Imho, the source of the binary thinking is thought itself, how it operates. "

This is what Nagarjuna proves. The psycho-physical is a world-of-opposites for this reason ,since it is constructed by Mind. These are the categories of thought, and they would have to be transcended for Nagarjuna;s 'emptiness', the Unity spoken of in mysticism and the Christian doctrine of Divine Simplicity. If the source of binary thinking is thought itself (and not the binary world 'out there') then the source of the world 'out there' is thought. .

----"The evidence for this is that everything the mind touches gets chopped up in to opposing binary pieces".

Yes. It is not possible to think without using the categories of thought, which are binary. You're making many good Buddhist arguments; . .

For meditation it is not necessary to stop thinking. Rather, it is necessary not to follow ones thoughts. This is not an easy trick to learn.

--- "A possible problem with all of the above is that it's a temporary solution, not a permanent solution, much in the same way that eating lunch does not end hunger forever."

Yes. Hence Buddhism is rather more than just calming the mind.

Perhaps try reading something about mysticism. There's too much ground to cover to answer your question here. .

Or, to chant this in Hippiehead dogma, what if the problem we are trying to address arises not from thought content, but from the medium of thought?

Respect to Sri Baba Hippyhead but there's something I think you're missing here. If you want to take this 'no-thought' route then Zen practice would be just the ticket. But this profoundly simple practice is justified in philosophy by Nagarjuna's not-so-simple logic.

So thought is important and unimportant, necessary and unnecessary. Lau Tsu tells us 'True words seem paradoxical' and this is what Nagarjuna proves in logic.We-are and are-not, says Heraclitus, and this dual-aspect view is what we need to understand for a grasp of what Buddhism is about. We have to go beyond the binary yes-no, on-off kind of thinking that causes Western metaphysics to be useless, and it's not an easy trick to learn. . , .



.

And if a perspective should consider "the truth" to be the real world, and not any collection of ideas pointing to it, then concerns about dogmatism, contradiction etc are resolved. Instead of an endlessly unproductive debate about who has the correct philosophy, another option is to just toss all the philosophies overboard.

I'd rather say that if we take a scientific approach we will not be led astray. Most people view the world pre-analytically, adopting a folk-psychological realism whereby kicking a rock is enough to prove its reality. The value of philosophy is that it debunks this naive idea. Once the idea is debunked perhaps analysis can be abandoned, but to abandon it while holding on to logically-absurd and indefensible ideas would be to seriously shoot oneself in the foot.

For a practitioner discursive philosophy is not important, but for anyone else it is the only way to work out where the truth lies. ,.

Any method of observation which succeeds in shifting our attention from the symbolic world to the real world would seem to be sufficient. As you know, there are countless simple mechanical exercises which can lead one in this direction.


To a Buddhist your paragraph is a muddle of misconceptions. What you call the real world would be unreal. What makes you say it is real? Realism causes nothing but paradoxes and contradictions in metaphysics, which suggest it is false.

I realise you want to throw philosophy away, but God gave us a brain and we may as well use it. Nagarjuna proves, as does the history of Western philosophy, that there is only one metaphysical theory or position that survives analysis. This shows the value and importance of metaphysics, As Bradley says, it is an 'antidote to dogmatic superstition'. Not to take this antidote is to risk believeing all sorts of nonsense.

I suspect your low view pf philosophy comes from surveying the state of Western academic or university philosophy. If I didn't know more than academics usually know about the subject I'd also believe philosophy is a waste of time. But anyone who understands Nagarjuna's logical argument knows more than most professors.

The idea of meditation would be lead one from the symbolic or 'conventional' world to the real or 'ultimate' world. Sensory observation would have the opposite effect. To escape from what you call the real world would be the cessation of suffering. To be stuck in it would the definition of suffering. .

I see no attempt by you to understand the issues. I cannot see the point of your approach and clearly it prevents you from learning anything. I will not respond to you from now on.

I'm talking about all religions and all religions depend on faith, specifically and significantly faith in ultimate authority.

Okay. So this is your definition of religion. In this case Buddhism is not a religion. If you define religion like this then there is clearly a strict dividing line between religion and mysticism. There need be no prevarication.

