Likes Likes:  0
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 87

Thread: Enlightenment = good ?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    359
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    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
    Best regards,
    Bruce Mitchell

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    113
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    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.
    Scott R. Brown

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    359
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    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.
    Best regards,
    Bruce Mitchell

  4. #64

    Default

    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.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    113
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    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.
    Scott R. Brown

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    6,227
    Likes (received)
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Mitchell
    ...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).
    Yours in Budo,
    ---Brian---

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    260
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    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

  8. #68
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Outside of Phila.
    Posts
    1,492
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    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!)

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Owens
    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).

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    6,227
    Likes (received)
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Tisdale
    ...man, those are some strong trees!
    Thank goodness!
    Yours in Budo,
    ---Brian---

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    113
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    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”
    Scott R. Brown

  11. #71
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    260
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    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

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    113
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    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!
    Scott R. Brown

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    10
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Enlightement

    Doesn't Buddhism have a completely different view of "Good" and "Evil" than we in the western world do?

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    6,227
    Likes (received)
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik Calderon
    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.
    Yours in Budo,
    ---Brian---

  15. #75
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    3
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Mitchell
    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.
    Kai Worsley

    Let your rapidity be that of the wind, and your compactness that of the forest. - Sun Tzu

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •