The Catuskoti & Skepticism

Pyrrho doubted that he doubted, and so verged on relativism. I am not sure this is where the Tetralemma leads.

Reply to TheMadFool It was never put in those dry scholastic terms in the early Buddhist texts. Here is the origin of this whole thing: note how simple it is.

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html

This was then developed into the principle that to say of (self and world, i.e. 'everything') 'it exists' is the 'error of eternalism'. To say of [...] 'it does not exist' is the error of nihilism. Instead, the task is to understand 'dependent origination' which is the means by which 'self and world' arise in the first place. But that, in turn, requires intense meditative absorption (samadhi). So it's not simply dry logical syllogisms.

Reply to Wayfarer

I see the four corners as mind expanding, not dry

Reply to Gregory Sure, but expressed in syllogistic form, it is pretty scholastic. Agree that underlying insight is vital.

Quoting TheMadFool

Pyrrho the skeptic would've found Nagarjuna's tetralemma very useful, no?

You know about Pyrrho and India, right?

Reply to TheMadFool In classical logic, the latter two options are not possible, and also are equivalent: not(P or not-P) = (P and not-P) = FALSE

In paraconsistent logics, something like (P and not-P) is permitted, in a sense, but not anything not(P or not-P).

In intuitionistic logics, something like not(P or not-P) is permitted, in a sense, but not anything like (P and not-P).

I’m not aware of any true paraconsistent intuitionistic logics that would permit both, but I recently had a thread about a way that something like both could be accommodated at the same time, all while never actually giving up the principle of bivalence that governs classical logics:

Quoting Pfhorrest

The use of these mood functions also facilitates something superficially resembling the motivations for non-classical types of logic such as paraconsistent logics and intuitionist logics, without actually abandoning the principle that differentiates classical logic from them: the principle of bivalence. The principle of bivalence is the principle that every statement must be assigned exactly one of two truth values, "true" or "false", no more and no less. Intuitionist logics allow for statements to be assigned neither of those truth values, while paraconsistent logics allow for statements to be assigned both of them at the same time.

With these mood functions, similar things can be constructed without actually violating the principle of bivalance, because there is nothing strictly logically prohibiting it being the case that neither is(P) nor is(not-P), if for example P were some kind of descriptively meaningless statement; it is merely necessary, to preserve bivalance, that either is(P) or not(is(P)), but not(is(P)) doesn't have to entail that is(not-P). Similarly, there is nothing strictly prohibiting it being the case that be(P) and be(not-P), if for example there were some morally intractable situation where both P and not-P were required, and so any outcome was unacceptable; it is merely necessary, to preserve bivalence, that either be(P) or not(be(P)), but not(be(P)) doesn't have to entail be(not-P).

Fleshing out the philosophical implications of things like descriptively meaningless claims and morally intractable situations is a topic for further discussion. But in any case a logic of this form is in principle capable of discussing things that are, in a loose sense, "both true and false" or "neither true nor false", without technically violating the principle of bivalence.

Also see Graham Priest on Nagarjuna (Aeon Magazine).

If P is 70% true and 30% false, the laws of Aristotle are violated. I think this is what Hegel was after

Quoting Pfhorrest

for example P were some kind of descriptively meaningless statement

This is interesting. Suppose there's a proposition P. According to Nagarjuna's tetralemma, there are 4 possibilities:

1. P
2. Not P
3. P And Not P
4. Not (P Or Not P)

If you deny all 4 possibilities it means two things: 1. You're suspending judgement as regards P's truth/falsehood Or 2. P is meaningless (it has no truth value)

In other words, to suspend judgement on the truth value of a proposition P = declaring proposition P meaningless.

Quoting Wayfarer

eternalism

A conversation I had with a Buddhist:

Q. Does the self exist?
A. No!
Q. Nihilism?
A. No!

Q. Does the self not exist?
A. No!
Q. Eternalism?
A. No!

As you can see, Buddhism is in the habit of negating all claims, much in the same way I suggested we do to qualify as a true skeptic.

Quoting Gregory

Pyrrho doubted that he doubted

That's mind-blowing. Any references that I can use?

Quoting TheMadFool

A conversation I had with a Buddhist

I did one of the 10-day Vipassana courses some time back.

Rule no 1: no conversation.

For very small windows of opporunity, you were allowed to talk to the supervising teacher about questions, doubts, discomfort (of which there was plenty) but never about 'philosophy'.

Quoting Wayfarer

I did one of the 10-day Vipassana courses some time back.

Rule no 1: no conversation.

For very small windows of opporunity, you were allowed to talk to the supervising teacher about questions, doubts, discomfort (of which there was plenty) but never about 'philosophy'.

:up: Meditation does wonders for the mind and body or so I hear. BTW thanks for the links

Reply to TheMadFool

I got that information from the skepticism section on historyofphilosophy.net

Quoting Gregory

I got that information from the skepticism section on historyofphilosophy.net

A gazillion thanks. :up:

Let's review the whole thing for clarity:

The tetralemma as it stands:
Only one but necessarily one of the following obtains for any given proposition P:

1. P: I affirm P
2. Not P: I Deny P
3. P And Not P: I Affirm and I Deny P
4. Not (P or Not P): Neither I Affirm P nor I Deny P [suggests that there's a third possibility]

If, some say say Pyrrhonism does this, we reject all 4 possibilities the following happens:

5. Not P: I Deny that I Affirm P
6. Not Not P: I Deny that I Deny P
7. Not (P And Not P): I Deny that (I Affirm P and I Deny P)
8. Not Not (P or Not P): I Deny that I Neither Affirm P nor I Deny P [denies a third possibility]

If Nagarjuna's "Not" is the standard negation we see in logic then, it leads to:

9. Not P
10. P
11. P or Not P
12. P or Not P

Since the original tetralemma is a disjunction: 1 Or 2 Or 3 Or 4, it follows that denying the tetralemma yields:

13. (P or Not P) Or (P or Not P) Or (P or Not P)

The statement 13 simplifies to: P or Not. However, the tetralemma denies this: 4. Not (P or Not P) and that means there's a third possibility, neither P nor not P, and that possibility is: we don't know anything about P's truth value, something that's dear to a true skeptic's heart.

