Hi Ham, While I am working on my ontology presentation for you, I found it necessary to step in here, and perhaps correct your understanding of Buddhism by correcting some erroneous points you made.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi there, Marsha -- > > > On Sat. 12/17/2011 at 2:13 PM, Marsha V [email protected] wrote: > > [Quoting Nagarjuna, previously]: > >> "Two thousand five hundred years ago, the Buddha was able to realise >> "emptiness" (s. sunyata). By doing so he freed himself from >> unsatisfactoriness (s. dukkha). From the standpoint of enlightenment, >> sunyata is the reality of all worldly existences (s. dharma). It is the >> realisation of Bodhi — Prajna. From the standpoint of liberation, sunyata >> is the skilful means that disentangle oneself from defilement and >> unsatisfactoriness. The realisation of sunyata leads one to no attachment >> and clinging. It is the skilful means towards enlightenment and also the >> fruit of enlightenment." >> >> This too is very interesting... >> >> "Emptiness too, does not exist by way of its own being, as it is without >> an essential nature. Emptiness is an absence, not an essence. When a >> person discovers that what he or she thought existed does not, the >> realization is a stunning absence. We think that things correspond to their >> appearance and exist in this same way. We take objects to be exist as their >> own things, including the self of persons and when such identity, when the >> establishment of true entities cannot be found, its absence is astonishing." > > > Interesting as they may be, I feel the need to disabuse you of the "truths" > you have been promulgating to the Pirsigians. This isn't a personal rebuke, > for I know you mean well, and I can well understand the appeal these > Mahayana teachings have for you. But in addition to the fact that they are > inconsistent with the Quality thesis and so will continue to provoke the > loyalists, they are simply not a source of wisdom or knowledge about > reality. I think I can convince you of this by analyzing the assertions > that constitute Mahāyāna doctrine. While I do not believe that Buddhist ideas should be used in MoQ without a suitable explanation, I do find many of its concepts to have direct relevance. I have presented these over the years as have others, including Pirsig himself I am not sure what guidelines you are using to state that Buddhist doctrines are not a source of wisdom or knowledge about reality. I will pass this off as your unfamiliarity with Buddhism. While any presentation of reality cannot provide full satisfaction to any listener since it is embodied in the speaker, we can perhaps judge such presentations on the number of people that find them useful. I believe that the philosophy of Buddhism is used by more people than existentialism, and is one of the great philosophies. In fact, it is one of the few philosophies that have survived over the last 2,500 years. Buddhism is a philosophy which has much scientific or pragmatic input. It is an intellectually derived method for understanding, and does not subscribe to deities. I will try to deal with your issues with Buddhism, and perhaps provide you with some education (we can never get enough of that). > > First, let's establish the "conventional" meaning of the term "emptiness". > The synonyms are 'vacant', 'blank', 'void' or 'vacuous', and the dictionary > definition is: "lacking contents, especially of usual or normal contents." > In other words, emptiness is the absence of discrete objects or finite > entities. Yet Nagarjuna says Emptiness is not an essence. How does he know > that? Ham, you can go to a dictionary all you want, but what you are dealing with is the translation of a word into English. "Emptiness" may not be the appropriate word for you since it seems to confuse you. The concept of "emptiness" describes a "condition" of the universe. In simple terms, what it represents is the concept in which not a thing has inherent existence. That is, there is not a thing that can stand on its own as an independent entity. Every Thing can always be broken down into that which makes it up. In chemistry terms, the human body only exists because all the molecules have come together to form it. These molecules can then be broken down into their own "causes" ad infinitum. So, Emptiness pertains to a condition, and that condition is an endless regression of causality. It cannot be pointed to as a thing, because it is not a thing, just like happiness is not a "thing". We do not grab onto happiness to experience it, happiness is a condition. From this, it is logical that Emptiness is not essence, and was never meant to be. It is simply a principle, just like Freedom is. You were approaching it in the wrong way. Hope this help you. > > According to Wiki: "The two truths doctrine holds that truth exists in > conventional and ultimate forms, and that both forms are co-existent. Some > schools hold that the two truths are ultimately resolved into nonduality as > a lived experience and are non-different. "Ultimate truth" is unknowable, > however. The doctrine is an especially important element of Buddhism and > was first expressed in complete modern form by Nāgārjuna, who based it on > the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta." But, as D.T. Suzuki points out, "Without a > theory of cognition, Mahayana philosophy becomes incomprehensible." Yes, Wiki is somewhat correct. However, Ultimate Truth is Knowable just not by the intellect, since it cannot be represented as such. (in this paragraph