of study. I think that you are intentionally making it even more complex in the way that you portray Buddhism. I think you represent Buddhism as intrinsically incoherent in relation to hypocrisy, as unknowingly promoting the sort of activity which they say ought to be avoided.

No, I was pointing out that people here were contradicting Buddhism while treating Buddhism as an authority. Not everyone in the thread but those I responded to or those who criticized my response, since I then defended my response to the behavior of others. At no point was I saying that Buddhism was internally contradictory or hypocritical. I think Buddhism, and especially Zen, makes it clear that the kinds of analysis be carried out in this thread, in this context, by at least a number of the participants is a dead end at best and an obstacle to the goals of Buddhist practice at best.

Reply to WayfarerSymbolic logic, as the name suggests, has to do with symbols and their manipulation and that's probably the aspect of logic you're not familiar with. However, conceptually, the ideas are simple. I'll try and explain it to you here if that's alright with you.

1. The law of the excluded "middle" states that for any proposition/claim, that claim can be true or its contradictory can be true. So, if the claim is "the Buddha exists after death", either "the Buddha exists after death" is true or "the Buddha doesn't exist after death" is true. There is no "middle" i.e. there's no third option between 1. "the Buddha exists after death" and 2. "the Buddha doesn't exist after death"

2. When the Buddha claims that neither it's true that "the Buddha exists after death" nor it's true that "the Buddha doesn't exist after death", the Buddha violates the law of the excluded "middle" because he denies both of what are allegedly only two possibilities viz. 1. "the Buddha exists after death" and 2. "the Buddha doesn't exist after death". In other words, the Buddha envisions a "middle" between these two, as he put it, extremes - for the Buddha there's a third option - this option is the so-called Middle-Path.

3. In the logic we use everyday - classical logic - the "middle" in the law of the excluded "middle" is a contradiction. If you violate the law of the "excluded" middle as the Buddha is doing (described above in 2) the end result should be a contradiction. In other words, the Middle-Path of the Buddha amounts to claiming contradictions are true. Thus, as I mentioned earlier, Zen koans are either full-fledged contradictions or evolving contradictions - Madhyamaka or the Middle-Path manifests in classical logic as contradictions.

In addition, if you're interested, the Buddha's method of denying something and further denying that something's contradictory is reminiscent of apophatic theology's conceptualization of God via negativa using Double Negation. There are snippets of it here and here

[quote=Wikipedia]Therefore, Abu Yaqub Al-Sijistani, a renowned Ismaili thinker, suggested the method of double negation; for example: “God is not existent” followed by “God is not non-existent”. This glorifies God from any understanding or human comprehension[/quote]

Neither is it that God is existent nor is it that God is non-existent...

Neither is it that the Buddha exists after death nor is it that the Buddha doesn't exist after death...

Reply to TheMadFool The point of the Ananda Sutta is not a comment on logic as such. The question was 'does the self exist'? And the response indicates it's not a Y/N question.

So the proposition 'the self exists' is neither true nor false. It depends on what you mean when you say 'the self exists'. To say 'it exists' simpliciter is to arrive at a wrong view. To say it doesn't exist is another wrong view.

You can't shove everything into the procrustean bed of logical propositions. But that's really not a comment on logic per se. The Buddha's discourses are generally a model of rationality.

Quoting Wayfarer

The point of the Ananda Sutta is not a comment on logic as such. The question was 'does the self exist'? And the response indicates it's not a Y/N question.

So the proposition 'the self exists' is neither true nor false. It depends on what you mean when you say 'the self exists'. To say 'it exists' simpliciter is to arrive at a wrong view. To say it doesn't exist is another wrong view.

You can't shove everything into the procrustean bed of logical propositions. But that's really not a comment on logic per se. The Buddha's discourses are generally a model of rationality.

Well, for sure, we see eye to eye on what the Buddha's position was/is - neither is nor is not is the Madhyamaka mantra. The question that remains unanswered is, why the Buddha adopted such an attitude/stance/point of view?

There are a couple of possibilities which I will lay down below for your study:

1. Facts about logic and epistemology both treated as subjects in their own right imply Madhyamaka or the Middle Path. What I mean is that there are certain known facts about epistemology and logic that entail the attitude the Buddha espoused. In this case there are truths about logic and epistemology that necessitate Buddha's noble silence, his refusal to commit to available choices and forge his own path right down the "middle". The question, what do we know about the world? is either not or of less importance.

