PDA

View Full Version : Enlightenment = good ?



Indar
23rd November 2006, 12:14
One of the aims or objectives of Buddhism is to obtain enlightenment.
But is it safe to assume that enlightenment is always good? For example it could be possible to argue that Hitler was enlightened ?

MikeWilliams
23rd November 2006, 13:47
Eh? How?

I have only a basic understanding of Buddhism, but by any standards, Ol' One-Bollock was about as far from the Noble Eightfold Path as it is possible to get.

Attaining enlightenment is about extinguishing desire and the ego. I'm not sure it's about setting yourself up as a tyrant and committing mass-murder.

Maybe I have misread something?

Indar
23rd November 2006, 19:25
Eh? How?

I have only a basic understanding of Buddhism, but by any standards, Ol' One-Bollock was about as far from the Noble Eightfold Path as it is possible to get.

Attaining enlightenment is about extinguishing desire and the ego. I'm not sure it's about setting yourself up as a tyrant and committing mass-murder.

Maybe I have misread something?

OK; obviously there could be room for misunderstanding.

If the concept of enlightenment is relative, i.e. some-one that knows some-thing that you don't, then this knowledge could be used either for good or for evil.

The context here is within a martial arts setting, where the sensei or instructor knows more than the student. In ShorinjiKempo we practice Kongo Zen, a form of Zen buddhism. How do we know that our instructor or teacher is using his or her knowledge for good purposes ?

MikeWilliams
23rd November 2006, 22:05
I don't think the concept of enlightenment is relative, at least in Buddhist thinking.

As to whether whether your teacher is teaching you good or evil, or hiding his motives - surely one of the purposes of meditation is to look inside yourself and deduce whether your thoughts and actions are correct. Knowing this would help you deduce whether you are being taught the right things.

As to whether you teacher has reached enlightenment (in a Buddhist sense): I think it's safe to assume, whoever he/she is, that they haven't. :)

But I'm no Buddhist scholar - hopefully somebody will correct me if I'm wrong.

niten ninja
24th November 2006, 14:21
I have a vague recollection of a story I hard on here about someone who after achieving enlightenment used it to... err... ambush people and hit them with sticks... until some samurai beheaded him... as I said, it's a VERY vague memory.

Inazuma
25th November 2006, 01:04
Some of what I understand about enlightment is that it's really about dropping subjective and achieve the objective (not that i'm sure it's possible at all at the moment, but that's a debate for a different time), it isn't so much about knowing something that another person doesn't and more in as knowing these things that we all know only from a different point of view...

Hitler might have been enlightened, it depends on how you really define the word. Which probably leads to a host of other problems because human laungage is not really adept to phrase very very abstract concepts like Enlightment without a very very high degree of confusion. (On a personal note, I don't think Hitler was very enlightened. But then that might be because he did order the killing of my family and their friends... )

From an objective point of view, there really shouldn't be good/bad since these are subjective point to each person's views. I think... ah!!! philosophy what a headache!! gonna go get a coffee and go to practice now.

Brian Owens
25th November 2006, 10:55
...If the concept of enlightenment is relative, i.e. some-one that knows some-thing that you don't, then this knowledge could be used either for good or for evil.
I think this comes down to the difference between "enlightenment" and "Enlightenment."

The first is -- as you say -- knowing something that others don't.

But "Enlightenment" -- true enlightenment -- what I think of when I think of The Buddha reaching enlightenment, or Zen masters reaching it however temporarily -- is something else again; not mere knowledge, but wisdom; the ability to see the forest and the trees; the ability to understand -- really, truly, and deeply understand -- the non-duality of existence that most of us only pay lip service to.

To my way of thinking, a truly enlightened man could not be evil, because evil is self-serving and therefore not in harmony with non-duality.

An evil but powerful man cannot truly be enlightened, but only has (limited) knowledge that empowers him.

That is my way of seeing it, anyway.

Jim Wilson
25th November 2006, 19:00
Good Friends:

I agree with Mike. "Enlightenment" in a Buddhist context is not relative. From a Buddhist perspective there is no possible way one would conclude that Hitler was enlightened. None.

There is a lot of confusion regarding this term, "enlightenment", because it means so many different things in the english language. But in a Buddhist context one could say it has two components: cessation and realization. The cessation component ("nirodha" in sanskrit) is the Third Noble Truth of the famous Four Noble Truths. Cessation refers to the cessation of greed, anger, ignorance, hatred, delusion and the other hindrances, or "klesas". One accomplishes cessation through various practices taught by the Buddha.

The realization aspect is nirvana, that is to say, one awakens to nirvana. (In some interpretations of the Buddhadharma nirodha and nirvana are synonyms and in others a distinction is made between the two.) The realization of nirvana is, according to the Buddhist Discourses, awakening to the deathless, the unborn, and the unconditioned.

This awakening has two aspects: wisdom and compassion.

Again, from a Buddhist perspective enlightenment is not vague or subjective. In addition, it is not culturally bound, because it is unconditioned.

I hope this clarifies some of the misunderstandings expressed.

Best wishes,

Dharmajim

Bruce Mitchell
25th November 2006, 21:08
People have been working towards enlightenment for centuries now. I don't see that it has made the world a better place. I think your better off spending an hour at a soup kitchen then on a cushion.

Brian Owens
25th November 2006, 21:35
People have been working towards enlightenment for centuries now. I don't see that it has made the world a better place.
That could be because we don't live in a world where no one has been working towards enlightenment for millenia; such a place might be much, much worse than what we have.

But I agree that working in a soup kitchen, or volunteering at a hospital (which I do), or any number of other charitable works is a vital part of the path. One needn't spend all of one's time on a cushion.

Bruce Mitchell
26th November 2006, 02:04
Good reply Brian :)

kenkyusha
26th November 2006, 18:09
People have been working towards enlightenment for centuries now. I don't see that it has made the world a better place. I think your better off spending an hour at a soup kitchen then on a cushion.
As Brian intimated, the two can/should be linked. One can spend an hour at a soup kitchen and end-up causing more problems than solving (it does happen). Without some type of clarity of purpose ability to be present, aware and to feel empathy for others (and these can be derived from lots of methods, not just seated meditation), the road to hell and all that.

While it can appear to be a solipsistic practice, sometimes spending time sitting/training bu, etc. make one more able to be effective while working in concrete ways to serve others. Just my take.

Be well,
Jigme

Bruce Mitchell
26th November 2006, 21:36
One doesn't need religion to have clarity of purpose. I still contend that two hours of actively working to make the world a better place is better than one hour of work and one hour of meditation. Likewise, the budoka would be better off spending that time in the dojo. Budo can provide a person with an ethical template for living one's life without resorting to superstitious nonsense.

Brian Owens
26th November 2006, 22:53
One doesn't need religion to have clarity of purpose.
...Budo can provide a person with an ethical template for living one's life without resorting to superstitious nonsense.
Who's talking about religion? What "superstitious nonsense"?

We were talking about enlightenment, not religion.
And to my way of thinking, Budo is one path to enlightenment.

Bruce Mitchell
26th November 2006, 23:13
Who's talking about religion?

We were talking about enlightenment, not religion.
And to my way of thinking, Budo is one path to enlightenment.

The original post refers to Buddhism, last I checked it was a religion. Enlightenment isn't a religious idea? The very term implies a duelistic viewpoint consistant with religion. Jim Wilson's post refers to attaining Nirvana, again a religious idea. I don't mean to single out Buddhism here, I would be equally critical if the topic was achieving sainthood. By it's very defintition faith (or belief) involves abandoning rational thought (i.e. the belief in heaven/nirvana), and hence my reference to superstitious nonsense.

kenkyusha
27th November 2006, 00:40
One doesn't need religion to have clarity of purpose. I still contend that two hours of actively working to make the world a better place is better than one hour of work and one hour of meditation.
No, as I mentioned above, that would be a silly contention. However, in my experience, tempering one's approach with something other is quite helpful (provider fatigue alone is reason enough to seek time away from any activity of this type).

Likewise, the budoka would be better off spending that time in the dojo. Budo can provide a person with an ethical template for living one's life without resorting to superstitious nonsense.
One could argue that this is not the case for every art- yes, one does have the examples of one's instructor and seniors, but there are some systems that lack explicit ethical guidelines, or have ones that may not be acceptable to modern Western minds (it is worth bearing in mind that what seems superstitious to us may well have been work-a-day to many in pre-modern Japan...)

As for the meditation/religion debate, seems a bit of a straw man, but it has been done to death by folks with a lot more experience than me...

Be well,
Jigme

Bruce Mitchell
27th November 2006, 06:52
No, as I mentioned above, that would be a silly contention.

Well I don't know about that. See I've been watching a lot of "My name is Earl" and one thing I've learned is that if you do good things, good things will happen to you. It has to do with this thing Carson Daily came up with called "karma". I would recommend watching it, it could clear up a lot of confusion in the world.

Bruce Mitchell
27th November 2006, 07:02
(it is worth bearing in mind that what seems superstitious to us may well have been work-a-day to many in pre-modern Japan...)

No arguement there. I have to wonder though, if we were talking about ancient Greek warriors, if hackles would be raised if I referred to their beliefs as superstition? By Hera I think not.

Brian Owens
27th November 2006, 07:04
The original post refers to Buddhism, last I checked it was a religion. Enlightenment isn't a religious idea? The very term implies a duelistic viewpoint consistant with religion.
No, enlighternment isn't a religious idea. While several posts have mentioned Buddhism, Buddhism isn't the only path to enlightenment.

Even the first post was clearly titled, "Enlightenment = Good?" -- not, "Buddhism = Good."


...Jim Wilson's post refers to attaining Nirvana, again a religious idea.

...By it's very defintition faith (or belief) involves abandoning rational thought (i.e. the belief in heaven/nirvana), and hence my reference to superstitious nonsense.
First, you're commiting a common error among westerners by trying to equate Heaven and Nirvana. They're not at all the same.

Heaven is a place, Nirvana is a state of being.

As Jim Wilson clearly stated, "The realization aspect is nirvana, that is to say, one awakens to nirvana. ...The realization of nirvana is, according to the Buddhist Discourses, awakening to the deathless, the unborn, and the unconditioned. This awakening has two aspects: wisdom and compassion."

Wisdon and compassion are not superstitious nonsense, they are personal attributes. One needn't be a religious person to recognize the intrinsic value of wisdom and compassion (although the two are frequently found to be closely correlated).

There is also no need to "abandon rational thought." For those who need to rely on more than just the experiences of those who have gone before, there have been scientific studies done of Zen masters, Yogis, etc. -- including electroencephelographic analyses of brain waves of those in meditative states -- which have shown that there are actual neurochemical changes that take place in the brains of experienced contemplatives. While these instrumentalities cannot prove the perceptual changes that the contemplatives speak of, they do prove that their minds are working on a different level than that of the control group -- the "average Joes."

The reason that Buddhism so often enters into conversations about enlightenment, is simply that Buddhism has linguistic contructs that are useful tools in such discussions, because enlightenement is a fundamental part of Buddhism. But it is certainly not exclusive to Buddhism.

HTH.

MikeWilliams
27th November 2006, 13:14
Indeed.

Buddhism is a strange sort of religion anyway since it has no deity or creation myths.

It's quite easy (at least for westerners like me) to see it as a philosophy and ethical code without any theistic/divine/supernatural component at all.

Bruce Mitchell
27th November 2006, 16:11
Heaven is a place, Nirvana is a state of being..

You say potato...You're still taking a duelistic view of existence, which in my opinion, is not rational. I find the two equal only in their improbability of existance. I never said that wisdom and compassion are nonsense, btw, there are plenty of compassionate, wise people out there without mucking about with enlightenment. But if we are really exploring the idea of enlightment=good, then I would like to see some examples.

MikeWilliams
27th November 2006, 17:44
you're still taking a duelistic view of existence

Not at all, at least not when discussing Enlightenment. It is quite possible for someone to achieve Enlightenment while still living. Gautama Buddha was one of many individuals who have achieved it.

In fact, in Buddhism I believe it's also possible for someone to attain Nirvana while still living (although it's normally linked to death, and escaping from the cycle of re-incarnation. This *is* dualistic, and the main reason why I, as an atheist, do not call myself a Buddhist - despite a general affinity for the teachings).

One of the failings of Buddhism is that it is great at describing the stages of the journey, but not so good at describing the destination. But you could probably level that same accusations at most religions. The difference in Buddhism is that the reward does not necessarily come in the "afterlife".

As to whether Enlightenment=Good: maybe it's enough in the words of Bill and Ted, to be "excellent to one another".

Bruce Mitchell
27th November 2006, 18:54
Not at all, at least not when discussing Enlightenment. It is quite possible for someone to achieve Enlightenment while still living. Gautama Buddha was one of many individuals who have achieved it.

In fact, in Buddhism I believe it's also possible for someone to attain Nirvana while still living (although it's normally linked to death, and escaping from the cycle of re-incarnation...As to whether Enlightenment=Good: maybe it's enough in the words of Bill and Ted, to be "excellent to one another".

Hi Mike, like your post, but I have to disagree somewhat. Dualism refers to the idea that there are independent elements, such as mind vs. matter, and this does not necessarily equate to life vs death stuff. Much like Plato's transcendent philoshophers in the "Allegory of the Cave", the idea of enlightenment proposes freedom from the material world (or whatever), so there must be another element, i.e. nirvana.

I agree with your statement that it is easy to describe the journey but not the destination, but I see that as being a result of being able to build a logically sound arguement but still having a false premise.