But many people do not define religion in this way and I don't. You don't seem to acknowledge the difficulty caused by the variety of definitions in common use. Perhaps this is because you have clear definition. If you can persuade everyone to adopt the same definition then the ambiguities will disappear. . . . . . . .

A very special gift usually reflects the nature/position of the donor. So what could be the gift in {I}? In brief, ‘IT’ offers me knowing, if I want to, how to replace my temporary existence in this world with an eternal one in ‘ITs’ Realm which is not defined/limited by the notions of time and space (it is much like the dream realm in which I existed many times... also without my will :) )
.

The mystics would say that transcending life and death is not a gift but your birthright. Or to put it another way, there would be nobody to give you this gift except yourself.

Your current existence would be explained by accumulated karma. Only when consciousness is purified can it be stable and not have to come back as another life for more school-work to be done.. . , . .

I feel Penrose is way wide of the mark. He cannot even show that consciousness is emergent, Basically he seems to be involved in a last ditch attempt to save materialism. Having said this, he is braver than most on this topic, and he does somewhere speculate that consciousness is at least as basic as energy. .

My view would be that consciousness cannot be understood except by studying it, and this is not what Penrose does. He just thinks about it. . . .

Lol, true religions are true and false religions are false. That’s your response, essentially? If so, well, okay, but then why do false religions still work?


This is very definititely not what I said. But I'll respond anyway.

Religion is an ambiguous word with many meanings. What I said was that where a religion is the search for truth it will lead to truth. The religions you speak of do not quality. They depend on faith and belief and usually deny even the possibility of truth and knowledge. Thus the mystic would endorse the teachings of Jesus but reject the teachings of the Roman Church. If you have a look at Classical Christianity, the tradition of the first three centuries, you'll ses it is entirely different from the later Roman bowdlerisation of the teachings.

Thus there is something called the 'Perennial' philosophy, which includes (Middle Way) Buddhism, (Philosophical) Taoism, Sufism, Advaita Vedanta, Christian, Jewish and Islamic mysticism and so forth. Monotheism is rejected as being false. . . . .

You claimed that a practitioner would know what Buddhism (a religion) is. My point was that religious followers are notoriously often mislead.


Ah. I was speaking of practitioners of Yoga and self-enquiry, not crazy quasi-religious cults.

---"There are literally thousands of religions. Can they all be true? Of course they can’t. Therefore truth must be beside the point, right?"

This is a common misunderstanding and I wouldn't criticize you for holding it. But a little research will dispose of it.

Your comment relates to the commonplace dogmatic kind of monotheism but is not relevant where a religion is the search for truth. Regrettably many people only know the former kind of religion, since the Churches have worked around the clock for centuries to ensure their flock don't ever break free of superstition and speculation. You have to remember that until quite recently my posts here would probably have led to my martyrdom. It's only recently that it has become safe in Western society to speak about mysticism. I have a Christian friend who believes mysticism is the work of the Devil. Even Erwin Schrodinger ran into this problem, as he endorsed the doctrine of the Upanishads. His regular publisher refused to publish one of his books on grounds of heresy!

For a great book there is Fritz Schuon;s Transcendent Unity of Religion.. Or perhaps you could check out Alan Watts on youtube talking about Jesus and religion. .

"Put another way, what if the psychic nutrition we seek can be found in the experience of observation itself, and is thus not dependent upon any insights which may or may not arise as a result of that experience?"


I'm not sure I understand this question. Certainly the question 'Who is observing?' would be vital since it comes down to 'Who am I?'.

---"Having just today learned of Nagarjuna today for the first time, I of course can not relate this question to his teachings. But maybe you can?"

Hmm. Nagarjuna tells us nothing really exists or ever really happens, and this would cover all observations and observers, We would have to go deeper than the relative world. Likewise, Meister Eckhart tells us whatever we observe is quite literally nothing. Time and space would be smoke and mirrors. This would be meaning of the Grail experience by which we discover our immortality beyond the psycho-physical world. The observer and the observed would the same phenomenon. Consciousness and Reality would be the same phenomenon.

We're diving straight into the deep end here. .

Pardon me if I was bit effusive earlier, but It's not often people ask questions rather than just argue for their own view. . . .; . .