2. Facts about the world imply Madhyamaka or the Middle Path. In this case logic is simply a tool and epistemology, as a subject, is irrelevant. Everything hinges on what is known and also what is unknown about the world. The question, what do we know about the world? is first and foremost.

3. A little bit of both 1 and 2

Any ideas?

Quoting Coben

I think Buddhism, and especially Zen, makes it clear that the kinds of analysis be carried out in this thread, in this context, by at least a number of the participants is a dead end at best and an obstacle to the goals of Buddhist practice at best.

I'm not qualified to comment on what Buddhism is. Assuming the above to be true, and we wish to keep doing that which is not suggested :-) it seems reasonable to wonder why Buddhist culture appears to be clogged to overflowing with the kind of analysis Coben is referring to.

I'm sincerely interested in things like why faith persists in an atheist culture which explicitly rejects faith, analysis persists in a Zen culture which seems to explicitly decline analysis, and conflict persists within a Catholic culture explicitly about peace. What is the underlying mechanism which keeps pushing faith, analysis and conflict forward even when a person's chosen philosophy would seem to forbid them?

The best I can suggest is that philosophy (edits to the content of thought) is a surface level activity which addresses symptoms generated by the nature of thought.

This theory might explain phenomena such as a Catholic philosophy which is explicitly about bringing people together in peace, but which nonetheless still experiences a lot of division and conflict. The well intended philosophy wallpapers over the symptoms to a degree, but the underlying source of division (nature of thought) continues to belch out division like a river spring. When the ever flowing stream of division meets resistance at one point, like water flowing from a spring it simply finds a way around the obstacle and keeps on expressing itself somewhere else.

And so philosophy becomes a game of wack-a-mole. We can declare faith to be really bad, and so the atheist stops having faith in religious authorities, and begins having faith in science authorities. We can declare analysis to be bad, and then insist on analyzing why that is so. We can declare hate to be bad, and then find ourselves hating fellow Catholics who have a different interpretation of this doctrine.

To me, an important piece of evidence is that it seems that every ideology ever invented inevitably sub-divides in to competing internal factions which come in to conflict with each other. This apparently universal pattern suggests that the division and conflict we are attempting to address arises from the nature of thought, that which all ideologies are made of.

I'm reminded of a story I heard years ago on NPR. A team of doctors were treating patients recovering from heart attacks. The doctors wanted to help their patients chill out with as few drugs as possible so they decided to teach their patients meditation. The doctors were concerned that any philosophies that came along with the meditation instruction might alienate some of the patients and thus keep them from benefiting from this treatment. So the doctors ruthlessly stripped all philosophy from the instruction, presenting meditation in a purely mechanical non-partisan manner.

It seemed the doctors were wise enough to see the benefits that can come from the experience of silence, and the problems which can arise from attempts to explain that experience.

I guess when one has just had a heart attack that helps one become quite practical about one's health and a parade of glamour based enticements are not needed to interest one in things like meditation.

Quoting Hippyhead

I'm not qualified to comment on what Buddhism is. Assuming the above to be true, and we wish to keep doing that which is not suggested :-) it seems reasonable to wonder why Buddhist culture appears to be clogged to overflowing with the kind of analysis Coben is referring to.

Habit and context. As Wayfarer said, this is a philosophy forum (an online place where people come to chat about philosophical ideas, and generally with much less rigor that even college papers. Now I think Wayfarer meant, it's a philosophy forum, so it's fine. Well, sure. But not if one is treating Buddhism, especially Zen Buddhism, as the authority. And so when I say Habit, I mean, if any idea comes up, it is habit or culture here to throw analytical thinking and speculation at it. Which is of course fine in terms of philosophical chat, and also nothing I have anything against personally, since I am not a Buddhist, nor do I share Buddhist goals. Though I do think Buddhist masters have some excellent heuristics for achieving those goals. Now if we go against those heuristics while, it seemed to me, putting up other words of masters as authority, it seems like there are some missing assertions. Like, the masters are good and wise in telling stories but their cautions about minimizing abstract thought and speculating about what one will experience or what stories that may not suit their level in meditative experience mean are off. And then one wonders how this was determined. It might be right. But it seems like something worth explaining, directlyQuoting Hippyhead

And so philosophy becomes a game of wack-a-mole. We can declare faith to be really bad, and so the atheist stops having faith in religious authorities, and begins having faith in science authorities. We can declare analysis to be bad, and then insist on analyzing why that is so. We can declare hate to be bad, and then find ourselves hating fellow Catholics who have a different interpretation of this doctrine.

