[Fis] _ Re: : Vol 25, #32, Nature of Self

[steven bindeman]

I want to thank Alex for his insightful comments and questions regarding my 
contribution concerning the nature of the self, with regards  to  Nagarjuna’s 
reductionism. I even like Alex's pun on my name, since there is something 
unbinding and liberating about Nagarjuna’s ruthless undermining of all forms of 
metaphysical certainty. I also like his reference to Thomas Traherne’s 
wonderful poem My Spirit, especially the line That Being Greatest which doth 
Nothing Seem!  Alex argues that Traherne  is suggesting that being surrounded 
and within the 'strange extended orb of joy' is a necessary precondition for 
our experience of apparent individuality within the world of phenomenological 
experience. I would agree with this idea, especially within the context of 
Husserl’s phenomenological reduction. It requires the bracketing off,  or the 
withholding of judgment, regarding our examination of the natural world, 
replacing it with analysis of our experience  of it instead. The eidetic 
reduction, in turn, focuses on the nature of  mental objects, with the 
intention of removing what is perceived, and leaving only what is required in 
its place.  (The notion of individuality would indeed be an example of such a 
mental object.) For Nagarjuna, it is not merely sentient beings that are 
"selfless" or non-substantial, however; all phenomena are without any inherent 
existence and thus without any underlying essence. They are thus empty of being 
independently existent.  While Nagarjuna does indeed seem to be trying to show 
us how to silence our intellects, Husserl seems to be trying to silence our 
naive belief in the authority of  isolated empirical evidence. We are thus 
mistaken when we uncritically accept the necessary implications of denotative 
experience without  further consideration of connotative experience as well. 
Denotation has limits while connotation does not.

Steve Bindeman


On May 2, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Alex Hankey  wrote:

> Dear Steve, 
> 
> What you have written is so supreme and beautiful! 
> Might I suggest a Deed-Poll application to 
> Un-Bind-a-man?
> 
> After reading your comments, I had to take time out and simply sit in 
> "Silence", and let my mind be filled with the 'energy' with which your words 
> had both filled it and emptied it. 
> 
> And currently being with Indian friends in San Jose, I did so in front of the 
> apartment sacred space, which is adorned with a Buddha, a Radha-Krishna, a 
> Ganesha, the family Guru and other such pictures. 
> 
> As regards this discussion of phenomenology, it seems to me that your 
> marvellous contribution stands both inside phenomenological experience AND 
> beyond it, and what takes human awareness to those more permanent states of 
> Being.
> 
> May I request Maxine who seems to me more experienced in technical 
> phenomenological analysis of language and expression than any of us to see 
> how well Steve's contribution conforms to Husserlian requirements to be 
> considered a valid expression within the boundaries / limitations of 
> phenomenology? I myself certainly do not feel adequately empowered to do so 
> in such company as Pedro and his Fis have arranged for us. 
> 
> Further: 
> 
> RE: ... silence becomes a conduit to enlightenment. One recognizes that the 
> use of concepts, and the use of reason to work with concepts and to help 
> distinguish between true and false views, and the very idea of having views 
> in the first place, are all highly problematic in the sense that they are but 
> imperfect manifestations of true reality.  
> 
> ME: Amen - Omayne - Om / Aum 
> Is not the Role of Zen to silence the intellect so that the person becomes 
> open to Sartori?
> 
> May I add the following: one of the most wonderful statements of realization 
> in the English language can be found in the work of the 17th century poet and 
> essayist, Thomas Traherne, in his poem, My Spirit, which I append in full 
> below. 
> 
> Note particularly the following sequence from successive stanzas: I have put 
> in bold those from stanzas 5 & 6 to emphasize that for me these statements 
> constitute the heart of the poem, and that I equate them with the position of 
> Advaita Vedanta - though Steve is more than welcome to state how he relates 
> them, and any other part of the poem, to the position of Nagarjuna (or not 
> so?). 
> 
> Again, I regard these statements as the culmination of phenomenological 
> experience, and in that sense of the 'phenomenology of life'. In one of his 
> early books, Deepak Chopra quipped that life is not a material process with 
> an occasional spiritual experience, but rather a spiritual process with an 
> occasional spiritual experience. 
> 
> Excerpts from 'My Spirit' by Thomas Traherne. Full poem below the quoted 
> sections. 
> 
> 1.  My Naked Simple Life was I
> 
>   That Act so strongly shined
> 
>  Upon the Earth, the Sea, the Sky,
> 
>  It was the substance of my mind,

[Fis] _ Re: : Vol 25, #32, Nature of Self

[Alex Hankey]

Dear Steve,

What you have written is so supreme and beautiful!
Might I suggest a Deed-Poll application to
Un-Bind-a-man?