Does this make sense?

Quoting Wayfarer

It was never put in those dry scholastic terms in the early Buddhist texts.

An old thread I know but I think there's something interesting going on.

Given any proposition p, there are 4 possible states it can be in, yes p, no p, yes p and no p, snd neither yes p nor no p.
1. p (yes p)
2. ~p (no p)
3. p &~p (yes p & no p)
4. ~(p v ~p) (neither yes p nor no p)

Nagarjuna calls them the 4 extremes. He negates them all

1. p: not p
2. not p: not not p
3. (p & ~p): not (p & not p)
4. ~(p v ~p): not ~(p v ~p)

Reply to Wayfarer An excellent example of Wittgensteinian Silentism.

It only goes amiss when "developed into the principle that..."

From Wiki entry on the Buddhist ‘doctrine of two truths’:

[quote=Wikipedia entry ‘Two Truths’; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine] 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.[/quote]

The philosophical point is that ‘things’ don’t possess intrinsic reality or independent existence, because they arise due to a combination of circumstances. But they are not simply non-existent (‘like the horns of a rabbit’ in one of the traditional if whimsical metaphors). Their reality is conditional.

I think - and I don’t know if I could back this up with any references - that there is actually some convergence with Parmenides on this point - where Parmenides says that ‘that which truly is, cannot not be, and that which is not, cannot come to be.’ Can you see the conceptual similarity?

So the ‘polarity of existence and non-existence’ might be interpreted as follows - that ‘the world’ (i.e. most people) instinctively think that things either exist or don’t exist. But the nature of existence is that things don’t fall into either category - they’re not truly existent or totally real, in that if they were, they would be eternal, but not non-existent either.

Another key term in N?g?rjuna is svabhava meaning ‘self-originated’ or ‘self-born’. This is usually expressed in negative terms by saying that no individual particular possesses svabhava. I think in later traditions such as the Buddha-nature teachings, Buddha nature is understood to exemplify what is self-born. But that is a rather technical subject.

Reply to Banno it has to be understood what is being negated though. After all, Wittgenstein himself lectured and wrote, if he’d simply remained silent all his life, then we’d know nothing about him.

Reply to Wayfarer The message shown by the Blessed One was clear. However the articulation of it, as given in the OP, is nonsense, as @Pfhorrest shows.

Quoting TheMadFool

Given any proposition p, there are 4 possible states it can be in, yes p, no p, yes p and no p, snd neither yes p nor no p.
1. p (yes p)
2. ~p (no p)
3. p &~p (yes p & no p)
4. ~(p v ~p) (neither yes p nor no p)

Nagarjuna calls them the 4 extremes. He negates them all

1. p: not p
2. not p: not not p
3. (p & ~p): not (p & not p)
4. ~(p v ~p): not ~(p v ~p)

Yeah but, however 'judgment p' is sliced & diced, in principle, sufficient grounds are required to warrant any assent, doubt or dissent; otherwise, in practice, all propositional stances are just arbitrary (idle). This critical insight is usually / traditionally missed in discussions of Pyrrho (and, given his Indian influences, I assume 'sufficient grounds' is also a feature of Nagarjuna's tetralemma ... though I've not studied him or his "school" anywhere near enough to be confident about that). See Peirce (re: fallibility), Dewey (re: inquiry) & Witty (re: doubt) for further developments of 'non-relativist' 'non-antirealist' 'non-nihilistic' 'woo woo-free' skepticism.

Reply to Gregory I wouldn't mind seeing something a bit more concrete than this obviously self-refuting edict.

Have you a proper citation?

Reply to Banno There’s a pretty good Wiki article here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similarities_between_Pyrrhonism_and_Buddhism

Even proposes that the influence was from the Greek to the Indian sources, rather than vice versa, as is commonly assumed.

There’s also a connection with scepticism and Husserl’s epoche, suspension of judgement concerning what is not evident. But it’s important to note this is not propositional but dispositional, i.e. concerned with fostering awareness of bodily and mental states, not with the judgement of abstract propositions.

Reply to Wayfarer Thanks for replying and I just want to pick your brain on what I think is a link, tenuous though it may be between Nagarjuna's approach and the Zen notion of Mu (Not)

My understanding of Nagarjuna's tetralemma is sketchy at best but if it is what I think it is then, Nagarjuna (saint, scholar, philosopher) aims to create a state of mind very similar to the Zen Mu.

An excerpt from the Wikipedia page on what Mu is:

[quote=Wikipedia]
Some English translation equivalents of wú or mu ? are:

"no", "not", "nothing", or "without"

nothing, not, nothingness, un-,

is not, has not, not any

Pure human awareness, prior to experience or knowledge. This meaning is used especially by the Chan school

A negative.

Caused to be nonexistent

Impossible; lacking reason or cause

Nonexistence; nonbeing; not having; a lack of, without

The 'original nonbeing' from which being is produced in the Tao Te Ching.[/quote]

That out of the way, take a look at what Nagarjuna says:

For any given proposition p, there are only four possible truth states that can be viz.

1. p (p is true)

2. Not p (p is not true)

3. p & not p (p is true and not p is true)

4. Neither p nor not p (not p is true and not not p is true)

Nagarjuna, if I read him correctly, wants us to refuse or deny all 4 possibilities. Let's take a proposition that you seem to be familiar with viz. the buddha exists after death. The conversation that takes place, as recorded in buddhiat texts I suppose, goes something like this:

Assuming E = the buddha exists after death.

1. E. No!
2. Not E. No!
3. E and not E. No!
4. Neither E nor not E. No!

In my humble opinion, this actually amounts to,

1. Refusing to assign a truth value to E

or

2. Proposing a "third alternative" to the usual habit of thinking about propositions in a binary way: affirm or deny a proposition, nothing else is possible.

Since our minds seem to deal only with propositions that have truth values, Nagarjuna's tetralemma by divorcing truth states (true/false) from [s]propositions[/s] sentences maybe,

1. suggesting that we look at sentences (utterances, written) not just as true/false/affirmation/denial but as something more than that if that even makes sense.

2. proposing a third alternative to handling sentences i.e. there's one more, as of yet undiscovered (I'm not sure about this), way of comprehrnding sentences in addition to the two we're familiar with which are affirming and denying them.

3. attempting to deliberately, for reasons unknown to me, drive a wedge between thoughts and mind. From the little that I know, the mind seems capable only of tackling sentences that can be affirmed or denied or only those whose truth values can be ascertained or, more to the point, assigned in ways that are unproblematic.

Of course, there's fuzzy logic, paraconsistent logic, dialetheism, and other more exotic varieties of logic out there. Perhaps Nagarjuna's work anticipated these modern developments. I'm not certain.

Nevertheless, denying every possibility for a proposition as Nagarjuna does manage, in an in-your-face kinda fashion, to make sentences, in a sense, unthinkable. This seems to square with the Zen practice of emptying one's mind of, well, thoughts otherwise known as Mu.

Mind you, this is only a hunch, a tentative hypothesis about the link between Nagarjuna's tetralemma and Zen Mu and other ideas.

Reply to TheMadFool The way I see it, the point is to understand why a particular question is a wrong question. There are several reasons why a question can be a wrong question. A quick way to ascertain that is to look at one's intentions for asking it.

[i]Ven. S?riputta said: “All those who ask questions of another do so from any one of five motivations. Which five?

“One asks a question of another through stupidity & bewilderment. One asks a question of another through evil desires & overwhelmed with greed. One asks a question of another through contempt. One asks a question of another when desiring knowledge. Or one asks a question with this thought,1 ‘If, when asked, he answers correctly, well & good. If not, then I will answer correctly (for him).’[/i]

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN5_165.html

In the mind of an ordinary person, the five motivations, or at least the first four, tend to be intertwined, which results in confusion. Hence the importance of purification practices, thorough which one's motivations become streamlined.

Quoting TheMadFool

Assuming E = the buddha exists after death.

1. E. No!
2. Not E. No!
3. E and not E. No!
4. Neither E nor not E. No!

A buddha is impossible to define comprehensively (it is said that it takes a buddha to know one). Hence it is impossible to make definitive claims as to what a buddha is or isn't.

Quoting Banno

I wouldn't mind seeing something a bit more concrete than this obviously self-refuting edict.

Have you a proper citation?

https://historyofphilosophy.net/sextus

https://historyofphilosophy.net/pyrrho

https://historyofphilosophy.net/skeptics-academy

Those are the interesting videos I first heard of it in (not a perfect citation, sorry), but I've seen writers on this forum say that they doubt that they doubt. It's an attempt to break out of logic and find intuition. On a logic grid it's contradictory, but seen through a different way it might make sense. Intuition and logic are both important. "Intelligence is recognitive: it cognises an intuition, but only because that intuition is already its own." Hegel

The Skeptics of Greece may have been using this kind of logic as a koan

Quoting Gregory

I've seen writers on this forum say that they doubt that they doubt.

...and your opinion of this view?

Quoting Wayfarer

Also see Graham Priest on Nagarjuna (Aeon Magazine).

Also see Covid Shaman on "Ganja to Marijuana" (Ibid, The Atlantic, Nov 14-65, vol 23, issue 22.).

Quoting Banno

...and your opinion of this view?

I don't think doubting that you are doubting is healthy. People try lots of techniques to free their mind but I doubted that I doubted one time earlier this year behind a restaurant and logic seemed to slip away and spirituality didn't enter my brain so I don't have a high opinion of doubts anymore. Keeping a balance between faith and reason can be a problem sometimes but doubting as hard as Descartes leads to some ridiculous arguments

Reply to TheMadFool ‘Mu’ is indeed a symbolic form or reference to ??nyat?. It is often used as the negation of both arms of a dilemma, as you say. Think back to the passage - that the world ‘neither exists nor doesn’t exist’ - and also the ‘ten undetermined questions’ of Buddhism - whether the Buddha continues to exist after death, or doesn’t continue to exist, and so on. ‘Mu’ is an answer to such question, or rather, a way of negating the question because it is based on a faulty apprehension of the nature of existence.

Zen is not intellectual in the sense that Western philosophy is, although there are academics and scholars who approach it that way, and there’s nothing the matter with analysing it philosophically provided it’s understood that this is what is being done.

[quote= Harold Stewart; https://www.nembutsu.info/hsrzen.htm] many Western enthusiasts for what they imagine to be Zen have never actually come into contact with this branch of the Buddhist Tradition as it still exists and functions in the Far East. Not only have they received no initiation into one of the three main Zen sects, but they are acquainted with their doctrines and methods only from books written about Zen in European languages, often at second or third hand. Such dabblers and dilettanti are usually interested in Zen only as a philosophy - which relieves them of the task of ever trying to put it into practice…..

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]

Reply to Wayfarer

Zen experience a Vision of the Cosmos and Hindus have Vision of Eros (for spirituality itself). Atheism is spiritual in a way because it's Buddhism without transcendent meditation. Atheists have all kinds of cool ways of looking at the world.

