Philosophy Now Forum

The following is taken form the Wikipedia article of the same name:



The Buddhism we understand in the West is too often that simple credulity which prostrates itself before the 'divine Buddha'. But properly seen, Buddhism is not a religion at all but a philosophical method identical to the ancient western tradition of scepticism. At heart, everything we think we know is groundless. All the knowledge we attain through patient rational thought is based on beliefs and assumption - nothing more. What we think we know is indistinguishable from those assumptions that remain unknown. We get out only what we put in - and these are castles in the air and nothing more.

Then why has Eastern scepticism (Buddhism) attracted this label of Religion? Because when the wise see through the illusion of knowledge once and for all, something remarkable happens. Notions that preoccupy the mind are seen as being no more substantial than dreamstuff. The Self, the world, life and death, happiness, sadness, good and evil are seen for what they really are. Just fantsaies of the human mind that exist only in the mind and have nothing to do with the reality we experience.

And so these wise sages find themselves no longer spellbound by the illusions that preoccupy the many. And with these illusions absent there is no sense of needing to rush around doing this and that - the motivation to chase dreams has completely withered away in them. And so they sit still for there is nothing esle to do. That is how they behave. They sit still and just see reality for what it is.

This freedom from passion, this clarity of mind feels blissful - it is salvation from the constant hurried feeling. The eastern sceptics call it Enlightenment, the western variety call it ataraxia. It is nothing special, it is the feeling of joy, expansiveness and well being that all people experience on occasions. But only those philosophers who have the insight and tenacity to expunge their illusions in a thoroughgoing fashion can hope to achieve it as a dominant experience. The Buddha was one, Phyrrus was one, Meister Eckhart was one, Teresa of Avila was another.

So this is why Buddhism attracted the label of Religion. People wanted the bliss for themselves and saw that these sages spent much time sitting and watching (whether in meditation or prayer). But these people mistook the effect for a cause. They saw what they did and turned iit nto so many doctines and rituals. But these sages are not divine. They are merely thinkers who have realised the limits of thought and managed to see beyond. Those who think they can achieve the same state through mere imitation of their behaviour are mistaken. The philosophical tendency is a calling confined to the few. And of the philosophical few a still smaller figure have the sceptical tenacity to reject their precious beliefs over and over again. Socrates saw that there was nothing to know. It is surprising how many of us are afraid to reach that intolerable conclusion.

Western epistemology is presently at that high water mark that the sages of Ancient Greece, and of India and China also reached. Since Nietzsche showed us that without God there is no way of arbitrating between the multitude of equal and opposite beliefs, we have been floundering in post-modern quicksand. But this is an opportunity to go beyond, however daunting it might seem. The decisive intellect sees that there is no way of knowing and nothing to know. So it sits still and sees reality directly and as it is.

From the interveiew with Charles Taylor in Philosophy Now:

"At any given moment, in any given situation where people are discussing things, there are assumptions so deep they’re not even seen as assumptions, because they look so obvious – they look like ‘two and two make four’. The great example that I’ve been battling with throughout my life is the whole epistemological tradition from Descartes. Descartes says in one of the letters that we get all our ideas from the impact of the outside world causing representations in our minds. When he was saying that, he was saying ‘two and two make four’ – an obvious thing – yet it’s actually quite wrong in many ways (laughs). But people don’t see that: they get so into this ‘obvious’ way of thinking that it just never occurs to them it might be wrong.

When you get somebody thinking beyond the obvious, at first you’re baffled by what they’re saying – they seem to be speaking nonsense: ‘two and two is five’! ‘Retooling your mind’ means being able to haul the absolutely unquestioned frameworks up and looking at them, and seeing that it ain’t necessarily so; or maybe it is so in a way in the end, but you have to argue for it in light of other possibilities. That’s a very big change. And before the penny drops, you can be completely baffled by a text where somebody’s challenging your basic assumptions. It looks like somebody’s just denying obvious facts about the world or the mind."

There are always assumptions - and whether thet are deep and undetected, or honestly declared - philosophy cannot work without assumptions. This is the starting point of Buddhism.

Interesting article.

I'd have to have explained why the Buddha sat first if he'd already reached Enlightenment?

I'd have to understand how it possible to, "Investigate, analyze and see for yourself" if there is nothing to "Investigate, analyze and see for yourself"?

I'd also have to understand how, "The decisive intellect sees that there is no way of knowing and nothing to know." knows this?