Yeah, I think that we should all follow Bill & Ted's advice . Cheers :)

MikeWilliams
27th November 2006, 19:45
Hi Bruce,

Sorry - just to clarify: what I was trying to get across is that while the concept of Nirvana is dualistic, the concept of Enlightenment isn't. At least not the way I understand it.

It's not freedom from the material world, it's freedom from the Desire that leads to Suffering. So Enlightenment while still alive is not mystical at all. Buddha was just a mortal man like any other.

Of course in Buddhism it is also the path to Nirvana, and therefore by extension to the cycle of birth/re-birth and therefore the Buddhist afterlife mythology - but that only kicks in after death.

I'm probably not conveying this very well. I wish I knew more about it!


I agree with your statement that it is easy to describe the journey but not the destination, but I see that as being a result of being able to build a logically sound arguement but still having a false premise.

Very good point.

Brian Owens
27th November 2006, 20:07
...it is easy to describe the journey but not the destination, but I see that as being a result of being able to build a logically sound arguement but still having a false premise.
I am taking my sister to Walt Disney World in a few weeks. I have been there many times; she has never been.

With airline reservations in hand, transportation to the airport arranged, etc., she can describe the journey quite well, should anyone else want to take the same trip. But not having been there yet, she can't describe the destination.

That does not mean that Walt Disney World does not exist.

Jim Wilson
27th November 2006, 23:28
Really a good discussion. Just a few points:

Buddhism is a huge subject. Because this is a budo forum, views about Buddhism tend to be restricted to specific Japanese forms of Buddhism (usually Zen, with some Shingon thrown in at times). But Japanese Buddhism is peculiar in some ways and does not represent Buddhism as such.

Like other religions that have a long history and have evolved in a number of cultural contexts, one can find different interpretations of Buddhism, even in terms of its basics. With regard to dualism; some Buddhist traditions are dualistic (e.g. some Theravada views (Bhikkhu Bodhi, the translator, has written an articulate critique of non-dualism), and Pure Land Buddhism in its traditional forms), and others that are non-dual (e.g. Chittamatra influenced traditions). It depends on how one understands nirvana. If one understands nirvana as sort of a "place", which is completely free from "samsara", the world of suffering, this tends towards a dualistic view. If, on the other hand, one understands nirvana as a way of comprehending existence that is more accurate, more in touch with how the way things are, and ultimately free of habitual tendencies towards self-deception, then nirvana is not somewhere else and this turning at the base of consciousness can happen in this world. One finds articulate sages presenting both perspectives.

Regarding religion and superstition, I tend to agree with those who critique religion on the grounds that it is a bastion for dogmatically held notions that should be abandoned. Traditional Buddhism is no exception to this. On the other hand, I don't think one should throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is much of value in traditional religions. On this point I think it is important to not let fundamentalists define for us what is of value; that is just falling into their either/or rhetorical stance.

A final remark on the fact that Buddhism does not have a creator deity and no creation story: Buddhism is not the only religion that does not have these. As westerners we tend to project the defining characteristics of the monotheistic tradition onto other religions and if those elements are not there, we think of it as an absence. But Buddhism, Jainism, and Confucianism, to pick just three examples, have a different focus. They are not primarily concerned with cosmology in the way that western monotheism is. (I like to say that these three religions have "a weak cosmological commitment" whereas monotheism has a very strong cosmological commitment.) Cosmology just is not of primary concern for these traditions; hence the absence of a creator deity and a creation story in general. It's not of central importance for their program.

Again, thanks for the great exchange.

Best wishes,

Dharmajim

Bruce Mitchell
28th November 2006, 13:31
I am taking my sister to Walt Disney World in a few weeks. I have been there many times; she has never been.

With airline reservations in hand, transportation to the airport arranged, etc., she can describe the journey quite well, should anyone else want to take the same trip. But not having been there yet, she can't describe the destination.

That does not mean that Walt Disney World does not exist.
Are you saying that the costume, ritual and childish indulgence of Disney World is the same thing as zen/buddhism? ;) (just kidding) I get your point Brian, but the existence of Disney World can be proved (or disproved :) ) and the experience can be repeated by anyone. Absence of evidence does not equate to proof/disproof.The existence of Nirvana is a matter of faith and unable to be either proved or disproved. That places it outside the realm of rational thought, and any arguement based on the premise that it exist is inherently flawed, no matter how well constructed.

I don't know about enlightenment. IQ can be tested (subjectively), we have great literature and art (even more subjective) but there is no measure for enlightenment.

BTW, I hope that you have a great trip to Disney Brian, I enjoy your post, they make me think :)

ichibyoshi
10th December 2006, 08:07
Paradoxically, a lot of Buddhists, I would say the ones really worth listening to, will avoid saying a whole lot about Nirvana or Enlightenment directly, and sometimes even sound like apostates. Their goal is to discourage idle chatter that they know doesn't get anyone any closer to understanding. Buddhist practice is a lot like the practice of budo really. We all love to chat about stuff here but no-one in their right mind would contend that e-budo is better than being in the dojo doing it. We're not going to understand our art any better by talking about it, only doing it. Where do we get with practice? What is our goal? I would say "I don't know" and I think that is the best answer. That's a little bit different to me saying I know nothing.

b

Scott
13th December 2006, 10:54
Hello Gentlemen,

This is a nice civil discussion! I have some thoughts I would like to share:

I agree that enlightenment/nirvana is a state or condition of being or perhaps we could also say a state or condition of perception. It cannot be clearly defined because it is an experience NOT a thing. Things can be measured; experiences cannot be measured using the same tools as physical phenomena. Description is just one form of measure we use, but the measurement is NOT the thing, it only describes specific characteristics of the thing.

We can only communicate what Enlightenment/Nirvana is using metaphor because it is an experience and not a tangible THING! The description of a thing is never the thing itself. A description is only an indication that hopefully allows another to recognize the experience (condition of being) when they experience it for themselves. For example: any attempt to describe the taste of an orange will never give the audience the actual “experience” of the taste of an orange. One must taste one for themselves to KNOW what an orange tastes like. Then, when we actually taste an orange for ourselves, we experience an “Ah Hah!!” moment. A moment of comprehension that brings an understanding of just what the description was indicating. We may comment, “OOOOHHHH!! THAT is what he meant!!” or “NOW I know what he meant!” because we are able to compare the description to the ACTUAL experience.

Some may consider that Enlightenment/Nirvana is dualistic or implies duality, but this view is a misunderstanding. It is because we use a dualistic system to communicate our thoughts and experiences that Enlightenment/Nirvana “appears” to imply a dualistic state. We use words to describe a condition of being that must be directly experienced to be fully comprehended and appreciated. This gives the illusion that the Enlightened condition of being is dualistic because words are a product of the dualistic system. We use dualism to describe the non-dual state thus giving the non-dual state the appearance of being a part of the dualist system. It is the translation of the Enlightened state of being into words that creates the “appearance" of dualism. In truth the non-dual state contains within in it dualism.

Enlightenment/Nirvana has been referred to by many commentators as non-dual, rather than ONE. This is somewhat accurate, but still falls a bit off the mark for it is actually both ONE and Many at the same time. Consider the Yin-Yang symbol. It very accurately represents this condition. It is at once both ONE “and” two and may be viewed as either or both at the same time depending upon the perspective one uses when considering it. So from an “Enlightened” perspective an individual does not perceive experiences necessarily as a holistic ONE, but perceives unity and division at once, at the same time. Dualism is merely a subset of ONE and a condition of being that serves a specific purpose. From an Enlightened perspective one does not necessarily perceive existence as a muddied morass of indefinable, indistinguishable “something”, but perceives ONENESS and separateness at the same time. This condition of being is not a “different” or separate state of being from our normal daily awareness, but it may be considered a more complete state of perception. When asked the difference between the Enlightened condition and our common, daily state of perception D.T. Suzuki stated something along the lines of, “The states of being are essentially the same; only the state of Enlightenment feels about 5 inches off the ground.” This is the same as saying, “It is the same, but different!”

Considering whether Enlightenment = Good

The conclusion one comes to depends upon one’s values system, that is, how one chooses to measure what is good (personally beneficial) and bad (personally detrimental). This consideration occurs within a dualistic state of being. Good and Bad exist within a dualistic system and are not viewed from the same perspective by the Enlightened mind which possesses a more complete perspective of reality.

That is not to say that Good and Bad is not considered by the Enlightened mind. This is another misunderstanding that occurs amongst some people. Some people use the philosophical consideration of the relativism of Good and Bad to justify inappropriate actions. There is still Good and Bad for the Enlightened mind, but Good and Bad are perceived from a more complete perspective and according to context. Consider the Bodhisattva, an individual that refuses to enter into the final stage of Enlightenment until all other beings are saved. Here is an individual that considers his action a “GOOD” even though from the perspective of the Enlightened mind there is actually no one to save!!

We must consider that Good and Bad have meaning and validity within the dualistic realm and are valid considerations when existing within that system, but at the same time from another perspective have no inherent meaning at all! This is the same state of understanding I previously mentioned concerning the Enlightened mind perceiving not an “indefinable morass of something”, but a condition where ONE and many occur simultaneously, at once, at the same time!

One may only understand completely the relativity of Good and Bad from the Enlightened condition. This is because the Enlightened condition provides a more complete perspective of phenomena. Think of a helicopter flying overhead. The passengers have a bird’s eye view of what lies ahead on the roads and may even perceive many roads (choices) at the same time. The helicopter passenger has a more complete view than that of those riding in cars on the roads and therefore is able to interpret the events that occur on the road according to a more complete context. So while a person on the road may believe a person cutting them off in traffic is a BAD event, the person in the helicopter would see the reason the person was cut off was due to other events occurring further down the road that could not be perceived by the person who was cut off. What was locally (personally) considered a BAD event, could be seen as a GOOD event when viewed according to the greater context!

Brian Owens
13th December 2006, 12:39
Well said, Mr. Brown; well said.

I especially liked the comparison of trying to describe achieving Nirvana to trying to describe the taste of an orange.

Neither description can fully capture the essence of the thing, but that doesn't mean that Nirvana isn't a real condition nor that oranges have no flavor.

Now, before I go to bed, I'm going to get a nice, cold Satsuma orange from my fridge.

Bruce Mitchell
13th December 2006, 19:04
I also think that Mr. Brown's post was very nice, but I do have to disagree with a few things. While most english speaking people may have been raised with a dualistic view of life (if coming from a Judeo-Christian background). But the english language is perfectly capable of describing non-dualistic states. The problem is not one of language.

I am alos a bit confused by your logic. First you are saying that it is a "condition of perception" and I can agree with that. You then go on to say that experience is not a thing and therfore cannot be clearly defined, and I have no problems there. But in your next paragraph you make the orange comparison with the orange as a metaphor for nirvana/enlightnement. The problem here is that an orange is a tangible thing. Not only can an orange be described and measured, but we can even explain the physical process of taste in relation to the physical properties of the orange. If you are saying that a person writing about nirvana/enlightenmnet is describing there experience, than the question is their experience of what? Are they describing their experience of an experience? As you can see this quickly becomes meaningless verbal gymnastics.

I can accept the arguement that a person chooses to believe in duality (in the face of overwhelming lack of evidence), what I do feel the need to argue is the logical fallacy in trying to argue that the idea of nirvana/enlightenment is not dualistic.

Jim Wilson
14th December 2006, 00:46
Mr. Brown, thanks for the insightful post. A few comments follow:

In general I think people make too much of the limitations regarding words. First, a technical point; it is possible in specific self-referential circumstances for words to embody that which they are also referencing. For example, if I write, "This sentence is grammatically correct", the subject matter is embodied in the sentence itself. So there are at least a few example where words and concepts instantiate the reality spoken of.

I bring this up not to be picky, but because it impinges on the issue of the nature of the non-dual. From an East Asian Buddhist perspective, the non-dual is that ultimate nature which always exists and is present in all existing things (a Zen story says it is present even in tiles and rocks, and Dogen writes of "Mountains and Rivers Sutra"). Now if the ultimate is present in all existing things, then it would also be present in words, which are also things. Hence it is not immediately clear that words cannot instantiate ultimate nature in a way that is clear and precise. In the same way that other self-referential statements do.

The irony here is that if one accepts that words are inherently incapable of representing the ultimate, or its realization (Nirvana), then that sets up a duality because now there is at least one category of things, words, which are excluded from the realm of the ultimate. If the ultimate is truly non-dual then it is present in all existing things and since words are existing things that would mean that the ultimate must also be present in words.

Just a few thoughts/words/concepts for consideration.

Best wishes,

Scott
14th December 2006, 03:44
Hi Bruce,

Thank you for your stimulating comments.

The reason the problem of describing the condition of Enlightenment is a problem of language is because language is inherently dualistic. Language only provides indicators to describe an actual experience. Language is inherently dualistic and can be nothing other than dualistic. The term “dualistic” does not refer only to a condition of two, or a measure of simple opposites, but also the condition of many. Dualism is a simplified term used to describe the many and does not refer only to a comparison of two differing things. Dualism implies not just two, but Many as well.

If we only have ONE there is no “Other”, there is no subject and object. Once we have Two we have implied the Many. When there is Unity, ONE, the non-dual state, there is nothing available to describe it because it exists in a condition that does not provide for communication. Words are part of the many. It is irrelevant which language is used. All words from all languages are part of “the many” and are therefore part of a dualistic condition of being. Non-dual is a condition where there is no separation between words and therefore no words exist. Non-dual is the state of IS-ness. There is no becoming, no change, no words. Once we have change a dualistic condition exists.