After reading your comments, I had to take time out and simply sit in
"Silence", and let my mind be filled with the 'energy' with which your
words had both filled it and emptied it.

And currently being with Indian friends in San Jose, I did so in front of
the apartment sacred space, which is adorned with a Buddha, a
Radha-Krishna, a Ganesha, the family Guru and other such pictures.

As regards this discussion of phenomenology, it seems to me that your
marvellous contribution stands both inside phenomenological experience AND
beyond it, and what takes human awareness to those more permanent states of
Being.

May I request Maxine who seems to me more experienced in technical
phenomenological analysis of language and expression than any of us to see
how well Steve's contribution conforms to Husserlian requirements to be
considered a valid expression within the boundaries / limitations of
phenomenology? I myself certainly do not feel adequately empowered to do so
in such company as Pedro and his Fis have arranged for us.

Further:

RE: ... silence becomes a conduit to enlightenment. One recognizes that the
use of concepts, and the use of reason to work with concepts and to help
distinguish between true and false views, and the very idea of having views
in the first place, are all highly problematic in the sense that they are
but imperfect manifestations of true reality.

ME: Amen - Omayne - Om / Aum
Is not the Role of Zen to silence the intellect so that the person becomes
open to Sartori?

May I add the following: one of the most wonderful statements of
realization in the English language can be found in the work of the 17th
century poet and essayist, Thomas Traherne, in his poem, My Spirit, which I
append in full below.

Note particularly the following sequence from successive stanzas: I have
put in bold those from stanzas 5 & 6 to emphasize that for me these
statements constitute the heart of the poem, and that I equate them with
the position of Advaita Vedanta - though Steve is more than welcome to
state how he relates them, and any other part of the poem, to the position
of Nagarjuna (or not so?).

Again, I regard these statements as the culmination of phenomenological
experience, and in that sense of the 'phenomenology of life'. In one of his
early books, Deepak Chopra quipped that life is not a material process with
an occasional spiritual experience, but rather a spiritual process with an
occasional spiritual experience.

Excerpts from 'My Spirit' by Thomas Traherne. Full poem below the quoted
sections.

1.  My Naked Simple Life was I

  That Act so strongly shined

 Upon the Earth, the Sea, the Sky,

 It was the substance of my mind,

  The sense itself was I.

  

  The Thought that Springs

Therefrom's itself. 

 ...

 In its own Centre is a Sphere

 Not shut up here, but every Where.


2. ..

  for tis more voluble than Light

 Which can put on ten thousand forms

 Being adorned with what itself adorns.


3. 

And every Object in my Soul a thought

 Begot, or was; I could not tell

  Whether the things did there

  Themselves appear,

Which in my *spirit *truly seemed to dwell,

 Or whether my conforming Mind

 Were not alone even all that shined.


4.  But yet of this I was most sure

  ...

That all my Mind was wholey Everywhere

What e'er it was, twas ever wholey there;


5.  O Joy! O Wonder, and Delight!

  O Sacred Mystery!

 My Soul a Spirit infinite!

 .

*That Being Greatest, which doth Nothing seem!*

Why, twas my All, I nothing did esteem

But that alone. A Strange Mysterious Sphere!



*6.  A Strange Extended Orb of Joy*

*  Proceeding from within,*

* Which ...*

* ..,*

*  . did Every way*

*Dilate itself even in an instant, and*

*Like an Indivisible Centre Stand*

*At once Surrounding all Eternity*.

7.  O Wondrous Self! O Sphere of Light,

  O Sphere of Joy most fair;

 O Act, O Power infinite;

 O subtle and unbounded Air!

  O Living Orb of Sight!

Thou which within me art, yet Me! Thou Eye

And Temple of His Whole Infinity!