And why is this, "The decisive intellect sees that there is no way of knowing and nothing to know.", not post-modern nonsense?

As far as I can tell from this article the answer to "How do you know?" appears to be you don't?

Personally I think this kind of stuff is exactly the kind of "post-modern nonsense" that Westerners apply to Buddhism so that they do not have to actually live the Eightfold path and the Noble truths which, to my mind, are exactly the 'arbitrators' used to solve Nietzsches moral problem.

It's statements like this that makes me want to know more. Got links?

Nope as its my idea. The best I can do is say that the Path and the Truths are obviously an ethical and moral belief system that you are meant to follow. Hence no problem with how to choose between "equal and opposite" beliefs.

Arising,

You ask some interesting questions, which I don't have time for now but will reply to.



Alright then - what exactly constitues Right Livelihood (one of the eightfold path)? Try and define this term and you will end up with the multiplicity of opinions that Nietzsche talked about.



If you had any idea of the debates that rage in Buddhist Philosophy over this then you wouldn't think it obvious at all. Post-modern relativity is not a western phenomenon but is an intellectual thread that runs through millenia of Hindu and Chinese philosophy.

Anyway, speak later

Nikolai

I believe that it can truthfully be said that the ultimate realization of both Christianity and Buddhism is to awaken the Unconscious to the Conscious. Man is always living in delusion / ignorance until the moment the Unconscious becomes Conscious. This Unconscious is not to be confused with the psychological unconscious. This indeed is the exact moment that man finally realizes within himself the truth of knowing his true being or self. He has finally realized within his own being his own personal answer to the long ago command given to man, "Know Thy Self."

I'm not sure how that holds for Christianity at all. For me you have a path and on one side is the fall into materialism and on the other is the fall into spiritualism. The best I can make of the phrase know thy self in a Christian context is that you will know thy self best when you know God. Do you mean that a Christian goes from unconscious to conscious when they realise who God is and who we are and what that means about what we should be doing?

This is what I mean. Are you asking what is "harm" in relation to ones livelihood? If so, I'd guess that meditating upon it whilst sitting would be a better approach than trying to define it? I'd guess that judging the "harm" by the other seven may help, but if faced with only evenly bad choices then I guess the robe&bowl may be an option.
I reckon the Buddha would laugh very loud at the idea of 'debates raging'. Or maybe not.
p.s.
By definition I think "Post-modern relativity" is exactly a 'western' phenomenon.

It's like the neighbours are devaluing the property so we can be rezoned into a new suburb please. If you want to claim Buddhism is skepticism then why all the 'woo woo' aspects of Buddhism such as meditation, zen, yin/yang. Call it skepticism, call yourself a philosopher and drop the Buddhism.



That answer didn't even remotely answer the question you posed.



Also notice the value adding going on. What wisdom is there in believing in nothing? So you claim that recognising that we don't need to rush around is the essence of the wisdom? Why can't another Buddhist enjoy running around? Why is sitting around better?

And there it is. The freedom from passion. Great big empty lives wasting away rather than sucking up life and being passionate and you made the choice to be a Buddhist? No wonder you are going to die. Given life you choose not life.

Further notice the insult you level against everyone else, "only those philosopher who have the insight". I am a highly competent skeptic (I have in various threads agreed with you that I don't see why SGR couldn't see your skeptical point) and yet I thoroughly endorse Christian views. My eyes are wide open.



Why not join the insurgent philosophy forum? I challenge anyone to take the above paragraph and quote it in a new thread as if it was from RU or Satyr and see what happens. The language becomes identical. One path, two sides, pick which side you want to fall from.

How does that follow? That sitting still allows you to see reality as it is. There isn't an aspect of reality as an illusion that you know clearer than I and yet I am clearly denying and against your philosophy.

The only truth I would take from this is that philosophy and religion are almost synonymous.



It beggars belief that one takes examples of challenging fundamentals and finding new ways of arriving at an issue to claiming that we can know nothing. I feel you totally misrepresent Charles Taylor by claiming his view as Buddhist. The work performed in challenging assumptions has been amongst the most valuable work performed throughout human history. To them claim that as Buddhist is absurd.

Skepticism is a tool not an end. It's the water you pour onto the clay to find the gems beneath. Buddhism is the direct opposite of skepticism as the Buddhist surrenders reality by throwing out the gems the skeptic was searching for.

Hi Nikolai,

I am very pleased and glad that you are searching deeper into Buddhism and I hope that you will come to see the deep Wisdom of Zen Buddhism in particular.