I notice a lot of team identification but not necessarily hving the skills one's team works with. LIke people will be for science, against religion, but in their arguments make all sorts of assertions that neither deduction nor induction support or are even referred to. Mindreading is often quite common is people who see themselves as representing science. If a thread said there were psychic phenomena they would weigh in against it - iow they agree with the conclusions of science but are not so aware of their own methodologies - and so assert things like 'You believe this because you are afraid of death.'

Obviously not all advocates of positions or even most are like this. Though it's a significant percentage. And there are similar contradicting their own epistemologies on other teams. IOW membership may have more to do with conclusions, rather than processes, or to put it another way, it may have little to do with real understanding.

Quoting Coben

As Wayfarer said, this is a philosophy forum (an online place where people come to chat about philosophical ideas

Yes, but it seems reasonable that one of the things we inspect, challenge and chat about are any limitations involved in the methodology we are using.

Quoting Coben

Now if we go against those heuristics while, it seemed to me, putting up other words of masters as authority, it seems like there are some missing assertions.

I hear what you're saying, there is a conflict between treating these teachers as authorities, and then ignoring what they are teaching. Part of the problem may be that those who are truly sincere about walking away from analysis etc tend to be culturally invisible, and thus never become teachers. Thus these fields tend to become dominated by people like me, those who like to endlessly talk about non-talking. :-)

Quoting Coben

I notice a lot of team identification

Yes, agreed. "I am a this or a that, this is our tribe, these are our slogans" etc. Imho, this tribal phenomena too can be traced back to it's source in the divisive nature of thought. Thought conceptually divides "me" from "everything else" with "me" perceived to be very small, and thus vulnerable, so we attempt to attach ourselves to something larger, a group, an ideology etc.

If we attempt to cure this divisive tribalism within the realm of philosophy, we wind up creating yet another tribe, the anti-tribal tribe.

Quoting Coben

At no point was I saying that Buddhism was internally contradictory or hypocritical.

You didn't say it, but you implied that.

Quoting Coben

I think Buddhism, and especially Zen, makes it clear that the kinds of analysis be carried out in this thread, in this context, by at least a number of the participants is a dead end at best and an obstacle to the goals of Buddhist practice at best.

I can't say that I know all the precepts of Buddhism, but I really do not think that it provides you with the premise to draw this conclusion. I believe that the Buddhists provide an example of how to live a good healthy life, through principles of practise, putting emphasis on certain activities as being of a higher priority, more important, than others. If certain lower level activities, such as the kinds of analysis being carried out in this thread, interfered with, or in any way prevented one from carrying out the necessary higher level activities, which one is obliged to carry out through necessity of a healthy life, then this would be viewed as an obstacle. However, I don't see that you have the premise to say that Buddhism rejects this sort of activity necessarily.

That's probably why, in the examples Wayfarer gives, the Buddha does not answer such philosophical questions. Buddhism distinguishes the necessities of life from what is unnecessary, attempting to associate itself only with the necessary, as being what is important. This leaves philosophy as unnecessary, and outside the scope of Buddhism. So if one wants to practice philosophy, this must be done in one's own mind, on one's own time, and not under the pretense of doing so under the direction of the Buddha.

So long as the problem is defined as residing within the content of thought (ie. incorrect understandings) isn't philosophy inevitable?

Quoting TheMadFool

3. In the logic we use everyday - classical logic - the "middle" in the law of the excluded "middle" is a contradiction. If you violate the law of the "excluded" middle as the Buddha is doing (described above in 2) the end result should be a contradiction. In other words, the Middle-Path of the Buddha amounts to claiming contradictions are true. Thus, as I mentioned earlier, Zen koans are either full-fledged contradictions or evolving contradictions - Madhyamaka or the Middle-Path manifests in classical logic as contradictions.

