29 Mar 06
Originally posted by MetamorphosisEmptiness, by the way, doesn't mean that nothing exists. It simply means that nothing exists inherently and independently from anything else. In other words, all is One. It's only the phantom appearance of a separate self within us that in turn projects the phantom appearance of a divided and disconnected universe out there.
Yes, the essential Zen experience points toward two "things" -- 1. the lack of inherent existence of any objective phenomena, and 2. the lack of inherent existence of the self. Seen together, the result is a "luminous emptiness" (*shunyata* in Sanskrit). In Zen, this is usually called "satori", or the breakthrough into enlightenment. A satori in and of ...[text shortened]... appearance of a divided and disconnected universe out there.
I sometimes like to use the phrase “inextricably entangled.” That may be a bit more metaphysically cautious, but...
I am still cautious about making the leap from experiencing the “luminous emptiness” underlying my form-making mind, to asserting the same thing about the cosmos—although it seems to make sense to me, and to say that being (as opposed to exist-ence) is ultimately One seems to say that being is whole, which seems to say that it is empty, which is why it is ultimately ineffable. There are no waves separate from the ocean: the ocean is “waving.”
29 Mar 06
Originally posted by widgetYou have a wonderful way of cutting through the cr-p. Rec'd.
YourSELF is the wall that you've built to keep the world out. 😉 So many bricks, each one cemented into place by illusion. 😕 Eventually, of course, you can't see anything beyond that wall. 😞 Safe, now?
Despite this precaution, you, too, will die. 😲 You're dying already. Relax. Live in this moment 😉
29 Mar 06
Originally posted by vistesdI think a key to the nonduality that Zen points to is recognizing the illusory nature of the "inner" vs. "outer" model. After all, what is "inner"? If we think of it as inside our skin, we are faced with simply blood and guts...all the way down to subatomic particles. Wherever we look, outer or inner, we find matter. So "inner" clearly refers to psychic functions, including awareness itself. But we can't "see" this awareness.
I sometimes like to use the phrase “inextricably entangled.” That may be a bit more metaphysically cautious, but...
I am still cautious about making the leap from experiencing the “luminous emptiness” underlying my form-making mind, to asserting the same thing about the cosmos—although it seems to make sense to me, and to say that being (as opposed to [i ...[text shortened]... it is ultimately ineffable. There are no waves separate from the ocean: the ocean is “waving.”
The entire universe exists only as a collection of appearances, sustained by our various sensory apparatus. The landscape that the bumblebee or the horse experiences is not the same landscape that the human experiences. Which one is real? Only the appearance of it.
Further, everything in the cosmos "exists" only as a cause of something else. Therefore, nothing can truly exist independently, and thus has no true inherent existence. Buddha called this "dependent origination".
And so, what are we left with? Only two things -- awareness, and appearances. There is literally nothing else. The final "leap" is in seeing that awareness and appearances are also co-emergent, and thus not truly separate either.
That can be referred to as "absolute reality". "Conventional" or "relative" realities also arise within our experience -- such as, "I'm thirsty", or "I'm tired", or "I want to do this", etc. The consideration of absolute reality doesn't negate the existence of the conventional realities. Nor are we required to turn away from the conventional realities. That understanding was the basis of Buddha's "middle way" (between rigid asceticism, and worldly refusal to face our ignorance).
29 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by MetamorphosisAnd so, what are we left with? Only two things -- awareness, and appearances. There is literally nothing else. The final "leap" is in seeing that awareness and appearances are also co-emergent, and thus not truly separate either.
I think a key to the nonduality that Zen points to is recognizing the illusory nature of the "inner" vs. "outer" model. After all, what is "inner"? If we think of it as inside our skin, we are faced with simply blood and guts...all the way down to subatomic particles. Wherever we look, outer or inner, we find matter. So "inner" clearly refers to rigid asceticism, and worldly refusal to face our ignorance).
Thank you: that’s all helpful, and I need to let it percolate a bit.
But in the meantime, maybe you would be so kind as to take one more shot? My “problem” is this: There seems to be a leap from the from the idea that we can only know appearances (and not the “thing in itself” ), and the assertion that there are only appearances (and our awareness of them)...
I feel like I’m just on the edge of this as I write it, so see if you can give me a push?
EDIT: No, I'm being lazy. I need to soak in it a bit...
29 Mar 06
Originally posted by vistesdJust one question about Zen: Wouldn't the ultimate expression of that philosophy end up in the extinction of mankind? If everything is just appearances, etc., why would a dedicated Buddhist bother to procreate?
[b]And so, what are we left with? Only two things -- awareness, and appearances. There is literally nothing else. The final "leap" is in seeing that awareness and appearances are also co-emergent, and thus not truly separate either.
Thank you: that’s all helpful, and I need to let it percolate a bit.
But in the meantime, maybe you would be so kind ...[text shortened]... o see if you can give me a push?
EDIT: No, I'm being lazy. I need to soak in it a bit...[/b]
29 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI understand the dilemma. The Buddhist idea of "emptiness" is extremely subtle and not easy to see, mostly because it bumps up against the very presumed existence of the self and its constant habit of self-referencing. Of course, a self can only seem to exist in contrast to a "not-self", and thus, the "solid, real, independent" existence of the external universe is deemed crucial by the self.