I will spell "knowing by the intellect" with a small "k"). You Know something is hot without thinking about it. Such Knowing cannot be structured by the intellect except to say it is "hot" (of course causes can be formulated intellectually, but not the actual "hot"). The intellectual form of knowing is a simplification of the sum total of your Knowing. Most of what we Know cannot be encapsulated by the intellect's form of knowing. However, the intellect can serve to lead one to Knowing more fully. The easiest way for it to do that, is to simply get out of the way. (The intellect tends to replace Knowing with knowing, but this is part of the ego). Since intellectual thoughts are hard to get away from (do not think about Christmas for 10 minutes), there are rituals and meditations that are used for this. It is quite clear that they work, based on innumerable testimonies of those who have achieve enlightenment. This is not to say that intellectual knowing is unimportant. For such intellectual knowing does provide much of the diversity of life as we are able to share it with others. Such knowing is very important, but obviously not the sum total of our experience here. Mahayana philosophy is based on "theories of cognition", so that it can be taught. It is a philosophy concerning understanding the mind, but it is not psychology in its modern form. > > "Within the Mahāyāna presentation, the two truths may also refer to specific > perceived phenomena instead of categorizing teachings. Conventional truths > would be the appearances of mistaken awareness--the awareness itself when > mistaken--together with the objects that appear to it. To put it another > way, a conventional truth would be the appearance that includes a duality of > apprehender and apprehended and objects perceived within that. Ultimate > truths, then, are phenomena free from the duality of apprehender and > apprehended." Ham, keep in mind that the use of two truths is for presentation purposes. Once one is enlightened, these two truths disappear. This would be similar to learning how to ride a bicycle. Such student receives instructions on how to ride. However, once he/she becomes "enlightened" on bike riding, the new bike rider will never have to resort to those instructions again, because he/she "Knows" how to ride a bike. Of course, he does not know this intellectually, for why should he, it is simply riding a bike. In the same way, both duality and non-duality are human concepts which can be disregarded once they are realized. For example how often during the day do you say "gee, I am living in a world of duality"? The same is true for non-duality. Most of what we experience is of the non-dual variety, for to actively separate oneself from all the stimulus that one receives is impossible. We create a dual world when we think about it, for the mind is one of reflection. As an analogy, non-duality can be considered as an event in which there is no distinction between oneself and what one is experiencing. Oneself and one's experience are one and the same. This is not a mystical or magical process by any means, since we do this all the time. When you walk, are you paying attention to how you are walking and that your feet are far away from your head? Do you intellectually participate with each step you take and create a subject object understanding? Do you plan ahead before you start walking and in between each step? Well I hope not. You and the act of walking are the same thing. Another Example: When you watch a good movie in a dark theater, are you always aware that it is you watching a movie which is separate from you? If you do then perhaps you are a movie critic. Most people forget that they are in a movie theater and actively become one with the movie. If it was a really good movie, when it ends people then "find" themselves in a movie theater, something they had not thought about for the last two hours. This is because there was no duality during that time. The apprehender and the apprehended were both the same thing. > > But since all knowledge is acquired by the "apprehender" from what is > "apprehended", it cannot be "free from this duality"; therefore, we cannot > know that what we experience as "emptiness' (nothingness?) is devoid of > essence. Alexander Berzin (2007) says, "All knowable phenomena must be > members of the set of either one or the other true phenomena, with nothing > knowable that belongs to either both or neither of the sets. Consequently, > understanding the two truths constitutes understanding [the nature of] all > knowable phenomena." This is humanly impossible. The universe is not > empty, and Absolute Truth remains unknowable. Again, as I stated above, Emptiness is a condition. We do not experience "emptiness". If we label our reaction to the concept of emptiness, "emptiness" then I suppose we do, but this just complicates the discussion. Emptiness is a method of viewing the world in order to move beyond that method. One does not need to understand the two truths, one simply needs to view the cosmos within the two truths. It is a conceptual framework. I do not need to understand how a house is put together to live in it. We can be free from duality by acknowledging that the apprehender and the apprehended can be considered same thing (this is something you have to "do" you cannot read about it and get it). So, with respect to Berzin (whomever he is), he makes assumptions to posit his conclusions. Sure within his framework, what he states is logical. But such logic is nonsensical in a different framework. Just