In metaphysics there are two distinct customary ways (sets of conditions) for violating the law of excluded middle, one is neither is, nor is not, the terms are not applicable, and this is expressed by Aristotle, and the other being both, is and is not, and this is expressed by Hegel.

The Aristotelian way is to assign reality to what is referred to by the concept of "potential", allowing this term to refer to what neither is nor is not. So for example, in the case of future events, like Aristotle's classic 'sea battle tomorrow', they neither are, nor are they not. And the reality of time is therefore accounted for by the concept of "potential" which refers to what may or may not be.

The Hegelian way, demonstrated in his dialectics of Being, allows that both what is, and is not, are subsumed within the concept of Becoming. This allows that both what is, and is not, coexist within the concept of Becoming. There aren't any real principles for separation, only an implied passing of time within "Becoming", which could separate is from is not. The result is some ontologies such as dialectical materialism, and dialetheism, which allow for the validity of contradiction, depending on how one interprets the role of time within Becoming.

I prefer the Aristotelian way, which gives a clear indication of how we ought to relate to time. Future events, are devoid of "actuality" (in the sense of being logically describable in terms of what is and is not), because they exist only potentially. He insisted we adhere to the law of non-contradiction, and we do not represent these events as a violation of it. This enforces a real separation between future and past because the reality of material existence, describable in terms of what is and is not, is true of the past only, therefore there is no such material existence in the future. This is consistent with human experience, and the Buddhist perspective, which emphasizes the importance of the present, and inspires us to the revelation that the entire material world is created anew with each passing moment of time. Such a revelation, as to the extreme complexity of this reality, which is completely and absolutely hidden from us, in itself, makes a wonderful eureka moment.

Quoting Hippyhead

So long as the problem is defined as residing within the content of thought (ie. incorrect understandings) isn't philosophy inevitable?

Why do you describe the content of thought as "incorrect understandings". Do you think that thought is necessarily wrong?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You didn't say it, but you implied that.

I doubt it. I don't believe that Buddhism is being inconsistant on that issue. It is extremely focused on practices, every community and master I encountered, and this is in a wide range of locations, both East and West, discouraged intellectualizing ideas in Zen and to some degree in general.

As far as the rest, there are all sorts of admonishments, especially in the Zen form of Buddhism, to avoid intellectualizing issues around Zen. Not merely that it is unnecessary.

A university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master
quietly served tea, the professor talked about Zen. The master poured the
visitor's cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the
overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. "It's overfull! No
more will go in!" the professor blurted. "You are like this cup," the master
replied, "How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup."

That's not an isolated story. Then one can look at the whole tradition with koans which is precisely tryting to undermine the analytical mind, to short circuit it.

But I am going to drop out of this thread. I actually find the amount of negative reactions to this being pointed out rather odd. I certainly think people are free to do it. But it's as if a rather core portion of Zen teachings and Zen lived culture simply does not exist. I don't know how this has been missed. But I've said my piece and there seems little real interest in it other than Hippyhead.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Why do you describe the content of thought as "incorrect understandings". Do you think that thought is necessarily wrong?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say that. In a surprise move, I was for once too stingy with words. :-)

What I was trying to say is that it's my understanding that Buddhism defines the problem as being an inaccurate understanding of our situation. That is, ideas within the content of thought which are incorrect. As example, perhaps my assumption is that "me" is real, and perhaps Buddhism suggests it is not, something like that.

So again, if Buddhism is a process of editing thought content, isn't analysis and philosophy inevitable?

To illustrate through a contrast, let's imagine that we were to instead define the problem which is being addressed as arising primarily from the nature of thought itself. In such a case, the suggested remedy might be simply reducing the volume and frequency of thought by various mechanical methods, which wouldn't necessarily require much if any philosophy.

This is much of what I've been getting at in many of my posts, but it's not clear to me whether the manner in which I express this is adequate for effective sharing. You know, it's clear enough to me, but if my use of language stinks then it might understandably not be that clear to others.

Quoting Coben

As far as the rest, there are all sorts of admonishments, especially in the Zen form of Buddhism, to avoid intellectualizing issues around Zen.