Union with God is the last state Christians say. But there is Vision of Agape when you live in spiritual love with everyone (a non-dual state) and mystics see a pre-vision of it. Buddhist sometimes say this too. People who have been in love know something of this

I started a book called The Protestant Mystics today to get some thoughts on these questions. I don't think any tradition knows everything and that is why Indian philosophers have the analogy of the elephant

Quoting Wayfarer

‘Mu’ is indeed a symbolic form or reference to ??nyat?.

I didn't know that. Updated my database. :up:

Quoting Wayfarer

Zen is not intellectual in the sense that Western philosophy is

As far as I'm concerned you hit the nail on the head. What I meant to do was offer an explanation on how the Mu/sunyata state of mind is achieved.

Take into account the fact that Western philosophy, to my reckoning, has been and is by and large about thoughts (ideas, hypothesis, isms, and so on) and their relationships to each other and the world. This particular character of Western philosophy can be summarized, in a broader context, as the interaction between mind and thoughts - the mind taken as that which holds, deals, tinkers around, with thoughts.

As far as I can tell, the Mu (sunyata) state of mind as without or not bears a close resemblance to mysticism defined, by some, as "conscious without being conscious of anything." In fact, a case can be made that they're the same thing.

As you already know, the mind is constantly thinking, either logically, associatively or even randomly some times. There's not a moment that goes by when the awake person's mind is not having some thought or other. Thus, if we're to achieve Mu (sunyata), our first order of business is to empty the mind (Mushin) and only then can one be "conscious without being conscious of anything"

How can we "empty the mind"? you might ask. There maybe different ways of doing that of course but one that I suspect Nagarajuna developed was predicated on one particular property of thoughts that makes them, in a sense, mind-apt (capable of being held by the mind). This "particular property" is truth value. Consider the sentence, "I love hamburgers". It's true for me but may not be true for you for other people but what I want to emphasize is that the sentence "I love hamburgers" is mind-apt only if it has a truth value. It's worth noting that truth value maybe a surrogate for meaning i.e. semantics determines truth value. You know, from experience, that the meaningless i.e. the semantically empty sentences (utterances, writings) are not mind-apt - the mind experiences great difficulty translating the meaningless into thoughts, in fact what always/usually happens is the mind fails to generate a thought that corresponds to the meaningless. To make the long story short, the meaningless, those missing a truth value, can't be thought about i.e. they're not mind-apt i.e. they're unthinkable.

Nagarjuna's tetralemma, by denying every possible truth state for a sentence, any sentence, is attempting to strip sentences of their truth value which is one way, even though it may be going round Jack Robinson's barn, of saying that sentences, all of them, are meaningless, semantically empty and when that's done to all possible sentences that can be generated, the mind, since it's incapable of thinking about the meaningless, becomes empty - Mu/Sunyata/Mushin/"conscious without being conscious of anything"

In conclusion, yes it's true that "Zen is not intellectual" - it is after all the quest for the state of mind in which we're not thinking about anything (Mu). However, to get to Mu, our minds, habituated over generations and lifetimes of constant, unceasing thinking, must devise ingenious ways as a workaround, Nagarjuna's tetralemma being one of them.


It's like Useless Machines

[quote=Wikipedia]The most well-known "useless machines" are those inspired by Marvin Minsky's design, in which the device's sole function is to switch itself off by operating its own "off" switch.[/quote]

I don't want to make this post longer than necessary but I think an analogy will help in understanding Nagarjuna's tetralemma. Imagine a world of objects and these objects can be only of two colors, black or white. Your eyes can only see these two colors. Imagine now that someone walks up to you and says, "there's an object in this world but it's not white, it's not black, it's not black and white, and it's not neither white nor black". Would you be able to see this object?

Substitutions for the analogy to work.
1. objects = sentences
2. white = true
3. black = not true/false
4. eyes = the mind
5. It's not white = it's not true
6. It's not black = it's not false
7. it's not black and white = it's not true and false
8. it's not neither white nor black = it's not neither true nor false
9. Would you be able to see this object? = would you be able to think about such sentences? (Mu)

The idea, it seems, is to take the mind beyond the possible (consistency) to the impossible (inconsistenct) and, Nagarjuna seems to be hinting, beyond that too (Mu).

Quoting TheMadFool

What I meant to do was offer an explanation on how the Mu/sunyata state of mind is achieved.

Without wanting to sound dismissive, that's why I posted that snippet from Harold Stewart.

Quoting Harold Stewart

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.

N?g?rjuna’s concern is soteriological - release from sa?s?ra. There’s really no obvious counterpart to that in the Western philosophical tradition.

I’ve had a little experience with Zen and Pure Land Buddhism. According to Pure Land, the path of Zen is exceedingly difficult, and very few master it. They refer to it as ‘the way of sages’. The Pure Land path is based on faith in Amida Buddha and recitation of the Name (which is the Nembutsu.) It’s often said to be the school of Buddhism most like Christianity because of the emphasis on faith, which is true in some ways, but the doctrine is obviously completely different.

The point is, it is assumed that virtually nobody attains or realises enlightenment in this life, according to Pure Land. What is attainable, according to their teachings, is ‘shin jin’, meaning something like ‘serene acceptance’, in the faith of being reborn in Sukhavati. The site which the Harold Stewart quote was from is a Pure Land site.

Quoting Wayfarer

Without wanting to sound dismissive, that's why I posted that snippet from Harold Stewart.

I guess the idea is to stop people, practitioners mainly, from cogitating in any sense of that word (Mu) by, in a way, distracting the mind with physical activity. I'm just guessing though, could be completely off the mark. I've done my share of manual labor - not the kind those who have menial jobs perform but close - and I've noticed that when physically engaged, especially when its strenuous, one stops thinking or even if one is thinking, one can't recall it (this seems a topic in itself but outside the scope of this conversation). Perhaps Nagarjuna's technique was exclusively intellectual in character, something that didn't go down well with his fans in the far east. Plus, the physical approach used in Zen gives the body the respect that's due to it - body & mind together will probably go much further than either of them alone.