N.B. Please note in the last line quoted from Stanza 6, the use of the word
'*Eternity*'. The 'strange extended orb of joy' does not simply surround
'all space', nor even 'all this universe' or 'all space-time', but rather
'all Eternity' which I take to mean, 'all possible space times'. He seems
to denote (connote?) that being surrounded and within the 'strange extended
orb of joy' is a necessary precondition for our experience of apparent
individuality 

[Fis] _ Re: : Vol 25, #32, Nature of Self

[steven bindeman]

Unless I am misunderstanding Nagarjuna, he uses a form of reductionism to show 
how all metaphysical positions are untenable. To illustrate this point in 
further detail, I will provide the rest of my section on his thinking from my 
manuscript on silence:

Following the implications of the middle way, Nagarjuna uses what is called the 
“four-cornered-negation,” whereby he refutes any specific idea by disproving or 
negating all four of its appearances: as being, as nonbeing, as both, and as 
neither.  Belief in any of these four cases is an extreme thesis in his view 
and must be transcended by a higher synthesis. In fact, Nagarjuna’s philosophy 
can be seen as an attempt to “deconstruct” in this way all systems of thought 
which analyze the world in terms of fixed substances and essences. Since 
emptiness is in fact  the negation of each of the four appearances of any idea 
or concept, if it can be shown to be true in all four instances, then the 
original idea, whatever it might be, will have been disproved.  By saying that 
all concepts are false, then, the quality of emptiness is pointed to as their 
essential nature.  Since all concepts are false, emptiness is in all of them. 
(This refers to the being of emptiness.) The truth of emptiness is, however, 
the same as the unreality of all existing elements, which is to say that the 
nonbeing of the phenomenal world is also emptiness.  But Nirvana is also the 
truth, so Nirvana is also the same as emptiness and the same as the 
impermanence of the phenomenal world (referring to both the being and nonbeing 
of emptiness).  Furthermore, the Buddha-nature is the ultimate reality of each 
person, and thus the Buddha-nature – and Buddha himself – is empty. Now we may 
add that since Nirvana is enlightenment, enlightenment is emptiness too.  
Nagarjuna is here taking the logic of Conditioned Arising a step further in 
order to argue that nothing, not even Nirvana, is unconditioned. Hence the goal 
of Buddhist practice in his view is not merely to attain Nirvana but to realize 
emptiness. Thus Nirvana and impermanence are not two separate realities, but 
make up together a field of emptiness which is itself not another superior 
reality but something that is empty of itself. (This last state refers to the 
fourth case of negation, neither  being, nor nonbeing, nor both.)

With all of these positions pushed beyond the limit of their sustainability, 
Nagarjuna cancelled the existing definitions of reality and the whole edifice 
of Early Buddhism was undermined and smashed. In the process of dismantling all 
metaphysical and epistemological positions, one is led to the only viable 
conclusion, which is that all things, concepts, and persons lack a fixed 
essence — because otherwise they would not be capable of change, and only 
change can explain why people live, die, are reborn, suffer, and are capable of 
becoming enlightened in the first place. 

Nagarjuna’s explanation of the meaning of emptiness itself provides further 
clarification. Its two dimensions of meaning include the idea that emptiness is 
“the situation in which conditioned existence arises and dissipates, and thus 
it applies to practical everyday experience,” and secondly it is “the situation 
of freedom from suffering, the highest awareness.” The latter formulation is 
the conclusion of Buddha’s Four Noble Truths. Since both interpretations of 
emptiness are dependent co-originations, both include the theme of both the 
arising and the cessation of pain, which combines Buddha’s first Noble Truth, 
namely that life consists in suffering, with his second Noble Truth, that the 
cause of suffering is found in human desire, along with the third Noble Truth, 
that suffering ends when desire ceases,  which leads finally to the the fourth 
Noble Truth, which is that desire ceases only when the eightfold path is 
cultivated.This eightfold path involves the understanding and practice of the 
following activities: right speech, right action, right livelihood, right 
effort, right mindfulness, right concentration, right attitude, and right view. 
Following this path successfully leads to emptiness.

Once an individual is able by following this path to achieve emptiness and 
detachment from the world, he or she will recognize how silence is the 
appropriate response to all metaphysical problems. In this way, silence becomes 
a conduit to enlightenment. One recognizes that the use of concepts, and the 
use of reason to work with concepts and to help  distinguish between true and 
false views, and the very idea of having views in the first place, are all 
highly problematic in the sense that they are but imperfect manifestations of 
true reality. But on the other hand, they are all necessary steps in a process. 
This perspective, voiced in the 2nd century by Nagarjuna, closely anticipates 
Wittgenstein’s propositions at the close of his Tractatus: 

6.54 My propositions serve as elucidations in the following 

[Fis] _ Re:: Vol 25, #32, Nature of Self

[Alex Hankey]

It is good to note that Reductionism is not appropriate,
not in this particular context, maybe not in any context.

