There are literally an infinite number of stimuli coming at you each moment. Do you believe that your brain is taking the time to "think" about all of these stimuli and then figure out what to do or are you just "doing it." — synthesis

One has to see that the claim there is an interpretative backdrop, a "predelineation" in place that defines the world when you are in your daily affairs do not reveal themselves in the explicit conscious event. They are implicit, just as the confidence that the sidewalk beneath your feet is solid to the step in every step you take is present even though you are not explicitly attending to it: You have stepped many times on many sidewalks, the aggregate effect of this making for the current confidence. We have such "aggregate consciousness" in all of our affairs, otherwise we would be like James' "blooming and buzzing" infantile perceivers.
You're driving? Is this some primordial event, or rather: is it learned, practiced and familiar that in the space of the moment only seems immediate?

Facts only exist momentarily (as all things are changing). This means that by the time you are able to conceive of such, then process such into a fact-being, it is already gone. POOF.
— synthesis

Then there's really no point reading the rest of your post. Poof. It's already gone. — counterpunch

You are correct in a real sense, what the point?, but we don't live in the real (either reality or reality), we live in the intellectual human world, and because of that we must "adapt" to all of these personal realities.

If you are able to do this with skill, you become quite sociable. If not, then you have to be either satisfied with your own reality and watch TV, play computer games, read, or any of the other activities that characterize people who don't particularly subscribe to most people's reality (including myself).

One has to see that the claim there is an interpretative backdrop, a "predelineation" in place that defines the world when you are in your daily affairs do not reveal themselves in the explicit conscious event. They are implicit, just as the confidence that the sidewalk beneath your feet is solid to the step in every step you take is present even though you are not explicitly attending to it: You have stepped many times on many sidewalks, the aggregate effect of this making for the current confidence. We have such "aggregate consciousness" in all of our affairs, otherwise we would be like James' "blooming and buzzing" infantile perceivers. — Constance

Says who? Sounds like psycho-babble to me.

You're driving? Is this some primordial event, or rather: is it learned, practiced and familiar that in the space of the moment only seems immediate? — Constance

What you can learn, takes place before your critical thinking mind engages. Once it kicks-in, it alters reality into your personal reality which is simply incapable of figuring out much of anything. After all, how long would it take you to figure out the forth root 35467.94324 to the tenth place in your head? Compare that to the non-thinking mind that can process an infinite amount of information each moment.

The point is that your point is wrong. Facts outlast the moment. I can go back and read your post now - after all this time. I'm not going to, but I could, because the moment of its creation is not the only moment in which it exists. Reality is causal. Every effect has prior causes, which in turn have prior causes. Your argument, that we cannot access the real is clearly incorrect.

I once watched a man driving in a stake. He was some distance away across the railway tracks. He struck the stake with a hammer, and a second or so later the sound reached me, by which time he was striking down again. In fact, light travels faster than sound. In reality, the light reached my eyes before sonic vibrations reached my ears. My perceptions were not out of step with reality. I perceived what actually happened.

A train comes toward you ringing its bell. The sound is high pitched. It passes by and the pitch drops to a lower register. This is because the sound waves of the train coming toward you are compressed - whereas, the sound waves of the train moving away are stretched out. This really happens, in reality. If you did not understand this, you might conclude there were two bells. Yours is a two bell explanation of reality!

What you can learn, takes place before your critical thinking mind engages. Once it kicks-in, it alters reality into your personal reality which is simply incapable of figuring out much of anything. After all, how long would it take you to figure out the forth root 35467.94324 to the tenth place in your head? Compare that to the non-thinking mind that can process an infinite amount of information each moment. — synthesis

The "non thinking mind"? And what is this if not a thought in your head about something you observe. Note that every time you take up something about consciousness, you do so IN consciousness: "non-thinking" is a unit of language you learned, and when your understanding turns to identifying this, it turns where? to more language.
Did you think this was about the mysterious processes that underlie language and thought? TELL me what they are, emphasis on "telling". The point is, at best, observations show that actuality is not a language event, but such things are "empty" to the understanding if the attempt is made to conceive of them outside of language. The understanding is a "bundled" affair in which thought and sense intuition come together, as a piece, if you will. You may, as I see it, posit that there such things apart from what thought can say, speculate, analyze and so forth, and I think this right, but then you will be on the threshold of metaphysics, and would referring to affairs beyond what can be witnessed.