Ok, to further my Zen education, if intellectualizing is supposed to be largely discarded, what is that supposed to be replaced with? What are the primary methodologies involved, other than being whacked and doing the teacher's laundry? :-)

Quoting Hippyhead

Yes, but it seems reasonable that one of the things we inspect, challenge and chat about are any limitations involved in the methodology we are using.

Sure, and that's a different thing. That's when you are taking a stand and saying, I can question the masters. What I was reacting to was treating the master's words like scripture and engaging in intellectual analysis in a tradition that discourages that, especially in regard to Zen itself.Quoting Hippyhead

I hear what you're saying, there is a conflict between treating these teachers as authorities, and then ignoring what they are teaching.

Thank you, concisely put. It would be another thing if the context was critical. and by critical I do not mean necessarily negative.Quoting Hippyhead

Part of the problem may be that those who are truly sincere about walking away from analysis etc tend to be culturally invisible, and thus never become teachers. Thus these fields tend to become dominated by people like me, those who like to endlessly talk about non-talking. :-)

I haven't tracked everyone's participation. Since you started responding to me, you didn't seem to be putting the teachings, via the story, in an authority position. I could be wrong. :razz:

Quoting Coben

As far as the rest, there are all sorts of admonishments, especially in the Zen form of Buddhism, to avoid intellectualizing issues around Zen. Not merely that it is unnecessary.

Hippyheadists would explain the suggestion to reduce intellectualizing in this way. If one seeks to experience a sense of unity with reality, it's probably best not to invest too much time in a methodology which operates by a process of division. And then the Hippyheadist would probably go on to expand upon this simple common sense suggestion in 4,000 pages of intellectualization, based upon the principle "it's typically the ill who show up at the hospital". :-)

Quoting Coben

That's when you are taking a stand and saying, I can question the masters.

Well, in this case I was perhaps largely agreeing with what these masters are saying (devalue philosophy) while perhaps questioning what they are doing (seemingly providing ripe ground for more philosophy).

But really what I meant was that given that philosophy is often a process of questioning everything, it seems relevant and appropriate to include philosophy itself in the list of things being challenged. Not off topic on a philosophy forum in other words, imho.

Quoting Coben

Since you started responding to me, you didn't seem to be putting the teachings, via the story, in an authority position. I could be wrong.

As a good little philosophy forum wannabe pundit I typically rebel against everything including authority, but I'm starting to rebel against that too. :-) As quick example, if religion with all of it's authority structures etc was a living species, we'd have to say it's proven pretty well adapted to it's environment, the human mind. Buddhism is something like 2,500 years old, yes?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

In metaphysics there are two distinct customary ways (sets of conditions) for violating the law of excluded middle, one is neither is, nor is not, the terms are not applicable, and this is expressed by Aristotle, and the other being both, is and is not, and this is expressed by Hegel.

Thanks for the info. How does what you said and the fourfold indeterminacy of Pyrrhonism and Nagarjuna's tetralemma hang together?

There are only 4 possibilities regarding a proposition (Pyrrhonism)

1. p.........................p
2. ~p.......................~p (not p)
3. p & ~p................both p and not p
4. ~(p v ~p)............neither p nor not p

Aristotle seems to have opted for 4 and Hegel 3 in their acts of violating the law of the excluded middle but they're equivalent - different sides of the same coin - because ~(p v ~p) = p & ~p.

Nagarjuna's tetralemma is as below:

5. p (p)..................................................no! So, ~p (not p)
6. ~p( not p)..........................................no! So, ~~p (not not p)
7. p & ~p (p and not p)..........................no! So, ~p & ~~p (neither p nor not p)
8. ~p & ~~p (neither p nor not p)...........no! So, p & ~p (p and not p)

So, given any proposition p, the following choices are available, choices expressed by a disjunction:

9. p v ~p v (p & ~p) v ~(p v ~p)

The Buddha and Nagarjuna deny all four these possibilities and we get:

10. ~p v ~~p v ~(p & ~p) v ~~(p v ~p)

and we get

11. (~p v p) v (~p v p) v (p v ~p)

which reduces to

12. p v ~p

And 12 is the law of the excluded middle which is precisely what the Buddha and Nagarjuna are trying to deny - the Middle Path is between what to these two are the extremes of p and ~p - and the best way to do that is to reject the law of the excluded middle with ~(p v ~p) which reflects their stand all issues is viz. neither is nor is not.

