“What is the sound of one hand clapping?” “What did your face look like before your ancestors were born?” These are some allegedly profound questions posed by Zen masters, as discussed in Doubt: a History, by Jennifer Hecht. It is also the sort of philo-bubble that gives philosophy a bad name – and sells plenty of titles in the Eastern philosophy section of bookstores.
Consider the first question: it is, in fact, utter nonsense, since clapping – by definition – requires two hands (no, you are not clapping if you bang your hand on another source, you are just making noise). The second question is nonsense on stilts, since I did not exist before my ancestors were born, and I need to exist in order to have a face. These are not questions to which it is difficult to find an answer because they are too deep, there is no answer because there is no question, and if you spend decades of your life seeking enlightenment this way, I feel sorry for all the waste of human potential. (And no, I don't believe in metaphorical or allegorical questions, in case you were wondering.)
More generally, it could be argued that there is no such thing as Eastern philosophy – though certainly not all output in that area is so useless as the two questions discussed above. That is because philosophy is an activity of a particular kind, invented 25 centuries ago in Greece. Bear with me, I'm not trying to be Euro-centric, or deferring only to DWM's (Dead White Males). Philosophy, as it has been understood ever since Plato and until pretty recently, is a form of inquiry into the nature of the world and the human condition. Such inquiry is supposed to be conducted by the use of logical reasoning, where possible informed by empirical evidence (hence the origin of science, initially called, appropriately enough, experimental or natural philosophy).
Now, we can find plenty of interesting and stimulating Eastern texts produced over the last couple of millennia, from a variety of traditions including Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and so forth. But none of these texts is philosophical in nature because they do not attempt to argue for a position by using logic and evidence. On the contrary, they are more alike to ancient Jewish (and then Christian) mystical writings, and are therefore not philosophy under any reasonable understanding of the term.
Look, it's like saying that soccer and (American) football are the same thing because they are both played with balls, they simply originated on two different continents. They are certainly not the same thing. They are different sports, using different rules, requiring different skills, and with very distinct histories. To say that American football isn't soccer is not a criticism or a value judgment (ok, I admit that I will be watching the World Cup next month, while I skipped the Superbowl ever since they made it impossible for Janet Jackson to show her breasts again). To claim a difference is simply to state a matter of fact about the two sports. Similarly, Eastern thought – whatever it is, and however useful it may be – is not philosophy. And when it consists of asking questions about sound made by trees falling in forests where nobody listens, well, just answer 42 – it's as good an insight into the question of life, the universe and everything as you'll ever find, and it won't require decades of meditation staring at a wall.
Rationally Speaking: an archived blog about science & philosophy, by Massimo Pigliucci
Dear Massimo,
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree in general with your posting, equating koans (zen riddles) with philosophical statements is plain wrong. Koans are inherently nonsensical. The idea behind this is to allow/force the Zen student to stop "thinking" and start "experiencing." Instead of thinking about the apple in front of you (i.e. tree, Newton, sweet, sour), actually see it for the greenish, redisch, roundish object it is. Whether trying this a good or bad thing, is another question.
GCB.
I think you're partly right about eastern philosophies or whatever you want to call it. What would you call it? Technique, maybe?
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, Eastern thought and Eastern conclusions were never designed to be reached through arcane technical rational deductions. Its intentionally oblique.
And what are those conclusion? Two or three main things. Most of eastern thought, at least the ones I favor, intend to demonstrate the absurdity of life. The meaningless of it all. They want to say, quit taking it all so damn seriously, and if you need meaning, make your own. They want to encourage us to be good to other people, be good to ourselves. Rather like the broad strokes of existentialism.
I dunno. Its intuitive philosopy. A lot of it is pretty damn goofy--Hinduism cracks me up--but once you get what they are driving at all those pseudoreligious trappings don't matter anymore. If only western religions saw it that way, eh?
What brought on the rant, Massimo?
Jay, GCB,
ReplyDeletethe "rant" was brought about by the fact that I run into pseudo-deep statements attributed to Eastern "philosophers" all the time, and it gets old and annoying. The specific instance was that these were presented in a positive light in Hecht's book, which is otherwise very interesting and rationally argued.
I do think that "intuitive philosophy" is an oxymoron, and that if you want to tell someone to stop thinking and start experiencing you can just tell them in plain sanskrit. Better yet, don't do anything, since that seems to be the default mode of lots of people anyway... :)
Massimo,
ReplyDeleteOn a lighter note (or perhaps not) in making your crack about Janet Jackson's breasts, you have set yourself perfectly for one of Cal's religio-feminazi harangues. I can't wait!
Massimo,
ReplyDeleteI agree that there are a variety of meanings for the term philosophy. Your definition works fine but others use the term more loosely as in 'an approach to life' (-a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior).
Arguing over the proper definition of a term is exactly what students of Zen avoid but students of Socrates revel in. Words are only human-designated symbols of reality (which is why definitions of words reflect usage, rather than dictate it).
But rather than quibble about terms I'd like to know why you are so dismissive of eastern thought/philosophy/techniques/wisdom (etc.)?
Rational thought and logic can only accomplish so much. Zen is often thought of a 'cure' for over-rationalized approaches to life. The problem is that many love their rationalizations and think they are correct, forgetting they are only models of reality, and at best, only partially correct (but often horribly incorrect). Zen eschews symbols and any attempt to elevate ideas (asbractions in the human mind) above actual moment to moment reality. The ideas tend to 'block' the reality from getting in... As such it shares a lot with science (avoiding bias, etc.).
'Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.' - P. Dick
As an old girlfriend of mine once said (in frustration wrought from my over-rational approach to our relationship) "I am not an insect!"
He He, I thought this was going to get some good discussion going. OK, a few more comments:
ReplyDelete>> Arguing over the proper definition of a term is exactly what students of Zen avoid but students of Socrates revel in. Words are only human-designated symbols of reality <<
Right, but if we don't use words in a semi-consistent way they don't mean anything, language becomes useless, and communication breaks down. So, why not reserve a different word for whatever it is that Eastern thought represents? Or is it that someone wants to take advantage of the intellectual respectability of Socrates and followers, just like advertisers that attach the word "scientific" to any piece of crap they wish to sell? :)
As for Jinzang:
>> Hello? Have you ever heard of analogy? <<
Yes, I've heard of it. Dictionary.com defines it this way: "Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar."
Now, I ask you, where exactly is the similarity in the phrase "what is the sound of one hand clapping?"? What thing is similar to what other thing here? See, that's what real philosophy is about: calling people on sloppy usage of language. Not because one wants some sort of language police (a la French), but because sloppy language all too often hides and propagates sloppy thinking...
Just in case Jinzang doesn't reply - I will step in and suggest an explanation for his comment " The analogy is being made to the nature of mind, "
ReplyDeleteOne of the challenges set forth for a zen student is to attempt to determine what their mind is - who they are - who is in control. Sitting, staring at a wall, trying to control your thoughts and failing, hour after hour, makes one realize that those thoughts aren't really under your control at all. So, if your thoughts aren't under your control, what is? If those thoughts aren't 'you' then what is 'you'?
A wonderful topic to get into - and one can do so without any zen at all. A Harvard researcher, Dr. Wegner, has done a good bit of work on this issue (which the Buddha worked out beforehand as the concept of 'no self') - a good place to start is his book available on amazon Illusion of conscious will
so the analogy, it seems to me, is that true understanding of reality (and particularly the self as part of it) simply cannot be grasped with logic - virtually all of the premises (eg there is a separate subject and object, there is independence) are false.
these koans are 'deep' in the sense that one has to give up dependence on logic. Any calculator, or robot that is well programmed, can perform logic. But only a human can solve a koan.
I see your point, but I still maintain that by far the best insights into the nature of consciousness (including hard evidence that "we" might not be in full control of what's going on "up there") comes from hard science, and in particular neurobiology. Needless to say, hard science is an offspring of Socrates-style philosophy, not of Eastern thought...
ReplyDeleteJinzang,
ReplyDelete>> It's not a question of better or worse. First person knowledge is necessarily different than third person knowledge. <<
Of course, no argument there. But what sort of "knowledge" can be derived from nonsensical questions?
Rational thought and logic can only accomplish so much.
ReplyDeleteHmmm, where have I heard this before...? Oh, yes, of course. Religious apologists "justifying" their abandonment of reason.
Anyway I myself don't feel very inclined to have fuzzy thoughts that make my mind blank - for that, there are very efficient (usually illegal) substances... It might be just my limitations, but I don't see what benefit that would bring.
And if the "western" way of thinking, whatever you call it, is so limited and wanting and "only go so far", why are all those eastern societies trying so desperately to get where the western ones got? Maybe just my prejudices, by I don't see them Chinese, Singaporeans et al. shuning all the technology, science, etc.
J
Oh, BTW, I wasn't saying anybody here is being a "religious apologist". Just pointing out the similarity...
ReplyDeleteJ
J and Massimo, was it pure logic that motivated your posts or emotion?
ReplyDeleteA computer can be programmed to compute the logic of a chess game but only if a person who "cares" sets it in motion. The caring comes from where? Egoistic emotion to win.
Logic is a slave (tool) of emotions/the subconscious which gives our consciousness the motivation to use logic to achieve whatever we feel (emotion) is important to achieve (eg defense of logic against illogic).
Once again, this is no response to my criticism of Eastern thought. Of course I care/have emotions about issues, or I wouldn't bother writing this blog.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, see my post at http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/ for quoting David Hume on the fact that emotions have, in some sense, to guide reason.
But this discussion isn't about emotion vs. reason, it is about sense vs. nonsense. Quite a different topic.
OK, good point. Sorry for the tangent.
ReplyDeleteyou wrote: " But what sort of "knowledge" can be derived from nonsensical questions?"
the knowledge that is derived is the first person feeling that corroborates the modern neurobiological findings of workers like Dr. Wegner. Findings which I suspect even Dr. Wegner himself only grasps abstractly rather than intimitely - 3rd person vs 1st.
Even the most educated scientists share the same basic (and illusory) gene-predisposed feelings that fundamentalist theists feel of separateness from the universe. Zen practice allows one to 'get inside' the abstract concepts coming from modern science - to improve greatly the accuracy of one's perspective on nature.
A human being is part of the whole called by us universe , a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. - Einstein
This delusion is what zen addresses - and it can't be dealt with using logic.
I really like your phrase "nonsense on stilts." Is nonsense ever really profound? Maybe its value lies in what old nonsense it is, and how long it has been considered profound?
ReplyDeleteJ,
ReplyDeleteZen and other Eastern Philosophy is not a rejection of logic or science or of the idea of social progress, but involves a realisation of the limitations of all of these in tackling the existential problems of our own lives. The technological advancement and wealth of a nation does not increase the happiness of its citizens, for example, and is probably best seen in terms of maintaining competitiveness in a context of cultural evolution.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMassimo,
ReplyDeleteI like logical rigorousness myself - if you are going to use logic, you should use it well. However, using it well includes not only avoiding logical errors but realising the limitations of logic. Every language has a limited scope.
The actual reality of our existence is not made of thoughts or language, it includes them. We can build representations with thoughts and language, but those models can only refer to the actuality, for the pragmatic purposes of giving information, making predictions etc, but they cannot contain actuality and are not absolute truths. What is more they misrepresent reality by treating it as being composed of fixed, discreet entities, which come into existence, exist in a simple, absolute way for some duration then disappear. But really this is an artefact of the nature of our descriptive tools.
It is not just 'nonsensical' eastern philosphers who recognise these problems.
One of the most radical characteristics of the "later" Wittgenstein is his metaphilosophy. The "conventional" view of philosophy's "task", accepted by almost every Western philosopher since Plato, is that the philosopher's task was to solve a number of seemingly intractable problems using logical analysis (for example, the problem of "free will", the relationship between "mind" and "matter", what is "the good" or "the beautiful" and so on). However, Wittgenstein argues that these "problems" are in fact pseudo-problems that arose from philosophers' misuse of language...
... In this manner, he aimed to demonstrate that the great questions posed by philosophers had arisen because they were operating on a mistaken view of language and its relation to reality. Philosophers in the Western tradition were not "wiser" than anyone else, as had been assumed — they were simply more likely to get caught up in linguistic confusion by taking language beyond the context it was meant to deal with. For Wittgenstein, the philosopher's proper task is therefore to "show the fly out of the fly bottle": to show that the problems with which philosophers torment themselves are not really problems at all, but rather examples of "language gone on holiday" (as he put it). The philosopher is to be more like a therapist, removing distress and confusion, rather than a craftsman of philosophical theses.
source
Wittgenstein famously summarised his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus :
what can be said, can be said clearly, but what cannot be said we must pass over in silence
My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognises them as nonsensical, when he has used them - as steps - to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)
The latter parallels the use of Buddhist teachings as provisional tools to reach beyond our usual ways of relating to reality.
According to Buddhism, this confusion between our thoughts about reality and reality itself is the source of delusions which lead to existential suffering. This is not just a problem for philosophers, but an everyday existential confusion about our relationship to the rest of reality. An example is that we tend to regard ourselves as a fixed and separate entity.
For eastern philosphers (speaking broadly) the 'ultimate truth' is the actuality of this phenomenon that we call 'our life' rather than any logical correspondence between linguistic statements about parts of it. However, it does not reject the pragmatic value of logic per se. Indian logic was pretty sophisticated and there were Indian schools of Buddhism which used logical argument as part of the method of realisation.
Most notable is Nagarjuna:
The designable is ceased when the range of thought is ceased,
For phenomenality is like nirvana, unarisen and unstopped.
This sort of approach was generally supplanted by the use of metaphors and 'poetic philosophy' in Buddhism (as in the koans you mentioned) because the former relied on negation and was often misinterpreted as a form of Nihilism.
There is an interesting discussion on Nagarjuna and his relation to western philosophy here: Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought
This is, again, very interesting. I'm reliving exactly the sort of frustrations that prompted the post to begin with.
ReplyDeleteIt's fascinating to me that people attempt to broaden the scope of the discussion to issues I didn't touch, and with which I have no disagreement (I notice the same diversion tactic adopted by creationists, when one makes a good point against them). All this discussion about the limits of logic and the importance of emotions have nothing to do whatsoever with my point, and I think highlight the fact that I hit the mark exactly right.
My post wasn't entitled "On the primacy of logic over emotions," or "The nonsense of first person experience." No, it was simply asking what sort of deep insight one gets from pondering questions like "what was the shape of your face before your ancestors were born?"
If one somehow (it's still not clear to me exactly how) derives from such questions the insights that first person accounts are important and that logic has limits, good. But does that really take decades of meditation? C'mon people!
As for "nonsense on stilts," I wish it were my phrase, but it's a classic due to utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham. I like it a lot (and no, that doesn't mean I endorse utilitarianism as a moral philosophy!).
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. - Einstein
ReplyDeletesorry to frustrate, it's the nature of the topic!
The above quote points again to the issue. You seem to claim there is no value in koans & the zen approach - that whatever realizations might be obtained can be thought up in a few minutes of blog writing.
The koans value lie in the very limits of logic we've touched on. One is given a choice - stick with logical certainty and live in a simplified and apparently internally consistent model of the world (as long as one doesn't think too hard & long about its limits, eg Wittgenstein) which is necessarily false to some degree, or drop the enterprise to embrace the ineffable reality minus the simplifications that logic & rational thought imposes. This latter course is not easily done - the koans help. We all rely on rational thought to such an enormous degree that indeed, it takes some serious effort to get beyond it (and, sorry, not just a large glass of wine!)
If you want obvious conclusions then the most obvious is that whatever realizations a Zen student achieves after sometimes decades of effort, cannot possibly be of the same 'depth' as those you work out in a few minutes of blog post composition.
j wrote:
ReplyDeleteRational thought and logic can only accomplish so much.
Hmmm, where have I heard this before...? Oh, yes, of course. Religious apologists "justifying" their abandonment of reason.
I don't think anyone was suggesting abandoning reason or argument. Simply that reason is an inadequate substitute for experience.
Anyway I myself don't feel very inclined to have fuzzy thoughts that make my mind blank - for that, there are very efficient (usually illegal) substances... It might be just my limitations, but I don't see what benefit that would bring.
No serious meditation practitioner would suggest that you pursue fuzzy thoughts, or substances that induce that state. If anything, they would suggest you pursue clarity of mind, alertness, and exercise intelligence.
And if the "western" way of thinking, whatever you call it, is so limited and wanting and "only go so far", why are all those eastern societies trying so desperately to get where the western ones got? Maybe just my prejudices, by I don't see them Chinese, Singaporeans et al. shuning all the technology, science, etc.
Nor should they. Understanding the mind and using it aren't mutually exclusive. But in order to understand the mind, it might be helpful to get it to hold still for 20-60 minutes per day.
The same might hold true for an internal combustion engine if you didn't have a manual for it. It's harder to figure out how it works if you're simultaneously driving around all over the place.
Thanks for the answers, guys. It's sure an interesting topic/ discussion. The thing is that, being a western scientist myself (and having that mindset since a kid), I guess it's a bit too hard for me to really understand - in case there really IS something to understand there. ;-)
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I agree wholeheartedly that if western religions had the same outlook on life as the eastern thought, things might be much nicer.