like Euclidean Geometry and non-Euclidean Geometry are both valid geometries but have different conclusions. That is, neither of them are wrong, but they do not agree. > > The Wiki article goes on to say: "During meditation, emptiness is > experienced as non-conceptual and without subject-object duality. However > emptiness teachings resist reification, turning this absence back into an > independent essence. And so it is said that emptiness too, is empty. > Emptiness is not the substance of phenomena, not its “filler,” substratum or > indicative of the absence of all phenomena. Emptiness is not an independent > entity, but is inseparable from form and countless dependent conditions, > though all empty ones." From a personal point of view, "Emptiness" is experiences as both relief and freedom. Such experience can be arrived at through the contemplation of causal form. However, once the experience is reached, the concept of emptiness is not needed. It is just a method, not the real thing. Perhaps if I used the term "synchronicity in harmony" you would better understand. It means to experience the world not as a confining place, but as a place being created at that very moment, and moment to moment. For indeed, if we are constantly the result of a variety of causes (in real time), there is nothing which we can grasp. We become free-floating like an astronaut, and it is really a remarkable feeling. Remember, that the words used to describe the philosophy are words. These words are used for a purpose, it is that purpose that we are after. > > So, dear Marsha, while it is nothingness ("emptiness", if you prefer) that > differentiates objects and entities in experiential existence, we cannot > conclude that nothingness is the ground of existence, but only that it is a > necessary contingency of our relational world. Moreover, to repeat myself, > nothing comes from nothingness, which should intuitively suggest that the > Primary Source (i.e., ultimate Reality) is "full" (as Eckhart taught) rather > than "empty" as Nagarjuna implies. Yes, you are correct here, nothingness is not the best ground of existence, in my opinion. However, according to some modern physics, all "that is" can be explained by string theory. These strings can be said to only be made up of oscillations, and not mass since they are one dimensional (infinitely thin strings). Therefore, according to this theory the ground of existence is Nothingness. By the way, modern physics is coming around to the same concepts that existed 2,500 years ago. It just took us barbarians a while to catch on. With this in mind, I will categorically state that in physics it is possible to determine something coming from nothing (or nothingness if you prefer). To keep this simple, during high energy particle collision experiments, the phenomenon of the sudden appearance of a particle and its anti-particle is seen. For example, an electron, and its opposite a positron will appear out of nowhere. There is conservation of mass, because one is matter, and the other is anti-matter. When they recombine, they completely disappear in Nothingness, literally like a magic trick. This phenomenon was used to show how black holes can radiate energy, but I will not go into that. One theory is that the universe was created by this sudden appearance of matter and its opposite, out of nowhere (at least nowhere as far as we are concerned). I also studied electron tunneling within certain key proteins in our bodies. The concept of electron tunneling states that an electron can get from A to B without going in between. That is, it disappears at A, and then reappears at B. In between it is Nothing. The reason I bring up these examples from physics is to show you that you need to expand your understanding of reality. Nothing comes from nothing is simply not true anymore. Welcome to the 21st century of knowledge. > > Again, I'm not trying to put down Buddhism and there's nothing personal > intended. However, if you think about the assertions you are accepting as > "truths" in any logical context, I believe you will see they are flawed > tenets unsuitable for the development of a metaphysical cosmology -- Eastern > or Western. Yes, they would be flawed if you use your logic. But what makes you so certain that such logic is correct? I would suggest that you look at your underlying assumptions and perhaps question them. I have no problem with your assumptions, but you are far from equipped for denying Buddhism. It is a little more complicated than Essentialism, but it has been around for a long time. Buddhism is based on empirical knowledge, and takes a scientific approach. The concepts of Buddhism has been rigorously tested, and empirically validated. That is, the ideas of Buddhism can be proven to the seeker's satisfaction. Buddhism is not some whim that somebody made up. It has stood the test of time for a long time, and indeed been questioned by many intelligent people. Some of these people have taken the journey of Buddhism and indeed found it to be satisfactory in every sense. > My suggestion is that you read a few comprehensive books on Buddhism before you begin to try to analyze it. I am sure that Marsha has some good web sites for people such as Wallace. He is trying to create a Western Buddhism that we can perhaps understand. However, those interested are going to have to unlearn an awful lot. All the schooling we have been indoctrinated with from a very young age does leave its mark. Happy Holidays Buddhist for a day, Mark > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