Can we do the same with Nagarjuna's tetralemma negation tactic?

13. ~p v ~~p v (~p & ~~p) v (p & ~p)

we arrive at

14. ~(p & ~p) v (~p & ~~p) v (p & ~p)

which takes us to

15. (~p & ~~p) v (~p & ~~p) v (p & ~p)

we then see that

16. (~p & ~~p) v (p & ~p)

However, we've already denied (p & ~p) and so,

17. (~p & ~~p)

and we get,

18. ~(p v ~p)

As you can see 18. ~(p v ~p) violates the law of the excluded middle, and the Buddha and Nagarjuna have set their sights on exactly that - they're the Middle-Path guys. But, in classical logic, 18. ~(p v ~p) = (p & ~p) i.e. violating the law of the excluded middle takes the form of a contradiction and this is why I think Zen and Ch'an Buddhism are all about tackling paradoxes which are, to my knowledge, contradictions.

Quoting Hippyhead

Ok, to further my Zen education, if intellectualizing is supposed to be largely discarded, what is that supposed to be replaced with? What are the primary methodologies involved, other than being whacked and doing the teacher's laundry? :-)

Meditation, chores or work, whatever your duties are. You might end up getting a koan to fuss your brain over. I mean, ya gotta live your life.

Quoting Hippyhead

But really what I meant was that given that philosophy is often a process of questioning everything, it seems relevant and appropriate to include philosophy itself in the list of things being challenged. Not off topic on a philosophy forum in other words, imho.

Certainly not off topic, no. Perhaps in this thread, but not in the forum.Quoting Hippyhead

As quick example, if religion with all of it's authority structures etc was a living species, we'd have to say it's proven pretty well adapted to it's environment, the human mind. Buddhism is something like 2,500 years old, yes?

Yes, and the West tends to take a reductionist relation to such things: they take pieces out of the range of practices. But of course on can be critical. And for me, what if the goal is not my goal, for example. Perhaps the practices are exceptionally good at reaching the goals in Buddhism (and I tend to believe this) but it's not what I want? One can be critical of authorities on this level also. And of course some facets may just be habit and not necessary.

Quoting Coben

As far as the rest, there are all sorts of admonishments, especially in the Zen form of Buddhism, to avoid intellectualizing issues around Zen.

The point is, that such an admonishment is an intellectualization itself. Therefore presenting this as you do, is to represent Buddhism as hypocritical.

Quoting Coben

But I am going to drop out of this thread. I actually find the amount of negative reactions to this being pointed out rather odd.

It's only "the pointing out" which you are doing which is odd, not the reaction of others to it.. You are making the conclusion that Buddhism portrays intellectualizing as necessarily wrong, but that in itself is already an intellectualized conclusion. If you would follow the example, which you yourself put up, to "fist empty your cup", then you would see that it would be impossible to proceed to the conclusion that one ought to avoid intellectualizing, because this conclusion could only be supported through intellectualizing.

Quoting Hippyhead

So again, if Buddhism is a process of editing thought content, isn't analysis and philosophy inevitable?

I think that this is correct, thinking, and philosophizing will prove to be inevitable. The point though, is as Coben points out with the example, is that you must "first empty your cup". This means that correct thinking, in the form of philosophizing, can only be carried out without prejudice, an empty cup. This means that we must learn how not to think, to get into the proper position (empty cup), before we can learn the proper way to think. Since thinking is a process subject to habit, we must break all habits, good or bad (not being able to properly distinguish one from the other), and start from scratch.

Quoting Hippyhead

To illustrate through a contrast, let's imagine that we were to instead define the problem which is being addressed as arising primarily from the nature of thought itself. In such a case, the suggested remedy might be simply reducing the volume and frequency of thought by various mechanical methods, which wouldn't necessarily require much if any philosophy.

It may not be that the problem arises from thought itself, but from the form that thought takes. Being an activity, the form is the habits of the thinker. To break one's habits of thought would require a practise of not thinking at all, to empty one's cup.

Quoting TheMadFool

Aristotle seems to have opted for 4 and Hegel 3 in their acts of violating the law of the excluded middle but they're equivalent - different sides of the same coin - because ~(p v ~p) = p & ~p.