But I still have some issues with some things written above. OK, all the eastern thought and meditation and stuff serve to show us we are one with the universe, and we are not in control of our own mind, the whole is greater than the parts, and over-rationalizing is counterproductive. Did I get it right from what you guys said or am I practicing the old fallacy (a creationist's favorite) of the straw man?
Ok, so I've never praticed any eastern thought/technique type of thing (as you can see I know next to nothing about it), but I have the same conclusions I outlined abouve! Well, not just me, but most secular people who've studied a bunch of science.
You see, western thought came to these conclusions through a different route - and one that shows you not only the conclusions, but tends to help understanding the mechanisms. So, most agnostic atheists like me see that the scientific evidence points to no duality mind/body, for one, with all those neurological studies (by the way, it's somewhat ironic that the scientific findings get cited to give credibility to the eastern thought). Second, there's no free will (we're not in control, really), or at least not much room for it, since we are the result of everything that happened before in the universe - can't we then say we are one with the universe, star stuff, as Dr. Sagan liked to? The "traditional western way of thinking" criticized by most people seem to be the clockwork type of universe, that whole Newton thing, extremely reductionist and rationalizing, it seems to me. But as many of you might be aware that, for a few decades now "we" came to the conclusion, physically, mathematically and specially by computer simulation, that there are things you really can't study/understand by the reductionist method. Think chaos, emergent phenomena, complex systems (BTW, most scientists are a bit adverse to these ideas exactly because it sounds pretty new-agey, eatern-like). We're not just one with the universe and all that, but it's simply impossible to analyze it comprehensively with the traditional reductionist methods. And finally, very interesting neurological studies, as reported in Antonio Damasio's books, for example, show that people with "broken" emotional centers (but intact rationality) in their brain make WORSE decisions.
OK, so we took a lot longer than the easterns to get to these conclusions, I admit. But I still prefer "my" way. ;-)
Please keep the ideas coming, it's been fun so far.
Cheers
J
J,
ReplyDeleteIt's not a mutually exclusive choice of eastern vs western.
I'm a scientist also. The two approaches are not only totally compatible they augment one another wonderfully.
Science gives one the evidence that suggests such and such may be correct (no free will for example) and Zen practice gives one the personal experience that this finding is correct. It's not just an idea evaluated based on the evidence - how plausible are the results? they seem so counter intuitive but the study was well done, or was it? Who was the investigator and what was their funding? All this doubt vanishes when you can actually FEEL "Yup, they finally figured it out - just what the Buddha and all those zennies determined for themselves using their own method [which, yes, can't be used to convince others since it's all so personal]"
Yes, it's great to have a study that we can show to others so we can communicate the findings - but go ahead, try to explain to your grandmother or niece that a conscious will and a separate self (and the idea of a past or a future) is an illusion - see if you can get the evidence together to convince them. I bet that even if someone were intimate with the study itself they'd still have trouble feeling the conclusions are correct.
They just go home at the end of the day and think the same sort of thoughts and feel the same sorts of feelings that all people think & feel - whether they are atheist scientists who adore rationality or new age cult members or fundamentalist christians - they all feel they have a free will and they all feel they have a separate self. But these are illusions. They are all deluded. Buddha realized this 2500 years ago.
There's a fundamental difference between realising such things as 'no duality mind/body', 'no free will', 'one with the universe' etc intellectually and realising it in the sense of actualising it ourselves. It's the difference between having some abstract thoughts in our mind (no matter how mind-blowing) and actually losing those illusory feelings and 'finding oneself in reality'. According to Zen teaching, (while not against rationality per se) for this purpose the process of thinking (both ordinary and intellectual thinking) actually becomes an obstacle - it reinforces our sense of being a separate ego and thoughts tend to get reified (consciously or unconsciously) into fixed essences and absolute truths. To actualise these things we have to stop believing our thoughts (even the doubts) maybe get them to shut up altogether and just pay attention to what is actually going on. This is why it takes dedicated training and unconventional techniques - it's not something that can be achieved just by thinking about it - it's a process of retraining the brain.
ReplyDeleteAs for the specific techniques of formal Koan meditation, I have no personal experience of it - it's a Rinzai Zen practice. But the intention is (as far as I understand) to sabotage the mind's tendencies to create dualities and abstract 'truths' and instead to just observe. Zen koans are not intended as intellectual or ultimate truths and are not unwittingly presented as logically coherent questions. The 'deep truths' they are supposed to reveal are hinted at above.
OK, all the eastern thought and meditation and stuff serve to show us we are one with the universe, and we are not in control of our own mind, the whole is greater than the parts, and over-rationalizing is counterproductive. Did I get it right from what you guys said
ReplyDeleteWell, those are correct but they're just concepts. Believing a concept doesn't make it so. It would then only exist in your head.
Well, those are correct but they're just concepts. Believing a concept doesn't make it so. It would then only exist in your head.
ReplyDeleteHm, let me see if I get your point: do you mean "believing" a concept doesn't make it so, but "experiencing" it does? Is that what you meant in that comment? Otherwise, I didn't get it at all...
J
Hm, let me see if I get your point: do you mean "believing" a concept doesn't make it so, but "experiencing" it does? Is that what you meant in that comment? Otherwise, I didn't get it at all...
ReplyDeleteWhere the concept is about a mental state this is more-or-less right.
Believing a concept that, say, the sense of being a continuous self distinct from the rest of reality is a mental construction rather than a metaphysical truth is not the same as actually losing the delusion. But this delusion runs deeper than just an abstract philosophical belief - it runs through our entire perspective on reality. And it is entirely possible to hold a contrary philosphical opinion without really penetrating that delusion. To really penetrate the delusion is to lose it, to see 'self' and 'non-self' as designations defined by social and internal convention and for ultimately phenomena to be neither 'self' nor 'non-self'.
Disbelieving such delusion intellectually is like playing a virtual reality game, with your brain 'fooled' by the illusions but saying to yourself 'It's not real'.
Its the difference between conceptual knowledge and actuality of a change in perspective.
Just an observation, but its curious that those advocating the Zen point of view all feature artistic photographs of themselves. While most of Massimo's regular readers have no photo.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the differences in approaches regarding this topic have a lot to do with the right/left brain dichotomy.
To rephrase Jinzang: koans are training wheels for those who can't handle shikantanza (just sitting).
ReplyDeleteGood posts guys! I don't know if Massimo is still interested in this thread - but I'm keen to know what Hecht's point was in presenting these koans?
Hmmmm.... a lot of reading but in the end I suppose that I am to practical and pragmatic. Maybe I'm getting back to MP's point when I ask, "after spending hours, months, years contemplating these koans and other zen artifacts, what have I gained? What do I have or know that I wouldn't have otherwise?" I can play mind-games without zen, do a little daydreaming, stare out to sea as the sun sets. Sometimes it's fun or relaxing but so are many other things. In the end, it just doesn't intrigue me.
ReplyDelete------------------------------
It's all fun and games, until someone dies.
die anyway,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure this question has been answered several times now.
Zen is not abstract pondering. What use is theoretical understanding in existential matters?
The aim of Zen is to lose our delusions that reality is separated, that our abstract separation of it into entities is real, and that we are a distinct and continuous self that will either continue to exist when we die or be annihilated. According to Buddhism, taking the virtual reality of our thoughts as real is the origins of philosphical problems and existential suffering (not unlike Wittgenstein).
For this to stop is to lose a sense of alienation, clinging and aversion to things which are just mental constructs - for example, death; and thus to experience freedom - freedom to be happy.
That's the idea anyway. When I arrive there on a full-time basis I'll let you know.
perhaps "die anyway" meant to say that everything that is being said here of Zen, could actually be said of death.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of death is part of the "virtual reality" of concepts we impose on things. But of what import is this mere concept to the existential question itself?
Is there any philosophy that does not stumble at the denial of death?
rpm,
ReplyDeleteI don't entirely understand you. But I'll try to answer these points:
But of what import is this mere concept to the existential question itself?
If our existential clinging to life and fear/denial of death has its roots in conceptual confusion - taking symbols for reality - then it has a paramount importance. But you cannot use more virtual reality (abstract thought) to fully break the spell of virtual reality. Concepts and words can only indicate. You have to actually lose the delusion.
Is there any philosophy that does not stumble at the denial of death?
Death is death - the failure of normal physical functions, the loss of loved ones, the disappearance of memories, personality. The desire to live forever (through medical advances or religious beliefs) comes from this fear. But if our fear is based on a belief that we are a continuous self, which will stop existing or 'become oblivious' when we die then this is confusion. There is no such continuous self to come into existence or stop existing - it is a mental/social construct - it is not granted genuine metaphysical existence by the process of construction - it is just a way that we think.