Most of the oriental philosophers were not aware of any
reductionist approach, since their teachers were purely
concerned with integrated and holistic approaches to
understanding and solving any problem.

Hence their attitudes to understanding experience"
the question of reductionism does not enter.
Thank you.

On 30 April 2016 at 22:15, Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Search Alex e Stan, Search Tutti,
> I fully share the epistemological philosophical-scientific approach of
> Alex and logical-mathematical set theory and / or the "hierarchy of
> subsumption evolving" Stan. However, reductionism does not satisfy
> neither pays.
> A collective embrace the FIS network.
> Francesco
>
> 2016-05-01 0:38 GMT+02:00 Alex Hankey :
>
>> It is good to see the discussion developing into deep considerations of
>> the history (histories?) of the metaphysical understanding of the nature of
>> the self, the soul, and the world(s) of experience, including the material
>> universe in which it finds itself.
>>
>> I do not claim to have any great expertise in understanding Nagarjuna's
>> approach, but we have to realise that both he and the great exponent of
>> Vedanta, Adishankara, also known as Shankaracharya (meaning teacher of
>> liberation), are said to have used almost identical formulations, albeit
>> with a different emphasis. While Nagarjuna used the concept of emptiness as
>> the foundation, Adishankara stayed within the traditional Vedic scheme
>> where 'fullness' or completeness / wholeness is regarded as fundamental.
>>
>> While it is certainly true that to experience the 'self' clearly, all
>> mental content has to allowed to settle down and fade away (one aspect of
>> 'Chitta Vritti Nirodha', a definition of Yoga) the condition for
>> maintaining that stably is that the subtle energy, prana (life-breath),
>> should be enlivened fully, which is why the enlivenment (ayama) of prana
>> i.e. pranaayama (normal spelling pranayama, in which the long 'a' is not
>> explicitly emphasised) is a fundamental Yoga exercise, usually practised
>> before meditation (Dhyana) practices in which the mind moves to its empty
>> state (samadhi). As can be seen, increasing the prana (life-energy) to a
>> state of fullness is thus an integral part of attaining a stable state of
>> pure consciousness (samadhi).
>>
>> It is the fullness of the state of prana that stabilizes the mind from
>> influences that might bring it out of samadhi. In particular, various
>> emotions can block the flows of subtle energies (several websites explain
>> this in detail e.g. Google on acupuncture meridians - emotions). Fullness
>> of prana is thus considered equivalent to emotional stability, which
>> requires balanced positive emotions and feelings.
>>
>> Both Nagarjuna and Adishankara are then concerned with how it is that
>> all-that-exists emerges from the original absolute. Nagarjuna evidently
>> shows that all things including all sentient beings have a 'dependent'
>> existence - they do not exist in and of themselves. Adishankara on the
>> other hand uses Vedic physics and metaphysics to trace how they emerge at
>> various levels of perception. The essence of his argument is to show how
>> the mental sensory apparatus came from the original source / Absolute, and
>> thus how all objects of sensation can be traced back there.
>>
>> In modern terms, all things we have ever experientially encountered are
>> quantum fields, and all quantum fields seem to have emerged from the Big
>> Bang via the process of symmetry breaking at its source - the inflationary
>> process. But symmetry breaking is an instability, and when one inspects the
>> information states that that instability supports, they turn out to have a
>> similar structure to O===>, the one proposed in the material that was
>> distributed.
>>
>> I feel that the role and significance of instabilities in the physical
>> world, particularly life processes, has not been adequately expounded and
>> that we may only be beginning to understand them.
>>
>> I hope this helps.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> On 30 April 2016 at 08:18, steven bindeman  wrote:
>>
>>> I hope the following passage I’ve written on Nagarjuna will be of use
>>> for this discussion on the nature of self. The passage is from a manuscript
>>> I’ve just completed on silence and postmodernism.
>>>
>>> Nagarjuna’s thinking is deeply conversant with silence and with the use
>>> of paradox as well. For him, contradictory things are never “either/or,”
>>> but are always “both/and.” Refusing to choose between opposing metaphysical
>>> problems, he would recommend responding through silence instead. For an
>>> example of his reductive reasoning process, consider the following:
>>>
>>> Whatever is dependently co-arisen
>>> That is explained to be emptiness.
>>> That,