Logic needs to be supported by ontology to be applicable to what is real. And In relation to ontology, 3 and 4 are not the same. To understand this, you need to reflect on how they each relate to the first law of logic, the law of identity. When we take Aristotle's position, #4, neither/nor, what we say is that there is a deficiency in our capacity to identify, such that our terms of description are inapplicable. In other words, the object has not been properly identified to be represented as a logical subject. There is some type of inconsistency which makes description impossible. In the position #3, it is implied that the object has been properly identified, as the logical subject, but a logical description is impossible because contradiction is inherent within the object. So #4 implies that we need to develop a better system of identity, while #3 implies that identity is impossible.

Quoting TheMadFool

As you can see 18. ~(p v ~p) violates the law of the excluded middle, and the Buddha and Nagarjuna have set their sights on exactly that - they're the Middle-Path guys. But, in classical logic, 18. ~(p v ~p) = (p & ~p) i.e. violating the law of the excluded middle takes the form of a contradiction and this is why I think Zen and Ch'an Buddhism are all about tackling paradoxes which are, to my knowledge, contradictions.

Like Wayfarer, I'm not good with symbolic logic, but what you say is not a surprise. Aristotle demonstrated very clearly with many examples, why the law of excluded middle must be violated in order to understand what we know as activity, "becoming". To adhere steadfastly to that law allows sophist to prove all sorts of absurdities. The issue is, as I've explained, how we violate it, under what conditions. To determine the proper way requires that we understand fundamentally the three laws of logic, especially the pivotal, most important, and fundamental, law of identity.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The point is, that such an admonishment is an intellectualization itself. Therefore presenting this as you do, is to represent Buddhism as hypocritical.

Well, maybe I accidentally made a good argument that Buddhism is hypocritical. Not my intention. Further I don't think they make an intellectual admonishment. They suggest other activities. The use koans to overload the mental verbal looping. I am presenting it in a more intellectualized form, but hey, I'm not a Buddhist. But if you think they're hypocrites, I am not upset. Further they don't and I am not presenting this in binary terms. It is not 'never intellectualize' but avoid long forays in it. Avoid focusing on it.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It's only "the pointing out" which you are doing which is odd, not the reaction of others to it.. You are making the conclusion that Buddhism portrays intellectualizing as necessarily wrong, but that in itself is already an intellectualized conclusion.

Which I get to make since I am not a Buddhist. Honestly this all seems extremely defensive.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If you would follow the example, which you yourself put up, to "fist empty your cup", then you would see that it would be impossible to proceed to the conclusion that one ought to avoid intellectualizing, because this conclusion could only be supported through intellectualizing.

If you can't see the difference between long posts analyzing symbols and discussing abstract ideas
NOT in the context of an expert raising the issue
and a nearly transparent story that is immediately grasped without long posts and references to various teachers and what they said.
Of course that person could realize that they were not in a receptive learning state and perhaps realize that without even intellectualizing it. Just feel it through the mirrored analogous activity the master presented. But yup there will be moments when masters use abstract concepts AND PERHAPS the professor yup, has an intellectual moment, which is part of a general letting go of intellectualizing and reducing it. It ain't binary. But long analytical discussions would be discouraged. A librarian can shush people, even rather loudly (at least they used to do this) and be hypocritical only in an extremely binary interpretion of what they are doing, trying to make an environment conducive the activities libraries were once meant for. Yes, they made a noise. Does that use of noise reduce the overall noise and create a better environment for study and reading. I think it might. If the teacher of Buddhism compassion kills a person for killing a bird, ok, get out the you hypocrite signs.
There are other non-verbal ways such things are discouraged. And sure, most adherents might have a conceptual insight about intellectualizing. If they begin to minimize their intellectualizing, that's a net gain. It's pragmatic, not some absolute moral stance that intellectualizing is bad. Longer sequences of it are problematic. It's what they have discovered or at least think they have and they try to minimize it. I don't think that's hypocrisy if some abstractions come up in the process.
Unless one is some kind of fascist purist - and some Zen Temples are that. Perhaps they live up to the absolute level you seem to think is the only consistant one. They hit people with sticks when they do things they consider problematic. That's more like Pavlovian conditioning.