'Death is not an event in life' - Wittgenstein
>> I'm keen to know what Hecht's point was in presenting these koans? <<
ReplyDeleteI wish I knew. While her book is most definitely a must-read, sometimes she just throws stuff in without a clear point. At least, not to me (and I'm a sympathetic reader).
>> The aim of Zen is to lose our delusions that reality is separated, that our abstract separation of it into entities is real, and that we are a distinct and continuous self that will either continue to exist when we die or be annihilated. <<
ReplyDeleteBut I actually think that our feeling of being distinct (and yet embedded into) rality is no illusion at all. Indeed, try to live a functional life starting out with that assumption! Neurobiological research tells us that what deep meditation does is simply shut down certain areas of the brain that deal with sensing our surroundings, which accounts for the experience of "being one with the universe." But that is not an insight into reality, it is a self-induced fabrication arising from sensorial deprivation of the brain.
>> The idea of death is part of the "virtual reality" of concepts we impose on things. <<
ReplyDeleteDeath is not an aspect of virtual reality. It is a sudden increase in the body's entropy, which as the (sometimes) unfortunate consequence of annihilating our consciousness.
>> The idea of death is part of the "virtual reality" of concepts we impose on things. <<
ReplyDeleteMassimo,
I was opposing the "idea" of death, "the mere concept", to the
actuality of death. The point being that even if we can talk ourselves out of death a la Wittgenstein, death itself remains.
This actuality cannot be reasoned away.
One of those 5:26 a.m. thoughts.(But at least I was sober!)
massimo,
ReplyDeletetry to live a functional life starting out with that assumption!
No one is denying that such symbolic abstractions are functionally useful or evolutionarily advantageous. But if you accept that the self is really fundamentally separate from the rest of reality then you have all the problems associated with philosophical Dualism to contend with. Good luck.
Why would the workings of a physical sub-system produce something which was genuinely 'separate from' the rest of the universe? Surely all such systems are just local expressions of the same fundamental laws we know as the laws of physics. What I am suggesting is far less mystical - that a human being merely represents itself as if it was separate (for funtional/evolutionary reasons).
Neurobiological research tells us that what deep meditation does is simply shut down certain areas of the brain that deal with sensing our surroundings, which accounts for the experience of "being one with the universe." But that is not an insight into reality, it is a self-induced fabrication arising from sensorial deprivation of the brain.
I think you are over-estimating the extent to which this is understood.
Why would shutting down sensory areas of the brain 'account for' a sense of being one with the universe? Second, Zen practice (at least) involves profound awareness of sensory information, not obliviousness to it. (Some other meditations may differ). Thirdly, it is a letting go of all mental fabrications such as a distinct self (and including 'oneness', enlightenment etc) not a gaining of new ones.
This actuality cannot be reasoned away.
ReplyDeleteThis actuality is out of reach - it occurs in a different time and the actual time of death or its aftermath are never experienced by its subject. Bereavement and 'dying' (in terms of deteriorating health, anticipation of death) are experienced but actual death of oneself is not a phenomenon for any subject. Other than its impact on others, one should not fear it.
Is there any philosophy that does not stumble at the denial of death?
ReplyDeleteI insist.
Well, according to La Rochefoucauld, we could always find something else to think about.
Justin wrote: "The aim of Zen is to lose our delusions that reality is separated, that our abstract separation of it into entities is real, and that we are a distinct and continuous self that will either continue to exist when we die or be annihilated."
ReplyDeleteAgain I come back to my pragmatism. Of what use is this "loss of delusion", assuming in the first place that it *is* a delusion? Maybe it's a Pascal's wager sort of thing. If I follow Zen and it's right, what have I gained? If I follow Zen and it's wrong what have I lost? etc, etc. In the end, it appears to me as if I will have spent a lot of time and energy with a result that is totally useless to me. I agree with MP that shutting down part of your brain so that you *feel* one with the universe does not actually make you any more 'one with the universe' than you are already.
I have borrowed my philosophy of life from Robert Fulghum - -
"Go whole hog... and take the consequences." I neither fear death nor embrace it. I'm in no rush but I'm aware that it is inevitible. My conciousness is a product of the cells in my brain and the experiences that I have lived through. When the brain cells die and the synapses stop firing, my conciousness will disappear. No more "me" floating around in the ether.
massimo wrote: Neurobiological research tells us that what deep meditation does is simply shut down certain areas of the brain that deal with sensing our surroundings, which accounts for the experience of "being one with the universe." But that is not an insight into reality, it is a self-induced fabrication arising from sensorial deprivation of the brain.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of meditation? Your decription is not an accurate representation of Zen meditation. Quite the opposite, in fact; Zen practice is one of being alert to your surroundings in the moment, instead of ignoring your senses and getting all wrapped up in your head. I think the research you refer to probably studied some other meditation practice.
I know of a study that I think will give you a much better idea what the practice of Zen meditation is really about. Quoted from this page, I think the last paragraph below (Zen masters' response to repetitive click stimili) is especially important in understanding what Zen meditation is about:
In a study that attracted much attention among meditation and biofeedback researchers during the 1960s, Akira Kasamatsu and Tomio Hirai, physicians at the University of Tokyo, studied the EEG changes exhibited during meditation by Zen teachers and their disciples (forty-eight in all) from Soto and Rinzai centers in Japan. For experimental control, they studied the EEGs of twenty-two subjects with no experience at meditation. They made EEG recordings; recorded their subjects' pulse rates, respiration, and galvanic skin response; and tested their responses to sensory stimuli during meditation. The recordings on the Zen monks were made during a weeklong retreat, or sesshin, at a Zendo, except for a few tests at the experimenters' laboratory. The Zen teachers and their most experienced students exhibited a typical progression of brain-wave activity during meditation, which Kasamatsu and Hirai divided into four stages:
* Stage 1: Characterized by the appearance of alpha waves in spite of opened eyes.
* Stage 2: Characterized by an increase in amplitude of persistent alpha waves.
* Stage 3: Characterized by a decrease in alpha frequency.
* Stage 4: Characterized by the appearance of rhythmical theta trains (Kasamatsu and Hirai, 1966).
Not all four stages were evident in every Zen practitioner, nor in any of the controls, but a strong correlation existed between the number of stages a given student exhibited and that student's length of time in Zen training. This correlation was supported by a Zen teacher's evaluation of each student's proficiency. The teacher ranked the students in three levels, without seeing their EEG records, and his rankings correlated well with Kasamatsu and Hirai's assessment of their EEGs.
The Kasamatsu-Hirai study also revealed significant differences between four Zen masters and four control subjects in their response to repetitive click stimuli. Like the Zen masters, the controls exhibited a blocking of alpha when a click sound first occurred, but they gradually became habituated to such stimuli so that their brain-wave activity no longer responded when a click was made. The Zen masters, however, did not become habituated, but continued to exhibit blocking as long as the stimuli continued. This finding indicates that Zen practice promotes a serene, alert awareness that is consistently responsive to both external and internal stimuli (Kasamatsu et al., 1957; Hirai, 1960; and Kasamatsu and Hirai, 1963)
Question: if you poised the following choice to thousands of people what do you think the majority would choose?:
ReplyDelete1) you can be yourself as a divine non-biological entity free from pain, frustration, loss, saddness, fear, etc., free from a malfunctioning body, (or even a normal body that bleeds every month, or gets gas after a huge burrito), free from all laws of physics, able to live forever, etc.
or
2) you can be yourself as a human (ape-descendent organism with all the potential malfunctioning possibilities such as burst appendices, bad backs etc.) pain, suffering etc.
If this hypothetical choice were given to people I imagine that well over 95% would choose the former option. Why is that?
It's because humans don't really feel they are organisms - from our earliest days we feel there is something odd about being an organism. It seems alien to us.
I argue that it seems alien because we have this self-consciousness & sense of free will, which is an adaptation built by natural selection to help us modify our environments and control circumstances to our genes' advantage. This self consciousness, although built by our genes & natural selection is the source of this feeling that we are separate from the rest of the universe. It was designed to ensure the replication of its designers - our genes. It wasn't designed to feel unity with "non-self".
So... the advantage of pursuing zen is to get even a momentary glipse of what it would be like to not be blinded by our genes - to not feel alien to our bodies or the rest of the universe. To realize that your self consciousness isn't really you. As A. Watts liked to say "We didn't come into this world, we came out of it."
To prefer option 2 always.
Again I come back to my pragmatism. Of what use is this "loss of delusion", assuming in the first place that it *is* a delusion?
ReplyDeleteReduced anxiety, depression; increased happiness. There is some scientific evidence for it. And it seems to work so I continue with it.