But change is merely a matter of perception. Let us take a revolving disk and place an ant on it. The disk may have hills and valleys, waterways and buildings. The ant walking upon the disk is experiencing change in his immediately environment on a local level. We as observers from above perceive the disk and the ant as a whole and therefore we do not experience the ants changing environment directly. We observe the movement, but the movement does not affect us in the slightest. We perceive the movement, but are above the movement so the movement (change) affects us as if there was no movement at all. Change occurs only in relation to the ant’s perspective.

Language may only be used to “describe” the Enlightened condition because the description is not the thing. I can describe what an orange tastes like but the description is not the thing. If you have never eaten an orange my description will not GIVE you the EXPERIENCE of the taste of an orange. You must eat the orange in order to HAVE the experience. When we measure the orange’s tangible characteristics we are not providing the taste to another person we are only giving them a description of the taste. That is, we are using words to “represent” the experience. We would say, “It sort of tastes LIKE…..” “LIKE” is an indicator, but not a precise form of measure. It is inadequate to GIVE the taste of an orange to another. It only allows the other person to hopefully recognize the taste of an orange when they finally eat one. But even then perhaps what they have just tasted is a tangerine or a tangelo or a lemon or a grapefruit. The recognition of the taste according to the description is subject to error because the description is not the thing and therefore merely only a rudimentary means of indicating the experience. This is why in the old days Zen/Ch’an enlightenment had to be confirmed by another who had already achieved the Enlightened condition of being. There is no other way to confirm you have tasted an orange other to confer with someone who has tasted one for himself. Someone who has never tasted an orange cannot provide you with an accurate assessment since they really don’t know what they are talking about. They have never had the experience. Even if we describe the chemical properties and how they affect my taste buds and list the physiological processes that result in my brain that creates the perception of the taste of an orange, it is still not the ACTUAL taste of an orange. The ACTUAL taste must be directly experienced in order to fully experience it.

When I use the word “thing” we must understand that it is the context that defines its meaning within the sentence. I may refer to a condition of being as a thing, but it must be seen according to the context as not a “tangible” thing. I cannot indicate what I mean precisely because of the limitation of words. Since words are of the dualistic system I am unable to accurately describe any of this. I may only indicate it in a round-about manner by comparing the experience of the condition of being to what it is LIKE. I must use “THINGS” to describe non-things. When describing the Enlightened state of being at best all we may say is what it is “LIKE” not what it IS. This brings us back to the orange. The orange is a thing used as a metaphor. I cannot say what the taste of an orange IS I can only compare it to other THINGS in hopes that you will recognize the experience of the taste when you have it for yourself.

This discussion “appears” to be mental gymnastics because of the inadequacy of words to describe actual experiences. If you were to say to me, “Prove to me enlightenment exists!” I would reply to you, “Prove to me that happiness exists!” Happiness is a state of being. Just because you say to me you are happy does not prove to me you are happy. I must take your word for it. We may say that there are measurable physiological indicators that coincide with the condition of happiness, but the indicators are NOT the happiness they are the apparent effects of happiness. Are there not similar indicators that occur according other states of being, but do not necessarily “reflect” the condition of happiness? Notice the word “REFLECT” the indicators are NOT the happiness, but merely signs that happiness MAY be occurring! Regardless I will have no idea what you mean by happy and I may not consider it a valid state of being until I have had the experience myself. When I finally experience the condition of happiness I have the “Ah Hah!” reaction because NOW I know what you meant when you told me you were happy!

Scott
14th December 2006, 04:16
Hi Jim,

Your comments are very thought provoking!

Since rational argument is of the dualistic system we will “appear” to arrive at logical paradox when utilizing reason to demonstrate or describe the non-dual condition. But once again the description or rational argument is NOT the state of being itself. It is only a representation meant to point us to the experience in order for us to experience it directly for ourselves. Rational argument is inadequate to accurately describe a direct experience. I cannot provide an argument for what an orange tastes like or for what happiness feels like. Experiences are states of being! If you have not tasted an orange or experienced happiness, you cannot know precisely my meaning when I describe them to you and I cannot provide rational argument for their existence. It may only be taken on authority of those who have had the experiences directly. We may only confirm the existence of these conditions of being by searching them out for ourselves and having the experiences directly.

I agree that logical argument is a subset of the non-dual condition. However I am not convinced the whole is reflected in its entirety within each of its constituent parts, but the parts do point us to the whole. When I say words are inadequate I do not mean to imply that words cannot lead us to an experience of the non-dual condition, but that words do not completely or accurately describe the non-dual condition. This is due to the fact that a description is not the thing itself as I have previously mentioned. Think of a description of any experience at all. The actual experience surpasses the description. A description, rational argument metaphorical representation is only a shadow of the actual experience.

Hindus do reference the Yoga of Wisdom; this is mentioned in the Bhagavad-Gita. However, any means used to lead us to a direct experience of the non-dual condition is NOT the condition of being itself, but merely a tool used to guide us, point us, to that experience. Methods are the finger pointing the way to the moon, they are not the moon. If we focus primarily on the finger we lose the experience it is meant to indicate. The Moon!

Brian Owens
14th December 2006, 04:54
I agree with Scott.

Yes, words are things, but they are not the things they describe. "Orange" is a noun, it is not an orange.

If I write that the orange I ate last night -- actually, "oranges"; I had two -- was cold and juicy, tangy yet sweet, someone who had never tasted an orange might not get an impression anything close to what an orange actually tastes like, while someone who had eaten many oranges might say, "Yes. That's exactly what they orange I had last week tasted like."

In either case, my description of the experience of eating an orange was not the experience itself, but only a (grossly inadequate) attempt to evoke they experience. Language -- even in English, the language with the largest lexicon of all extant languages -- cannot completely describe an experience. It can only give clues that hint at experiences.

Art is the same. I may photograph the Space Needle, but unless one travels to Seattle and actually goes up in the Space Needle one cannot competely understand what it looks, smells, and feels like.

And so on. I hope I'm being clear, because words fail me.

Bruce Mitchell
14th December 2006, 18:47
The reason the problem of describing the condition of Enlightenment is a problem of language is because language is inherently dualistic. Language only provides indicators to describe an actual experience. Language is inherently dualistic and can be nothing other than dualistic. The term “dualistic” does not refer only to a condition of two, or a measure of simple opposites, but also the condition of many. Dualism is a simplified term used to describe the many and does not refer only to a comparison of two differing things. Dualism implies not just two, but Many as well.
If we only have ONE there is no “Other”, there is no subject and object. Once we have Two we have implied the Many. When there is Unity, ONE, the non-dual state, there is nothing available to describe it because it exists in a condition that does not provide for communication. Words are part of the many. It is irrelevant which language is used. All words from all languages are part of “the many” and are therefore part of a dualistic condition of being. Non-dual is a condition where there is no separation between words and therefore no words exist. Non-dual is the state of IS-ness. There is no becoming, no change, no words. Once we have change a dualistic condition exists.

So are we talking nondualism here as opposed to monism or pluralism? From what I have read this is usually associated with eastern mysticism. For me it is hard to build a strong arguement from a premise which is founded in the mystic. As I said earlier, I am questioning the validty of the premise, not of the arguements built on that premise.



But change is merely a matter of perception. Let us take a revolving disk and place an ant on it. The disk may have hills and valleys, waterways and buildings. The ant walking upon the disk is experiencing change in his immediately environment on a local level. We as observers from above perceive the disk and the ant as a whole and therefore we do not experience the ants changing environment directly. We observe the movement, but the movement does not affect us in the slightest. We perceive the movement, but are above the movement so the movement (change) affects us as if there was no movement at all. Change occurs only in relation to the ant’s perspective.

Sorry but I have to disagree with this statement. It is a pretty well established principle of science that the mere act of observation produces change. Likewise, the ant spinning on the record would change our enviornment. It's all a part of chaos theory. For more on this read:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory)


Language may only be used to “describe” the Enlightened condition because the description is not the thing. I can describe what an orange tastes like but the description is not the thing. If you have never eaten an orange my description will not GIVE you the EXPERIENCE of the taste of an orange. You must eat the orange in order to HAVE the experience. When we measure the orange’s tangible characteristics we are not providing the taste to another person we are only giving them a description of the taste. That is, we are using words to “represent” the experience. We would say, “It sort of tastes LIKE…..” “LIKE” is an indicator, but not a precise form of measure. It is inadequate to GIVE the taste of an orange to another. It only allows the other person to hopefully recognize the taste of an orange when they finally eat one. But even then perhaps what they have just tasted is a tangerine or a tangelo or a lemon or a grapefruit. The recognition of the taste according to the description is subject to error because the description is not the thing and therefore merely only a rudimentary means of indicating the experience. This is why in the old days Zen/Ch’an enlightenment had to be confirmed by another who had already achieved the Enlightened condition of being. There is no other way to confirm you have tasted an orange other to confer with someone who has tasted one for himself. Someone who has never tasted an orange cannot provide you with an accurate assessment since they really don’t know what they are talking about. They have never had the experience. Even if we describe the chemical properties and how they affect my taste buds and list the physiological processes that result in my brain that creates the perception of the taste of an orange, it is still not the ACTUAL taste of an orange. The ACTUAL taste must be directly experienced in order to fully experience it.

When I use the word “thing” we must understand that it is the context that defines its meaning within the sentence. I may refer to a condition of being as a thing, but it must be seen according to the context as not a “tangible” thing. I cannot indicate what I mean precisely because of the limitation of words. Since words are of the dualistic system I am unable to accurately describe any of this. I may only indicate it in a round-about manner by comparing the experience of the condition of being to what it is LIKE. I must use “THINGS” to describe non-things. When describing the Enlightened state of being at best all we may say is what it is “LIKE” not what it IS. This brings us back to the orange. The orange is a thing used as a metaphor. I cannot say what the taste of an orange IS I can only compare it to other THINGS in hopes that you will recognize the experience of the taste when you have it for yourself.

Looking to wikipedia for some help on this I found this: Meaning (linguistic)


Donald Davidson developed a truth-conditional semantics.

The answer to the question, "What is the meaning of meaning?", is not immediately obvious. One section of philosophy of language tries to answer this very question.

Geoffrey Leech posited that there are two essentially different types of linguistic meaning: conceptual and associative. For Leech, the conceptual meanings of an expression have to do with the definitions of words themselves, and the features of those definitions. This kind of meaning is treated by using a technique called the semantic feature analysis. The conceptual meaning of an expression inevitably involves both definition (also called "connotation" and "intension" in the literature) and extension (also called "denotation"). The associative meaning of an expression has to do with individual mental understandings of the speaker. They, in turn, can be broken up into six sub-types: connotative, collocative, social, affective, reflected and thematic.[12] (For the full piece go to :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_language#The_nature_of_meaning



This discussion “appears” to be mental gymnastics because of the inadequacy of words to describe actual experiences. If you were to say to me, “Prove to me enlightenment exists!” I would reply to you, “Prove to me that happiness exists!” Happiness is a state of being. Just because you say to me you are happy does not prove to me you are happy. I must take your word for it. We may say that there are measurable physiological indicators that coincide with the condition of happiness, but the indicators are NOT the happiness they are the apparent effects of happiness. Are there not similar indicators that occur according other states of being, but do not necessarily “reflect” the condition of happiness? Notice the word “REFLECT” the indicators are NOT the happiness, but merely signs that happiness MAY be occurring! Regardless I will have no idea what you mean by happy and I may not consider it a valid state of being until I have had the experience myself. When I finally experience the condition of happiness I have the “Ah Hah!” reaction because NOW I know what you meant when you told me you were happy!
Fair enough :)

You all have mde me think a lot about this topic and it is pretty interesting (and very challenging).

Scott
15th December 2006, 10:34
Hi Brian,

Thank you for your comments. You have made your point very well in my opinion. But then I have an understanding of the principles you are referring to be begin with, LOL!
_____

Hi Bruce,

To be clear on our definitions with each other perhaps it would help to include some definitions in our discussion. I have purloined the following definitions directly from Wikipedia since it seems you are prepared to accept it as a source:

Monism is the metaphysical and theological view that all is of one essence, principle, substance or energy and that there is one, universal, unified set of laws underlying nature.

Monism is to be distinguished from dualism, which holds that ultimately there are two kinds of substance, and from pluralism, which holds that ultimately there are many kinds of substance.
_____

Mysticism …. is the pursuit of achieving communion or identity with, or conscious awareness of, ultimate reality, the divine, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight; and the belief that such experience is an important source of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. Traditions may include a belief in the literal existence of realities beyond empirical perception, or a belief that a true human perception of the world transcends logical reasoning or intellectual comprehension. A person delving in these areas may be called a Mystic.

In many cases, the purpose of mysticism and mystical disciplines such as meditation is to a reach of state of return or re-integration to Godhead. A common theme in mysticism is that the mystic and all of reality are One. The purpose of mystical practices is to achieve that oneness in experience, to transcend limited identity and re-identify with the all that is. The state oneness has many names depending on the mystical system...
____

The term nondual is a literal translation of the Sanskrit term advaita. That is, things remain distinct while not being separate.
_____

So are we talking nondualism here as opposed to monism or pluralism? From what I have read this is usually associated with eastern mysticism.