Quoting TheMadFool

Nagarjuna's technique

I think there’s something deeply mistaken in that phrase.

Quoting Wayfarer

I think there’s something deeply mistaken in that phrase.

Possible but care to clarify. I respect your intuition if it's one but if you have good reasons, I'm all ears.

‘Technique’ is too narrow a term for what N?g?rjuna’s philosophy conveys. Techne is craft or skill or know-how in achieving an outcome. You might then say, well, isn’t enlightenment an outcome that N?g?rjuna wishes to achieve? That’s a deep question in its own right. But your analysis of ‘useless machines’ and logical puzzles is about as far from N?g?rjuna’s intent as it is possible to be. N?g?rjuna’s intent is soteriological, I think he would have no interest in so-called philosophical analysis, if that’s what it is, for its own sake.

Quoting Wayfarer

‘Technique’ is too narrow a term for what N?g?rjuna’s philosophy conveys. Techne is craft or skill or know-how in achieving an outcome. You might then say, well, isn’t enlightenment an outcome that N?g?rjuna wishes to achieve? That’s a deep question in its own right. But your analysis of ‘useless machines’ and logical puzzles is about as far from N?g?rjuna’s intent as it is possible to be. N?g?rjuna’s intent is soteriological, I think he would have no interest in so-called philosophical analysis, if that’s what it is, for its own sake.

How right you are, it takes a great deal of ignorance to reduce Nagarjuna's philosophy to a technique - the odds are great that there's a lot more to it than just that. I concede your point wholeheartedly. If you found my analysis inappropriate or worse, inimical to the gist of Nagarjuna's ideas, treat it as an idiosyncratic interpretation that though different is not all that truthful.

Reply to TheMadFool Hey don’t take it personally. I think you’re writing and analytical skills are OK, but just be mindful on the subject in this case. There are some writers who work on the relationship of Buddhist doctrine and modern philosophy, I’ll try and find some references.

Reply to TheMadFool Reply to Wayfarer In what way, gentlemen, is the 'Mu' mind-state distinguishable from the prefrontal lobotomized mind-state? How does Nagaruna's purported soteriology differ from psychosurgical zombification? And isn't the latter much easier to attain, and therefore more worth the trouble, than the former?

(Asking for a karma-challenged and depressive realist / absurdist friend.)

Reply to 180 Proof I think the doctrinal answer is that ‘zombification’ is a form of nihilism arising from aversion to existence, and as such will always generally culminate in birth into a bad place. You will find admonitions in Buddhist scriptures along the lines of ‘lest you find yourself in the womb of a cow’. Buddhists take that seriously, although of course it’s totally up to you if you do.

Quoting Wayfarer

Hey don’t take it personally. I think you’re writing and analytical skills are OK, but just be mindful on the subject in this case. There are some writers who work on the relationship of Buddhist doctrine and modern philosophy, I’ll try and find some references.

:up: :ok:

Quoting 180 Proof

In what way, gentlemen, is the 'Mu' mind-state distinguishable from the prefrontal lobotomized mind-state? How does Nagaruna's purported soteriology differ from psychosurgical zombification? And isn't latter much easier to attain, and therefore more worth the trouble, than the former?

(Asking for a karma-challenged and depressive realist / absurdist friend.)

Excellent question. If you remember our discussion about Mind No-Mind Equivalency Paradox and the more recent...er...engagement in the Knowledge Is Good OR Knowledge Is Not Good (Ethics & Epistemology), you'll get a feel of what Mu vs Zombie is all about and before I forget, Jesus Christ was an authentic zombie.



[quote=Bob Dylan (Ballad Of A Thin Man)] [...]Because something is happening here and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?[/quote]

'The only way out of it is through it' ~ some dude.

Modern philosophy is sometimes about total skepticism of truth and so is like Buddhist practice except it doubts its way out of reality instead of doing it with meditation or yoga

Quoting Wayfarer

The only way out of it is through it' ~ some dude.

:up:

Reply to Wayfarer Reminds me of

"If you're going through hell, keep going."
~Winston Churchill

Quoting TheMadFool

Excellent question.

... yet left like a bride waiting at the altar.

And sure, JC is the original "rabbi zombie on a stick". :halo:

Quoting 180 Proof

... yet left like a bride waiting at the altar.

And sure, JC is the original "rabbi zombie on a stick". :halo:

You crack me up! I have very few reasons to laugh. Thanks for giving me one and that too free of charge. I guess as Po says in Kungfu Panda, "there is no charge for awesomeness." :rofl:

Quoting 180 Proof

In what way, gentlemen, is the 'Mu' mind-state distinguishable from the prefrontal lobotomized mind-state? How does Nagaruna's purported soteriology differ from psychosurgical zombification? And isn't latter much easier to attain, and therefore more worth the trouble, than the former?

The contemplation of mu brings the mind to a halt, so to speak, similar as they way a computer freezes when it faces too many requests or when it's caught in a loop. But a mind in mu is still capable of action, unlike a frozen computer or a lobotomized person.

The contemplation of mu is like wiping the slate clean, which makes it easier to see one's priorities and act in accordance with them.

Like they say, in its proper application the analytical mind exhausts itself.

Quoting baker

But a mind in mu is still capable of action, unlike a frozen computer or a lobotomized person.

Not all lobotomy victims are incapacitated; some have managed to function even with greater inhibitions and impairments. And since most will never attain 'Mu', lobotomy gets you to "lights on, nobody home" ease of living (or bland idiocy) quicker and more reliably than zazen or whatever.