Maybe it's a Pascal's wager sort of thing. If I follow Zen and it's right, what have I gained? If I follow Zen and it's wrong what have I lost? etc, etc. In the end, it appears to me as if I will have spent a lot of time and energy with a result that is totally useless to me.
I suppose there is an element of faith of an ordinary sort, but in the end it was the work of the philosopher Derek Parfit into personal identity that persuaded me that philosophically Buddhism might be onto something.
It does take self-discipline sometimes but it gets easier. It's quite pleasant and you can see for yourself if it makes a difference after a few months.
I agree with MP that shutting down part of your brain so that you *feel* one with the universe does not actually make you any more 'one with the universe' than you are already.
Well I agree with that in principle too. But Zen is not about becoming more one with the universe than you are already. Zen is about shutting down the parts of your brain that make you feel as if you are separate from everything else. You already are absolutely continuous with the rest of the universe.
I have borrowed my philosophy of life from Robert Fulghum - -
"Go whole hog... and take the consequences." I neither fear death nor embrace it. I'm in no rush but I'm aware that it is inevitible. My conciousness is a product of the cells in my brain and the experiences that I have lived through. When the brain cells die and the synapses stop firing, my conciousness will disappear. No more "me" floating around in the ether.
I agree with all that, although I'd say there is no 'you' really floating around in any ether. That is just a symbol - how your brain activity represents itself - to itself and to others. Ultimately there is no fixed or continuous 'you' to exist or not exist. So what is your real identity?
About meditation and the brain: the study I was referring to is of brain scans, done in the late '90s, not of EEG (a much coarser technique) done in the '60s.
ReplyDeleteBoth of them show that something happens in the brain when people meditate. Big surprise there. But the latest study identifies specific regions of the brain that shut down (the regions, not the entire brain, nor necessary awareness), and actually explain the reported feeling of "onenness with the world." Meditation provides no deep insight into reality, though it may be good for relaxation. So is a good dry martini.
Meditation provides no deep insight into reality...
ReplyDeleteSo you would argue that the following conclusions of both zen and western science are due to pure coincidence?
1. past & future are concepts only - only the present exists
2. distinctions (boundaries) between apparently different 'things' and different 'events' are imposed on nature by minds & thus artificial (but not arbitrary)
3. nothing is static (permanent, unchanging), nor independent - all is dynamic (impermanent, changing) and interdependent
4. and the biggie - (following from the previous 2 points) there is no permanent separate self - the feeling of self is a concept, a gene-induced illusion.
All of these points have been arrived at by western science to some degree or other.
I have a hard time believing that students of zen meditation stumbled across these points as result of blind luck which has nothing to do with a replicable method of learning about reality.
One of the best methods to test a hypothesis is whether independent researchers can corroborate the findings of an initial study using different methods, different data etc. - I'm not saying that zen meditation is a method that can stand up in court, but I am saying that if you do enough of it properly you'll come to the conclusions above on your own. And those conclusions will match that of science. I don't think any other religious/mystical approach comes close to this corroboration.
You might argue, "Well, I have science to provide me these conclusions." All I can say to this is that there is huge difference between reading someone else's study and discovering something for yourself.
A dry martini will get one no closer to these realizations than Christianity would.
>> 1. past & future are concepts only - only the present exists <<
ReplyDeleteThe hell it does. That's not the conclusion of Einstein's relativity (where time is a very real part of the multi-dimensional fabric of the universe), and hence of Western science.
>> 2. distinctions (boundaries) between apparently different 'things' and different 'events' are imposed on nature by minds & thus artificial (but not arbitrary) <<
Hard to imagine in what relevant (to this discussion) sense something can be artificial (as opposed to natural) but not arbitrary. At any rate, minds are processes resulting from the acitivity of physical objects (brains), and therefore both real and non-arbitrary.
>> 3. nothing is static (permanent, unchanging), nor independent - all is dynamic (impermanent, changing) and interdependent <<
Yeah, well, that "intuition" is rather common sensical, and has been shared by many philosophers (as well as lay people) since the pre-Socratics.
>> 4. and the biggie - (following from the previous 2 points) there is no permanent separate self - the feeling of self is a concept, a gene-induced illusion. <<
Nothing created by the genes in an illusion (to whom, anyhow?). The self is a rather functional result of the activity of the mind, itself the result of the brain. Of course it's not permanent, but it is only mystics who ever claimed it would be.
As for fascinating parallels between mystical and scientific thinking, I suppose you would consider the (allegedly) human-divine nature of Jesus as directly analogous to the dual wave-particle nature of light? (Don't laugh, a professional theologian-physicist has seriously made precisely this suggestion.)
I still vote for the martini...
Meditation provides no deep insight into reality
ReplyDeleteOn what basis do you make such a strong assertion?
I meditated (in the sense of giving it considered thought) about it for a long time...
ReplyDeleteThough, of course, a better question would be: what sort of deep insights has meditation ever yielded, and how are they substantiated? But that would bring us right back to the article that started this discussion!
Meditation provides no deep insight into reality
ReplyDeleteOn what basis do you make such a strong assertion?
Also, Justin and I both pointed out that your conclusions about meditation 'shutting down sensory input' were incorrect in regard to Zen meditation, and that the "advanced" imaging study you referenced probably was studying some other 'meditation-like' activity. I don't think it matters how advanced the data gathering method is if it's not collecting data from the right sources.
Though, of course, a better question would be: what sort of deep insights has meditation ever yielded, and how are they substantiated? But that would bring us right back to the article that started this discussion!
If I could explain how I took a shit this morning in such a way that you could experience it the exact same way I did, then maybe I would have a hope of explaining the result of meditation. But I can't communicate it so clearly. That doesn't mean taking a shit is not a worthwhile activity.
Thanks Massimo & everyone! Good discussion - gets us closer to the truth.
ReplyDelete-Derek
Of course I'm no expert on Einstein nor the physics of time but this quote from Wikipedia seems to support my statement that past & future are fictions (to elaborate I mean that at any given 'time' there is only 'now' - the past and the future can only be visited when they are 'now' and at no other time. Thus they don't exist outside of 'now' except in our heads and history books.)
ReplyDeleteI've left in a few other interesting tidbits having to do with free will and determinism because they are so similar to zen thought as well:
Einstein postulated that all randomness is pseudorandom, a failure to measure a causality, i.e. the future is just as immutable as the past, saying: "The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past."
He also once wrote: "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
Consequently, he felt physical processes determined absolutely everything, including man's desires, see Physicalism. For example: "I do not believe in freedom of the will. Schopenhauer's words: “ Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills ” accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of freedom of will preserves me from taking too seriously myself and my fellow men as acting and deciding individuals and from losing my temper."
of course this is just a wiki article. It might need editing!
>> If I could explain how I took a shit this morning in such a way that you could experience it the exact same way I did, then maybe I would have a hope of explaining the result of meditation. But I can't communicate it so clearly. That doesn't mean taking a shit is not a worthwhile activity. <<
ReplyDeleteRight. It doesn't make it a particularly worthwhile insight either.
And by the way, the brain scanning I referred to look at a generic kind of meditation (and deep prayer, too), but the point remains. You keep misunderstanding what the scan found (shutting down the areas of the brain in charge of proprioception, i.e. the boundaries between our body and the rest of the world), with the intent of meditation itself (which is not to shut down the world but to be aware of it in a different fashion -- although to do that apparently one does require relative quite and an ability to empty the mind of thoughts, which is pretty darn close to sensorial deprivation!).
Right. It doesn't make it a particularly worthwhile insight either.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. And even when you come to some "deep insight" through meditation, its real value is still open to question. A Zen teacher I'm a fan of once said something like "All insights are just insights and nothing more."
One of the benefits of Zen practice is learning to live your life more fully, to appreciate every moment, to make the fullest use of the short time we have left on this earth. Which is why the Zen masters never acclimated to the clicking sound in the experiment I referenced. They realized, down to their bones, that every click was a new experience. They live every moment fully.
Yes, making a martini is an easier way to relax, but practicing meditation has other rewards. I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase, "seize the day!" but how valuable is that insight all by itself? Without some practical methodology, I'm sure many wonder how to go about applying this insight to their own lives. What could possibly be more important than learning how to avoid wasting your life? Is anything more valuable than time?
Jules, we'll probably simply have to agree to disagree on this one. You say:
ReplyDelete>> the benefits of Zen practice is learning to live your life more fully... Without some practical methodology, I'm sure many wonder how to go about applying this insight to their own lives. What could possibly be more important than learning how to avoid wasting your life? Is anything more valuable than time? <<
Agreed, but I get my insights from science (very effective, that's how you get to type on a computer, for example) and philosophy (meaningful thinking about existence and ethics), not from staring into the void and concentrating on my breathing. And, of course, don't forget a martini for relaxation (dry, shaken, not stirred :)
By the very nature of the discipline, I would have to suggest that any successful practitioner of Zen meditation would never be distracted by this discourse and thereby never participate in any such forum. The knowledge would eclipse the skepticism, rendering the argument inconsequential and useless. One can only ‘know’ by acquiring the attribute -- fat chance of that if one doesn’t engage the 'art'.