And, I'm guessing such overactive analysis could be useful if we analyze our way to an understanding of the limits of such analysis. Not the most efficient method of travel perhaps, but one does what one has to do.

Yes. yes, yes. Spot on! You say you know little of Buddhism and yet you say nothing but sensible things about it. This would be exactly the purpose of analysis. The method is demonstrated to perfection by Nagarjuna's in his Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way.. In this text he proves the absurdity of all positive metaphysical theories. thus proving that the true nature of Reality lies beyond conceptual fabrication.

Your comments above suggest you would be naturally drawn to the simplicity of Zen practice. Nagarjuna is a patriarch of Zen.

You say - "In both science and religion observation is typically considered a means to some other end, knowledge or insight etc. What if we were to instead embrace observation for itself?"

Again, spot on. Science asks us to look through the telescope. Mysticism asks us to investigate who is doing the looking. Basically the idea is to discover that we are not body or mind. As one Sufi sage puts it, 'Man can partake of the perpetual, but not by thinking he can think about it'.
.

Praxis - "Unfortunately for those who died in Jonestown (a different religion than Buddhism), this is obviously false."

What of Earth has Jonestown got to do with anything? We're talking about Buddhism.

Praxis - "Right, it makes a difference to Buddhists and others"

What we call Buddhism makes no difference to Buddhism. Obviously it makes a difference to you. .

Praxis - "Religion works, but not in the way most people think, in my opinion. Religion may or may not reveal truth, that's beside the point. Religion necessarily promises salvation, delivering on that promise is beside the point. "

You have almost no comprehension of religion and you make this perfectly clear. Your opinions are not interesting and really you shouldn't have any. Much better to establish the facts. You say 'religion works'. How do you know this? What do you even mean by it? How can it be beside the point if religion reveals truth? If it doesn't do this it doesn't work>

Sorry mate, but I have you down as a troll. I see no serious interest in the topic or any desire to know much about it. . . .

Well, that would be a rather anachronistic idea. It is a science if we use the definition laid down by Popper, but this is a modern idea. If we are a practitioner we soon find out what it is, and if we are not we'll never know. I would agree with you that it is a religion, but many Buddhist would argue otherwise. It's an academic point and I can't see much point in arguing over it. It would all depend on our definitions of religion, art, science etc,, but it makes no difference to Buddhism what we call it.

If religion requires dogma, authority and belief then it is not a religion. If science must depend entirely on sensory-data then it is not a science. If philosophy requires endless confusion then it is not a philosophy. If art requires paint and a canvas then it is not an art. It is what it is, and a study of it is the only way to find out what it actually is. This would be why some people wonder why the OP's question is important. The answer doesn't seem to make a difference to anything.It would be more helpful to ask whether it works, whether it reveals truth, whether it brings liberation etc. This is something that may be studied and researched. What we call it is a matter of convention and convenience. The Buddha calls it a medicine, and this seems the best description to me. . , . . ., ,

This is not at all what I said. I never mentioned a 'modern' perspective and wouldn't know what the phrase means. I regard the Perennial philosophy as, well, perennial, and not ancient or modern. At this point I'm not sure what I've said that you would object to, but if you make this clear I'll have a go at responding.

What I'm suggesting is that we have a choice as to how to approach Mahayana Buddhism. As as science and practice it requires devoted meditation. As a theoretical philosophical doctrine it requires only scholarship and study. As a descriptive ontology it requires a bit of both. It depends how we wish to approach it. We could see a hammer as an object d'art, a tool for banging in nails, a murder weapon, a paper-weight etc etc. A case in point would be the physics of Ulrich Morhrhoff, who relates Buddhism to QM while hardly mentioning it.

Everything depends on how deep we want to go. A hammer has no depth or analytical interest but Buddhism is a notoriously subtle doctrine and practice with all sorts of levels and aspects. .

I'd be happy to say more. Perhaps we could start in philosophy. Mahayana Buddhism claims that the reason why all positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible is that they are false. This disposes of Kant's antinomies and pretty much does way with the whole of Western metaphysics. This rejection of extreme. partial and positive theories is necessary for 'non-dualism' and the 'Perennial' philosophy.