My inclination is towards non-dual, which could be viewed as the unification of the monistic and pluralistic views. As a background on myself I have strong interests in the principles of Tao and Taoist thought as well as Chinese and Japanese Zen. So my views are strongly influenced by these related world views. I view Yin-Yang as a symbol of the Ultimate Essence, which is referred to by some as Tao, and as an illustration of the non-dual or monistic/pluralistic essence of creation.

In my view, which is somewhat substantiated by personal experience and mystical literature, Enlightenment involves a mystic component. If one does not experience a mystical component they may be referred to by some as possessing a form of “world system” wisdom, but this could not be considered Enlightened according to the definition I accept. Because to me (and many others) Enlightenment involves a mystical component it cannot be demonstrated, understood or experienced in a complete manner through rational argument. It must be directly experienced/apprehended. Unless one has had the direct experience they are unable to fully comprehend or appreciate it. For this reason I attempt to illustrate the point by using the example of “the tasting an orange”.

One may read volumes about the taste of an orange. They may understand deeply the chemical substrates and the physiological reactions the create the sensation of the taste of an orange. They may understand philosophically the meaning of meaning, of how humans interpret experiences, of the how our personalities and life experiences influence the interpretation of experiences and how that affects the meaning and value we place on our experiences. BUT if they have not ACTUALLY tasted an orange they have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to how an orange ACTUALLY tastes. This is because the description does not provide us with the taste. It is impossible to formulate an argument that provides the audience with the taste of an orange. Only directly tasting an orange does so!

Above I included another example of this principle, the experience of happiness. We may read a story about someone who is happy. We may find the story relating what the feeling of happiness is LIKE, “My heart soared to the clouds!”, “Colors were more vivid!”, “The world was all peaches and cream!” BUT this only has meaning to the reader if they have ALREADY experienced happiness. If they have not experienced happiness they have no concept of what the writer is intending to communicate. We cannot formulate a rational argument that provides the reader with the experience of happiness. They must have the experience for themselves in order to appreciate and understand it!

Some forms of knowledge may only be acquired through direct experience. Rational argument is inadequate to the task.
_____

For me it is hard to build a strong argument from a premise which is founded in the mystic.

In my view, all logical arguments have as their basis un-provable assumptions. At some point all arguments may be reduced to assumptions that cannot be demonstrated to exist through reason, therefore we simply choose to accept them because we have found it advantageous to do so. This principle is illustrated rather well using high school geometry.

Geometry begins with the assumption of the existence of three phenomena: Point, Line and Plane. These are accepted as existent even though they may not be demonstrated using rational argument. From these assumptions postulates are formed and from the postulates theorems are derived. The geometrical principles that we apply in the real world seem to validate for us the truth of the theorems, postulates and assumptions. BUT, the basis of the rational arguments that demonstrate these geometric principles are founded upon the un-provable assumptions, Point, Line and Plane. We could say that these items are accepted upon FAITH, yet seem to demonstrate practical principles that have efficacy within the real world. From the insubstantial comes the substantial and from the substantial comes usefulness!

Socrates demonstrated pretty much the same thing through his dialectic investigation into the foundation, the “Essence”, of the concepts of Good, Virtue, Truth, etc. He repeatedly demonstrated these ideas have no rational basis. We seem to have some vague concept of what we mean when we accept them as meaningful, but we have no foundation that provides us with a rational argument to demonstrate their validity or existence. Thus we have insubstantial concepts that percolate from who knows where into the world system. They provide humans with meaningful, useful principles, but have no inherent foundation in reason. We accept their existence on faith!

Therefore, I contend that the condition referred to as Enlightenment/Nirvana cannot be demonstrated to exist through rational argument. It may only be directly experienced and it is this direct experience that provides the validation for its existence. At first one must accept Enlightenment/Nirvana as a possibility based upon the acceptance of authorities that have claimed the direct experience for themselves. Then one must search out the experience independently in order to demonstrate its value for themselves.

Concerning the ant on a disk metaphor:

Sorry but I have to disagree with this statement. It is a pretty well established principle of science that the mere act of observation produces change. Likewise, the ant spinning on the record would change our environment. It's all a part of chaos theory.

First, I was not really happy with this particular metaphor. I found it rather incompletely illustrated the point I was trying to make.

At any rate, your perspective is limited to the material system. Within a dualistic system change occurs, but from a non-dual perspective change eternally occurs in a manner in which no change occurs at all. This is not simply verbal gymnastics! So as an example let us take Yin-Yang. It is a rotating duality that represents a rhythmic cycle of change through the alternation of opposing yet complimentary principles, but at the same time it is unchanging. While it rotates constantly (changes) it remains eternally the one and unchanging Yin-Yang. It is unchanging in its constant changing. So we could perhaps say, “THE ONLY CONSTANT IS CHANGE!” In this statement we find a logical paradox. If change is constant there is no change in the changing of change, because there is no change in the changing of change, change does not occur at all from a larger perspective.

So, from one perspective change constantly occurs, but from another perspective change does not occur at all

I too am simulated by this conversation and I thank you and the others for participating!

Bruce Mitchell
15th December 2006, 18:01
Thanks for the well thought out replies Scott. I feel I now have a beeter grasp of what you are trying to get across, especially now that we have been able to agree on some terminology to use. These debates are much more difficult if we are all attaching different meanings to different terms!

While I get your point about mathematics, ultimately scientific/mathematical theories are subject to proof/disproof, and this is what seperates them from theological debate.

For now I will content myself with accepting the idea that enlightenment is a mental state effecting a person's perception of he world. I know that to other people it may be more than this, but I don't think that either side of the debate will ever accept the rhetoric of the other.

Thank you to everyone who took the time and effort to reply to my post and best wishes for your continued journey (whatever that journey may be).

MikeWilliams
15th December 2006, 19:07
This debate has moved way beyond the point where I can make any useful contribution - but it has been enlightening! :)

Thanks everyone for some fascinating posts - please keep them coming.

Scott
19th December 2006, 09:29
Hi Bruce,

Thank you for sharing your comments as well! Following are few more comments regarding your last post:

The Enlightenment experience is subject to the same demonstration of proof that applies to scientific and mathematical theories. Scientific findings are validated through repeated experimentation. This also follows for Enlightenment experience. Just as an orange must be personally tasted in order for the taste to be demonstrated, so it is with Enlightenment experience. “The proof is in the pudding”, so to speak! Direct experience is the form of experimentation that demonstrates the Truths gained by Enlightenment experience.

For a principle to be a Truth it must be demonstrated to be so through actual experience. In many cases it is validated through direct experience. Until we have the direct experience we may accept the teachings and guidance of those who are generally accepted as having had the direct experience for themselves. That is, we trust authority until we are able to have the experience directly for ourselves. We do this exact thing on a daily basis with all sorts of mundane beliefs about our daily reality. I accept that the medications my doctor prescribes for me will work NOT because I have experimentally demonstrated them to be effective for myself, but because I accept my doctor’s authority on the subject. My doctor in turn accepts the authority of the FDA approval system that accepts the authority of the paperwork submitted by the pharmaceutical companies which they presume to be accurate representations of the experimental program the pharmaceutical companies claim to have completed. In essence the whole system is based upon faith of the claims of others based upon a presumed accurate and effective scientific protocol. This process is no different than the one that occurs with Enlightenment experience. We accept the authority and guidance of those who are the presumed experts until we have direct validation through personal experience.

I am not sure what you mean when you implied other people consider Enlightenment experience as being something other than a mental state that affects ones basic perception of reality. It seems that this is exactly what Enlightenment experience is! I don’t know how it could be anything else.

By the way I do not believe it is necessary to adhere to any particular religious tradition in order to have Enlightenment experience, but as I have repeatedly indicated one must directly taste the orange to understand what an orange tastes like.

Bruce Mitchell
19th December 2006, 18:02
For a principle to be a Truth it must be demonstrated to be so through actual experience. In many cases it is validated through direct experience. Until we have the direct experience we may accept the teachings and guidance of those who are generally accepted as having had the direct experience for themselves. That is, we trust authority until we are able to have the experience directly for ourselves. We do this exact thing on a daily basis with all sorts of mundane beliefs about our daily reality. I accept that the medications my doctor prescribes for me will work NOT because I have experimentally demonstrated them to be effective for myself, but because I accept my doctor’s authority on the subject. My doctor in turn accepts the authority of the FDA approval system that accepts the authority of the paperwork submitted by the pharmaceutical companies which they presume to be accurate representations of the experimental program the pharmaceutical companies claim to have completed. In essence the whole system is based upon faith of the claims of others based upon a presumed accurate and effective scientific protocol. This process is no different than the one that occurs with Enlightenment experience. We accept the authority and guidance of those who are the presumed experts until we have direct validation through personal experience.

Hi Scott,
I appreciate your post, but I have to disagree with the reasoning in this arguement. You are equating experience with evidence. The scientific system relies on evidence not experience. Unfortunately, experience is one of our least reliable forms of proof. Experience may qualify a "truth", but it can never quantify it. The efficacy of the medication your doctor prescribes has been physically tested (and quantified). Scientific protocol is not merely accepting the authority of the experts! Scientific authorities are challenged and proved wrong all of the time!

While I think that your intentions are good, you are using the same type of faulty logic that the religious right does when trying to get creationism in the classroom. To quote Isaac Asimov, "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is sperical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

Scott
20th December 2006, 03:22
Hi Bruce,

I agree with you the evidenced that confirms Enlightenment experience is subjective evidence and subjective evidence may “at times” be considered scientifically unreliable for various reasons.

However:

1) Fire is not experienced as hot because a measuring devise (thermometer) says so. We consider fire hot because it is “experienced” as hot by a mind. Fire provides an “experience” of heat for a few reasons. One is due to its relationship to what is not hot. In our mind this relationship is a subjective experience even though temperature that may ALSO be measured through instrumentation. What is important is that while hot is a phenomenon that is “experienced” by the mind and “measured” by instruments the measurement is NOT the experience! I may experience a weather condition as hot regardless of whether another person has the same experience with identical weather conditions. My experience is not invalid just because it cannot be demonstrated as occurring using a measuring devise or another person’s experience! My experience is valid because it is my experience and it is measured by me using my mind, a phenomena that measures according to its own criteria. We call this “own criteria” subjectivity. Subjectivity is real. It occurs. We cannot measure it directly. We measure it indirectly not by using instrumentation, but by comparing our subjective experience with another’s subjective experience.

2) There are scientific protocols that possess a strong observational component, Anthropology, Psychology, Animal behavior studies to name just a few. What is considered important to record and what is even actually noticed by the observer is subjectively determined!

3) All empirical scientific protocols involve observation and ALL observation involves subjectivity. You have previously stated, “It is a pretty well established principle of science that the mere act of observation produces change.”

If the mere act of observation causes change then ALL scientific experiments and conclusions are influenced by the subjective perspective of the observer (scientist). The determination of what to record when observing a phenomenon is a subjective act. Further, what we actually perceive is determined by subjective conditions. We will consider some things we observe as significant and some things insignificant based upon our subjective perspective. Some data may not even be noticed due to subjective conditions.

We cannot have our cake and eat it too! If observation causes change then observation affects the results of experimental protocols and the conclusions arrived at are equally subject to subjective influences regardless of whether they include measurement (quantification) with instruments or not! Even the reading of an instrument involves a subjective component. How can this subjective influence be measured? We accept subjectivity exists, but we cannot measure it using instrumentation. How is this different from Enlightenment experience? We know it exists, but we cannot measure it using instrumentation!

Validation of a scientific result is determined by whether the result can be duplicated. Repeatable results are used to increase the probability the conclusion is True. Enlightenment experience follows this protocol. It has been repeated numerous times by individuals from every culture and religious tradition. Many of these experiences have been recorded and the records provide very similar reports. This may be considered observational science. Variation may be attributed to variance in literacy, ability to express thoughts and cultural and religious perspective.

Enlightenment experiences cannot be quantified using measuring devices. However, the physical effects may be measured using instrumentation just as the effects of happiness and anger may be measured using instrumentation. Behavioral changes may be directly observed and contrasted with former behaviors as well.

4) Dreams seem real when we experience them, but are considered unreal when we wake. The feelings we experience during a dream are created by a seemingly unreal event because the event is accepted as real. The same thing occurs when we watch a movie. We experience feelings that are created by unreal events that occur on the screen. The feelings are real even though the causative agent is pretend. In regards to dreams, the instrumental measurement of our physical reactions will not reveal to the researcher the actual events occurring within the dream; they only measure the physical effects of the experience. So an EEG may measure my brain waves demonstrating a dream to be occurring, but it will not reveal to the researcher the contents of the dream. Does this demonstrate the dream does not occur? No it does not! The instrumental measurement only reveals the effects of the dream on our body not the content of the dream. The experience is real for the individual having the dream regardless of whether the dream occurred in what we commonly refer to as the “real” world.

5) What determines whether an event is real or not? Direct experience is the measure! A dream is real because it is a real event (meaning it is an ACTUAL experience) creating measurable effects regardless of whether the events and objects of the dream may be measured using instrumentation. The value (quality) of the experience is determined by the individual. If the individual gains a personal benefit from their experience then it is considered good, if the person experiences detrimental effects then it may be considered bad, but the experience is considered REAL because it created REAL effects/results.