The point is that your point is wrong. Facts outlast the moment. I can go back and read your post now - after all this time. I'm not going to, but I could, because the moment of its creation is not the only moment in which it exists. Reality is causal. Every effect has prior causes, which in turn have prior causes. Your argument, that we cannot access the real is clearly incorrect. — counterpunch

cp, thank you for making my case. Cause and effect. Considering the idea that even the simplest of things is caused by an infinite number of events preceding, how can you possibly understand what brought this event into being? This is one of the reasons why we can not understand anything (and especially why we cannot understand another person). And this has been understood for..ever. Wisdom from every culture includes the idea that "judging" is amoral (because you can not understand it or them).

So I am not denying that Reality/reality is causal, just that we have no access to its understanding.

I once watched a man driving in a stake. He was some distance away across the railway tracks. He struck the stake with a hammer, and a second or so later the sound reached me, by which time he was striking down again. In fact, light travels faster than sound. In reality, the light reached my eyes before sonic vibrations reached my ears. My perceptions were not out of step with reality. I perceived what actually happened.

A train comes toward you ringing its bell. The sound is high pitched. It passes by and the pitch drops to a lower register. This is because the sound waves of the train coming toward you are compressed - whereas, the sound waves of the train moving away are stretched out. This really happens, in reality. If you did not understand this, you might conclude there were two bells. Yours is a two bell explanation of reality! — counterpunch

Why are you assuming that either of those explanations are correct? How about if the wave/particle theory of light goes up in smoke and is replaced with the ding/splork theory? Science is in its infancy, always changing like everything knowable.

I see science as a tool because it gets you part of the way, just like a hammer helps you build a house, it cannot preform all the tasks necessary. You should open your mind a bit and consider all things as part of the whole. I am assuming you are not a religious person, but do you have any spiritual stirrings inside?

The "non thinking mind"? And what is this if not a thought in your head about something you observe. — Constance

Of course it is. The intellect can only point toward meaning, never convey truth.

Did you think this was about the mysterious processes that underlie language and thought? TELL me what they are, emphasis on "telling". The point is, at best, observations show that actuality is not a language event, but such things are "empty" to the understanding if the attempt is made to conceive of them outside of language. The understanding is a "bundled" affair in which thought and sense intuition come together, as a piece, if you will. You may, as I see it, posit that there such things apart from what thought can say, speculate, analyze and so forth, and I think this right, but then you will be on the threshold of metaphysics, and would referring to affairs beyond what can be witnessed. — Constance

Have you ever been in love? Can you TELL me what that is about?

There are things which are simply beyond the reach of our intellect (pretty much everything :). To me, to be forced to live in a world defined by our critical thinking alone truly defines what my mentor used to tell me repeatedly, "Man makes his own Hell on this Earth."

thank you for making my case. — synthesis

There's no need to thank me for giving you an opening for one of your mad ideas. I was talking about the actual implications of causality. If that rings a bell that induces you to drool, it's purely incidental.

Cause and effect. Considering the idea that even the simplest of things is caused by an infinite number of events preceding, how can you possibly understand what brought this event into being? — synthesis

By controlling for causal factors. In medical experiments, for example - half a test group are given sugar pills and the other half a drug. The difference between them can thus be attributed to the presence of the drug. I would have imagined someone pretending to be a doctor would know this already.

This is one of the reasons why we can not understand anything (and especially why we cannot understand another person). — synthesis

I suppose it depends on what you mean by understand. Psychologically, a person is an incredibly complex thing. A person has unique qualities - not least, a personal history another person can never wholly appreciate. That said, we can say that human beings are a biological organism, that they evolved in tribal groups, and there are consequent psychological parameters. We can know there are 206 bones in their body, a cardiovascular system, a nervous system, a digestive system. We know they inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, ingest food and excrete waste, and so on and on. Some people even have a brain!

And this has been understood for..ever. Wisdom from every culture includes the idea that "judging" is amoral (because you can not understand it or them). — synthesis

Amoral or immoral? Do you know the difference? I have my suspicions. It's only natural that I would, but expressing them....being judgemental, is probably what religions warn against.

So I am not denying that Reality/reality is causal, just that we have no access to its understanding. — synthesis

So explain traffic lights. Red - stop. Green - go. People see the signal and act accordingly. If reality is subjectively constructed how is that possible? Your experience must be the same as mine.