Jack

Nikolai,

This is excellent.

Jack

I totally agree

Jack

I would say that Right Livelihood is to live or be attempting to live in communion with the truth of ones own being and the truth of all being. There is only one way and no other in which man can live in that communion and that is Love.

Hi Arising,

I've changed the format of the OP in case you didn't realise that the first part was from wikipedia and the second part was from me.



There are two ways to talk about enlightenment and these often get conflated in a way that is confusing. Absolutely speaking everyone is already enlightened and perfect as they are - and there is no God's eye perspective to distinguish emlightened states from others. It is in this sense that the Buddha was already enlightened - as are you and I. But in opposition to this stands the relative perspective - a perspective that requires the assumption that freedom from suffering is a desirable aim common to all sentient beings. If we assume this to be the case (and this is just an assumption) then we are able to interpret the Buddha's sitting as being goal-orientated.

But, and here is the insight that is only gained through experience of meditation. When you meditate, the mind becomes so absorbed on the here-and-now that that relative goal-orientated perspective disappears. Meditation is enlightenment because meditation is the absence of the sense that the here-and-now is falling short of some imagined goal.

So why did the Buddha sit? From the relativist persepctive it is to reach something better than the here and now. From the absolute perspective he sits because he is already enlightened. If you relaise the contingency of both these explanation, like a good sceptic, then you will find yoursleves refraining from, or needing, an explanation altogether. This is the Middle Way which is quite empty of explanation - ieverything just is as it is!



While most philosophers have experienced how they their theories seem to result in paradox if followed far enough, the commonest response is to reject the paradox as being some kind of error. They therefore construct their theories in such a way that the paradox remains unseen by assuming one half of the paradox and ignoring the other, contradicotry, half. That done, thought can proceed, and often at such a pace that large and impressive structures result. Most people don't investigate these structures at all - they just accept them. The common philosopher investigates them, but often with the view of confirming them - they never investigate them to their very foundations (see Charles Taylor quote above).

When you do investigate them you see quite clearly that the paradoxical foundations cannot be resolved by reason - as the paradox represents two equal arguments. Freedom and determinism is a really good example of concepts that appear to stand indepedently but in actual fact are equivalent - and even define each other. You cannot assert one without the other, and you cannot call a man free without also saying that he is determined.

So what is he then? Free? Determined? Both? Neither? Actually none of these positions can be justified? So what do we do? The wise man will become disinterested in debates that he can see cannot ever be satisfactorily settled. His philosophical acumen has made him distrustful of philosophy. He is content to just see rather than think and interpret. And what does he then find? Meditative awareness on the here-and-now will banish the specualation on past and present that characterises the free will debate. The more a sage lives in the here and now he will see that the probelms that once preoccupied him are not only intractable, but also completely meaningless to him who dwells in the here and now where cause and effect do not exist..



I don't understand why some people spend their lives pre-occupied with insolvable questions, and others are able to transcend them completely. I ultimately couldn't explain why some people are born as geniuises as some with learning disabilities? I don't uderstand why some people thrive against all the odds, and others flouder in the most seemingly auspicious circumstances. Yes, we could say that's it all about genes but that doesn't explain it ultimately - it just provides us with another descriptor.

Nobody understands these questions - the wise see them as intractable and ignore them.



You are assuming that post-modernity's nonsense is something undesirable. Yes, its intolerable nonsense to the rationalist - but I see a different kind of purpose to it. I think the unsatisfactoriness of post-modern texts impel us to reject reason and employ different means of knowing and being. Just to reiterate, post-modern arguments occur throughout Eastern philsophy and you would be misguided in thinking that post-modern thinkers distort Buddhism. Texts like the Zhuang-tzu and the Tao Te Ching can seem like utter nonsense to the arch-rationalist, but can be highly illuminating to those who see the world differently. To understand with all your heart and mind that long and short are the same, as the Tao Te Ching tells us, is a revelation about the world.



Because you assume free will, you have no problem with the eightfold path as some kind of guide to follow. In this you show a one-sided view of both the debate on the ethical life, as well as a complete ignorance of how the eightfold path has been understood around the world. To view the path as descriptive is by no means a western idiosyncracy I can absolutely assure you. Anyway, I've tried to tell you this before and you obviously didn't listen - this is clearly an unusual idee fixe with you.

And if you think that the eightfold path solves Nietzsche's perspectivism I can't think what planet you're on!


Best wishes, Nikolai