Quoting 180 Proof

Not all lobotomy victims are incapacitated; some managed to function even with greater inhibitions and impairments.

And that's something to count on when applying for a lobotomy?

And since most never attain 'Mu', lobotomy gets you to "lights on, nobody home" ease of living (or bland idiocy) quicker and more reliably than zazen or whatever.

Whatever happened to critical thinking ...

(So who is that "karma-challenged and depressive realist / absurdist friend" on whose behalf you're having this conversation?)

[quote=Review of Norman Fischer 'When you Greet me, I Bow';https://www.buddhistdoor.net/features/book-review-norman-fischers-when-you-greet-me-i-bow-]In Zen, teaching is a dubious proposition. That’s why it’s called “scattering dust and sand.” Like Cuiwei, with his “ladleful of foul water,” Zen ancients recognized that all religious and moral systems, however necessary, must be taken lightly. They will always be partial and therefore potentially destructive in this checkered world. Even the buddhas, as Zen sees them, are still working on being able to understand their own lives, and ours, well enough even to be able to spread the half-truths that constitute Buddhist teaching. [/quote]

Reply to Wayfarer Can a point have no point? Pointless to ask, and yet ...

Reply to 180 Proof There is a point. The point of that particular passage is, I think, that it illustrates what scepticism means within that particular religions domain of discourse. It expresses scepticism about religious and moral systems, while acknowledging that they're necessary. I don't think you find that it Christianity.

Reply to Wayfarer So you don't think fideism counts as 'skepticism within Christian discourse'? Or apophatic theology (i.e. via negativa)? Maybe I misunderstand you ...

Reply to 180 Proof I think you have. ‘Fideism’ is the elevation of faith over knowledge. I think Protestantism can rightly be accused of fideism with its doctrine of ‘salvation by faith alone’. As I understand it, which may not be very well, fideism is discouraged in Catholicism (might even be a heresy?)

The point about that passage I quoted from Norman Fischer is its acknowledgement that religious doctrines are always imperfect, ‘scattered dust and sand’. That iconoclastic streak in Buddhism goes back to the ‘parable of the raft’, in which the Buddha compares the dharma (i.e. his teaching) to a raft which is used to ‘cross the river’ - but then to be abandoned on ‘the other shore’. The raft is ‘thrown together with sticks and bits of twine’ - it’s nothing fancy.

But you do find this attitude in the Indic traditions more broadly - the awareness that teachings and doctrines and the like are never the final word or ultimate in themselves. ‘They’re a stick used to stoke the fire - when the fire is alight, the stick can be thrown in with it.’ But it’s characteristic of the kind of counter-cultural aspects of those cultures - I’m sure there are plenty of fideistic strains as well.

But, all that said, rafts and sticks and the like are still necessary, as the passage says.

Quoting Wayfarer

‘Fideism’ is the elevation of faith [s]over knowledge[/s].

Follow the link in my previous post if you're interested. Faith sans (or over above) reason as the ground for knowledge is fideism (vide Tertullian, Luther, Pascal, Kierkegaard ... Witty).

Quoting 180 Proof

Faith sans (or over above) reason as the ground for knowledge is fideism

Right. Just how I understand it also. I do notice that Wiki article has become a lot more complicated than when I last looked at it.

Quoting Wayfarer

Also see Graham Priest on Nagarjuna (Aeon Magazine).

Read the linked article. Almost felt him as a kindred spirit but Priest is a full-time philosopher and I'm just a beginner. :sad:

Anyway, here's what I discovered in Priest's writing:

1. For every given propositionn there are only 4 possible states in re truth and they are:
i) True (t)
ii) False (f)
iii) Both true and false (t,f)
iv) Neither true nor false ( n )

Priest claims that, with reference to the question of the Buddha's existence beyond death, the Catuskoti is meant to negate every possible answer and that he goes on to claim erects an entirely separate category of possibility viz.

v) Ineffable (i)

At first, I was under the impression that option iv) Neither true nor false was what people would treat as ineffable. Priest's reasoning for why this isn't so is, let's just say, based on a technicality: Priest believes that (t v n) is true but (t v i) is ineffable and thus n and i aren't the same. My own opinion on this is that n can be conceived of as a possibility despite not making any sense insofar as sense is a function of truth value but to ask someone to contemplate i is to quite literally ask that person to think of the impossible as possible.

Your thoughts...

Reply to Wayfarer Sorry for the double post but I really need your opinion on this. The Mu state of mind that we were discussing is also humorously reffered to as N/A (not applicable). An illustration:

Name: Smith
Age: 4 years old
Gender: Male
Occupation: N/A

Asking questions that make sense in the so-called nominal reality (the one unenlightened beings exist in) of ultimate reality (the world of enlightened beings) is to commit the same error as asking for the occupation of 4 year old toddler Smith above. N/A!

Graham Priest believes the correct, most appropriate, Western concept to apply to Budhhahood and the way Buddhas contemplate is the ineffable - a state of being that's beyond, out of reach of, words.

Preist then goes on to talk about the paradox inherent in describing/attempting to describe the ineffable (indescribable). I've mentioned a few months ago that this particularly unenviable position is nothing other than "beating around the bush" and never really getting to the bush itself. Nevertheless, we at least know there's a bush out there somewhere. Unfortunately, we no know nothing else about this "bush" or what it conceals from us :rofl:

All this thinking seems to be foreplay?!

Quoting TheMadFool

Priest claims that, with reference to the question of the Buddha's existence beyond death, the Catuskoti is meant to negate every possible answer and that he goes on to claim erects an entirely separate category of possibility viz.

v) Ineffable (i)

Aside from the question of whether the Buddha continues to exist after death, there are a series of other ‘unanswered questions’, a summary is given here. (T.R.V. Murti notes some similarities with Kant’s ‘antinomies of reason’ in his book, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism.)