Why are you assuming that either of those explanations are correct? How about if the wave/particle theory of light goes up in smoke and is replaced with the ding/splork theory? Science is in its infancy, always changing like everything knowable. — synthesis

Because the explanation explains the evidence. If an alternate explanation explains the evidence better, then science adopts it. That's how science works. Consider this series: the Bible, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein. They each developed theories of planetary motion - each one an improvement upon the previous ones. Each theory explained more, with a greater accuracy of prediction. That's what science has been doing for 400 years; that's how science knows.

Here's the problem with the view you expressed in the OP. If reality is subjectively constructed, why didn't my brain synchronise the sight of the man hitting the stake with the hammer, with the sound of the man hitting the stake with the hammer? Why, if reality is subjectively constructed - does the sound of the train ringing its bell sound high pitched coming toward me, and lower pitched moving away? If reality is subjectively constructed, why doesn't my brain iron out these peculiarities? And why, does someone stood beside me experience the same thing? The only logical explanation is that they occur in reality, and both I and the other guy experience reality as it really is. It's how traffic lights work. Face it; subjectivism is unreasonably overblown. I know why. I also know it will kill us all.

I see science as a tool because it gets you part of the way, just like a hammer helps you build a house, it cannot preform all the tasks necessary. You should open your mind a bit and consider all things as part of the whole. I am assuming you are not a religious person, but do you have any spiritual stirrings inside? — synthesis

Science as a tool - of motives such as yours. That is our doom. Science used as a tool with no regard to a scientific understanding of reality. You are a fool. You are surrounded by technological miracles - technologies that work within a causal reality, and yet you insist science knows nothing - and then tell me to open my mind. It is beyond parody.

You should open your mind a bit and consider all things as part of the whole. I am assuming you are not a religious person, but do you have any spiritual stirrings inside? — synthesis

Very well; consider this. Life sprang into being as a consequence of the action of physical forces on chemical elements. (The first addition to the universe in 10 billion years.) Life evolved by means of natural selection - in relation to a causal reality. The organism had to be correct to reality or it would die out. Its basic physiology had to inhale the air, to extract oxygen, to decompose foods, to provide energy, to send signals along its nervous system, to move toward food and away from danger. The behaviour of the organism - like the way a bird builds a nest, (before it lays eggs; not because it knows and plans ahead, but because all the birds that didn't are dead, because they were wrong) - also had to be correct to reality.

Generation after generation a billion times over, life evolved, each little advantage saved in the genetic bank and passed on to the next generation - before one particular branch of one particular type of primate, about 200,000 years ago - happened upon intellectual intelligence. (The second addition to the universe in 15 billion years.) Generation after generation this animal struggled to survive, to breed, and to learn new things and pass on its accumulated knowledge through culture. Starting naked, with nothing but sticks and stones, humankind built all this using the knowledge accumulated - so that you could take to your computer keyboard, and insist, over and over again that we know nothing, and then imply that I am spiritually bereft because I think science is valid knowledge of the reality from which life springs, and that our species needs to be correct to a scientific understanding of reality in order to survive. I guess it depends on how you define spiritual.

Have you ever been in love? Can you TELL me what that is about?

There are things which are simply beyond the reach of our intellect (pretty much everything :). To me, to be forced to live in a world defined by our critical thinking alone truly defines what my mentor used to tell me repeatedly, "Man makes his own Hell on this Earth." — synthesis

Of course, you're right. I only add that what is spoken is brought into understanding. I can talk about being in love, explain the physiology of it, throw in adjectives and metaphors, and so on, but these just dance around what is in itself, entirely beyond the saying. All things are like this, as you say, not just love, or intense emptions, but everything: my dog and cat, the clouds in the sky, the cup on my desk, and so on.
I claim we live in transcendence, for all things are a presence that is irreducible. This is not a popular idea, though.

I would have imagined someone pretending to be a doctor would know this already. — counterpunch

cp, you need to grow-up. Thanks for the conversation.

I claim we live in transcendence, for all things are a presence that is irreducible. This is not a popular idea, though. — Constance

What do you mean by this?

cp, you need to grow-up. Thanks for the conversation. — synthesis

Your lack of grace in defeat deprives me of the privilege of being magnanimous in victory, you dick!