Bruce Mitchell
20th December 2006, 05:54
Hi Scott,
Gosh, I'm kind of at a loss here. I appreciate the time and thought that you have put into your replies to my post, and your ideas have been stimulating for me. But I don't think will ever be able to see eye to eye. I'm afraid that for me, you are definitions are so broad as to be meaningless. And while your arguements are sound, they all work from a premise that is not subject to disproof, and that invalidates your entire arguement, no matter how well constructed. To qoute from the amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court in the Edwards v. Aguillard case by 72 Nobel laureates, 17 state academies of science, and seven other sientific organizations:

"Science is devoted to formulating and testing naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. It is a process for systematically collecting and recording data about the physical world, then catagorizing and studying the collected data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena...An explanatory principle is not to be confused with the data it seeks to explain...An explanatory principle that by its nature cannot be tested is outside the realm of science."

Scott
20th December 2006, 09:42
Hi Bruce,

There may be some misunderstanding here. I am not attempting to give descriptions of how Enlightenment experience may be demonstrated using empirical scientific protocol. My last post was meant to illustrate that subjectivity is present within all scientific endeavors because it is inherently present as a core characteristic of the mind, therefore to discard direct experience based upon the notion that it is merely subjective is not a valid disproof of anything. The scientists you have cited have an expertise in the empirical scientific method and not with Enlightenment experiences. They have no authority to address that with which they have no understanding or expertise.

I agree that a principle is not necessarily a Truth merely because someone believes it to be so, but also something is not necessarily an un-Truth just because it cannot be empirically validated. As an example: Light in the infrared spectrum exists whether there are means to measure it or not. If I was able to perceive light in the infrared spectrum, and others could not, I would have no way of proving to others that I could in fact see in the infrared. But if I could demonstrate to others through a specific method that infrared exists, say with an infrared camera, they would have validation based upon their direct experience. So it is with Enlightenment experience. There are those who have claimed the experience for themselves and these people have provided protocols that provide each individual with a means to test the conclusion for themselves. If an individual took the time to practice a prescribed method they would receive validation of the principles cited as Truths. One could say the method prescribed by mystics IS the scientific experiment and the direct experience IS the proof then. If we refuse to perform the experiment can we fairly state their Truth is not valid? To be reasonable it would seem we must perform the experiment prior to passing judgment. Otherwise we are citing traditional scientific belief that perhaps does not apply to this specific field of study. It seems arrogant to the point of folly to presume that the empirical scientific method may apply to every field of study.

The question then becomes, “How is one to determine which subjective experiences communicate a Truth about reality and which do not?” My answer is, the same way we validate empirical Truths, by collating and evaluating the available evidence and testing if for ourselves through the actual personal practice of a prescribed method until a conclusion is reached. The available evidence for Enlightenment experience is ample through first hand reports as well as descriptions of methods to acquire the experience directly for oneself. All it requires is to make the effort to follow the methods and then patience. The path to acquiring any form of knowledge requires these same things; the difference is, when investigating Enlightenment experience the subject is also the object. This appears to be at variance with the empirical scientific method; however it is only the ignorance of some empirical scientists that do not recognize this condition exists with all forms of scientific investigation.

I agree that Enlightenment experience IS beyond the scope of empirical experimentation. No individual who has claimed the experience for themselves has ever stated it was within the scope of empirical experimentation.

As I have repeatedly commented Enlightenment experience belongs in the realm of direct experience. Enlightenment experience is not measurable using instrumentation. It is beyond discursive thought. Once one attempts to even reflect on the experience the experience is diminished. Careful introspection will reveal this to occur with all experiences. This is because the memory of an experience is NOT the experience either. Only the experience is the experience. Discursive thought dwells in the realm of recollection, not the realm of NOW! Experience occurs NOW!

Because we tend to think according to the discursive method we do not consider there is any other form of thought available to us. Enlightenment experience transcends discursive thought. Discursive thought requires a subject and an object as does empirical science. Enlightenment experience reveals that the subject IS the object and the object IS the subject. The difference between subject and object is merely a matter of perception. Subject and object are artificially contrived for the purpose of divine play. Without Two or more there is only ONE. With only ONE there is no other and there is no creativity. The system (Tao) requires there to be apparent others in order for there to be play. In other words, the system requires someone to play with; therefore it artificially divides itself and pretends to forget it is itself divided in order to have someone to play with. The act of remembering phenomena are artificially separated and the realization and direct perception that all seemingly separate phenomena are actually different aspects of ONE IS the Enlightenment experience. This knowledge cannot be taught, but it may be learned. It cannot be directly communicated to another, but it may be directly experienced. It cannot be empirically demonstrated because reason is but a minor function of the system. The system uses reason, but reason is not the foundation, the essence, of the system. Minds that are only able to function using reason cannot perceive this knowledge because for reason to function it must dwell in the system of division, in parts, not in the Whole. One must transcend discursive thought in order to have the direct experience. Discursive thought is a major impediment to Enlightenment experience.

Bruce Mitchell
20th December 2006, 20:32
I understand what you are saying. One of the big challenges here is that you are using examples from the physical world (i.e. light,fire) to make your points about the metaphysical, and that is where your arguements break down. I undersatnd that you are using these examples to try to reach me, because "language fails" when trying to describe something like enlightenment. But what you are trying to do is to say that if I accept arguement A from science, then I must accept arguement B from metaphysics! But in this case A does not equal B!

The other problem is that you are trying to "reverse engineer" an explanation for a conclusion that you have already drawn. Again, I believe that this is not a rational approach.

As far as comparing the evidence, from what people experience, we don't have the necessary controls from the existing evidence that you would have in a proper psychological study (like double blind testing). I am not suprised at the idea that experiences with sensory deprivation (for example zazen) produces similar results with dissimilar people. The other problem is that no one seeks enlightenment in a vacuum. I would expect that people have similar experiences because they have been taught to have that experience!

Brian Owens
21st December 2006, 06:04
...To qoute from the amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court in the Edwards v. Aguillard case by 72 Nobel laureates, 17 state academies of science, and seven other sientific organizations...
I would just like to point out for any readers not familiar with this case, that it was -- if I recall -- related to whether or not Creationism should be taught as an alternate explaination of life in science classes.

No one presenting testimony said that Creationism wasn't a valid theory, nor that it was irrational, nor that it didn't have a place in Philosophy or Theology classes; only that it didn't belong in a science class.

I agree with them.

I also believe in a Supreme Being.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

MikeWilliams
21st December 2006, 11:08
No one presenting testimony said that Creationism wasn't a valid theory, nor that it was irrational

Well they should have done. :p

At least that's one hoary old chestnut that Buddhism doesn't have to contend with. :)

Scott
21st December 2006, 11:28
Hi Bruce,

My argument does not breakdown just because I am using physical system examples to demonstrate that principles of rational thinking apply to metaphysical knowledge. I am trying to point out that if we chose not to accept any knowledge until it has passed through rigorous empirical scientific protocol we could not accept anything as truthful knowledge because rigorous scientific protocols are all inherently flawed as well.

The flaws that you seem to believe are inherent when determining the truth of metaphysical principles is inherent within ALL scientific protocols. If the observer affects/changes the test by merely observing it, then we may conclude that a scientist’s preconceived expectations will affect his experimental results and his subjective conditioning will determine what he perceives and how he interprets what he perceives. In fact, his preconceived notions will influence what he chooses to test and how he chooses to test it as well. This is cause enough to bring into doubt any scientific conclusion.

Many scientific conclusions are brought into doubt later in time because of further scientific testing. We may say, “Well that is just science adjusting itself according to further studies”, but what it really does is demonstrate that those who consider themselves rational thinkers are guilty of the same errors they accuse others of committing. They blindly accept incorrect conclusions because of faith in a flawed system of thinking. Therefore your argument that the mystic will perceive what he has been told he will perceive applies to the scientist as well. Scientists are just as conditioned by their preconceived notions as anyone else. Their primary error is their blind faith in a scientific system when it is clear that errors are inherent within the system.

The fact that the truths of metaphysical principles cannot be tested in a lab under controlled circumstances is not proof that the principles are not Truths. It only demonstrates they may not be tested within controlled circumstances. This is an inherent flaw of all controlled testing. Life does not occur within the vacuum of a controlled test. There are innumerable influences in every environment that affect phenomena and all of them cannot be accounted for within any test. This creates flaws in every conclusion reached. Further, just because something occurs within a controlled test does not necessarily mean it will apply in the real world due to the unaccounted for variables that occur in the real world. The Placebo effect alone occurs in approximately 32% of test subjects. That is a huge margin of error, or if you prefer, a huge margin of variable effect. Nearly one third of test subjects are affected by their mental conditioning! Are we to presume that scientists are beyond this inherent human characteristic that clearly influences scientific testing?

Metaphysical knowledge may be tested. It just may not be tested according to the “exact” protocols that apply to the physical system. As I have mentioned previously, we accept as true information obtained from observational studies by scientists. This information is presumed valid because we have faith in the recording ability of the scientist and because these studies may be further validated by further observations provided by other scientists. But the same thing occurs with those who record their Enlightenment experiences. There are numerous records of Enlightenment experience from nearly every culture and historical era. They record similar themes with some variation according to culture and other factors, but they all have the same basic theme. Are you suggesting that each experiencer from all cultures, religions and historical eras have the obtained identical conditioning designed to produce identical themes? This is not possible, but even if it were to what purpose? To presume a mystic will automatically experience what he was told to expect is not accurate since Enlightenment experience occurs within all cultural and religious traditions from all historical eras. As I have previously state there are common themes that occur and variations may be attributed to cultural and religious conditioning in accord with variations in intelligence, literacy and ability to communicate ideas.

Observation is “always” influenced by the subjective conditioning of the observer regardless of whether the observer is a scientist or a mystic. It seems you are implying that we may accept the observational studies of a scientist, but NOT a mystic merely because we presume the scientist to be formally trained. It seems you are willing to ignore the inherent biases of a scientist merely because you presume they are capable of being objective. This is erroneous thinking! It is impossible to be objective even if one is presumably trained to be so. At best one may be considered less biased than another, but this is neither required nor guaranteed by formal training! Further, since we are all biased who is to determine who is less biased than another? The chooser is biased as well which creates bias in his choice! There is no reason then to avoid researching the records of Enlightenment experience, identify the common themes and investigate the experience for ourselves.

In fact variation in Enlightenment experience should be considered normal, healthy and beneficial. It should be viewed similar to artists painting the same landscape scene. Each painting will be based upon the theme of an identical landscape and expressed utilizing identical media, but each expression will occur according to the artists’ unique painting style and perspective. Each painting then will reflect similar, but different qualities of the landscape as reflected through the unique perspective and ability of the painter. This provides a broader vision than just one perspective could provide. No painting is considered an inaccurate representation of the landscape because the landscape is meant to be reflected through various perspectives which provides for an enhanced quality of experience for the audience.

Bruce Mitchell
21st December 2006, 19:06
Hi Scott,

I am trying to point out that if we chose not to accept any knowledge until it has passed through rigorous empirical scientific protocol we could not accept anything as truthful knowledge because rigorous scientific protocols are all inherently flawed as well.

This is a reducto ad absurdum arguement and doesn't make your case. Even if you are right, then your arguement becomes a fallacy of false negation (claiming that by discrediting one theory, we must accept the other). My mistake was probably bringing science into the arguement in the first place.

To make things simpler, I will stick to my statement that the arguements for enlightenment are sound only if you accept the premise that it exist. If you don't accept that premise than all the arguements built on it, no matter how well constructed, are invalid.

Scott
23rd December 2006, 14:50
Hi Bruce,

My comment is not reducto ad absurdum. It is unproductive and fallacious to cherry pick a few lines from an entire argument, take them out of the context of the entire argument, and then draw a conclusion based upon that changed context.

We all have a specific view of reality. We all have a preconditioned perspective that will determine the manner in which we interpret our reality. This preconception influences everything we do and the conclusions we come to about our experiences.

Mind is the essence of reality. The environment is not the source of what we perceive, the mind is! Empirical science is but a principle man uses to perceive and define his reality. Empirical science is only a measuring system. All data is filtered through and interpreted by the mind. Each mind is conditioned to filter and perceive according to its own specific qualities and environmental conditioning. This is subjective conditioning. Just because a scientist seeks to limit his subjective influences does not mean it is avoided. It means he is deluded by his conditioning to think his subjectivity has been limited. The fact is no one can avoid their subjectivity and there is no way to measure just how subjective we are being because those that measure our own subjectivity are influenced by their subjectivity as well. Trust in empirical science is a form of subjective conditioning and this influences how the scientist perceives his world. The empirically defined definition of the world is merely another subjectively influenced view and subject to the same flaws as any reality definition.

You have made a comment indicating that the subjective observation cannot be trusted because it does not follow the scientific protocol notably the double blind test. This seems to indicate that you believe that subjective information cannot be trusted or accepted as truth unless it is filtered through empirical testing. This is erroneous thinking because all information is inherently subjective and its level of subjectivity cannot be accurately assessed due the subjectivity of the evaluation process. This means that inherently all conclusions about reality are subject to flaw.

The following illustration is a variation of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. It is an example of how the mind is the essence of reality and subjectivity is the basis of all perceptions of reality:

Below is the old woman/young woman optical illusion. It is one of the best examples to demonstrate the principle I am discussing. Does this picture exhibit an old woman or a young woman? It contains both. Which one is perceived depends upon the perceiver. It depends upon the perspective, the manner in which one chooses to, or is able to, perceive the picture. A person who is only able to perceive the old woman cannot be convinced the young woman in the picture exists because he cannot perceive it. He must learn to see the young woman on his own. Another person may point to the young woman’s specific features in order to assist the other in perceiving the young woman, but he cannot present the young woman empirically to the non-seer. You can either see it or you can’t!