And yeah, I still think your reactions are odd, or better put, as I said above, defensive. Or perhaps you're critical of Zen Buddhism and you want me to admit I think it is hypocritical also. I don't. My issues with Buddhism have to do with the goals and practice, not with some perceived hypocrisy.

I'm out.

@Metaphysician Undercover :up: G'day

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The point is, that such an admonishment is an intellectualization itself. Therefore presenting this as you do, is to represent Buddhism as hypocritical.

It doesn't seem hypocritical to use reason to point to the limits of reason. As example, it wouldn't be hypocritical to use reason to point out that say, doing reason on this forum 24 hours a day probably wouldn't be healthy.

Quoting Coben

And yeah, I still think your reactions are odd

Such reactions are perhaps odd, taking no position there, but they are utterly normal and routine on philosophy forums.

Quoting Coben

I'm out.

I hear ya, and often feel that way myself. There is another option too, just ignore stuff that doesn't interest us.

Quoting Coben

But if you think they're hypocrites, I am not upset.

I don't think they're hypocrites, that's why I objected to your representation, which appeared to represent them as hypocrites.

Quoting Coben

Honestly this all seems extremely defensive.

When someone enters a thread, like you did, with explicit instructions of how the subject of the thread ought to be approached, then it's natural that those who believe otherwise would be defensive.


Quoting Coben

But long analytical discussions would be discouraged.

We do not pretend that our participation in this forum is an act of practising Buddhism. What is at issue here is your assertion that participation in this forum is inconsistent with Buddhist principles.

Quoting Coben

A librarian can shush people, even rather loudly (at least they used to do this) and be hypocritical only in an extremely binary interpretion of what they are doing, trying to make an environment conducive the activities libraries were once meant for. Yes, they made a noise. Does that use of noise reduce the overall noise and create a better environment for study and reading. I think it might. If the teacher of Buddhism compassion kills a person for killing a bird, ok, get out the you hypocrite signs.

Do you agree that there is a difference between talking and thinking, and that intellectualizing is a form of the latter, not the former? So this is not an apt analogy, because telling people not to talk, so that others can think, is not the same as telling people not to think (intellectualize). if we are telling people not to think, the reasons for this would be completely different, perhaps even opposite, from the reasons for telling people not to talk.

Quoting Coben

There are other non-verbal ways such things are discouraged. And sure, most adherents might have a conceptual insight about intellectualizing. If they begin to minimize their intellectualizing, that's a net gain. It's pragmatic, not some absolute moral stance that intellectualizing is bad. Longer sequences of it are problematic. It's what they have discovered or at least think they have and they try to minimize it. I don't think that's hypocrisy if some abstractions come up in the process.

If the goal is to minimize intellectualizing, then this is a different goal than is the goal of minimizing discussion. The reason for this goal might be as I described, to dispense with the bad habits of thought, in order to produce new, clean ways of thinking. And if this is the goal, the bad habits of thought might be the listening to others, and formulating ideas based on what others say. This would be intellectual laziness, letting others think for you. The good habits, on the other hand, might be to think things out for yourself, and make up your own mind, your own decisions. Then it would appear like the goal is to minimize discussion, when in reality the goal is to minimize the influence which others have over you through the means of discussion.

Quoting Coben

And yeah, I still think your reactions are odd, or better put, as I said above, defensive. Or perhaps you're critical of Zen Buddhism and you want me to admit I think it is hypocritical also. I don't. My issues with Buddhism have to do with the goals and practice, not with some perceived hypocrisy.

That the reply is "defensive" should not seem odd to you, for the reason explained. I am far from a scholar of Zen Buddhism, but it appeared to me like your issues with its "goals and practice", might really stem from misunderstanding. If a practice aims to help one find true understanding from within one's own person, rather than through some external instruction, then to portray that practice in terms of a system of instruction shows a misunderstanding.

Quoting Hippyhead

It doesn't seem hypocritical to use reason to point to the limits of reason. As example, it wouldn't be hypocritical to use reason to point out that say, doing reason on this forum 24 hours a day probably wouldn't be healthy.

The "limits of reason" is not the issue here.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The "limits of reason" is not the issue here.

No clue what you're talking about.