ReplyDelete"The goal of Zen meditation is to see what your mind is"
ReplyDeleteI am sorry to interject so late in this ongoing discussion, but the phrase above immediatelly threw me off as a logical fallacy: this is about self-referentiality. How can one, using his/her mind, discover what his/her mind is?
And I am not talking about the neurological basis (NCCs etc) of our mind, but simply about introspection: what your mind is at one given time is sure to change the next moment, so when you asked yourself "what is my mind NOW?" you already changed "the state" of your mind... One could contend in fractal-like fashion... Self-referential moments after self-referential moments.
AQ
'One of the benefits of Zen practice is learning to live your life more fully, to appreciate every moment, to make the fullest use of the short time we have left on this earth.'
ReplyDeleteWhy is it then that I don't see a lot of hedonistic zennies around?
AQ
"Agreed, but I get my insights from science (very effective, that's how you get to type on a computer, for example) and philosophy ..."
ReplyDeleteGee, Massimo, you found the one possible topic in existence that I could care less about! Mostly all I ever think about is my kids. Where they're going, what they are doing, why they're doing it. And that's quite entertaining enough. Like I need to know, for instance why my 15 yr old thinks slapping fem. hygiene products (unused) on the windshields of boys they know (and other amazingly ridiculous stuff) is fun.
I do not think this is funny.
Point being, when you care about your family, spending that much time, thinking about nothing, (ahem!!) ,that is, emptying one's mind seems absolutely like a bored person's pursuit.
Far as I can tell, the whole idea seems rather superfluous, pointless and selfish.
What you really need, is at least 7 or more kids! Then you'll find no cause (or time) for useless activities akin to slapping hygiene products on windshields.
:) seriously.
cal
'One of the benefits of Zen practice is learning to live your life more fully, to appreciate every moment, to make the fullest use of the short time we have left on this earth.'
ReplyDeleteWhy is it then that I don't see a lot of hedonistic zennies around?
Because devoting your life to the pursuit of physical pleasure doesn't lead to real happiness. Any opiate addict could tell you that. There's nothing wrong with pursuing physical pleasure, but if that's the highest standard you live by, you're headed for disappointment in your life.
Far as I can tell, the whole idea seems rather superfluous, pointless and selfish.
ReplyDeleteWhat you really need, is at least 7 or more kids! Then you'll find no cause (or time) for useless activities akin to slapping hygiene products on windshields.
You're entitled to your opinion.
Far as I can tell, the whole idea seems rather superfluous, pointless and selfish.
ReplyDeleteWhat you really need, is at least 7 or more kids! Then you'll find no cause (or time) for useless activities akin to slapping hygiene products on windshields.
I don't imagine that having loads of kids and no time for yourself is a particularly great recipe for happiness. It wouldn't be for me. But we're all free to pursue happiness in our own way. I don't doubt that your kids are very important to you. Beyond that your comments are just a value judgement on how other people spend their time.
This really goes beyond the scope of the original post, but I want to briefly clarify something.
ReplyDeleteMany of the issues and doubts being raised here arise because of most 'western' thought is built on philosophical foundations which are not held or accepted in Buddhism - that is, Objectivism (and probably Materialism too). Granting more than provisional, conventional reality to the idea of true objectivity would tend to be regarded as just another idea and a rather metaphysical one at that, by Buddhists. Yet Buddhism is not Idealism either. Buddhism rejects Objectivism, Materialism and Idealism, going beyond theory to the actuality of being itself. Neither self nor an objective material world are regarded as ultimately substantial real.
The 'subject matter' or 'reality' of Buddhism is not an inferred objective realm, but the entirety of the phenomenal world. As such it is more closely related to Existentialism than British or American Rationalism. Reason is not regarded as being capable of finding absolute truths. Buddhism is not making claims of special insight into a remote objective reality, but its insights are about the nature of the actual phenomenon/phenomena of existence, based on careful observation of both 'inner' and 'outer' data.
But, as I said, this is a philosophical point which goes beyond the original post. Hopefully it will help to clarify.
Justin,
ReplyDeleteI really do appreciate your thoughtful contribution to this discussion. Then again, I have to call you on this:
>> Buddhism rejects Objectivism, Materialism and Idealism, going beyond theory to the actuality of being itself. <<
The first part of your sentence is probably correct (though since Buddhism isn't a philosophy, it doesn't accept or reject those philosophies, it simply bypasses them), but the second part is close to mystical mumbo jumbo again.
What does it even mean "to go beyond theory to the actuality of being itself"? If by that you mean that Buddhists don't care abut theories, but just want to experience reality, well that goes for most of humanity as well, and it most certainly doesn't qualify (by definition!) Buddhism as a philosophy -- which was one of the points of my original post.
"The 'subject matter' or 'reality' of Buddhism is not an inferred objective realm, but the entirety of the phenomenal world. As such it is more closely related to Existentialism than British or American Rationalism. "
ReplyDeleteOne could grant that this is true, but still hold that the "phenomenal" world is not at the bottom of things, that useful knowledge may be teased out of phenomena, leading to conclusions that are sometimes counter-intuitive.
One of the oldest distinctions in philosophy is that between theoretical (requiring study) and practical. I would think that meditation, along with a lot of moral discussion, belongs in the practical realm.
As for existentialism, nobody believed in free will more than JP Sartre, but even literary people like Tolstoi & Twain recognised that such "phenomenological" approaches do not necessarily get to the bottom things. And it is people like Husserl who insist that the mind imposes structure on reality.
I am not denying that we live in a phenomenal world, or that to some extent we have to be content to operate using its common-sense categories.
massimo,
ReplyDeleteThe first part of your sentence is probably correct (though since Buddhism isn't a philosophy, it doesn't accept or reject those philosophies, it simply bypasses them),
Whether Buddhism is a philosophy of course depends on your definition of philosophy. It might be most accurate to say that Buddhism at times employs philosophy. Buddhist philosophers certainly address these philosophies (the Indian equivalents of them especially) and generally rejects them. eg. Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā in which he refutes all the substantialist views of his contemporaries (including substantialism of matter, object, mind, idea and 'emptiness')
...but the second part is close to mystical mumbo jumbo again. What does it even mean "to go beyond theory to the actuality of being itself"?
'Mystical mumbo jumbo'? hmph. It's quite straightforward - Buddhism is about the reality of life, not just thinking about life. Thinking is something that human beings do within their lives. The thoughts they have are dependent on their neurology, society, personal circumstances and genetics. And they have a habit of believing that their latest thought (even if it is a self-doubt) is some sort of absolute truth. Why should that be so? It's quite a claim. Buddhist practice involves becoming agnostic about your own thoughts, seeing them as virtual representations of the actuality of existing.
If by that you mean that Buddhists don't care abut theories, but just want to experience reality, well that goes for most of humanity as well, and it most certainly doesn't qualify (by definition!) Buddhism as a philosophy -- which was one of the points of my original post.
Buddhism does not reject theoretical, rational understanding. Such understanding is classified as 'Conventional truth', ie. truth which is based on symbolic conventions. Buddhism includes this but is not limited to it. The final 'truth' (if the word is applicable) according to Buddhism is reality itself - the actuality of being.
rpm,
ReplyDeleteOne could grant that this is true, but still hold that the "phenomenal" world is not at the bottom of things, that useful knowledge may be teased out of phenomena, leading to conclusions that are sometimes counter-intuitive.
According to Buddhist philosophy as I understand it, there is no 'bottom' - there are no absolutes, everything is defined in relation to everything else.
No one is suggesting that appearances are all there are. The sense in which I am using the word 'phenomena' refers to the totality of our existence. Even when teasing things out of apparent phenomena and revealing new depths and truths (eg. by reason or science), all of this is still the phenomenal world.
One of the oldest distinctions in philosophy is that between theoretical (requiring study) and practical. I would think that meditation, along with a lot of moral discussion, belongs in the practical realm.
I agree.
As for existentialism, nobody believed in free will more than JP Sartre, but even literary people like Tolstoi & Twain recognised that such "phenomenological" approaches do not necessarily get to the bottom things. And it is people like Husserl who insist that the mind imposes structure on reality.
Existentialism holds onto a belief in an absolute substantial self. Buddhist philosophy rejects all such substances and absolutes. It does not believe that 'it gets to the bottom of things'. It challenges the idea that there is a bottom and instead says...