One must change their mind subjectively in order to perceive the young woman. Their lack of ability to perceive her does not mean she does not exist. The inability of the person who sees the young woman to empirically demonstrate she exists is due to the nature of subjective perception which is an inherent quality of the mind.

If we were to take a group of people who can only see the old woman and add one person who can see the young woman as well as the old woman, the young woman perceiver would be considered nuts, foolish, misguided, etc. by the “old woman” group! He cannot prove to anyone the young woman exists. There is no empirical test able to demonstrate what others are inherently unable to perceive. They must perceive the young woman for themselves and to them she does not exist until they have that ability. The ability to perceive the young woman cannot be measured in any empirical manner. The measure is in the direct perception of her. Her existence can only be confirmed when the other individual’s can actually perceive her for themselves. According to your argument concerning Enlightenment experience this “new” perception is due to conditioning. However, the young woman is “actually” there in the picture even though the ability to see her occurs entirely within the mind!

Scott
23rd December 2006, 15:15
Addendum:

When the young woman is finally perceived no change occurs within the picture, yet the "experience" of the the picture changes! Reality changes due to a change in perception. Reality did not change because there was a change in our environment, it changed because there was a subjective change in our mind. No empirical, measurable, tangible change has occurred. Change occurred solely within the mind!

roninseb
23rd December 2006, 18:24
Hahahahaha!

The monkey is playing with the horse ;)

Scott
24th December 2006, 08:29
Hahahahaha!

The monkey is playing with the horse ;)

Touche! ;)

Shinte do
24th December 2006, 19:40
IF we equate enlightenment with emptiness, then in that event mind AND body disappear. In a nutshell "you" dissolve- hence why it is seen as a death. But the memory cells record prior and post event, allowing "you" to claim whatever happened as "your" experience. What is present is generally termed Spirit, Formless or the unborn deathless state.

Alternatively enlightenment may also be equated with heat in the body, such as fire in the belly, a big warm heart and light in and beyond the brain. Or after the event a LIGHTness of being- hence the sayings "a spring in the step" or "feeling a few inches off the ground."

Sounds good to me and lightens the load!

kokumo
26th December 2006, 23:18
Hi Bruce,

My comment is not reducto ad absurdum. It is unproductive and fallacious to cherry pick a few lines from an entire argument, take them out of the context of the entire argument, and then draw a conclusion based upon that changed context.



Ah, so you reject the prasangika madhamakha.....

Oh wait, this is e-budo, not the Tibetan section of e-sangha.

Nevermind.....

FL

Scott
27th December 2006, 03:08
Ah, so you reject the prasangika madhamakha.....

Hi Fred,

I am not sure what you mean exactly since it seems that there are a few different interpretations of Prasangika Madhyamika. If you mean the principle that is and is-not do not exist then I would say yes and no to your comment. Both is and is-not occur from the dualist perspective. From the non-dual perspective they do not exist and do exist! I believe that existence/reality is both dual and non-dual. Which one occurs (is perceived at a present moment) is dependant upon ones Mind, their perspective. If one perceives solely from the non-dual perspective and considers this the True representation of reality then this is just as illusory as duality since both dual and non-dual are representations of the True reality depending upon ones perspective. This means that clear perception (Enlightenment), would require one to perceive one, the other, or both at the same time at will.

It isn’t that duality is unreal or an illusion. The illusion/delusion is the view that duality is the only Real representation of existence/reality. Duality is real according to a specific perspective and non-dual is real according a specific perspective. A person limited to just one perspective and believing “that” perspective is the ‘only” True representation of True Reality is confused by an illusion, since both actually occur simultaneously, at the same time, in the same instant. So the view that non-dual is the True representation of reality is just as illusory as the view that duality is the True representation of reality.

To illustrate this point I use the Old Woman/Young Woman optical illusion. (See above on this thread to see the pic.) Both the Old Woman and the Young Woman occur at once, at the same moment in time, occupying the same space. Which one is perceived is determined by the perspective of a mind. Just because a person can only perceive the Old Woman does not mean the Young Woman does not occur, it only means they are unable to perceive the Young Woman, and vise versa. Both occur regardless of whether one can perceive them. So to have complete perception/Enlightenment one would be required to perceive the Old Woman, the Young Woman or both at the same time at any time they chose. A mind that is free to move where it will and perceive according to its purpose has transcended the bonds of illusion and this is generally referred to as Enlightenment!

kokumo
27th December 2006, 04:35
Hi Fred,

I am not sure what you mean exactly since it seems that there are a few different interpretations of Prasangika Madhyamika.

Quite simply, that the method of Prasangika IS refutation through reductio ad absurdum.

FL

Scott
27th December 2006, 04:43
Hi Fred,

I see! I am not sure I agree with that, but I am not well versed in Prasangika Madhyamika.

I consider the comment that my argument is reducto ad absurdum as a means of discarding the argument without having to address the questions it raises.

Bruce Mitchell
27th December 2006, 19:54
Hi Fred,

I see! I am not sure I agree with that, but I am not well versed in Prasangika Madhyamika.

I consider the comment that my argument is reducto ad absurdum as a means of discarding the argument without having to address the questions it raises.

HiScott,
I don't find any porblems with your arguement., but because you are unable to provide a proof for your premise, I do not have to address the questions that it raises. Plato's allogory of the cave suffers the exact same flaw as the arguement that you are making, i.e. it is dependent on accepting the premise that there exist a physical and metaphysical state. However the metaphysical state is not subject to disproof and therefore is not rational.

Scott
27th December 2006, 20:15
Hi Bruce,

The only way to demonstrate Enlightenment experience is to have the direct experience. As I have previously mentioned it is similar to proving the taste of an orange to another. I cannot prove to you what it taste like using rational argument, yet we know an orange has a taste because we can taste it for ourselves.

Many arguments may be reduced to unprovable premises. Inherently many arguments originate from assumptions that have no real rational foundation and no provable premises.

As an already cited example: we cannot prove the premises of geometry. We assume point, line and plane to exist and demonstrate the theorems based upon these unprovable assumptions/premises. If we accept geometric proofs based upon unprovable premises then we can accept those of other rational arguments!

The proofs of Enlightenment experience are found in the direct experience. Just as the proof of the Old Woman and Young Woman in the above optical illusion are in the direct perception of them and the proof of the taste of an orange is found in the tasting of an orange!

Bruce Mitchell
28th December 2006, 19:24
Hi Scott,
Fair enough. You make a good point, but unfortunately, while I hold a different view, smarter people than me have not been able to pin down existence. Looking to wikipedia I found this bit that I felt was relevant to our discussion (in particular the second to last paragraph):


According to Bertrand Russell's Theory of Descriptions, the negation operator in a singular sentence takes wide and narrow scope: we distinguish between "some S is not P" (where negation takes "narrow scope") and "it is not the case that "some S is P" (where negation takes "wide scope"). The problem with this view is that there appears to be no such scope distinction in the case of proper names. The sentences "Socrates is not bald" and "it is not the case that Socrates is bald" both appear to have the same meaning, and they both appear to assert or presuppose the existence of someone (Socrates) who is not bald, so that negation takes narrow scope. The theory of descriptions has generally fallen into disrepute, though there have been recent attempts to revive it by Stephen Neale and Frank Jackson. According to the Direct reference view, an early version of which was originally proposed by Peter Strawson, and (some have argued) even earlier by Gottlob Frege, a proper name strictly has no meaning when there is no object to which it refers. This view is sometimes justified by the argument that the semantic function of a proper name is to tell us which object bears the name, and thus to identify some object. But no object can be identified if none exists. Thus, a proper name must have a bearer if it is to be meaningful. To adapt an argument of Strawson's, someone who points to an apparently empty space, uttering "that's a fine red one" communicates nothing to someone who cannot see or understand what he is pointing to. Variants of the Direct reference view have been proposed by Saul Kripke, Gareth Evans, Scott Soames and others.

According to the "two sense" view of existence, existential statements fall into two classes.

1. Those asserting existence in a wide sense. These are typically of the form "N is P" for singular N, or "some S is P".

2. Those asserting existence in a narrow sense. These are typically of the form "N exists" or "S's exist".

The problem is then evaded as follows. "Pegasus flies" implies existence in the wide sense, for it implies that something flies. But it does not imply existence in the narrow sense, for we deny existence in this sense by saying that Pegasus does not exist. In effect, the world of all things divides, on this view, into those (like Socrates, Venus the planet, New York) that have existence in the narrow sense, and those (like Sherlock Holmes, Venus the goddess, Minas Tirith) that do not.

Supporters of this view (which derives from Alexius Meinong) include Terence Parsons and Edward Zalta.

The difficulty with this view is (a) that common sense suggests that there are no such things as fictional characters, places, (b) there is no strong evidence for two kinds of existential sentence as used in ordinary language.

Relevant also to the topic are views posed by Moore, which were then, perhaps elaborated by Wittgenstein. GE Moore used to walk into a room full of students and then raise his right hand, and say "I am raising my right hand," "Now, someone disprove me!" The truth is that it is so common sensical, so obvious that he is raising his right hand, that no one could consistently assert that he was not holding up his hand. In "A Defence of Common Sense" Moore basically turns the traditional Cartesian view on its head because instead of saying that everything must be doubted and one must go back to that one essential thing that cannot be doubted, and then you can believe; he says that first we must believe, then we can question. Because he can raise his hand and know its there, because it's obvious "Nothing is knowable" is a contradiction. ("Nothing is knowable" is also a paradox because how is it even conceivable that "nothing" could be known.)

Another problem that stops people defining existence is that a definition/explanation is meant to put something into simpler terms (make it easier to understand,) existence itself is too simple and basic to be explained (cannot by made simpler) and therefore a possible explanation is difficult to come up with.

As I wrote in an earlier post, I believe that you can take almost any arguement to such an etreme as to make it absurd. While you may argue that geometry ultimately rest on theory (as of yet unproven, which is different from unprovable), for the most part anyone can learn geomerty in a short period of time and use it in the real world everyday.

My question at this point is, of all the people who seek enlightenment, how many have (or can) attain(ed) it? From what little I have read, it seems that the number of people who become enlightenened is soo small that it seems hard to justify the effort. After all, anyone can taste an orange :)

Scott
28th December 2006, 22:39
Hi Bruce,

Your point is very well made! The comments from Wikipedia are thought provoking as well! It seems either view discussed could be valid according to how one defines reality! Fictional characters are real. They do not exist as physical entities as far as we are aware, they are merely ideas, but ideas are existent and that makes them real if not tangible. Ideas do possess a certain malleability as well and because of this an idea need not be confined to a strict definition. A character name Socrates may be bald in my mind while he has long hair in yours. Further, we are not necessarily confined by the description of a character by an author when visualizing the characteristics of a fictional character. While the author may characterize their character as bald the reader is free to visualize the character with hair. Thus the imaginary reality we conceptualize of a fictional story varies according to the personal choices and perspective of the reader.

I am not trying to prove existence, but to demonstrate that our common view of reality is limited. There is more to reality than we commonly perceive. I try to illustrate this by using the example of the Old Woman/Young Woman optical illusion. A person only perceiving the Old Woman would have an incomplete view of reality.

Your comment is very poignant and it has long been something I have pondered: Just why is it so difficult to perceive reality without obstruction, to reach Enlightenment? I have to agree with you, from a pragmatic view it hardly seems worth the effort.

One of the reasons it is so difficult is because our world and self perspectives are socially conditioned. We are conditioned to view reality a certain way and that conditioning begins from the moment of our birth. Our perceptions are determined by our conditioning and this conditioning forges a habitual pattern of perception in our minds and this determines how we will interpret our reality. It takes time and effort to re-condition our perceptions.

A contributing factor to the difficulty is that we live amongst those who are conditioned to perceive reality according to a limited perspective and this negatively influences our efforts. It is difficult to view reality from a different perspective when most of our time is spent amongst those whose attitudes discourage such efforts. Individuals who tend to perceive reality differently from their contemporaries are alienated and ostracized socially. The effort to perceive reality from a broader perspective is essentially swimming against the social current. Progress occurs according to the three steps forward and two steps back principle, if we are lucky that is. For these reasons those who seek mystical insight tend to separate themselves from their contemporary popular social environment. But as you stated, it seems that success is still difficult to attain. It is much easier to conform to the contemporary social world view. Some people seem to have an inner impetus to seek beyond their social conditioning regardless of the effort required or the sacrifices endured.

Bruce Mitchell
29th December 2006, 01:55
Hi Scott,
Thanks for the quick reply. Your replies throughout have really challenged me and made me re-evaluate a lot that I took for granted. It seems that we have finally come to a point of agreement!

While I haven't done zazen in over a decade, I have often thought of taking it back up because even if I am skeptical about enlightenment, I do think that esoteric practices can force us to partake in self examination. And that is never a bad thing. I think that in life, as well as in martial arts, the effort is often as important as the results.

Thanks again Scott (and every one else), it has been a pleasure.

Chris Thompson
29th December 2006, 16:54
I think the Zen teacher Sunryu Suzuki actually said in one of his lectures that enlightenment wasn't something you should focus on as a goal, because to do so was "gaining mind" and inherently dualistic. According to Suzuki, zazen was worthwhile in and of itself, and not just in reference to the chance of gaining enlightenment.

Scott
29th December 2006, 19:22
Hi Bruce,

Thank you for your kind words. I too have enjoyed and benefited from our conversation.

While perhaps I am not as skeptical as you concerning enlightenment I do tend towards a rational and critical view of all things. One of my mottoes is, “Question everything and when you think you understand or have figured something out, question some more!” To me if something is a Truth it will stand the constant testing of questioning. To me we should question everything from the methods of gaining enlightenment some espouse to the results/insights they claim to have gained.

Enlightenment is not completely in contradiction to reason. However, one of the things I have learned is that insights gained cannot always be explained using reason. This is why I frequently use metaphor to illustrate a point. That does not mean we need disregard reason. I consider reason just one tool in the tool box of our mind. It has its purpose, but should not be applied where the insights are beyond the purview of reason.

Another thing I have learned is that principles that do not seem to make sense from a rational perspective become understandable with insight. Some things just ARE, but how we perceive them and what benefit we gain from them depends upon the perspective from which we view it. Just as a glass is half full or half empty depending upon how we choose to view it, so some principles have a different meaning to those who view them from different perspectives. Consequently, I also attempt to view insights and principles from varying perspectives.

A few more things I would like to share.

I have known quite a few people that tended to get trapped by the method of meditation rather than focus on the actual meditation. It is not the specific method that is important. Whatever works well according to ones personality is what will be of benefit. It is unnecessary to sit in any prescribed manner or breathe in any prescribed manner. Our physical position should be as comfortable as possible, that is all. Sitting in a chair, a recliner, lying on a bed, even walking, standing or standing movement as in Tai Chi are all acceptable. It isn’t the position we are in the matters, but the state of mind we are attempting to cultivate. What is important is to avoid physical discomfort because it distracts our mental focus.

Breathing exercises or specific breathing methods are not necessary. Although breathing exercises may provide specific benefits; breathing will find its own proper level without any specific effort.


Hi Chris,

When we become preoccupied with the goal of Enlightenment we create a preconceived notion in our mind of what we think Enlightenment will or should be. This creates a fixed idea in our mind which influences us to conform the experiences and insights we experience to our preconceived notion. If we focus on the process with no preconceive notion of a result we free ourselves to directly experience what occurs without discursive comment. Although in order to communicate our experience to others we must reduce it to words or symbols and these words or symbols will contribute to creating a preconceived expectation in others. If the experiences of those who have gone before us were not communicated however, we would have no basic recipe or guide to gain the experience for ourselves. Therefore the words and symbols of others should be used as general guides and not fixed definitions.

Brian Owens
1st January 2007, 00:21
...it seems that the number of people who become enlightenened is soo small that it seems hard to justify the effort.
Relatively few people have climbed to the peak of Mt. Rainier (near my home), but many have enjoyed shorter hikes around Sunrise, Paradise, and other sites on the mountain.

Some -- after starting with shorter trips -- did make the full ascent.

I doubt if many would say their trips, however long or short, were not worth the effort.

As has oft been said, the journey is the destination (and the destination but a small part of the journey).

ichibyoshi
8th January 2007, 15:11
Dogen Zenji, who was the founder of Japanese Soto-Zen, the tradition in which Shunryu Suzuki taught, expounded the revolutionary notion that zazen (or 'practice', 'training') is itself enlightenment. I take this to mean several things:
one may not necessarily know whether one is 'enlightened', in the sense that it is something beyond knowing

the novice and the master both continue in the same practice

the practice bestows upon the practitioner some benefit regardless of whether the practitioner considers that benefit "enlightenment"

the benefits of practice are largely unknowable in advance and inexplicable in retrospect

the benefits of practice, which may include something able to be labelled 'enlightenment' may only be gained through said practice, and not only that, will be gained

there is a faith requirement to practice in that I practice and don't yet know enlightenment, but I continue to practice because of belief in the previous observation, and also because I believe enlightenment, whatever it turns out to be, exists and happens, as a benefit of practice: although even this statement is false, because it sets up a causal relationship of practice and benefit, when it would be better to say one is immanent in the other, or even closer, they are indivisible.

there is a requirement to be without expectation in practice

since practice itself is in fact enlightenment, then practice should be practiced for its own sake, and not for the sake of achieving enlightenment. Expecting enlightenment without practice is like expecting a meal without having grown the food.

there may be enlightenments and Enlightenments, as well as Enlightenment


b

Ron Tisdale
8th January 2007, 16:28
I helped to build the sewage treatment plant just shy of Paradise Lodge...does that count? ;)

Best,
Ron (also drove off the mountain just shy of that bridge you cross on the way up...man, those are some strong trees!)


Relatively few people have climbed to the peak of Mt. Rainier (near my home), but many have enjoyed shorter hikes around Sunrise, Paradise, and other sites on the mountain.

Some -- after starting with shorter trips -- did make the full ascent.

I doubt if many would say their trips, however long or short, were not worth the effort.

As has oft been said, the journey is the destination (and the destination but a small part of the journey).

Brian Owens
8th January 2007, 22:46
...man, those are some strong trees!
Thank goodness!

Scott
9th January 2007, 10:05
Hui-Neng, the sixth patriarch of Ch’an/Zen in direct lineage from Bodhidharma and considered THE pivotal character in the development of Ch’an thought, taught that meditation is essentially a state, perspective, or quality of mind and not a separate activity that involves sitting and focusing the mind or exercising the mind in any specific manner; he criticized “sitting” Zen as encouraging an attachment to the idea of enlightenment/purity and attachment obscures clear perception. The meditative state of mind according to Hui-Neng is a frame/state/quality/perspective of mind that occurs spontaneously and is THE essential or basic quality of mind. This quality IS the Mind in unobstructed action! We “realize” this condition is occurring when our mind is unobstructed by erroneous attitudes, thoughts and beliefs. It requires no special exercises, but occurs spontaneously when we merely look for it/at it, or perhaps more accurately use the mind according to its inherent quality. Thus its apprehension is called “realization”, which means, “we come to the understanding (realization) that this is what the Mind does already, naturally of its own nature!” There is nothing gained and nothing lost because we are merely “realizing” or understanding what has always naturally and spontaneously occurred anyway. Thus it is a perception or state of mind that we notice is constantly occurring anyway; it occurs whether we are aware of it or not. The only accomplishment on our part is that we notice/observe that it occurs. We perceive what already IS; therefore nothing is gained or lost. The only thing that has changed is our perspective.

The act of explaining this “quality of mind” tends to imply a duality in mind that is not inherent within its nature. So Ch’an masters attempt to point to it directly using actions, thus the hitting, kicking, slapping that occurred at times as well the nonsensical mondos presented to rationalistic minds. Direct perception is not something we “figure out” in the rational sense of understanding. It is something that we directly perceive without rational, discursive interference. The fire is hot! It is hot because that is my direct experience of it. I do not need to think it through or ponder its meaning. It is hot when I touch it; that IS my experience. It simply IS an experience.

When we consider meditation necessary to obtaining this natural occurring mental quality it implies a dualistic quality to the mind as well. In other words this view implies, “I must DO THIS, to obtain THAT!” This is an erroneous view because one need not DO anything. As taught by Hui-Neng, a clear state or condition of perception/enlightenment occurs as a natural consequence of an unobstructed mind.

While meditation may be a benefit it is NOT a requirement. An attachment to meditation or the expected results of meditation binds us to a dualistic view. This causes obstruction in the mind which interferes with clear perception/understanding.

D. T. Suzuki discusses these principles and their relation to the teachings of Hui-Neng in his book, “The ZEN doctrine of no-mind”

ichibyoshi
11th January 2007, 13:21
Hui-Neng was not against zazen per se, he was against the idea as you so rightly put it Scott, that Enlightenment comes as a reward for practice, which is of course dualistic.

This is the genius of Dogen's insight. He is not setting up a dichotomy between practice and enlightenment, he is saying they are one and the same. It's actually logical: if all things have Buddha-nature, then all things are also Enlightened. Dogen is building directly on Hui-neng's thought.

Please don't judge zazen practice by my poor comments above.

b

Scott
11th January 2007, 16:14
Hi Ben,

I apologize if it appeared I was criticizing the practice of Zazen. It was not my intention. I meditate myself. I intended, rather, to offer an authoritative perspective that is not commonly known or understood.

Hui-Neng discouraged the type of meditation that was at the time called, “mirror washing”. He stated it was inherently dualistic and beclouded our natural state of the mind. Of course it is not actually the “mirror washing” that causes us to fall into error, but the beliefs, attitudes and expectations that we bring to the practice. It is not what we do, but why we do it that causes us to fall into error.

I personally believe all roads lead to Rome. Some roads are just more circuitous than others. Since enlightenment is not a race, it is inherently meaningless how long it takes or which methods we play with along the way. However, at some point we must discard or redefine the tools/methods we have chosen to play with. In other words, it is important not to make the method more important than what we are working towards, regardless of the fact that there is nothing we are inherently working towards. It is not the finger pointing the way to the moon that is of importance, it is the moon itself!

Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

Erik Calderon
15th January 2007, 03:24
Doesn't Buddhism have a completely different view of "Good" and "Evil" than we in the western world do?

Brian Owens
15th January 2007, 09:54
Doesn't Buddhism have a completely different view of "Good" and "Evil" than we in the western world do?
Since there are Buddhists in the western world, the answer would have to be "that depends."

If you mean different from the Abrahamic religions' views, then I would say yes, in many ways it is different.

karasu
31st January 2007, 20:57
I still contend that two hours of actively working to make the world a better place is better than one hour of work and one hour of meditation. Likewise, the budoka would be better off spending that time in the dojo. Budo can provide a person with an ethical template for living one's life without resorting to superstitious nonsense.

Whoa. Talk about false dilemmas.

Kenzan
31st January 2007, 23:44
This is my take on the subject, is on things I can see;

1. In a broad sense, without delving into empirical intricacies, The human body is a collection of closely and loosely joined atoms, but on an infinitesimally smaller scale, they would appear unrelated, or, possibly connected inseparably as part if the quantum minutiae, unseperable from the fabric of the universe. (A bit dramatic, but perhaps my point is made.)

2. Portions of these atoms fall into collections of molecules within our bodies, some of which form major organs, most noteworthy, the human brain.

3. The human brain will, inevitably, attempt to organize the data it receives into categories favorable to it's nature and design. Part of it's nature, is to label things such as I, you, that, this, good, bad, hot, warm, cold, etc, etc.
Of this function, I observe this to be the "mind".

4. If we observe this model, we come to the conclusion that the concepts of which the "mind" are obviously illusionary, and a construct of the function of the organ in question. An example of this would be "What is a rock, when we remove the label of such from it?"

Cufaol
1st February 2007, 15:19
"What is a rock, when we remove the label of such from it?"

It's still a stone. It just doens't carry the name rock anymore, for you at least. Removing labels never alters reality, in the very best of cases it alters perception.

Cheers,

Kenzan
1st February 2007, 17:03
It's still a stone. It just doens't carry the name rock anymore, for you at least. Removing labels never alters reality, in the very best of cases it alters perception.

Cheers,

I would submit to you that while the properties of an object still will exist (In the sense that our mind thinks these properties exist) -If we cease to label the object, the view of how one perceives that object according to the bias of labels.
If in order to define something, we have to deal in absolutes; then otherwise it's just abstraction, which is my point.
If we define an object via its properties is not there then a finite point to where the object in question ceases to have the properties which makes it thus?
If that is accepted, then must not we also accept that the naming convention by which we use to label objects is clearly on valid for our use in discerning reality from perception of reality?
The use of the "mind" as it were, would appear to have nothing to do with an object’s ultimate nature, and thus reality.

Speaking of Reality and its alteration:
I would additionally submit that it is the very disagreement that humans have with one another regarding the nature of reality that causes much discord.
So we can also see that based upon the mind, each mind can possibly see reality in a differing perspective, some slight, some wide. This is further evidence that the mind is only a “lens” for which we view the world, and the lens can be convex, concave, cracked, foggy, dirty, or faceted.

With respect to Budo, since the mind is not a reflection of reality, but simply an interpreter of reality, it is not reliable, and therefore I see it as a liability.

Of course, all is easier said than done!
:D

Scott
2nd February 2007, 11:01
Hi Kenzan,

I agree with much of what you have said. Our experience of reality is determined by the perspective from which we view it. We use language to communicate our experiences of phenomena with one and other. We use language (words/labels) to describe experiences in order that we may share them with others. As a result we tend to confuse the label we use to communicate an experience of a phenomenon with the actual phenomenon. My description of a tree is NOT the tree. At best my description is nothing more than a shadow of the experience of the actual tree I have described! We tend to consider the label as having greater reality than the actual experience.

Phenomena are perceived/interpreted according to the label/definition ascribed to them. Words/Definitions are meant to communicate an experience, but instead they become the limiter/arbiter of what is accepted as a real experience or possible to experience; the servant (words) becomes the master (the arbiter of what is real).

An accepted definition is NOT the phenomena it is meant to describe, it is only an inadequate representation of what it is meant to designate. Any experience that does not fall within the accepted definition is then disregarded as less valid. We are thereby confined by the definitions/labels we use to communicate our experiences. Labels, although useful, have the side effect of limiting our perspective according the prevailing meaning of the label/word accepted by the society at any given time. These limiting labels then affect our perspective which determines what we experience.

I do not agree that the problem is mind. The problem is ego which is merely an arbitrary, artificially created division of mind. The ego is the problem because it is a division of mind that does not inherently exist in mind. Since it is an artificial construct is creates artificial means to relate itself to the world/reality. The “artificial means to relate to the world/reality” creates preconceived notions and erroneous thoughts that obstruct our perception of reality.

Ego affects the quality of our perception. It confuses what it perceives/filters with reality/unobstructed perception and tries to force its limited perspective onto the world. Ego is an artificial gatekeeper to the mind and tends to arbitrarily limit what it will accept as reality according to its preconceived notions. These preconceived notions are what Zen masters such as Hui-Neng refer to as “erroneous thoughts”. They are errors in thought that cause obstruction to direct (unfiltered) perception. Since most people are unaware of this they are unable to perceive in an unobstructed manner. The purpose of Zen is to point the seeker to a direct experience of reality without the filtering and limiting perspective imposed by the ego and the arbitrary languages it uses to communicate reality.

Kenzan
2nd February 2007, 17:22
Hello Scott,
A very concise way of putting the point if I must say! :)

On Ego and the Mind:
If Ego is a process of the mind, can we really separate the ego from the mind?
If we say "I have desolved my Ego";
Who is saying this, and to whom is it being said?

If the Mind sees the world as "I", The Ego can be seen as an extension or definition of "I." Since the "I" of its perception is a illusory as Ego, and if Ego is an extension or natural process of mind, then there can be no separation from the two.

Scott
3rd February 2007, 15:14
Hi Kenzan,

Think of it this way:

A wave is a function/process of the ocean. It is not separate from the ocean. It is something the ocean does. It is the same with ego. It is not separate from mind; it is a function/process of mind. The ego is not separate from mind; it is something mind does. The ego does not dissolve. That is just an expression that is used to say what it is “like” or “similar to” when one ‘realizes” the true function/purpose of the ego and the expanse of mind. The ego is a tool mind uses; it is an artificial construct that allows us to function within the material, limited world. It is the over identification with the ego that causes an obstructed perception of mind. This prevents us from expanding our perspective which would allow us to perceive clearly, in an unobstructed manner.

Over identification causes us to assume the ego IS our mind. We limit our perception by not looking beyond the self-imposed limits created by our ego. We tend to not look beyond the end of our nose so to speak. The ego is a useful tool as long as we understand its purpose, but it can just as easily be a barrier that limits our perception. It all depends upon perspective. From the perspective of mind, ego is merely a tool not separate from mind, from the perspective of a self-limiting ego the mind is separate and beyond. This perception is an erroneous view, but since the ego limits its perception it is unable to perceive completely and this creates the illusion the two are separate.

It is similar to the optical illusion I posted above in this post. For one who can only perceive the old woman, the young woman does not exist. No matter how much another person professes the existence of the young woman she does not exists to the person whose perception is obstructed. Once one’s perception is unobstructed, the old woman does not disappear, vision is clarified and a complete perception of the reality is revealed. Both old woman and young woman co-exist at the same time in the same place and we perceive one or the other according to the perspective we choose to view it from. This ability to perceive with an unobstructed mind is called realization or illumination. It is the condition where we perceive completely what has always been there from the beginning. Nothing is lost and nothing is gained from one perspective (mind) while from another perspective (ego) everything is gained.This is where confusion arises when we talk about what occurs when our perception is unobstructed. Some statements are made according to what occurs from the perspective of ego and some statements are made according to what occurs from the perspective of unobstructed perception.

Kenzan
5th February 2007, 21:57
Hello again Scott,
I agree with your assessment, and If I would add anything, it would be to say that I see the Mind as the filter, and the Ego as perhaps the interpretor.
However, though since both are mere mental constructs of our human nature, and do not really exist, I see them both are invalid in terms of the interpretation of reality.

Examples of Mind as the enemy:

If a drop of water in the Ocean believes:

1. That is is indeed a drop of water in the Ocean.

2. That it's own centrality of "I" allows it to interpret otherwise, although admittedly, this feature would be also a function it's own natural state, i.e., a Bird simply sings, it does not "think" about doing so.

Scott
6th February 2007, 02:23
Hi Kenzan,

I don’t see the mind as an enemy though. The mind just IS! The teachings of Taoism and Zen state that it is ignorance and erroneous thinking that is the cause of obstructed perception, it is a condition of mind that is the enemy, not the mind itself. We need not accept this teaching out of hand. We may observe the functioning of our mind and see for ourselves that this is the state of affairs. It is possible that we have differing definitions of mind and ego as well.

To follow your example: to me, the drop of water in the ocean is BOTH a drop of water in the ocean AND the ocean. Similarly, concerning the optical illusion I provided above, it is at ONCE, an old woman, a young woman and both! How we experience the picture is determined by our perspective. The picture never changes. How we perceive it changes. Those with erroneous thoughts, limiting beliefs or limited perception do not have the freedom see perceive the picture as they choose. Their erroneous thoughts limit their perception and thereby their experience, however a person with unobstructed perception has the choice to perceive the picture according their own whim. They may artificially limit their perception or they may not limit it at all as they choose according to their purpose. This is where freedom lies. If all I may perceive is the ONES of creation, but not the separateness then I am just as afflicted as one who only perceives only the separateness!

Kenzan
6th February 2007, 06:34
Hello again Scott, thank you for taking the time for your once again thoughtful reply.


Hi Kenzan,
To follow your example: to me, the drop of water in the ocean is BOTH a drop of water in the ocean AND the ocean.



I would tend to view this example as the trap of duality.
Rationally, logically, we could say that it is both, however is not there only one truth?
One could say that that the function of the Ocean is to have a property among countless innumerable properties in which certain portions of it think they are droplets, but, as you pointed out, with respect the mind that just IS, so is the Ocean. So isn’t there only just Ocean?



How we experience the picture is determined by our perspective. The picture never changes. How we perceive it changes. Those with erroneous thoughts, limiting beliefs or limited perception do not have the freedom see perceive the picture as they choose. Their erroneous thoughts limit their perception and thereby their experience, however a person with unobstructed perception has the choice to perceive the picture according their own whim.


This reminds me of a story I read once regarding Lao Tzu observing a masterful cook at work.
(Paraphrased of course)
The cook, who was quite aged, would set about carving a whole side of beef using his knife which such precision and speed, that he could flawlessly reduce the body of the carcass to exacting portions within minutes.
Amazed by the cook's skill, Lao Tzu asked how the cook accomplished this, and more precisely, what the cook was thinking about when he worked.
The cook replied that when he was young and an apprentice, he focused his thought to every aspect of the process of his tasks, so much so that no detail was spared. The cook then went on to say that over the years as he endeavored to become increasingly more skillful at his trade, he thought about his actions less and less, until at his present state, he had no thought what so ever when he worked; he simply let the actions of his knife and hands to what they do naturally.
It was written that Lao Tzu interpreted this state that the cook had achieved as pure Tao. In other words, the natural state of action, removed from the obfuscation of mind, allowed for the action to be performed almost seemingly by itself, with no conscious mind to guide it.
Similarly, in Martial Arts, I view a similar if not identical phenomenon whereby the more I think about a process, the more clouded my mind becomes.
The monk Takuan and the Yagyu family wrote extensively regarding the technique of "No mind" and I think it is applicable here because it represents my point in that the more we attempt to use the mind to "think" of stratagem, the more we are cutting off the very thing of which we seek, which is a total and completely natural reaction, requiring no thought to accomplish.
Like Lao Tzu's cook, we seek to achieve a state where we are not influenced by the mind's perception of a constant analysis of data, but rather to experience reality directly, unfiltered, from moment to moment; the essence of the situation as it were.
That is what I mean when I write, "The mind is my enemy."

1/2
6th February 2007, 09:52
One of the aims or objectives of Buddhism is to obtain enlightenment.
But is it safe to assume that enlightenment is always good? For example it could be possible to argue that Hitler was enlightened ?

This is unfortunatly a possibility, how ever.... One might allso say that him and his goons where mental. For example: one of Hitlers number one men spent most of his adult life in a mental institution.... (This was before he escaped and joined Hitler...) ...so I'm told at least...

So I think that this speaks for its self...

Scott
6th February 2007, 10:50
Hi Kenzan,

I too appreciate your participation in our discussion.


I would tend to view this example as the trap of duality.
Rationally, logically, we could say that it is both, however is not there only one truth?
One could say that that the function of the Ocean is to have a property among countless innumerable properties in which certain portions of it think they are droplets, but, as you pointed out, with respect the mind that just IS, so is the Ocean. So isn’t there only just Ocean?

There is nothing wrong with duality. Duality exists. Perhaps it has always existed. It isn’t that we ignore duality, transcend duality, or no longer perceive duality; it is that we are no longer trapped by duality. It is erroneous views that create obstructions in the mind and interferes with our direct perception of ONENESS (non-duality), not duality itself. Direct perception of the non-dual condition does not eliminate duality; it frees us from the ensnarement of duality. That is, we are no longer bound or limited by duality. We are free to experience duality or not as we choose, and this is true freedom. If we were to experience the non-dual condition and not recognize that duality is inherent within the non-dual then we would be trapped by the non-dual. From one perspective it is impossible to experience non-duality anyway because there must be an experiencer to have an experience and this is a duality. If there is inherently only non-duality then there is no one to experience anything and no one to come back to communicate the experience to those trapped within duality. Therefore, duality must be inherent within the non-dual. Duality must exist for us to communicate the non-dual condition to others. If there is no experiencer than nothing occurs, there is no creation and nothing could occur. For there to be action, growth, change there must be duality. This principle is expressed in the symbol of Yin-Yang. Without duality and action existence would be static and there could be no existence at all.

If there is only ONENESS and not duality, then nothing would or could occur, no separate identity, no time, no place, no events, no experiences. Since we do have identity, time, places, events and experiences, duality exists. However, duality is founded upon an inherent ONENESS, a non-dual condition wherein nothing occurs, yet all things occur. Duality became inherent within ONENESS (Tao) when Tao chose to expresses itself, however duality is artificially contrived and inherent within Tao at the same time. This is expressed symbolically in Yin-Yang. It is at once both dual and non-dual. It is Yin and Yang, and it is Yin-Yang. How we perceive/experience it is a matter of perspective. Once again, there is nothing wrong with duality. It is not any less preferable than non-duality. It simply is. It is our erroneous views that creates obstructed perception and this lead us to conclude that the non-dual condition is preferable or represents a higher condition of being than the dual condition, but this view is just as erroneous. Non-dual and dual are both valid conditions of Tao. If we become trapped by one or the other we have a limited understanding of reality. It is the paradox of it that makes it eternally so, Tao is ONE and many at the same time.

Therefore, to perceive the non-dual AND the dual as we so choose is the unobstructed condition. To believe that duality dissolves into non-duality is an erroneous view that limits ones understanding and experience of Tao. ONENESS is the foundation of duality. Duality is the expression of ONENESS. Duality is a contrived artificial phenomenon created by Tao (ONNENESS) for a purpose. If there was no purpose for duality it would not exist. Duality could be called Tao at play.

There is only one TRUTH, however within the dualistic system this TRUTH is subject to the limitations of the system. It can only be communicated according to the ability of the one who perceives it in an unobstructed manner. In other words, the inexpressible unlimited condition is subject to limitation by the perceiver simply because the act of communication is a function of the dualistic system. The non-dual condition must be translated into a dualistic system in order for us to communicate it to others. When it is translated it must be communicated according to the audience’s ability to understand. This ability to understand is influenced by historical era, cultural influences, and the personal limitations possessed by each individual in the audience. This is not so unusual really. It occurs with any direct experience. The description of a thing is always a shadow of the actual experience of it. I can describe to you a painting I have viewed at a museum, but my description is NOT the painting. Your understanding and appreciation of the painting is limited by my ability to communicate and your ability to understand. It is also incumbent upon us to share the same language, and some similar experiences. So for example, if you speak Chinese and I speak English it makes no difference that we are both literate and have the ability to communicate effectively. Further, if I am communicating to you something of which you have no comparable experience, then my description will not communicate the experience effectively either. It the picture has a hippopotamus in it and you have never seen a hippopotamus you will not completely understand my description. If this difficulty is inherent when attempting to communicate themes that exist within the dualistic field of experience how much more difficult would it be to communicate a non-dual theme and this is why it appears to those with erroneous views that there are many truths rather than one TRUTH. They are all variations of a central theme that are understandable only according to a specific context, limited by the ability of the original perceiver to communicate their experience, and the audiences inherent personal, social and historical limitations. At best the description may only point the way for others to look in order to directly experience it for themselves anyway.


Like Lao Tzu's cook, we seek to achieve a state where we are not influenced by the mind's perception of a constant analysis of data, but rather to experience reality directly, unfiltered, from moment to moment; the essence of the situation as it were.
That is what I mean when I write, "The mind is my enemy."

Yes, I agree. It is clear we are defining mind differently. Your mind is my ego. To me it is the mind that is the field of our identity and existence. It is that which perceives directly and the ego is artificially constructed in order to navigate the dualistic system. Even then, the mind is merely an artificial construct of Tao that provides for apparent individuality.

Keep in mind that in each of your two examples, the butcher and the martial artist, a non-structured response was born of a structured learning system. It takes effort and structure at the beginning and then as we attain the higher levels of training we transcend the structure in order to respond spontaneously without inherent form. From form comes the formless in this circumstance, yet inherently all form is born of the formless.

Kenzan
6th February 2007, 16:21
Hello again Scott,
I thank you for your dialogs.
You have provided much of which to meditate upon.
:)