[b]And so, what are we left with? Only two things -- awareness, and appearances. There is literally nothing else. The final "leap" is in seeing that awareness and appearances are also co-emergent, and thus not truly separate either.
Thank you: that’s all helpful, and I need to let it percolate a bit.
But in the meantime, maybe you would be so kind ...[text shortened]... o see if you can give me a push?
EDIT: No, I'm being lazy. I need to soak in it a bit...[/b]
But let's examine the matter further. What happens to the world when we go to sleep at night? In terms of our direct experience, it appears to disappear. So clearly, our experience of the universe is dependent on our sensory apparatus and awareness of such.
You look at a blue sky. What is the blueness? Clearly, the experience of the blueness is dependent upon our perception. In fact, this blueness exists only in relation to our perception of it. We cannot say that the blue is really there, as a thing in itself, as that would imply that our eyes are somehow able to project this blueness onto the sky.
Note the crucial point -- without the eye to perceive it, the perceived blueness does not exist at all. And since we know that all we truly can experience are appearances (as filtered by our various senses), then we can conclude that the blue sky does not exist inherently. It only exists as a perception, an appearance, that is shaped by the mind.
An even more simple example -- we can examine sound. We "hear" a sound due to our auditory faculties perceiving atmospheric oscillations. Without our ears to hear them, this "sound" does not exist. All that exists are the atmospheric oscillations.
In each case, our sensory apparati are directly contributing to our experience of outer reality. Thus, so-called external reality is completely interdependent with our senses. It has no objective existence independent of them, in terms of our experience.
In each case, we are left with one conclusion -- everything we know of external reality, whether intellectually, experientially, or scientifically, depends completely on our sense faculties in some fashion. Thus, everything we know is an appearance in awareness, an object in the mind.
The usual rebuttal here (especially from the Western mind) is that just because we are not aware of something, does not mean that the thing itself doesn't exist. But the whole (very subtle) point of Buddha's teaching is that our entire experience of reality is interdependent with our awareness. The separation between phenomena and mind is artificial, unreal, fabricated. Even the idea that a thing can exist independent of other things is itself just an idea.
I should mention that the teaching of "emptiness" is not purely abstract, but was intended by Buddha more as a practical tool for relinquishing attachments. His idea was that attachments, grasping, and the suffering that they create is born out of the erroneous assumption that things exist of themselves, as discrete objects in some permanent fashion, independent from mind.
29 Mar 06
Just one question about Zen: Wouldn't the ultimate expression of that philosophy end up in the extinction of mankind? If everything is just appearances, etc., why would a dedicated Buddhist bother to procreate?
Actually, the reverse is true. If everything is but an appearance, then we can simply co-exist in peace, with nothing to fight over. Without the grasping, clinging, and attachments that arise from the delusion that things are inherently "real" in themselves, harmony can arise. And so, we just keep on with life in a simple, direct fashion. As the Zen expression has it,
"before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water from the well.
After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water from the well."
29 Mar 06
Originally posted by MetamorphosisThe usual rebuttal here (especially from the Western mind) is that just because we are not aware of something, does not mean that the thing itself doesn't exist.
I understand the dilemma. The Buddhist idea of "emptiness" is extremely subtle and not easy to see, mostly because it bumps up against the very presumed existence of the self and its constant habit of self-referencing. Of course, a self can only seem to exist in contrast to a "not-self", and thus, the "solid, real, independent" existence of the externa ...[text shortened]... themselves, as discrete objects in some permanent fashion, independent from mind.
Yes, this does seem to be the obvious reply. I'm just not quite sure how one may resolutely reject the concept of a 'noumenal' world that exists independent of the observer. On one hand, I agree with you that the objects that appear to me lack a form of inherent existence (existence is not a predicate, after all). For example, I could consider the chair that I appear to be seated in now: there is absolutely nothing about this perceived chair that I would consider consistent or permanent. Many would say that, apart from an observer, the chair is an infinite collection of merely potential states of consciousness; further, that the chair itself only comes into existence once the observer steps into the picture and specifies one of those potential states as an actual state. I'm not sure I buy that, though. Surely, the appearance of the chair only comes into existence once the observer steps in; but I don't see any way to get from there to the claim that no noumenal world exists. Matter is very tricky anyway, though. At small enough length scales, all 'materials' are essentially the same -- empty void.
30 Mar 06
Matter is very tricky anyway, though. At small enough length scales, all 'materials' are essentially the same -- empty void.
And perhaps therein lies the answer to your dilemma, at least according to Buddhism.
Advaita Vedanta really describes the same thing, only instead of calling it the void, or emptiness, it calls it the "transcendent Self". Plotinus called it "the One". And so on.
But all this "One/Void" business is so difficult for the mind, because the mind by its very nature compartmentalizes, and thus conceives and perceives a compartmentalized universe. So all the sages pretty much concured that the very thing that points us toward ultimate reality -- thought -- is also the very thing that becomes a barrier in the end.