The mind does impose structure on reality - that is very Buddhist. This is why you cannot reachabsolute truth or reality itself with discursive thought and internal representation. Buddhism is about letting go of all such presumptions that human beings can contain reality with their minds and instead just 'be what they are'. Actually I think Husserl was influenced by Buddhism, directly or otherwise.
I am not denying that we live in a phenomenal world, or that to some extent we have to be content to operate using its common-sense categories.
We construct all categories.
instead says...
ReplyDeleteI was going to finish that sentence, but that will do for now. Very zen.
I'm going to bow out of this fascinating and ridiculously long series of blog responses and refer anyone who wants to understand Buddhist philosophy better to Nagarjuna.
ReplyDeleteThe Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way
Agreed, but I get my insights from science (very effective, that's how you get to type on a computer, for example) and philosophy (meaningful thinking about existence and ethics), not from staring into the void and concentrating on my breathing. And, of course, don't forget a martini for relaxation (dry, shaken, not stirred :)
ReplyDeleteMassimo,
I have a quick scientific question: what is the ratio of vermouth to gin for your dry martini? Or do you follow Winston Churchhill's recipe (pour a hefty amount of gin, but only glance at the bottle of vermouth, olives optional) :)
Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
ReplyDeleteNow, be honest with us: did you write that name off the top of your head!? :O)
Still interesting for me to note that most of what Buddhism says, according to you guys, is most of what I think. Even never having (directly) studied any of it myself.
Cheers
J
justin: "Beyond that your comments are just a value judgement on how other people spend their time."
ReplyDeleteTrue. But some things one never really knows about till ya get to the other side. Like I had no idea I'd enjoy my kids as much as I do. Even when it's supposedly "bad", it's good. Hard to explain that tho.
"I don't imagine that having loads of kids and no time for yourself is a particularly great recipe for happiness."
On the contrary,
It just proves to me, at least, that emptying oneself does not actually mean, emptying oneself of "self". There is no thing less futile (philosophically and otherwise) than leaving one's imprint on the next generation. And it is just way more fun, if it happens to be your own.
To prove that meditation is 'nuthin' special, we note that one can also be far less depressed have less anxiety and be happier all around when he invests his time in others, btw.
Thing is, in this case, you'll have something to show for it.
cal
What does it even mean "to go beyond theory to the actuality of being itself"? If by that you mean that Buddhists don't care abut theories, but just want to experience reality, well that goes for most of humanity as well...
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting point. Could it be analogous to how some of the most 'advanced' masters of jazz, such as Coltrane, ended up playing what sounds like atonal cacaphonic nonsense to those uneducated in jazz who typically remark "Well, my 2 year old could play better than that!"
In other words - most of humanity, who think very little (but are still horribly prone to believing what they do think is true) might seem to be, at a distance, behaving no differently than a zen master (due to their apparent lack of theoretical thought), when, in fact, the difference in the depth and quality of their perceptions and thought is beyond enormous.
But some things one never really knows about till ya get to the other side.
ReplyDeleteCal,
I suspect there are no truer words in this discussion than those.
For what it's worth, meditation has had a great deal of personal value in my life, has (to this point, at least) contributed to saving my marriage, has provided me with the capacity to lead a fuller, more selfless, and happier life, a deeper appreciation for others' concerns, has led me to a deeper appreciation for beauty in the world and in the people around me. Meditation let me see that I really am happier when I invest my time in others, as you pointed out. I don't waste much time watching TV anymore. I spend more time doing things like taking my nephew to the symphony.
So, while meditation may look like a "superfluous, pointless and selfish" activity to you, I think I have quite a bit to show for it so far.
One thing I still do that's a big time-waster is post extensive and apparently futile comments in other people's blogs.
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"
"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"
jules: 'One thing I still do that's a big time-waster is post extensive and apparently futile comments in other people's blogs.'
ReplyDelete"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"
Nothing is futile (in the end) if you have something of substance in your cup to offer others. Therefore, the Zen Master is wrong.
Sometimes things that sound profound at first hearing, are, in fact, the lesser (lazier) alternative of two options one has before him.
cal
Regarding Massimo's comment about the research on meditation: But the latest study identifies specific regions of the brain that shut down (the regions, not the entire brain, nor necessary awareness), and actually explain the reported feeling of "onenness with the world."
ReplyDeleteAt least in my personal experience and from what I've read in Zen literature one doesn't typically feel 'oneness' while meditating. A deep (and sometimes life-changing) feeling of oneness is usually a fleeting experience that happens while active. It is often called awakening or enlightenment.
It's been described somewhat like the experience of one of those optical illusions that, say looks like an old lady, until suddenly it transforms to a young lady - neither view is false, but one has great trouble holding both perceptions in one's mind simultaneously. But rather than a old vs young lady we are dealing with all of reality as we know it. It suddenly 'flips over'.
In the case of zen 'awakening' the experience is felt as being stunningly true- it's an 'a - ha! Now I understand!' sort of moment.
Of course the reason it is so stunning is that that alternative perception of the universe - that YOU are the universe, ie the universe is aware of itself through your eyes and brain - is (1) true but (2) felt by virtually no one. Most people simply never feel this experience - which is too bad. If this experience could be induced or was far more common I think there'd be a LOT less selfishness in the world.
Selfishness is a product of our genes but our genes are a product of the universe.
And a few final comments on meditation: it's mostly boring - but I find the senses do open up, enormously. If you've ever been camping for a long time away from the noise and craziness of life you might have experienced your senses open up - so that every little sight and sound is experienced and noticed. Most people live in a state of stimuli overload so that their senses filter out and ignore most of what is going on - to preserve sanity our senses 'shut down' and we think this is 'normal.' I'd say it's not only abnormal, but unfortunate for humanity that this is how almost everyone operates.
PS - Zen is a definitely a 'less is more' approach to life whereas most people keep their economy humming along with the very western 'more is more' approach.
ReplyDeleteAnd another good quote from Einstein:
"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity"
- Albert Einstein
Would it be fair to say that Buddhism is about experience rather than explanation?
ReplyDeleterpm (couldn't get my name loaded)
cal,
ReplyDeleteEnjoying 'family' is a natural, instinctively, intuitive response to ‘living’. Physiological signals and systems, chemical and genetic messengers encourage individuals of all species to develop relationships that ensure their populations survive. Propagating life is not a desirable/undesirable experience; it is just one stage in the adult development of the animal.
Society (social order) forms from 'collective' populations of similar 'types'.
The 'normal' member of any specific group is not necessarily the strongest, the brightest or the boldest; just the ‘average’.
Does the average mind have the capacity to comprehend complex reasoning without first undertaking some directed course of study? Of course not, we all must individually ‘educate’ ourselves. We chose to study what we consider will augment our ‘normalcy’ and elevate us both socially and intellectually. There are no shortcuts for attaining knowledge. Development beyond ‘the average’ does not occur ‘automatically’; we don’t just ‘get it’ after years of doing what comes ‘naturally’.
We are animals with complex intellects. Our minds are capable of evolving as well as atrophying. Ironically, both options take some work. The obstacles confronted while ‘educating’ the ‘mind’ arise early in life and multiply with age. The better we fortify our unconscious, the better we identify and reason through conflicting ‘realities’.
We develop strategies for self discipline or we flounder.
We make choices as though we understand some ‘greater purpose’ exists, yet relentlessly question our motives and methodology. We age and our world shrinks, our mortal flesh shrivels and we are left with only a ‘mental myth’ to cling to -- until the inevitable.
There is no ‘greater purpose’ than accepting that ‘less is more’.
We do not or ever will possess the power to avoid our destiny – we’re mortals.
What lies beyond may be an abyss, unknowable, possibly infinite, probably not.
How we chose to ‘weight’ our psychic self-determination (conscious, cognitive thought or unconscious introspection) is a personal decision we make as individuals.
The intellectual authenticity of either course is not assessable without first exploring the process to some level of understanding, at the very least, a student practitioner.
You must ask yourself if you seriously consider yourself qualified to authentically comment on a concept that appears to be ‘out of your league’
rpm wrote Would it be fair to say that Buddhism is about experience rather than explanation?
ReplyDeleteindeed.. but that's an explanation itself, isn't it?
All the problems vanish when you are in the nonverbal dimension of consciousness. Theology, philosophy and metaphysics as we ordinarily talk about them cease to be urgent problems. You see the answers to all the questions that theologians and metaphysicians ask and you see why their questions are absurd. - Wittengstein
>> I have a quick scientific question: what is the ratio of vermouth to gin for your dry martini? <<
ReplyDeleteI'm glad someone is asking sensible questions :)
Churchill's recipe is good, except that I do like three large olives in my martini. You've got to have fruits in your diet...
