What say you? — TheMadFool

I don't understand symbolic logic, so there's no use asking for my comments on it. As for 'neither objective nor subjective' - the philosophical point is conceptually simple but difficult to articulate.

Let's go back to the basics, the first text in which the idea of 'middle way' is articulated. Again, very simple. It is represented in the Ananda Sutta. (I won't reproduce it here, although it's very short.)

The summary is, the Buddha is asked straight out: 'is there a self?'. And he doesn't answer. Then he's asked 'is there not a self?'. For the second time, he doesn't answer.

Then the questioner, Vachagotta, gets up and leaves. Ananda, Buddha's attendant, asks why he didn't answer, and he explains that answering 'yes' or 'no' the question 'is there a self?' would be misleading. To say there is a self, would be 'conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism.' To say there is not, 'would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism.'

First point to notice, is that the Buddha doesn't answer. It is said that he maintains 'a noble silence'. He doesn't offer a theory or a yes-or-no answer. Now, the character of Vachagotta is 'a wanderer' i.e. a forest-dwelling mendicant, who invariably plays the role of asking philosophical questions. In fact there turn out to be a number of such questions, the answer to which is invariably silence. You can find a listing here. This is where 'the parable of the poison arrow' comes in, discussed previously.

So, in relation to 'eternalism' and 'annihilationism', the principle is llke this. In the Buddha's day, there were 'ascetics and brahmans' who taught that there is an eternal and changeless soul that migrates from life to life. This is usually taken to refer to Hindu beliefs. In that religious culture, observance of the appropriate rites and conduct will lead to an endless series of propitioius rebirths. That is what is rejected as 'eternalism'. 'Annihilationism' is basically a form of nihilism, it says that at death the elements return to the soil and there are no consequences of actions (karma) performed in this life. (It is, incidentally, also the default view of secular culture, which is why 'secular Buddhists' generally reject the teaching of rebirth.) Those are the 'two extreme views' which the 'middle way' rejects. It evolves into a philosophy of the nature of existence, to wit:

By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "non-existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one.

So, that's the origin of 'middle way'. I would say more but this is now a long post. The only other point I'll mention is that there's an essay by a Theravada scholar on Emptiness which is a very good introduction to an often highly elusive idea.

It would be good to then discuss how this is developed in relation to 'objective and subjective' in the later tradition, but that will have to wait.

Insight or intuition is highly valued in Zen, if that's what you're essentially referring to, but it's hardly alien to the West — praxis

I don't think I said it was. I do think there is a different view of the purpose of language in Zen. That often text or speeches are considered lss containers of truth but eliciters of experience. What I am saying is not paraphrasable as 'insight and intuition'. .

If you're talking about koans, I don't know much about them. I understand them to be a form of contemplation (meditation). — praxis

I wasn't speaking specifically about koans,but they would be included in eliciting-language.

So perhaps the old master's desire to maintain the authority of the book has a valid purpose? Could the book, traditions, the teachings, the authority structures, the costumes, the ceremonies, the implied promises of something wonderful etc be the bait which lures the abstraction fueled becoming addicted student in to the trap of "dying to be reborn"?

You know, if you're trying to catch a mouse you use cheese as bait, not a cat. — Hippyhead

I think most of the overthinkers, which would be everyone in a way, know what they are getting into. They've thought about it. The idea that they are going to change their relation to thinking is not a problem. But a lot of mulling about, say, breaking down the subject object split or sartori or what the symbols in a certain story mean, that could get in the way. They you end up looking for in meditation and checking and comparing with internal images and hallucinations of what you think you are going to experience, for example.

This is true in many types of practices.

If the goal of the Zen teacher is to serve the student they would seem to have no choice but to meet the new student where they currently are, which would seem to entail a lot of abstract mulling. — Hippyhead

I think they get tossed a few bones, but a lot of abstract mulling is not going to be encouraged.

If the goal of the Zen teacher is to serve the student they would seem to have no choice but to meet the new student where they currently are, which would seem to entail a lot of abstract mulling. — Hippyhead

There might well be a sign over the portal of most Zen monasteries NO PHILOSOPHIZING. (Anyone who has attended one of the 10-day Vipassana retreats would know that philosophical questions are likewise discouraged.) If you try asking tricky philosophical questions to a Zen teacher they’ll most likely whack you or assign you to cleaning duties.

That said, it is possible to wax philosophical about Zen, there’s plenty of philosophical depth in it. But in practice, the emphasis is always on action, on praxis.