Paradoxically, we need a two-fold assault on this problem. We need to grasp emptiness, or Oneness, intellectually; and we also need a non-conceptual experience of consciousness itself. That is, the calm, clarified mind of meditation.
So we have...
Theory -- the conceptual grasp of emptiness/Oneness
Practice -- meditation of some sort (zen koans, shamatha, vipassana, etc).
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by MetamorphosisLJ articulated my dilemma better than I did.
[b]Matter is very tricky anyway, though. At small enough length scales, all 'materials' are essentially the same -- empty void.
And perhaps therein lies the answer to your dilemma, at least according to Buddhism.
Advaita Vedanta really describes the same thing, only instead of calling it the void, or emptiness, it calls it the "transcendent ...[text shortened]... ss/Oneness
Practice -- meditation of some sort (zen koans, shamatha, vipassana, etc).[/b]
Question: Is metaphysical non-duality (intellectual conception of the One without a second) really the axiomatic base for Buddhist metaphysics?
30 Mar 06
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdIf you can't see it then it isn't an object 😉 Maybe its a subject. Maybe its you.
LJ articulated my dilemma better than I did.
Question: Is metaphysical non-duality (intellectual conception of the One without a second) really the axiomatic base for Buddhist metaphysics?
I love the way we can lick words into impenetrably furry hairballs in the bellies of our skittish minds. 😵
😛 Cats, on the other hand, yawn... because they know that there is nothing to do.
Try to imagine how large our minds would be if we hadn't trapped them in our bodies. 😲
Literally, vast is too small a word. :'( But words are too small no matter how long they are.
😛 Cats, on the other hand, yawn... because they know that there is nothing to do.
01 Apr 06
Originally posted by vistesdTechnically, no...that would be more consistent with the axiomatic base of Hindu Advaita Vedanta, actually. Buddhist metaphysics defines it as the "void" (emptiness), not the "One", although in truth it points toward the same thing, that being *nonduality*. Causality is the other important focal point in Buddhist metaphysics.
Question: Is metaphysical non-duality (intellectual conception of the One without a second) really the axiomatic base for Buddhist metaphysics?
On the issue of practice vs. theory, Buddha once analogized it to rainclouds...he said,
"One who grasps the theory but does not practice (meditate) is like a raincloud that thunders but produces no rain.
One who does not grasp the theory, but does practice, is like a raincloud that produces rain but no thunder.
One who does not grasp the theory and does not practice enough, is like a raincloud that produces neither rain nor thunder.
One who grasps the theory and also practices sufficiently, is like a raincloud that both thunders and produces rain."
01 Apr 06
Originally posted by MetamorphosisWhat a soggy kind of metaphorical analogy, Morphy!!! 😕 It is important, imho, to stress that meditation, per se, does not consist solely of sitting cross-legged and still for hours on the floor. 😞
Technically, no...that would be more consistent with the axiomatic base of Hindu Advaita Vedanta, actually. Buddhist metaphysics defines it as the "void" (emptiness), not the "One", although in truth it points toward the same thing, that being *nonduality*. Causality is the other important focal point in Buddhist metaphysics.
On the issue of practic ...[text shortened]... nd also practices sufficiently, is like a raincloud that both thunders and produces rain."
For some folks running into "the high" is meditation, for others it is that first bite of a delicious souflee held on the tongue for what seems like an hour, for me it might be knowing you, for a bird it is a worm 😛
02 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by widgetYes, meditation is nothing other than getting to know what actually is. So it depends entirely on the quality of attention brought to the moment. Eating the souffle could be meditation, it could also be a mouth chewing while a mind wanders. Just like sitting in meditation could be meditation, or it could be sitting crosslegged while daydreaming about eating a souflee -- which no longer makes it meditation.
What a soggy kind of metaphorical analogy, Morphy!!! 😕 It is important, imho, to stress that meditation, per se, does not consist solely of sitting cross-legged and still for hours on the floor. 😞
For some folks running into "the high" is meditation, for others it is that first bite of a delicious souflee held on the tongue for what seems like an hour, for me it might be knowing you, for a bird it is a worm 😛
The actual practice of meditation is, in one sense, a kind of ruse; in reality it's just a way of demonstrating an intent. That intent is to know/recognize reality, this actual moment, and to be present in it. It just so happens that for most people formal meditation is a more specific demonstration of that intent, than, say, eating a souflee. Which is why the Buddha prescribed sitting (and walking) meditation instead of souflee-eating.
But then, what did he know of souflees, eh? 😉
02 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by MetamorphosisWhat I have never really understood is that given we know Life is as it is, and all the rest that we bring to the present moment is "just thinking" what is the point of enlightenment? It is so easy to say well of course that x is just a product of your culture/upbringing/experience/ and not the real blueness of the sky - that enlightenment itself seems to become merely another philosophical outlook, or rationalisation of existence. It seems difficult to "have faith" that enlightenment may exist, and perhaps Wittengenstein had a point about the function of words in these kind of debates.
[b]Yes, meditation is nothing other than getting to know what actually [i]is