:)
ReplyDeleteme,
Nice Wittgenstein quote - do you mind if I ask where it comes from?
"You must ask yourself if you seriously consider yourself qualified to authentically comment on a concept that appears to be ‘out of your league’"
ReplyDeleteThat's rather funny. Nearly everyone over thirty who can read has the gist of what eastern religions are about.
But truth be told, basically cuz I'm meaner and more decisive, whomever you are. It seems to me that your belief system would not permit this. And that is the making for nothing but a pseudo "peace", if you ask me. One should be absolutely against not being able to make solid, constructive and practical decisions about life.
I also always use (at least) part of my real name, which means I don't mind being associated or identified with my own (albeit sometimes) crazy ideas. What's your excuse for not using your name, or any name, for that matter, while making the claim that someone else is not "qualified to authentically comment.."?
cal
"Enjoying 'family' is a natural, instinctively, intuitive response to ‘living’."
ReplyDeleteNot true. Too many people don't like kids at all, incuding their own.
A lot of american society is geared to direct children off to their own activities, while leaving parents to do their own thing. That is called tossing off one's own responsibility on to someone else. And it is definitely not "natural".
"Physiological signals and systems, chemical and genetic messengers encourage individuals of all species to develop relationships that ensure their populations survive."
Familial habits seem to have a lot more to do with that whole equation than "chemistry".
My parents encouraged us (my siblings and I) to be real careful about what we say about each other and how we treat each other. My husband's family, on the other hand, is mostly a free-for-all of sarcasm and gossip. Tell me, which family do you think gets along very well, which family likes kids?
This is not a matter of chemistry.
"Propagating life is not a desirable/undesirable experience; it is just one stage in the adult development of the animal."
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
cal
Justin:
ReplyDeleteZen to go by Jon Winokur. But I don't think the quotes in this book are properly cited - so good luck finding the original!
Thanks ME,
ReplyDeleteZen to Go: Bite Sized Bits of McWisdom...
There seems to be a lot of common ground between Wittgenstein and Buddhism:
the problems vanish when you are in the nonverbal dimension of consciousness. You see the answers to all the questions that theologians and metaphysicians ask and you see why their questions are absurd. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Know that words are words and nothing else. When Zen wants you to taste the sweetness of sugar, it will put the required article right into your mouth and no further words are said.
Dr. D.T. Suzuki
I found some more nice Wittgenstein quotes elsewhere:
We feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched. Of course there are then no questions left, and this itself is the answer.
Tractatus 6.52
The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the problem. -
Tractatus 6.521
(In other words, if a particular way of cognising/symbolising reality leads to seemingly intractable dualisms and problems such as 'The Hard Problem of Consciousness' those problems are not necessarily inherent in reality, but may be artefacts of the way the mind interprets, symbolises and communicates about reality.)
Anyway, it must be dinner time...
Congratulations on breaking the record for longest thread on RS.
ReplyDeleteI see your point, but I still maintain that by far the best insights into the nature of consciousness (including hard evidence that "we" might not be in full control of what's going on "up there") comes from hard science, and in particular neurobiology.
ReplyDeleteLook straight ahead.
Don't move your eyes.
Notice your full vision.
Include your peripheral vision.
Keep your eyes still.
Notice something at the top of your visual field.
Keep your eyes still.
Notice something at the right of your visual field.
Keep your eyes still.
Notice something at the bottom of your visual field.
Keep your eyes still.
Notice something at the left of your visual field.
Move quickly between noticing in a clockwise motion, top-right-bottom-left.
Your eyes are not moving.
What is moving?
"Your eyes are not moving.
ReplyDeleteWhat is moving? "
Sounds like a good question for the hetero-phenomenological approach. Correlate actual eye movements with instructions that include injunctions to keep eyes still.
Apart from that, phenomena relating to attention could have much to do with other brain processes.
I might as well admit at the start I'm just starting to learn about Eastern philosophy, though I did study western philosophy at college. So if anything I say is ill-informed, please tell me.
ReplyDeleteThis is a bit of a change in subject, but I'm really not sure how anyone can claim that Eastern philosophy doesn't use logic and evidence and that Western philosophy does. At least evidence (assuming it is empirical evidence one is talking about) isn't used by many western philosophers, e.g. Plato, Descartes, and Kant (maybe I should have said, isn't used much and is decidely secondary, perhaps nonessential to their arguements).
And Zen is not representative of much of Eastern philosophy, or even Buddhism--the Pali Nikayas are very different from Zen I think. All Eastern philosophy is not the same (and in passing, I doubt whether many people who grew up in the 60s do have much of an understanding of eastern philosophy; most 60s folk I know, don't). While one might argue about whether Confucius and Lao Zi use logic and evidence, Mozi, Xunzi, Hanfeizi, and Mencius certainly do (Mencius' child and the well example being one instance). And Samkya I believe just uses logic (and logic is a large part of nearly all the Indian philosophy I've read so far).
Also, anyone claiming science and technology is western should explain why Chinese technology (and perhaps science, I haven't read enough of Joseph Needham to know) surpassed western technology for so long. If the west's current science and technology somehow comes from Greek philosophy, there was an awfully long incubation period.
NH - I agree with most of what you wrote, but I should mention that the Nikayas are foundational texts of just about every branch of Buddhism, including Zen. Like other Mahayana branches of Buddhism, Zen accepts the newer teachings of Nagarjuna (~150 BCE) and the Heart of Wisdom (~100 BCE) and other sutras in addition to the Nikayas.
ReplyDeleteI think there are some differences in the way different schools interpret the Nikayas (like different schools of any religion), but these are relatively minor.
One of the Zen teachings that first caught my interest was from the Kalama sutra (in the Anguttara Nikaya):
Rely not on the teacher/person, but on the teaching. Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the spirit of the words. Rely not on theory, but on experience. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
NH - good point about Chinese technology & good comment in general.
ReplyDeleteJules - great quote & such very rational advice:
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
Science fails to live up to this advice because it would be simply too inefficient to replicate every study out there yourself before you could allow yourself to believe it. Instead, we do rely on the authority (or reputation) of the scientist(s) who did the work as one of our gauges to whether we will believe the results or not.
In short, science relies much more on belief (faith/trust) in the conclusions of others than Zen does.
Find out for yourself and doubt everthing is a very rational approach. Could one therefore say that this zen approach is more rational than the methods of science itself (because it is less dependent on belief)?
OK Dr P, if you're so smart, tell me this: If a man says something in the forest with no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?
ReplyDeleteOf course it is, duh!
ReplyDeleteYou guys would do just about anything to break a hundred comments, wouldn't you?
ReplyDelete"If a man says something in the forest with no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?"
ReplyDeleteHis guilty conscience will betray him for not running a thought by a better mind than his and her intuition will inevitably inform her of where he was and what he said.
And now...he is wrong 3x. ;)
so sorry, y'all. 100 just seems too perfect of a number.
cal
I think it would be useful for the parties here trying to explain to Massimo Pigliucci the merits of Eastern philosophies and religions like Buddhism/Zen, to examine themselves meticulously and tell non-enthusiasts what benefits they derive from their enthusiasm and use or activity in regard to these systems like Buddhism/Zen.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the effect within themselves having nothing to do with the outside world, like for example an orgasm by masturbation, that is one question that is most interesting to outsiders.
Next, what are the benefits or effects outside themselves and affecting outsiders, like for example even just very broadly that enthusiasm and activity in regard to Buddhism/Zen affect people in the neighborhood of an enthusiast positively in that neighbors get to behave more peaceably and harmoniously among themselves.
If only Massimo Pigliucci would host also a forum for the discussions of issues like the ones I mention above, then we all can be convinced of the worth of Buddhism/Zen and similar Eastern philosophies and religions.
Pachomius
pachomius2000@yahoo.com.sg
"Now, we can find plenty of interesting and stimulating Eastern texts produced over the last couple of millennia, from a variety of traditions including Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and so forth. But none of these texts is philosophical in nature because they do not attempt to argue for a position by using logic and evidence."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure about Confucianism but I am agree with you about Buddhism. I was born and still living in Buddhist-majority country and study Buddhism since I was in primary school. Actually the last word of Buddha is "doubt everything, find your own light". This verse has canceled the absurdity that Buddha himself has preached for all his life. But I still put Buddha on the same position as Jesus because he is another prophet-like. Buddhism is a religion not a philosophy. The orthodox Buddhism is corresponding with the concept of religion that against music and art (only music and art that support religion is the righteous music).
As a musician, I've seen some musicians created the garbage work because they are infected with the so-called philosophy.
http://p r a s a n p a n i c h.multiply.com/journal/item/12
Anyway, apart from some absurdities, there are some aspects of Zen and Buddhism that are worth to follow.