There might well be a sign over the portal of most Zen monasteries NO PHILOSOPHIZING. (Anyone who has attended one of the 10-day Vipassana retreats would know that philosophical questions are likewise discouraged.) If you try asking tricky philosophical questions to a Zen teacher they’ll most likely whack you or assign you to cleaning duties. — Wayfarer

Ok, thanks for this education, that sounds good.

As best I can understand it, the source of the philosophizing is the transformation agenda being sold, which in new age hippy lingo is often referred to as a "becoming trip".

What I've been attempting to suggest in my posts is that the glamorous (and perhaps unrealistic) transformation agenda could be replaced with a common sense management agenda. Now the student is not on an ego feeding becoming trip journey from A to B but instead just attending to routine mental "cleaning duties". Philosophy no longer needed.

In my view, so long as the problem is defined as arising from the content of thought (a need to understand this or that) then students are inevitably going to think about that which they are supposed to understand, and then ego is likely to hijack the process, providing yet more distraction.

If the problem is instead defined as arising more from the nature of thought (in my view is a more accurate analysis) then we are no longer looking at a philosophical problem, but a far simpler mechanical issue. The model for this perspective is readily available in the manner in which we relate to every other function of the body. You know, we don't turn being physically hungry in to a complex and sophisticated philosophical problem requiring years of study under a master and all of that. Instead, we are simple, practical and direct, and go get something to eat. It seems to me psychic hunger can be addressed in much the same manner.

An Argument Against

The problem I see with my comments above is that trading a transformation agenda for a management agenda tends to strip the glamour out of this, and then nobody is interested, as we can see on these topics through out the forum and beyond.

Thus I remain open minded to a notion that religions that have lasted thousands of years may know what they're doing in all their various techniques for maintaining the glamour. You know, the ceremonies, the costumes, the fancy talk, the authority figures, a transformation agenda with it's promise of great riches awaiting ahead etc.

I would refer here to Catholicism, a tradition I am far more familiar with than Buddhism or Zen. Philosophers will often say Catholicism isn't logical etc etc. Ok, but the thing is, human beings aren't logical either, generally speaking, but emotional creatures. Thus, any analysis which attempts to be purely rational (as I'm attempting in my posts) is reasonably declared out of touch with reality.

Point being, any religion that took my advice above might very well collapse in just a few weeks.

Why is our attention drawn away from the vast majority of reality and towards the tiniest fraction? — Hippyhead

We are inclined toward things which have value. And it's the rare things which have high value.

This is the subject matter of hypocrisy, and it is not a simple field of study. I think that you are intentionally making it even more complex in the way that you portray Buddhism. I think you represent Buddhism as intrinsically incoherent in relation to hypocrisy, as unknowingly promoting the sort of activity which they say ought to be avoided. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I was pointing out that people here were contradicting Buddhism while treating Buddhism as an authority. Not everyone in the thread but those I responded to or those who criticized my response, since I then defended my response to the behavior of others. At no point was I saying that Buddhism was internally contradictory or hypocritical. I think Buddhism, and especially Zen, makes it clear that the kinds of analysis be carried out in this thread, in this context, by at least a number of the participants is a dead end at best and an obstacle to the goals of Buddhist practice at best.

Symbolic logic, as the name suggests, has to do with symbols and their manipulation and that's probably the aspect of logic you're not familiar with. However, conceptually, the ideas are simple. I'll try and explain it to you here if that's alright with you.

1. The law of the excluded "middle" states that for any proposition/claim, that claim can be true or its contradictory can be true. So, if the claim is "the Buddha exists after death", either "the Buddha exists after death" is true or "the Buddha doesn't exist after death" is true. There is no "middle" i.e. there's no third option between 1. "the Buddha exists after death" and 2. "the Buddha doesn't exist after death"

2. When the Buddha claims that neither it's true that "the Buddha exists after death" nor it's true that "the Buddha doesn't exist after death", the Buddha violates the law of the excluded "middle" because he denies both of what are allegedly only two possibilities viz. 1. "the Buddha exists after death" and 2. "the Buddha doesn't exist after death". In other words, the Buddha envisions a "middle" between these two, as he put it, extremes - for the Buddha there's a third option - this option is the so-called Middle-Path.

3. In the logic we use everyday - classical logic - the "middle" in the law of the excluded "middle" is a contradiction. If you violate the law of the "excluded" middle as the Buddha is doing (described above in 2) the end result should be a contradiction. In other words, the Middle-Path of the Buddha amounts to claiming contradictions are true. Thus, as I mentioned earlier, Zen koans are either full-fledged contradictions or evolving contradictions - Madhyamaka or the Middle-Path manifests in classical logic as contradictions.