Thus it is not necessary to meditate or speculate in order to test the Buddha's teachings in philosophy. They endorse the only metaphysical position that survives analysis. It's not clear to me why more people do not know this but poor scholarship in our universities seems to be the main reason. .

Don't let me bore you. I'm on my hobby-horse here, which is the dire quality of university philosophy.

I see your point, or your suspicion, but Buddhism is rather more sophisticated than a hammer..

I would say the carrot is not all or nothing. I discovered something important almost as soon as I first sat in zazen. This was lucky, I must admit, but it does go to show...

The 'moving forward' thing is relevant to realisation, which would usually grow with time. But there is more going on. Mahayana Buddhism represents an interpretation for quantum mechanics and a solution for all philosophical problems. It is about truth and knowledge and can easily defend itself as a method for acquiring it. This is a much misunderstood issue. Commonplace Christianity is, as Whitehead notes, a 'religion in search of a metaphysic'. The philosophy department is unable to assist in this search. Buddhism, more generally mysticism, does not have this problem. It is a fundamental theory testable as such in philosophy. It is easy to focus on 'enlightenment' and forget what else we can learn from Buddhism as scholars. . .

Thanks. I feel that to ask whether Buddhism is a religion, a philosophy or a science betrays a misunderstanding, since the question assumes it cannot be all three.

I like your 'management' idea up to a point. Beliefs are motivational but otherwise may not help. In the end its all about the ending of ignorance and the process has to be managed. But dangling the carrot of enlightenment may help keep the donkey moving forward, just as the carrot of future good health may motivate us to manage our diet. . . . .

I would say that whether Buddhism is a religion or philosophy depends entirely on our definitions. Theravada seems more like a religion and Mahayana more like a philosophy, but the lines are difficult to draw. It may be more a matter of how you approach it. If you approach Buddhism as a religion then it will be one. If you approach it as a science then it will be one.

It seem relevant to note that Taoism began life as a philosophical method emerging from a prior shamanism, but five hundred years later someone decided more bums on seats were needed and developed a religious version with hells and heavens and angels and guilt etc. So now we have Philosophical Taoism and Religious Taoism. Buddhism suffers form the same sort of splits, so it is diffcult to generalise,

For me Buddhism would be a religion, a science, an art and a philosophy, same as all the 'mystical' traditions. To see them as just one of these would be to miss their significance and sell them short. . .

All good. If you want to know my view then it is explained by Sadhguru and Alan Watts in their youtube talks on Jesus.

I understand your pov on this issue, but I also understand mine. I don't need to read it to know I don't endorse it. .

Well, I read a couple of responses. You say you've used your theory 'to answer a number of Epistemological puzzles such as "Theseus's ship", and have used it in daily general assessment of whether I know things as I go about daily life.' This tells me it's not a good theory. If you need a theory to tell you that you know things then you're talking about degrees of belief, not knowledge.

Quine has no useful theory either. In the Western tradition the best there is for knowledge is 'justified true belief'. .

Your point is a fair one, but I see no point in reading an article that seems epistemilogically naive.even before I start reading. You can ignore me.

But do you have a clear idea of what kind of truths in such religions (or whatever they are called) a truth-seeker may be interested to know?


The generic method is Yoga, the meaning of which is union. The goal is union with reality and thus knowledge of the true nature of reality and the transcendence of life and death. The goal is that 'I and the Father are One'. For mysticism Jesus is a son of God, not 'the' son.

I would say it is not possible to 'discover other's deeper nature' without discovering your own. which is Yoga. This is the 'classical' Christianity of the early church. . . . . . , . . , ,

I more or less share your view, but probably rate abstrart thought a bit higher.

I don't really understand you response. It doesn't seem to be based on my comments but just re-iterates your dislike of my view. Let;s leave it. I know when I'm beat.

"A totally independent person who doesn't join any other believers in their religious gatherings (usually known as rituals) could also be seen as a real Buddhist, Taoist, Sufi or Advaitan."

Those who attend such communal rituals on a regular basis are unlikely to be serious practitioners, who usually have better things to do. I think perhaps you are not a student of comparative religion. Communal gatherings and rituals are not necessary for a truth-seeker and if we are not this then we are not a Buddhist or Taoist. . .

You may have missed my point about sin and guilt,and I feel it it is a vital one for anyone interested in religion. It is not just that we should not judge anyone sinful, says Jesus, but that there is no such thing as sin and no need for guilt. He say this in the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, and in 'A Course in Miracles'.

In my opinion such teaching are eminently suitable and vitally-needed at this time in the Christian Church. It angers me that the Chrch so misleads people.and brings discredit on all of religion in the process. . . .

I wasn't aware science had an explanation. It was not in that paper. To explain empathy one would have to explain consciousness.

I appreciate you may not agree. There is always a paradigm-problem for these discussions where mysticism becomes relevant. I would rather say that the natural sciences have no method for studying or understanding empathy, but scientists like to speculate beyond the data. All they have for data is the assumption that empathy is a real thing and not just a misinterpretation of behaviour. Only a few decades back they were arguing that consciousness is a misinterpretation of behaviour. and they have no method even now to refute this claim except first-person reports.

I have no beef with science or scientists, but I wish they'd be more careful to distinguish between what they can and cannot study with their methods. That the physical sciences can explain empathy is, as far as any scientist knows, a science-fiction fantasy. I would say it is very obviously a fantasy, just anther hang-over from the grand-fantasy of Behaviourism, so never quite understand why anyone would think otherwise. It seems some sort of major paradigm-shift is required to switch between our respective positions, I find this a constant source of fascination but have never found a way of addressing it. . . . . . .

" I've used it to answer a number of Epistemological puzzles such as "Theseus's ship", and have used it in daily general assessment of whether I know things as I go about daily life.".


You seem to believe that knowledge is belief. I cannot make sense of this idea. Do you know you are aware? Or do you simply believe it?

I believe (!) Aristotle points out somwhere that true knowledge is identical with its object. Descartes reached the same conclusion. This is the idea one needs to explain knowledge. It is a difficult idea but it partly explains the claim of the mystics that knowing is fundamental.. .

That is to say, knowing, which for Russell is the most difficult and most truly philosophical problem, cannot be explained as an emergent phenomenon. This seems to be the experience of all philosophers. .

I would agree with little of the OP. You are putting the case from an exoteric/materialist/realist standpoint.- from which standpoint you would be correct? But is the standpoint correct. I would say definitely not. You're suggesting that the knowledge claims of the mystics are false even though they cannot be falsified. I would suggest they cannot be falsified because they are grounded in knowledge. . .

We needn't argue. I'm just throwing in an idea you do not seem to have considered.

"There are two problems about the ‘something from nothing’ && ‘something from something’ argument"

I did not read all the OP but agree that both these idea are hopeless. The solution would be to note that it is very difficult to define or conceptualise 'something' and 'nothing'. They are ideas. The problem is caused by assuming they are more than this,.

As you say, ( I think) the solution is to break down the distinction. It is precisely this breaking down of distinctions that allows the perennial philosophy to be a fundamental description of Reality while avoiding this kind of problem. We can have no fundamental theory when we reify the something-nothing distinction, for the reasons you give. .

I had a look at the paper but it doesn't appear to be relevant. .

Yes. I suppose you could call it 'non-dualism'. I endorse this because it appears to be true and because it solves all philosophical problems. .

In short, yes, although it may depend on how you define religion. For a Middle Way Buddhist, Taoist, Sufi, Advaitan etc there are no rules. There are just actions that help one progress and those that hold one back. Note that even Jesus denies the existence of sin and dismisses the need for guilt. This is a subtle issue, partly because the monotheistic dogmatic Churches have so muddied the waters with their folk-ethics.

In the OP you're speaking about intellect, not consciousness. This is a very common approach in the West but it gets us nowhere. It is this sort of thinking that reduces consciousness to information processing, which is the claim that all the mystics of all time were deluded and fraudulent. Well, maybe, but it's a massive speculative leap that seems entirely ad hoc. . .

I don't buy Price, Gould or Dawkin's analysis. Altruism is grounded in empathy and it is this that has to be explained. Altruism an empathy cannot be explained within the paradigm of these people. The only explanation for empathy I know, especially cross-species, is the unity of life and consciousness.

Great discussion by the way. I've just arrived from a forum where not one thread is of this quality.

You have an unusually low view of philosophy. But I suppose you're right for some so-called philosophers.