You may recall the discussion of the simile of the poison arrow. The thrust of that simile is that trying to resolve such questions is like asking about ‘who shot the arrow’, ‘what kind of wood is it made from’, and so on, instead of seeking treatment for the poison and dying as a consequence.

The meaning of that is that the Buddha presents a means of liberating oneself from continued (implicitly painful or unsatisfactory) existence in sa?s?ra, the round of birth and death. Pursuing such unanswerable questions is a distraction from the urgent task of actually engaging in the way of liberation.

As regards the ineffable nature of Nirv??a - it has always been understood that there is no way to understand it short of actually reaching or realising it. It is referred to in some texts as ‘the inconceivable’, and much of the language about it is negative, saying what it is not, rather than what it is. Of course, some here will say that this amounts to nothing or nonsense or suchlike, although this fails to account for the fact that Buddhism is one of the primary sources of civilised culture. However there are also positive descriptions in terms of its blissful nature, ultimate peace and final release.

I think the point always is with Buddhism to train oneself to discern the causal chain - the ‘chain of dependent origination’ - which is the root cause of suffering (dukkha). It is in that sense a soteriological discipline. Through study of the doctrines etc you can arrive at some understanding of the religion but real understanding only comes through the practice. That is the meaning of ‘realisation’ - to see or realise the truth of something, but also to make it real, in the sense that a builder ‘realises’ the vision of the architect. The pursuit of that is what has always inspired Buddhists even though it often seems hopelessly remote and unobtainable.

I suppose a corollary of that is the understanding that the normal state, or the state that we all take for granted as being normal, is actually a defective or deficient condition. The unfortunate fact is that modern culture tends towards making allowance for this deficient condition, to ‘normalise’ it in some sense, so that it becomes the yardstick for what is considered real. The problem with this is that the normal state is grounded in craving, aversion and indifference - the ‘three poisons’ - so this supposed normal state is not only not normal, but actually not even real.

[quote=Bhikkhu Bodhi, A Buddhist Response to Contemporary Dilemmas of Human Existence; https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/response.html] Our root problem, it seems to me, is at its core a problem of consciousness. I would characterize this problem briefly as a fundamental existential dislocation, a dislocation having both cognitive and ethical dimensions. That is, it involves both a disorientation in our understanding of reality, and a distortion or inversion of the proper scale of values, the scale that would follow from a correct understanding of reality. Because our root problem is one of consciousness, this means that any viable solution must be framed in terms of a transformation of consciousness. It requires an attempt to arrive at a more accurate grasp of the human situation in its full depth and breadth, and a turning of the mind and heart in a new direction, a direction commensurate with the new understanding, one that brings light and peace rather than strife and distress.[/quote]

Quoting Wayfarer

You may recall the discussion of the simile of the poison arrow. The thrust of that simile is that trying to resolve such questions is like asking about ‘who shot the arrow’, ‘what kind of wood is it made from’, and so on, instead of seeking treatment for the poison and dying as a consequence.

Graham Priest believes that the Buddha would've considered such queries as a, I quote, "...waste of time..." Why do I feel like I've been pondering these very questions up until now? :chin:

Nevertheless, I recall discussing this matter with you or someone else before, many suns ago. While the Buddha makes sense of course from a triage perspective, he seems to have overlooked the fact that the poisoned arrow matters only because we lack good, satisafactory answers to the questions he dismisses as inappropriate. No?

Quoting Wayfarer

As regards the ineffable nature of Nirv??a - it has always been understood that there is no way to understand it short of actually reaching or realising it

I see the marks of a paradox in this. If nirvana is, as you and others claim, ineffable, it follows, doesn't it?, that no one know what it is. If so, how will someone recognize it when fae attains it? It appears that the criterion for identifying buddhas is lost to history, assuming there was one in the first place.

I'm especially concerned about this because there could be many, many ineffables. For instance, qualia - everday, mundane, routine - is also ineffable but nirvana, for certain (?), can't be the experience of qualia, right? Thus, necessarily all ineffables aren't enlightenment and this immediately raises the question of how one identifies buddhahood? The answer is not going to be very encouraging because an ineffable can't be put into words and that which can't be worded can't be understood. I'm rambling, aren't I but, in my defense, a genuine doubt.

Quoting Wayfarer

As regards the ineffable nature of Nirv??a - it has always been understood that there is no way to understand it short of actually reaching or realising it. It is referred to in some texts as ‘the inconceivable’, and much of the language about it is negative, saying what it is not, rather than what it is. Of course, some here will say that this amounts to nothing or nonsense or suchlike, although this fails to account for the fact that Buddhism is one of the primary sources of civilised culture. However there are also positive descriptions in terms of its blissful nature, ultimate peace and final release.

I’ve been under the impression that Nirvana is a literal, non-hyperbolic, non-dualistic awareness - hence an awareness not limited or bounded by anything: a limitless awareness. Hence, a state of being wherein a literally limitless awareness occurs sans any semblance of selfhood; the latter requiring a duality between self and non-self/other, which would logically cease occurring upon an actualization of complete non-dual awareness. This, in part, since all semblance of “objects of awareness” - be these physical things, or mental things such as desires and particular thoughts of which one is aware - cease to occur upon actualization of non-dual being … this state of awareness thereby being deemed to result in an unfathomable state of bliss. Maybe obviously from this description, a state of being wherein samsara thereby ceases.

One then can either actualize an awareness of Nirvana’s being, in which case one still remains in states of dualistic awareness while aiming to actualize Nirvana itself, or actualize Nirvana itself, in which case, again, duality ceases.

I don’t have references for this interpretation so much as this being the general understanding of Nirvana I’ve gained from my former readings.

To what extent am I misinformed?

Quoting TheMadFool

If nirvana is, as you and others claim, ineffable, it follows, doesn't it?, that no one know what it is.