In addition, if you're interested, the Buddha's method of denying something and further denying that something's contradictory is reminiscent of apophatic theology's conceptualization of God via negativa using Double Negation. There are snippets of it here and here

Therefore, Abu Yaqub Al-Sijistani, a renowned Ismaili thinker, suggested the method of double negation; for example: “God is not existent” followed by “God is not non-existent”. This glorifies God from any understanding or human comprehension — Wikipedia

Neither is it that God is existent nor is it that God is non-existent...

Neither is it that the Buddha exists after death nor is it that the Buddha doesn't exist after death...

The point of the Ananda Sutta is not a comment on logic as such. The question was 'does the self exist'? And the response indicates it's not a Y/N question.

So the proposition 'the self exists' is neither true nor false. It depends on what you mean when you say 'the self exists'. To say 'it exists' simpliciter is to arrive at a wrong view. To say it doesn't exist is another wrong view.

You can't shove everything into the procrustean bed of logical propositions. But that's really not a comment on logic per se. The Buddha's discourses are generally a model of rationality.

The point of the Ananda Sutta is not a comment on logic as such. The question was 'does the self exist'? And the response indicates it's not a Y/N question.

So the proposition 'the self exists' is neither true nor false. It depends on what you mean when you say 'the self exists'. To say 'it exists' simpliciter is to arrive at a wrong view. To say it doesn't exist is another wrong view.

You can't shove everything into the procrustean bed of logical propositions. But that's really not a comment on logic per se. The Buddha's discourses are generally a model of rationality. — Wayfarer

Well, for sure, we see eye to eye on what the Buddha's position was/is - neither is nor is not is the Madhyamaka mantra. The question that remains unanswered is, why the Buddha adopted such an attitude/stance/point of view?

There are a couple of possibilities which I will lay down below for your study:

1. Facts about logic and epistemology both treated as subjects in their own right imply Madhyamaka or the Middle Path. What I mean is that there are certain known facts about epistemology and logic that entail the attitude the Buddha espoused. In this case there are truths about logic and epistemology that necessitate Buddha's noble silence, his refusal to commit to available choices and forge his own path right down the "middle". The question, what do we know about the world? is either not or of less importance.

2. Facts about the world imply Madhyamaka or the Middle Path. In this case logic is simply a tool and epistemology, as a subject, is irrelevant. Everything hinges on what is known and also what is unknown about the world. The question, what do we know about the world? is first and foremost.

3. A little bit of both 1 and 2

Any ideas?

I think Buddhism, and especially Zen, makes it clear that the kinds of analysis be carried out in this thread, in this context, by at least a number of the participants is a dead end at best and an obstacle to the goals of Buddhist practice at best. — Coben

I'm not qualified to comment on what Buddhism is. Assuming the above to be true, and we wish to keep doing that which is not suggested :-) it seems reasonable to wonder why Buddhist culture appears to be clogged to overflowing with the kind of analysis Coben is referring to.

I'm sincerely interested in things like why faith persists in an atheist culture which explicitly rejects faith, analysis persists in a Zen culture which seems to explicitly decline analysis, and conflict persists within a Catholic culture explicitly about peace. What is the underlying mechanism which keeps pushing faith, analysis and conflict forward even when a person's chosen philosophy would seem to forbid them?

The best I can suggest is that philosophy (edits to the content of thought) is a surface level activity which addresses symptoms generated by the nature of thought.

This theory might explain phenomena such as a Catholic philosophy which is explicitly about bringing people together in peace, but which nonetheless still experiences a lot of division and conflict. The well intended philosophy wallpapers over the symptoms to a degree, but the underlying source of division (nature of thought) continues to belch out division like a river spring. When the ever flowing stream of division meets resistance at one point, like water flowing from a spring it simply finds a way around the obstacle and keeps on expressing itself somewhere else.

And so philosophy becomes a game of wack-a-mole. We can declare faith to be really bad, and so the atheist stops having faith in religious authorities, and begins having faith in science authorities. We can declare analysis to be bad, and then insist on analyzing why that is so. We can declare hate to be bad, and then find ourselves hating fellow Catholics who have a different interpretation of this doctrine.

To me, an important piece of evidence is that it seems that every ideology ever invented inevitably sub-divides in to competing internal factions which come in to conflict with each other. This apparently universal pattern suggests that the division and conflict we are attempting to address arises from the nature of thought, that which all ideologies are made of.

I'm reminded of a story I heard years ago on NPR. A team of doctors were treating patients recovering from heart attacks. The doctors wanted to help their patients chill out with as few drugs as possible so they decided to teach their patients meditation. The doctors were concerned that any philosophies that came along with the meditation instruction might alienate some of the patients and thus keep them from benefiting from this treatment. So the doctors ruthlessly stripped all philosophy from the instruction, presenting meditation in a purely mechanical non-partisan manner.

It seemed the doctors were wise enough to see the benefits that can come from the experience of silence, and the problems which can arise from attempts to explain that experience.

I guess when one has just had a heart attack that helps one become quite practical about one's health and a parade of glamour based enticements are not needed to interest one in things like meditation.

I'm not qualified to comment on what Buddhism is. Assuming the above to be true, and we wish to keep doing that which is not suggested :-) it seems reasonable to wonder why Buddhist culture appears to be clogged to overflowing with the kind of analysis Coben is referring to. — Hippyhead

Habit and context. As Wayfarer said, this is a philosophy forum (an online place where people come to chat about philosophical ideas, and generally with much less rigor that even college papers. Now I think Wayfarer meant, it's a philosophy forum, so it's fine. Well, sure. But not if one is treating Buddhism, especially Zen Buddhism, as the authority. And so when I say Habit, I mean, if any idea comes up, it is habit or culture here to throw analytical thinking and speculation at it. Which is of course fine in terms of philosophical chat, and also nothing I have anything against personally, since I am not a Buddhist, nor do I share Buddhist goals. Though I do think Buddhist masters have some excellent heuristics for achieving those goals. Now if we go against those heuristics while, it seemed to me, putting up other words of masters as authority, it seems like there are some missing assertions. Like, the masters are good and wise in telling stories but their cautions about minimizing abstract thought and speculating about what one will experience or what stories that may not suit their level in meditative experience mean are off. And then one wonders how this was determined. It might be right. But it seems like something worth explaining, directly

And so philosophy becomes a game of wack-a-mole. We can declare faith to be really bad, and so the atheist stops having faith in religious authorities, and begins having faith in science authorities. We can declare analysis to be bad, and then insist on analyzing why that is so. We can declare hate to be bad, and then find ourselves hating fellow Catholics who have a different interpretation of this doctrine. — Hippyhead

I notice a lot of team identification but not necessarily hving the skills one's team works with. LIke people will be for science, against religion, but in their arguments make all sorts of assertions that neither deduction nor induction support or are even referred to. Mindreading is often quite common is people who see themselves as representing science. If a thread said there were psychic phenomena they would weigh in against it - iow they agree with the conclusions of science but are not so aware of their own methodologies - and so assert things like 'You believe this because you are afraid of death.'

Obviously not all advocates of positions or even most are like this. Though it's a significant percentage. And there are similar contradicting their own epistemologies on other teams. IOW membership may have more to do with conclusions, rather than processes, or to put it another way, it may have little to do with real understanding.

As Wayfarer said, this is a philosophy forum (an online place where people come to chat about philosophical ideas — Coben

Yes, but it seems reasonable that one of the things we inspect, challenge and chat about are any limitations involved in the methodology we are using.

Now if we go against those heuristics while, it seemed to me, putting up other words of masters as authority, it seems like there are some missing assertions. — Coben

I hear what you're saying, there is a conflict between treating these teachers as authorities, and then ignoring what they are teaching. Part of the problem may be that those who are truly sincere about walking away from analysis etc tend to be culturally invisible, and thus never become teachers. Thus these fields tend to become dominated by people like me, those who like to endlessly talk about non-talking. :-)

I notice a lot of team identification — Coben

Yes, agreed. "I am a this or a that, this is our tribe, these are our slogans" etc. Imho, this tribal phenomena too can be traced back to it's source in the divisive nature of thought. Thought conceptually divides "me" from "everything else" with "me" perceived to be very small, and thus vulnerable, so we attempt to attach ourselves to something larger, a group, an ideology etc.

If we attempt to cure this divisive tribalism within the realm of philosophy, we wind up creating yet another tribe, the anti-tribal tribe.

At no point was I saying that Buddhism was internally contradictory or hypocritical. — Coben

You didn't say it, but you implied that.

I think Buddhism, and especially Zen, makes it clear that the kinds of analysis be carried out in this thread, in this context, by at least a number of the participants is a dead end at best and an obstacle to the goals of Buddhist practice at best. — Coben

I can't say that I know all the precepts of Buddhism, but I really do not think that it provides you with the premise to draw this conclusion. I believe that the Buddhists provide an example of how to live a good healthy life, through principles of practise, putting emphasis on certain activities as being of a higher priority, more important, than others. If certain lower level activities, such as the kinds of analysis being carried out in this thread, interfered with, or in any way prevented one from carrying out the necessary higher level activities, which one is obliged to carry out through necessity of a healthy life, then this would be viewed as an obstacle. However, I don't see that you have the premise to say that Buddhism rejects this sort of activity necessarily.

That's probably why, in the examples Wayfarer gives, the Buddha does not answer such philosophical questions. Buddhism distinguishes the necessities of life from what is unnecessary, attempting to associate itself only with the necessary, as being what is important. This leaves philosophy as unnecessary, and outside the scope of Buddhism. So if one wants to practice philosophy, this must be done in one's own mind, on one's own time, and not under the pretense of doing so under the direction of the Buddha.

So long as the problem is defined as residing within the content of thought (ie. incorrect understandings) isn't philosophy inevitable?

3. In the logic we use everyday - classical logic - the "middle" in the law of the excluded "middle" is a contradiction. If you violate the law of the "excluded" middle as the Buddha is doing (described above in 2) the end result should be a contradiction. In other words, the Middle-Path of the Buddha amounts to claiming contradictions are true. Thus, as I mentioned earlier, Zen koans are either full-fledged contradictions or evolving contradictions - Madhyamaka or the Middle-Path manifests in classical logic as contradictions. — TheMadFool

In metaphysics there are two distinct customary ways (sets of conditions) for violating the law of excluded middle, one is neither is, nor is not, the terms are not applicable, and this is expressed by Aristotle, and the other being both, is and is not, and this is expressed by Hegel.

The Aristotelian way is to assign reality to what is referred to by the concept of "potential", allowing this term to refer to what neither is nor is not. So for example, in the case of future events, like Aristotle's classic 'sea battle tomorrow', they neither are, nor are they not. And the reality of time is therefore accounted for by the concept of "potential" which refers to what may or may not be.

The Hegelian way, demonstrated in his dialectics of Being, allows that both what is, and is not, are subsumed within the concept of Becoming. This allows that both what is, and is not, coexist within the concept of Becoming. There aren't any real principles for separation, only an implied passing of time within "Becoming", which could separate is from is not. The result is some ontologies such as dialectical materialism, and dialetheism, which allow for the validity of contradiction, depending on how one interprets the role of time within Becoming.

I prefer the Aristotelian way, which gives a clear indication of how we ought to relate to time. Future events, are devoid of "actuality" (in the sense of being logically describable in terms of what is and is not), because they exist only potentially. He insisted we adhere to the law of non-contradiction, and we do not represent these events as a violation of it. This enforces a real separation between future and past because the reality of material existence, describable in terms of what is and is not, is true of the past only, therefore there is no such material existence in the future. This is consistent with human experience, and the Buddhist perspective, which emphasizes the importance of the present, and inspires us to the revelation that the entire material world is created anew with each passing moment of time. Such a revelation, as to the extreme complexity of this reality, which is completely and absolutely hidden from us, in itself, makes a wonderful eureka moment.

So long as the problem is defined as residing within the content of thought (ie. incorrect understandings) isn't philosophy inevitable? — Hippyhead

Why do you describe the content of thought as "incorrect understandings". Do you think that thought is necessarily wrong?

You didn't say it, but you implied that. — Metaphysician Undercover

I doubt it. I don't believe that Buddhism is being inconsistant on that issue. It is extremely focused on practices, every community and master I encountered, and this is in a wide range of locations, both East and West, discouraged intellectualizing ideas in Zen and to some degree in general.

As far as the rest, there are all sorts of admonishments, especially in the Zen form of Buddhism, to avoid intellectualizing issues around Zen. Not merely that it is unnecessary.

A university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master
quietly served tea, the professor talked about Zen. The master poured the
visitor's cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the
overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. "It's overfull! No
more will go in!" the professor blurted. "You are like this cup," the master
replied, "How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup."

That's not an isolated story. Then one can look at the whole tradition with koans which is precisely tryting to undermine the analytical mind, to short circuit it.

But I am going to drop out of this thread. I actually find the amount of negative reactions to this being pointed out rather odd. I certainly think people are free to do it. But it's as if a rather core portion of Zen teachings and Zen lived culture simply does not exist. I don't know how this has been missed. But I've said my piece and there seems little real interest in it other than Hippyhead.

Why do you describe the content of thought as "incorrect understandings". Do you think that thought is necessarily wrong? — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say that. In a surprise move, I was for once too stingy with words. :-)

What I was trying to say is that it's my understanding that Buddhism defines the problem as being an inaccurate understanding of our situation. That is, ideas within the content of thought which are incorrect. As example, perhaps my assumption is that "me" is real, and perhaps Buddhism suggests it is not, something like that.

So again, if Buddhism is a process of editing thought content, isn't analysis and philosophy inevitable?

To illustrate through a contrast, let's imagine that we were to instead define the problem which is being addressed as arising primarily from the nature of thought itself. In such a case, the suggested remedy might be simply reducing the volume and frequency of thought by various mechanical methods, which wouldn't necessarily require much if any philosophy.

This is much of what I've been getting at in many of my posts, but it's not clear to me whether the manner in which I express this is adequate for effective sharing. You know, it's clear enough to me, but if my use of language stinks then it might understandably not be that clear to others.

As far as the rest, there are all sorts of admonishments, especially in the Zen form of Buddhism, to avoid intellectualizing issues around Zen. — Coben

Ok, to further my Zen education, if intellectualizing is supposed to be largely discarded, what is that supposed to be replaced with? What are the primary methodologies involved, other than being whacked and doing the teacher's laundry? :-)

Yes, but it seems reasonable that one of the things we inspect, challenge and chat about are any limitations involved in the methodology we are using. — Hippyhead

Sure, and that's a different thing. That's when you are taking a stand and saying, I can question the masters. What I was reacting to was treating the master's words like scripture and engaging in intellectual analysis in a tradition that discourages that, especially in regard to Zen itself.

I hear what you're saying, there is a conflict between treating these teachers as authorities, and then ignoring what they are teaching. — Hippyhead

Thank you, concisely put. It would be another thing if the context was critical. and by critical I do not mean necessarily negative.

Part of the problem may be that those who are truly sincere about walking away from analysis etc tend to be culturally invisible, and thus never become teachers. Thus these fields tend to become dominated by people like me, those who like to endlessly talk about non-talking. :-) — Hippyhead

I haven't tracked everyone's participation. Since you started responding to me, you didn't seem to be putting the teachings, via the story, in an authority position. I could be wrong. :razz:

As far as the rest, there are all sorts of admonishments, especially in the Zen form of Buddhism, to avoid intellectualizing issues around Zen. Not merely that it is unnecessary. — Coben

Hippyheadists would explain the suggestion to reduce intellectualizing in this way. If one seeks to experience a sense of unity with reality, it's probably best not to invest too much time in a methodology which operates by a process of division. And then the Hippyheadist would probably go on to expand upon this simple common sense suggestion in 4,000 pages of intellectualization, based upon the principle "it's typically the ill who show up at the hospital". :-)

That's when you are taking a stand and saying, I can question the masters. — Coben

Well, in this case I was perhaps largely agreeing with what these masters are saying (devalue philosophy) while perhaps questioning what they are doing (seemingly providing ripe ground for more philosophy).

But really what I meant was that given that philosophy is often a process of questioning everything, it seems relevant and appropriate to include philosophy itself in the list of things being challenged. Not off topic on a philosophy forum in other words, imho.

Since you started responding to me, you didn't seem to be putting the teachings, via the story, in an authority position. I could be wrong. — Coben

As a good little philosophy forum wannabe pundit I typically rebel against everything including authority, but I'm starting to rebel against that too. :-) As quick example, if religion with all of it's authority structures etc was a living species, we'd have to say it's proven pretty well adapted to it's environment, the human mind. Buddhism is something like 2,500 years old, yes?

In metaphysics there are two distinct customary ways (sets of conditions) for violating the law of excluded middle, one is neither is, nor is not, the terms are not applicable, and this is expressed by Aristotle, and the other being both, is and is not, and this is expressed by Hegel. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks for the info. How does what you said and the fourfold indeterminacy of Pyrrhonism and Nagarjuna's tetralemma hang together?

There are only 4 possibilities regarding a proposition (Pyrrhonism)

1. p.........................p
2. ~p.......................~p (not p)
3. p & ~p................both p and not p
4. ~(p v ~p)............neither p nor not p

Aristotle seems to have opted for 4 and Hegel 3 in their acts of violating the law of the excluded middle but they're equivalent - different sides of the same coin - because ~(p v ~p) = p & ~p.

Nagarjuna's tetralemma is as below:

5. p (p)..................................................no! So, ~p (not p)
6. ~p( not p)..........................................no! So, ~~p (not not p)
7. p & ~p (p and not p)..........................no! So, ~p & ~~p (neither p nor not p)
8. ~p & ~~p (neither p nor not p)...........no! So, p & ~p (p and not p)

So, given any proposition p, the following choices are available, choices expressed by a disjunction:

9. p v ~p v (p & ~p) v ~(p v ~p)

The Buddha and Nagarjuna deny all four these possibilities and we get:

10. ~p v ~~p v ~(p & ~p) v ~~(p v ~p)

and we get

11. (~p v p) v (~p v p) v (p v ~p)

which reduces to

12. p v ~p

And 12 is the law of the excluded middle which is precisely what the Buddha and Nagarjuna are trying to deny - the Middle Path is between what to these two are the extremes of p and ~p - and the best way to do that is to reject the law of the excluded middle with ~(p v ~p) which reflects their stand all issues is viz. neither is nor is not.

Can we do the same with Nagarjuna's tetralemma negation tactic?

13. ~p v ~~p v (~p & ~~p) v (p & ~p)

we arrive at

14. ~(p & ~p) v (~p & ~~p) v (p & ~p)

which takes us to

15. (~p & ~~p) v (~p & ~~p) v (p & ~p)

we then see that

16. (~p & ~~p) v (p & ~p)

However, we've already denied (p & ~p) and so,

17. (~p & ~~p)

and we get,

18. ~(p v ~p)

As you can see 18. ~(p v ~p) violates the law of the excluded middle, and the Buddha and Nagarjuna have set their sights on exactly that - they're the Middle-Path guys. But, in classical logic, 18. ~(p v ~p) = (p & ~p) i.e. violating the law of the excluded middle takes the form of a contradiction and this is why I think Zen and Ch'an Buddhism are all about tackling paradoxes which are, to my knowledge, contradictions.

Ok, to further my Zen education, if intellectualizing is supposed to be largely discarded, what is that supposed to be replaced with? What are the primary methodologies involved, other than being whacked and doing the teacher's laundry? :-) — Hippyhead

Meditation, chores or work, whatever your duties are. You might end up getting a koan to fuss your brain over. I mean, ya gotta live your life.

But really what I meant was that given that philosophy is often a process of questioning everything, it seems relevant and appropriate to include philosophy itself in the list of things being challenged. Not off topic on a philosophy forum in other words, imho. — Hippyhead

Certainly not off topic, no. Perhaps in this thread, but not in the forum.

As quick example, if religion with all of it's authority structures etc was a living species, we'd have to say it's proven pretty well adapted to it's environment, the human mind. Buddhism is something like 2,500 years old, yes? — Hippyhead

Yes, and the West tends to take a reductionist relation to such things: they take pieces out of the range of practices. But of course on can be critical. And for me, what if the goal is not my goal, for example. Perhaps the practices are exceptionally good at reaching the goals in Buddhism (and I tend to believe this) but it's not what I want? One can be critical of authorities on this level also. And of course some facets may just be habit and not necessary.

As far as the rest, there are all sorts of admonishments, especially in the Zen form of Buddhism, to avoid intellectualizing issues around Zen. — Coben

The point is, that such an admonishment is an intellectualization itself. Therefore presenting this as you do, is to represent Buddhism as hypocritical.

But I am going to drop out of this thread. I actually find the amount of negative reactions to this being pointed out rather odd. — Coben

It's only "the pointing out" which you are doing which is odd, not the reaction of others to it.. You are making the conclusion that Buddhism portrays intellectualizing as necessarily wrong, but that in itself is already an intellectualized conclusion. If you would follow the example, which you yourself put up, to "fist empty your cup", then you would see that it would be impossible to proceed to the conclusion that one ought to avoid intellectualizing, because this conclusion could only be supported through intellectualizing.

So again, if Buddhism is a process of editing thought content, isn't analysis and philosophy inevitable? — Hippyhead

I think that this is correct, thinking, and philosophizing will prove to be inevitable. The point though, is as Coben points out with the example, is that you must "first empty your cup". This means that correct thinking, in the form of philosophizing, can only be carried out without prejudice, an empty cup. This means that we must learn how not to think, to get into the proper position (empty cup), before we can learn the proper way to think. Since thinking is a process subject to habit, we must break all habits, good or bad (not being able to properly distinguish one from the other), and start from scratch.

To illustrate through a contrast, let's imagine that we were to instead define the problem which is being addressed as arising primarily from the nature of thought itself. In such a case, the suggested remedy might be simply reducing the volume and frequency of thought by various mechanical methods, which wouldn't necessarily require much if any philosophy. — Hippyhead

It may not be that the problem arises from thought itself, but from the form that thought takes. Being an activity, the form is the habits of the thinker. To break one's habits of thought would require a practise of not thinking at all, to empty one's cup.

Aristotle seems to have opted for 4 and Hegel 3 in their acts of violating the law of the excluded middle but they're equivalent - different sides of the same coin - because ~(p v ~p) = p & ~p. — TheMadFool

Logic needs to be supported by ontology to be applicable to what is real. And In relation to ontology, 3 and 4 are not the same. To understand this, you need to reflect on how they each relate to the first law of logic, the law of identity. When we take Aristotle's position, #4, neither/nor, what we say is that there is a deficiency in our capacity to identify, such that our terms of description are inapplicable. In other words, the object has not been properly identified to be represented as a logical subject. There is some type of inconsistency which makes description impossible. In the position #3, it is implied that the object has been properly identified, as the logical subject, but a logical description is impossible because contradiction is inherent within the object. So #4 implies that we need to develop a better system of identity, while #3 implies that identity is impossible.

As you can see 18. ~(p v ~p) violates the law of the excluded middle, and the Buddha and Nagarjuna have set their sights on exactly that - they're the Middle-Path guys. But, in classical logic, 18. ~(p v ~p) = (p & ~p) i.e. violating the law of the excluded middle takes the form of a contradiction and this is why I think Zen and Ch'an Buddhism are all about tackling paradoxes which are, to my knowledge, contradictions. — TheMadFool

Like Wayfarer, I'm not good with symbolic logic, but what you say is not a surprise. Aristotle demonstrated very clearly with many examples, why the law of excluded middle must be violated in order to understand what we know as activity, "becoming". To adhere steadfastly to that law allows sophist to prove all sorts of absurdities. The issue is, as I've explained, how we violate it, under what conditions. To determine the proper way requires that we understand fundamentally the three laws of logic, especially the pivotal, most important, and fundamental, law of identity.

The point is, that such an admonishment is an intellectualization itself. Therefore presenting this as you do, is to represent Buddhism as hypocritical. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, maybe I accidentally made a good argument that Buddhism is hypocritical. Not my intention. Further I don't think they make an intellectual admonishment. They suggest other activities. The use koans to overload the mental verbal looping. I am presenting it in a more intellectualized form, but hey, I'm not a Buddhist. But if you think they're hypocrites, I am not upset. Further they don't and I am not presenting this in binary terms. It is not 'never intellectualize' but avoid long forays in it. Avoid focusing on it.

It's only "the pointing out" which you are doing which is odd, not the reaction of others to it.. You are making the conclusion that Buddhism portrays intellectualizing as necessarily wrong, but that in itself is already an intellectualized conclusion. — Metaphysician Undercover

Which I get to make since I am not a Buddhist. Honestly this all seems extremely defensive.

If you would follow the example, which you yourself put up, to "fist empty your cup", then you would see that it would be impossible to proceed to the conclusion that one ought to avoid intellectualizing, because this conclusion could only be supported through intellectualizing. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you can't see the difference between long posts analyzing symbols and discussing abstract ideas
NOT in the context of an expert raising the issue
and a nearly transparent story that is immediately grasped without long posts and references to various teachers and what they said.
Of course that person could realize that they were not in a receptive learning state and perhaps realize that without even intellectualizing it. Just feel it through the mirrored analogous activity the master presented. But yup there will be moments when masters use abstract concepts AND PERHAPS the professor yup, has an intellectual moment, which is part of a general letting go of intellectualizing and reducing it. It ain't binary. But long analytical discussions would be discouraged. A librarian can shush people, even rather loudly (at least they used to do this) and be hypocritical only in an extremely binary interpretion of what they are doing, trying to make an environment conducive the activities libraries were once meant for. Yes, they made a noise. Does that use of noise reduce the overall noise and create a better environment for study and reading. I think it might. If the teacher of Buddhism compassion kills a person for killing a bird, ok, get out the you hypocrite signs.
There are other non-verbal ways such things are discouraged. And sure, most adherents might have a conceptual insight about intellectualizing. If they begin to minimize their intellectualizing, that's a net gain. It's pragmatic, not some absolute moral stance that intellectualizing is bad. Longer sequences of it are problematic. It's what they have discovered or at least think they have and they try to minimize it. I don't think that's hypocrisy if some abstractions come up in the process.
Unless one is some kind of fascist purist - and some Zen Temples are that. Perhaps they live up to the absolute level you seem to think is the only consistant one. They hit people with sticks when they do things they consider problematic. That's more like Pavlovian conditioning.

And yeah, I still think your reactions are odd, or better put, as I said above, defensive. Or perhaps you're critical of Zen Buddhism and you want me to admit I think it is hypocritical also. I don't. My issues with Buddhism have to do with the goals and practice, not with some perceived hypocrisy.

I'm out.

@Metaphysician Undercover :up: G'day