I claim we live in transcendence, for all things are a presence that is irreducible. This is not a popular idea, though.
— Constance

What do you mean by this? — synthesis

The issue hangs on consciousness having this underpinning that is not available to thought, which is I think clearly true. BUT: the actual generative source for experience can never be observed, for it would require consciousness to do this, and consciousness is supposed to be the object of our inquiry, and cannot be the means, for that would be question begging of the worst kind. So as far as underpinnings, all experience, consciousness, the self, and the like are grounded not in something observable waiting for a more powerful microscope, but in "something" entirely off the map: unobservable, yet the necessity for positing it does not thereby reduce to nonsense. Transcendence is simply there, always already there , discoverable perhaps only in the, if you will, experience of experience, which is a loose way to talk about self consciousness: the standing apart from affairs, observing that you observe, or think or feel, and this kind of thinking takes the matter even further away from familiar thinking.

Interesting. There is no doubt that a great deal is going on outside of our consciousness (and as a matter of pure speculation, I would suggest that pretty much everything is taking place in this manner). The amount of information we are subject to is so overwhelming that there would be no way to process it in a conventional manner, i.e., take in the data, consider the data, come to a conclusion.

Being that I can find no evidence that we can have access to reality on any level, the key becomes gaining the skills to "go with the flow" as best as is possible and I have found meditation to be (by far) the best method for myself.

And I agree that most people are not so happy when you challenge their sense of being grounded in the familiar, particularly when it comes to subject matter such as self and reality.

Being that I can find no evidence that we can have access to reality on any level, the key becomes gaining the skills to "go with the flow" as best as is possible and I have found meditation to be (by far) the best method for myself. — synthesis

A nice practical approach. But if one wants to go into it more deeply, it takes sacrifice. I mean, time reading phenomenology, or meditating two hours a day. Both, I think. But honestly? This entails giving up "the world"! weird to say, but that is what happens when you go into such matters with real, say, genuine intent, for then, the thinking, the meditative revelatory experiences, all pull one to a different gravity other than popular themes. As I see it, few can do this, give up the world. Intellectuals take to the lectern, meditators usually just want to find peace, but to really close down the institutions that fill one's head as a member of society, this is a different course of life. Takes motivation.

But if one wants to go into it more deeply, it takes sacrifice. — Constance

I came to Zen after a very intensive five year philosophical journey that rendered me completely spent (intellectually).

My introductory (Zen) readings suggested two ideas that I have found prescient, the first being that if you are seriously going down this path, you will do it alone, the other being complementary, "To get everything, you must first give everything up."

It's been over three decades now and I can tell you that both have been true for me. If it is the truth you seek, prepare to go it alone. There are very few people who have the energy/will to delve deeply into the philosophical, and almost nobody willing do the same in the non-intellectual.

I came to Zen after a very intensive five year philosophical journey that rendered me completely spent (intellectually).

My introductory (Zen) readings suggested two ideas that I have found prescient, the first being that if you are seriously going down this path, you will do it alone, the other being complementary, "To get everything, you must first give everything up."

It's been over three decades now and I can tell you that both have been true for me. If it is the truth you seek, prepare to go it alone. There are very few people who have the energy/will to delve deeply into the philosophical, and almost nobody willing do the same in the non-intellectual. — synthesis

Yes, that makes perfect sense to me.

The world is a language and cultural construct. When one is with others, structures of language and culture are engaged, reinforcing the reality these create. Pulling away from others is like annihilating the world as we know it, the one of distinct values and conversational possibilities that fill time and interests.

Interesting to consider Derrida, obliquely, that is: to step into a moment in time is to be in a compromised reality, for what makes the mundane event, whatever it is, mundane, is the familiarity, the recollections. It wasn't always like this. When we were very young the world was not so thick with knowledge and experience. But at any rate, to observe a lived moment and to know how the actual encounter is instantly seized upon by recollection, what is clear is that the sense of reality is genuinely compromised by a reified past that clutches on the presence of what is there. And its hold is so strong that for most there is never the slightest clue that the language and concerns the past creates are conditioning the present at all. It all is just one big seamless reality. Meditation is an annihilation of this body of presuppositions that are always already there, IN all of our daily affairs, implicitly.

It gets interesting when the acknowledging of this makes its way into the actual perceptual event and one begins to realize that harbored within one's interior has always been something primordial. Kierkegaard calls this the eternal present. He never meditated of course, but knew how far he was from actually realizing this himself, endlessly self deprecating.

The world is a language and cultural construct. When one is with others, structures of language and culture are engaged, reinforcing the reality these create. Pulling away from others is like annihilating the world as we know it, the one of distinct values and conversational possibilities that fill time and interests. — Constance

One of the issues many meditators deal with is the divide you accurately describe above, that is, existing in the relative (intellectual) when in the world of knowing and human interaction, and The Absolute (or thereabouts) when one is in meditation. As you may be aware, the goal of any structured meditation is to hone your practice to the point where you bring it into everyday life, so eventually the divide narrows.

Interesting to consider Derrida, obliquely, that is: to step into a moment in time is to be in a compromised reality, for what makes the mundane event, whatever it is, mundane, is the familiarity, the recollections. It wasn't always like this. When we were very young the world was not so thick with knowledge and experience. But at any rate, to observe a lived moment and to know how the actual encounter is instantly seized upon by recollection, what is clear is that the sense of reality is genuinely compromised by a reified past that clutches on the presence of what is there. And its hold is so strong that for most there is never the slightest clue that the language and concerns the past creates are conditioning the present at all. It all is just one big seamless reality. Meditation is an annihilation of this body of presuppositions that are always already there, IN all of our daily affairs, implicitly. — Constance

Very interesting. I'll have to give that some thought as it's been a while since I've delved too much into that sort of thing. What I did get out of my readings many years ago was that simplicity is truth, and Simplicity is Truth. The simpler ideas become, the closer to the truth they get, because it is the process of intellectualization that drives them (anything knowable) further and further into obscurity. Peel back layer after layer of meaning, and there is the truth at its core...the quiet mind.

It gets interesting when the acknowledging of this makes its way into the actual perceptual event and one begins to realize that harbored within one's interior has always been something primordial. Kierkegaard calls this the eternal present. He never meditated of course, but knew how far he was from actually realizing this himself, endlessly self deprecating. — Constance

I'll have to go back and read some of his work. Again, it's been a long time but I do remember enjoying his words.

How seductive it can be to attach to a superbly crafted thought or a very beautiful image, but in the end, we must all learn to allow these temptations to go from whence they came and remain quiescent.

One of the issues many meditators deal with is the divide you accurately describe above, that is, existing in the relative (intellectual) when in the world of knowing and human interaction, and The Absolute (or thereabouts) when one is in meditation. As you may be aware, the goal of any structured meditation is to hone your practice to the point where you bring it into everyday life, so eventually the divide narrows. — synthesis

If you bring it into everyday life, then you will live in a different world. And very, very few will understand you.
Meditation makes you into something of a cult of one, for even those who share your interests remain outside. And it is not selfishness, as some might suspect. Just the opposite.

Very interesting. I'll have to give that some thought as it's been a while since I've delved too much into that sort of thing. What I did get out of my readings many years ago was that simplicity is truth, and Simplicity is Truth. The simpler ideas become, the closer to the truth they get, because it is the process of intellectualization that drives them (anything knowable) further and further into obscurity. Peel back layer after layer of meaning, and there is the truth at its core...the quiet mind. — synthesis

I wish I could do this better. But in my favor, I am a bit of a natural. Buddhists talk about detachment and I have always known exactly what they meant. The quiet mind is an openness to the world. I can't say I know how this works with great clarity, but as I see it, to look out into things the sense of "I" is an opaque interpretation and the hardest part of meditation is to undo the self that is "quiet" for we think we know what it is to be quiet but don't. The self, relaxed and controlled, is still tacitly interpreting the world; this is what it means to "know" (Reminds me of Dionysus the Areopagite's Cloud of Knowing. Christian mystics, like Eckhart, were not far from this matter here. One does have to put aside all the Christian metaphysics, same as with Kierkegaard).

I think Derrida is the final philosopher. He deconstructs the self in essence telling us such an idea is constructed like everything else. Constructed in time (time: a concept also constructed, which is the basic idea of hermeneutics). Caputo (See his "The Weakness of God) claims this is where negative theology leads (the East has its "neti, neti" method; the West calls this apophatic theology). I have read that Zen looks at the "space between moments" to identify liberation. They are all talking about the same world, the same encounter, from Husserl to Hinduism.

I am by no means adept in any of this, but I do know what it is like touch on that immaculate clarity and freedom. I take all of this seriously because I naturally inclined to do so. It is like a calling. Much work to do. Worth every moment.

One of the issues many meditators deal with is the divide you accurately describe above, that is, existing in the relative (intellectual) when in the world of knowing and human interaction, and The Absolute (or thereabouts) when one is in meditation. As you may be aware, the goal of any structured meditation is to hone your practice to the point where you bring it into everyday life, so eventually the divide narrows.
— synthesis

If you bring it into everyday life, then you will live in a different world. And very, very few will understand you. Meditation makes you into something of a cult of one, for even those who share your interests remain outside. And it is not selfishness, as some might suspect. Just the opposite. — Constance

Meditation, like everything else, is a circle game. You end up back where you started with a new perspective. One of the last things to let go of is the thought that somehow you are "different." It is said that when the historical Buddha reached the apogee of enlightenment, he said, "I have achieved absolutely nothing," meaning that it was only his ability to quiet his mind that had changed.

Very interesting. I'll have to give that some thought as it's been a while since I've delved too much into that sort of thing. What I did get out of my readings many years ago was that simplicity is truth, and Simplicity is Truth. The simpler ideas become, the closer to the truth they get, because it is the process of intellectualization that drives them (anything knowable) further and further into obscurity. Peel back layer after layer of meaning, and there is the truth at its core...the quiet mind.
— synthesis

I wish I could do this better. But in my favor, I am a bit of a natural. Buddhists talk about detachment and I have always known exactly what they meant. The quiet mind is an openness to the world. I can't say I know how this works with great clarity, but as I see it, to look out into things the sense of "I" is an opaque interpretation and the hardest part of meditation is to undo the self that is "quiet" for we think we know what it is to be quiet but don't. The self, relaxed and controlled, is still tacitly interpreting the world; this is what it means to "know" (Reminds me of Dionysus the Areopagite's Cloud of Knowing. Christian mystics, like Eckhart, were not far from this matter here. One does have to put aside all the Christian metaphysics, same as with Kierkegaard). — Constance

"Burn the Buddha" is the phrase many use to sum-up the situation. The paradox of Buddhism (the religion) is that what makes it so inviting creates massive attachment for most of its followers. The Buddha understood that very few would intuitively, "get it," and created The Path.

I was drawn to Zen because it gets down to the heart of the matter. There is only one lesson in Zen, meditate. Everything there is to get you will derive from your practice. The words are simply pointing the way. You would be amazed at how many people who have been students for many, many years refuse to understand (more that they simply cannot give up critical thought for even a moment).

I think Derrida is the final philosopher. He deconstructs the self in essence telling us such an idea is constructed like everything else. Constructed in time (time: a concept also constructed, which is the basic idea of hermeneutics). Caputo (See his "The Weakness of God) claims this is where negative theology leads (the East has its "neti, neti" method; the West calls this apophatic theology). I have read that Zen looks at the "space between moments" to identify liberation. They are all talking about the same world, the same encounter, from Husserl to Hinduism.

I am by no means adept in any of this, but I do know what it is like touch on that immaculate clarity and freedom. I take all of this seriously because I naturally inclined to do so. It is like a calling. Much work to do. Worth every moment. — Constance

I wish I was adept in philosophy so I could carry on an intelligent conversation with you but it has been so many years ago and its importance has waned. I am a follower of the Tang Dynasty Chan masters (as are many) and Huang Po is perhaps my favorite master of the "shit or get off the pot" style of teaching. I completely fell into line when I read his words...

"Open your mouth and you have already lost it."

I believe the true liberation in Zen (for me) was the realization that not only can you put down the burden of having to figure everything out, but there is nothing to figure out. It's all right there if only you can open your eyes and still your mind.

Meditation, like everything else, is a circle game. You end up back where you started with a new perspective. One of the last things to let go of is the thought that somehow you are "different." It is said that when the historical Buddha reached the apogee of enlightenment, he said, "I have achieved absolutely nothing," meaning that it was only his ability to quiet his mind that had changed. — synthesis

You see, I disagree with this, at least the way it is stated. I won't bring a lot of names into it, but keep it close to simple sense making. Being in love: what IS this? And what is horrible torture? The dimensions of our existence go deep into the extremes. Meditation does not take one away from this into a neutral pain free existence, rather, purifies this struggle down to an essential, palpable joy. Buddhists talk about emptiness, but I have always taken this to mean empty of rigorous interpretative tendencies of being a person in the world. As far as the nature of experience, there was a fullness, a completeness. What one achieves is an absolute nothing in thought and belief, in the distractions that would pull you this way and that, but not in the content: a uniform bliss that issues from one's "Buddha nature" which is always there, always has been, but cluttered with and occluded by engagements, the source of our misery and our foolishness" these are empty for all we can say is thereby conditioned by language and language takes us into the very world of differences we are trying to escape.

And to me, there is no question, meditation IS an escape, it is THE escape; it is death with a pulse.

Near death experiencers are fascinating to me. Never used to be, but lately they are coming out of the closet. And the first thing I notice is that these guys are NOT lying or deluded. Few take them to be philosophically within the bounds of credulity, but they're wrong. I think they have a lot to tell us about meditation, the goal of which is unqualified happiness.

"Burn the Buddha" is the phrase many use to sum-up the situation. The paradox of Buddhism (the religion) is that what makes it so inviting creates massive attachment for most of its followers. The Buddha understood that very few would intuitively, "get it," and created The Path. — synthesis

Burn the Buddha. Meister Eckhart infamously prayed to God to be rid of God. I think he understood attachment in the way you describe. Attachment at the basic level is conceptual and affective, these are joined. One way to look at it: philosophy in its truest form is deconstruction: tearing down the illusions that we know the world. Meditation, on the other hand, and this has to be looked at closely, is the pursuit of affect: we meditate to pursue, not conceptual or propositional wisdom, but a higher, more profound experience or affect, that is, emotion. I know, Buddhists don't talk like this, like Christians talk about God's love, but they are living in the same world and it is just the terminology that is different. Love is just happiness, joy, bliss; and meditation seeks this, off the charts!

I was drawn to Zen because it gets down to the heart of the matter. There is only one lesson in Zen, meditate. Everything there is to get you will derive from your practice. The words are simply pointing the way. You would be amazed at how many people who have been students for many, many years refuse to understand (more that they simply cannot give up critical thought for even a moment). — synthesis

Philosophy is purely pragmatic: just to point the way, as you say, and I think this is right. Jnana yoga is the way of deconstruction, and it does work, but is limited. It can open a door. The most effective philosophy is apophatic, for once one goes through a review of all the assaults on common sense philosophy presents, one is led to see that the world is utterly transcendental, and this can be revelatory. Alas, most philosophers are transfixed by their own cleverness, which is, frankly, fun, if you're good at it. But it goes nowhere.

I wish I was adept in philosophy so I could carry on an intelligent conversation with you but it has been so many years ago and its importance has waned. I am a follower of the Tang Dynasty Chan masters (as are many) and Huang Po is perhaps my favorite master of the "shit or get off the pot" style of teaching. I completely fell into line when I read his words...

"Open your mouth and you have already lost it."

I believe the true liberation in Zen (for me) was the realization that not only can you put down the burden of having to figure everything out, but there is nothing to figure out. It's all right there if only you can open your eyes and still your mind. — synthesis

I have always taken Zen to be where one goes if one is absolutely committed, I mean, solidly on the road to "understanding" at the most basic level. What one witnesses in this path must require extraordinary discipline but what one "sees" must be just extraordinary. Not, I would say, a "nothing" but a living in the pure present. I can only imagine. I have had intimations, which is why I have so much respect for it. There is in this something that far surpasses all other things.

Meditation, like everything else, is a circle game. You end up back where you started with a new perspective. One of the last things to let go of is the thought that somehow you are "different." It is said that when the historical Buddha reached the apogee of enlightenment, he said, "I have achieved absolutely nothing," meaning that it was only his ability to quiet his mind that had changed.
— synthesis

You see, I disagree with this, at least the way it is stated. I won't bring a lot of names into it, but keep it close to simple sense making. Being in love: what IS this? And what is horrible torture? The dimensions of our existence go deep into the extremes. Meditation does not take one away from this into a neutral pain free existence, rather, purifies this struggle down to an essential, palpable joy. — Constance

There are many types of meditation and some are designed to bring joy, but this is not Zen (which I believe gets to the core). The idea in Zen is to simply be with whatever comes your way. Good comes, you experience good, bad comes, you experience bad. No discrimination. The idea is not to be happy or joyful (feelings that create further karma), instead, it is to simply 'be.'

Buddhists talk about emptiness, but I have always taken this to mean empty of rigorous interpretative tendencies of being a person in the world. As far as the nature of experience, there was a fullness, a completeness. What one achieves is an absolute nothing in thought and belief, in the distractions that would pull you this way and that, but not in the content: a uniform bliss that issues from one's "Buddha nature" which is always there, always has been, but cluttered with and occluded by engagements, the source of our misery and our foolishness" these are empty for all we can say is thereby conditioned by language and language takes us into the very world of differences we are trying to escape.{/quote]

Have you ever gotten so involved with a task and all of a sudden a hour went by in a minute? That's close to what it is. Any good feelings you might enjoy are probably the relief felt as the burden of the world is being lifted from your shoulders. Just being is reward enough.
— Constance

And to me, there is no question, meditation IS an escape, it is THE escape; it is death with a pulse. — Constance

Actually, it is the opposite, a portal to things as they truly are (or at least as close as we can get). When you are able to see the truth of the matter, what is there from which to escape? Living without fear means that you can embrace all experience, the good to enjoy, the bad to learn from and grow.

"Burn the Buddha" is the phrase many use to sum-up the situation. The paradox of Buddhism (the religion) is that what makes it so inviting creates massive attachment for most of its followers. The Buddha understood that very few would intuitively, "get it," and created The Path.
— synthesis

Burn the Buddha. Meister Eckhart infamously prayed to God to be rid of God. I think he understood attachment in the way you describe. Attachment at the basic level is conceptual and affective, these are joined. One way to look at it: philosophy in its truest form is deconstruction: tearing down the illusions that we know the world. Meditation, on the other hand, and this has to be looked at closely, is the pursuit of affect: we meditate to pursue, not conceptual or propositional wisdom, but a higher, more profound experience or affect, that is, emotion. I know, Buddhists don't talk like this, like Christians talk about God's love, but they are living in the same world and it is just the terminology that is different. Love is just happiness, joy, bliss; and meditation seeks this, off the charts! — Constance

Some forms of meditation do pursue what you describe above, but if you dabble in the knowable, you must be willing to take the bad with the good.

I was drawn to Zen because it gets down to the heart of the matter. There is only one lesson in Zen, meditate. Everything there is to get you will derive from your practice. The words are simply pointing the way. You would be amazed at how many people who have been students for many, many years refuse to understand (more that they simply cannot give up critical thought for even a moment).
— synthesis

Philosophy is purely pragmatic: just to point the way, as you say, and I think this is right. Jnana yoga is the way of deconstruction, and it does work, but is limited. It can open a door. The most effective philosophy is apophatic, for once one goes through a review of all the assaults on common sense philosophy presents, one is led to see that the world is utterly transcendental, and this can be revelatory. Alas, most philosophers are transfixed by their own cleverness, which is, frankly, fun, if you're good at it. But it goes nowhere. — Constance

Actually, it goes straight to Hell!

I wish I was adept in philosophy so I could carry on an intelligent conversation with you but it has been so many years ago and its importance has waned. I am a follower of the Tang Dynasty Chan masters (as are many) and Huang Po is perhaps my favorite master of the "shit or get off the pot" style of teaching. I completely fell into line when I read his words...

"Open your mouth and you have already lost it."

I believe the true liberation in Zen (for me) was the realization that not only can you put down the burden of having to figure everything out, but there is nothing to figure out. It's all right there if only you can open your eyes and still your mind.
— synthesis

I have always taken Zen to be where one goes if one is absolutely committed, I mean, solidly on the road to "understanding" at the most basic level. What one witnesses in this path must require extraordinary discipline but what one "sees" must be just extraordinary. Not, I would say, a "nothing" but a living in the pure present. I can only imagine. I have had intimations, which is why I have so much respect for it. There is in this something that far surpasses all other things. — Constance

The interesting thing is that most students attracted to Zen are highly intelligent (which makes it more difficult to give up critical thought) and have searched a great deal. The truly committed almost always come from a very serious life event (I lost my son five days after his birth).

It does take a great deal of commitment and sacrifice but the rewards (for me) have been incalculable. Although I feel as if I have been alone for a long, long time (even though I am happily married), it's the price you pay for discovering a way to live life moment to moment, without fear, without remorse, with the goal of helping others along their path your guiding light.