Ineffable, 'too great to be expressed or described in words', nevertheless, 'known by the wise'. So, not right to claim that no-one knows it.

Quoting TheMadFool

The answer is not going to be very encouraging because an ineffable can't be put into words and that which can't be worded can't be understood.

It can't be meaningfully expressed in symbolic code or idle speculation.

Quoting javra

To what extent am I misinformed?

I don't know if you are although I can't say I really grasp the distinction you're making. I will say, from some years of contact with various Buddhist groups, the term 'Nirv??a' is very rarely invoked or mentioned. It's more like an implicit understanding.

Quoting Wayfarer

Ineffable, 'too great to be expressed or described in words', nevertheless, 'known by the wise'. So, not right to claim that no-one knows it.

Yes, Graham Priest's thinks so too (I'm not sure). I can't quite remember the argument he makes but it rests on a technicality. It goes something like this: ineffables may be ineffable, no doubt but, they can be true and so, he concludes, ineffables are knowable. I'm curious to know, what's your argument that ineffables can be known.

Quoting TheMadFool

I'm curious to know, what's your argument that ineffables can be known.

That's a deep question of religious epistemology. What does the (or a) Buddha know? To answer in any detail would require a great deal of text. A canonical description of the Buddha's knowledge can be found in such following examples:

[quote=Brahmajala Sutta]These are those dhammas, bhikkhus, that are deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful and sublime, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, comprehensible only to the wise, which the Tath?gata, having realized for himself with direct knowledge, propounds to others...[/quote]

For further reading perhaps have a look at https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/index.html

Reply to Wayfarer I just want to explore one particular interpretation of the notion of ineffables. Is the ineffable a linguistic issue in that we're missing the language that can eff it in a manner of speaking or is it that there are aspects, the most important ones going by how so many sages have mentioned it, of reality that no language can ever describe? In the first case, all we need to do is create a language with the expressive power to handle apparent ineffables but in the second case, such is impossible.

Noteworthy too is ineffables, if they're the holy grail of true understanding of true reality, they take the idea of language barrier to a whole new level.

Reply to TheMadFool It’s the second. Hence symbols, myth, imagery, which try to convey, invoke or otherwise impart the understanding of the ineffable. But that’s always given in the context of a domain of discourse, and, in Buddhist terms, a lineage of transmission. (See The Twilight Language, Rodney Bucknell.)

But you can see how, for example, liturgical language and the symbolic enactment of myth, which is central to religions generally, also attempts to convey the ineffable. I know someone, not particularly religious, who experienced a kind of epiphany simply standing in one of the great Gothic cathedrals of France.

About the ‘language barrier’ - language is obviously central to h. Sapiens, one of our distinguishing capabilities. But it’s also associated with a particular aspect of intelligence, that of abstraction and generalisation, and, I think, also with a particular aspect of consciousness. Insight of the kind indicated in Buddhist traditions invokes a completely different aspect of the intelligence to the verbal-linguistic. But, where will you find that in contemporary scientific or philosophical theory? I don’t know if you will. (I did have a paper by a Buddhologist on this subject a few years ago…..)

Actually I found that paper, and it is directly about the question you've raised regarding linguistic expression and experience of the ineffable - Absorption: Two Studies of Human Nature, Johannes Bronkhurst.

Quoting Wayfarer

I know someone, not particularly religious, who experienced a kind of epiphany simply standing in one of the great Gothic cathedrals of France.

:clap: :up:

A script from a 1970's movie (paraphrasing)

Student: Talking to you is like talking to a wall.
Master: The Buddha once gained enlightenment meditating next to a wall.
Student (mockingly): Oh! So, now you're comparing yourself to the Buddha.
Master: No! Only to the wall.

Quoting Wayfarer

Absorption: Two Studies of Human Nature, Johannes Bronkhurst

Will go through it. Thanks a million!

Reply to TheMadFool :rofl: It's a pretty long document, I haven't read all of it myself, but it is on point.

Reply to Wayfarer You might want to revisit a Daoist cliché/trope:

[quote=Laozi]Those who know don't speak. Those who speak don't know.[/quote]

The Tower Of Babel, the objective being to keep humans out of heaven. That's what you get when you mess with Yahweh!



Is something stalking us? Zeroing in on our position - for the kill - with the help of the sounds (language) we make?

[quote=Wikipedia]Radio Silence: In telecommunications, radio silence or Emissions Control (EMCON) is a status in which all fixed or mobile radio stations in an area are asked to stop transmitting for safety or security reasons.[/quote]

[quote=Wikipedia]Some predators rely mainly on sound cues to detect prey. In nocturnal predators non-visual clues are especially important. The barn owl (Tyto alba) relies on noises made by prey, and can locate prey animals with great precision.[/quote]

Or is the truth so shocking (could be either too terrible to share or so good that one is overwhelmed) that we're left speechless. See vide infra:



OR



:chin:

Quoting TheMadFool

The Tower Of Babel, the objective being to keep humans out of heaven. That's what you get when you mess with [s]Yahweh[/s]!

Any sovereign worth his bloodsoaked salt always makes strategic (e.g. propagandistic, conspiratorial, "fake news-alternative facts") use of this ideological parable for dividing-and-controlling "the people" (for their own good? – certainly for the good (continuance) of his reign).

Quoting 180 Proof

Any sovereign worth his bloodsoaked salt always makes strategic (e.g. propagandistic, consporatorial, "fake news-alternative facts") use of this ideological parable for dividing-and-controlling "the people" (for their own good? – certainly for the good (continuance) of his reign).

Reply to 180 Proof As for me,

MATT GAETZ UPGRADED FROM JUST F--KED TO ROYALLY F--KED

:rofl:

Reply to TheMadFool :up: