Philosophy Is NOT Your Friend

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophy Is NOT Your Friend

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:20 am
simplicity wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:13 am Even in Zen [your path] there are two main types to cater for different people with different inclinations.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could just read a paragraph or two on the internet and have a deep understanding of the subject-matter?
It is obvious common sense that one can never grasp a deep understanding of the subject-matter from merely reading a paragraph or two on the internet.
Maybe not. But having a deep, or True and FULL, 'understanding', prior, allows one to just read a paragraph or two and to then have the 'deep understanding' of that subject-matter.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:20 am But that is possible if one already have a deep understanding of the subject-matter via having grasped the subject from prior readings and extensive research into the subject matter.
Although you CLAIM to having so-called "extensive research" into subject-matter here, in this forum, it is OBVIOUS that you REALLY do NOT YET KNOW NOR HAVE a 'deep understanding' of the subject-matter. Your continual use of adding the 'proper' word after some words also just SHOWS your one-sided view of things. Which is NOT having a 'deep understanding' AT ALL either.

Your continual TELLING to "others" that you have done "very extensive research" also HIGHLIGHTS your OWN 'insecurities' and SHOWS your attempts at overcompensating for your own lack of knowledge and INABILITIES.

Also, just "researching' into what "others" have learned and/or said does NOT necessarily lead one to a Truly and FULL 'deep understanding' of ANY subject. As a LOT of what 'you', human beings, say and CLAIM is True and Right just ends up being False and/or Wrong anyway.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:20 am If you are referring to my above post, I have done very extensive research and reading on Buddhism and the full range of the subject matter [including Zen].
Which infers ...?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophy Is NOT Your Friend

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 pm
simplicity wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 7:28 pm If the purpose of modern life is in achieving some semblance of happiness/contentment, philosophical inquiry is not going to get you there [although it can point in the correct direction]. I don't know about the rest of you, but in my experience, the intellectual folks are almost always over there in the corner hiding from just about everything [that matters].

The intellect is a wonderful tool for practical matters, but as a portal to something beyond getting the toast right, the intellect has little to nothing to offer.
There is nothing wrong with the human intellect. What's wrong is how philosophers have corrupted it.
What is 'human intellect', to you, EXACTLY?

And, how, EXACTLY, could some people who are just known as and called "philosophers" corrupt 'human intellect', itself?
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 pm The following is from the beginning of an article entitled: "Bad Philosophy—There Is No Good Philosophy"
Well it would NOT take a genius to work out which "side" the writer of this book was influenced to.
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 pm
Image

"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself." —H. L. Mencken
There was NO need to add the last part, and the first part spoke for itself.

Did that one who wrote that EVER explain what 'philosophy' IS, and, what a 'philosopher IS, EXACTLY, to them?
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 pm Bad Philosophers

With rare exception, the entire corpus of recorded philosophy is utterly useless.
Well that is ONE view and "side".

Also, maybe this is a GREAT EXAMPLE of one who was NOT ABLE to read a couple of paragraphs and gain a 'deep understanding' of the subject-matter.
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 pm The only exceptions are Aristotle, Peter Abelard (with reservation) and John Locke (with reservation). All the rest are not only wrong but so distort truth that to be influenced by any of them is tantamount to self-induced insanity.
Well talk about a GREAT EXAMPLE of just how CLOSED some people REALLY were, and STILL ARE, in the days when this was being written.

And, did this one EVER explain what 'truth' they were referring to, which was, supposedly, so distorted, by "others"?

If no, then WHY NOT? What were they 'trying to' HIDE?

Also, it is VERY EASY and VERY SIMPLE to make the CLAIM that it is "others" who "so distort truth" but NEVER actually PROVIDE their OWN (distorted?) truth, to be LOOKED AT and DISCUSSED.
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 pm All philosophers are bad, but the worst are Plato, Rene Descartes, Spinoza, George Berkeley, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Edmund Burke, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer. Auguste Comte, Søren Kierkegaard, William James, Friedrich Nietzsche, John Dewey, Bertrand Russell, Martin Heidegger, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Karl Popper, Willard Quine, A.J. Ayer, John Austin, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Avram Noam Chomsky, Ronald Myles Dworkin, and Roger Penrose.

These are the worst because they have, historically, most influenced what is called philosophy today and are held as authorities in philosophical matters. The philosophy of today, which they spawned and made possible, is a total disaster.
Did this one EVER INFORM 'you' of what IS the non-disastrous philosophy?

If no, then did you EVER wonder WHY NOT?
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 pm The worst of all philosophy today is what is being promoted in every academic institution, including every logical positivist: including Moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap, Herbert Feigl, and Friedrich Waismann; every cultural Marxist: (critical theory, Frankfurt School), including Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Friedrich Pollock, Erich Fromm, Walter Benjamin. Ernst Bloch, and Jürgen Habermas; and every post modernist: including: Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard, Richard Rorty, Jean Baudrillard, Fredric Jameson, and Douglas Kellner.

Finally there are the millions of little philosopherets—every professor, psychologist, economist, social/political ideologist, pseudo-scientist, and religious teacher who dabbles in, "philosophy."
This one appears to NOT YET EVEN KNOW what 'philosophy', itself, IS or refers to.
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 pm Bad Philosophy

Philosophy was originally defined as, "love of wisdom," meaning that kind of knowledge required for living successfully as a human being.
This one here is, OBVIOUSLY, speaking from what it ASSUMES is true, right, and correct, but which, just as OBVIOUS, could be False, Wrong, and Correct.

Also, that could NOT mean what they have CLAIMED it does here.

So, this one is CLEARLY Wrong on one part and COULD BE just as Wrong on the other part. Which is NOT a very good way to start some writings.
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 pm It originally included all knowledge, like the physical sciences.
OBVIOUSLY, Wrong AGAIN.
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 pm As the successful branches of intellectual inquiry (like the sciences) were established, philosophy was refined to mean those aspects of knowledge that were fundamental to all other knowledge.
Did this one explain what 'intellectual inquiry' meant or refer to, to them?

Again, if no, then WHY NOT?

And, just like the word 'philosophy' evolved and was refined to means things, which it OBVIOUSLY did NOT once mean, just like this writer is refining the word 'philosophy' to mean and refer to what it wants that word to mean and refer to, so to have "other" human beings done the EXACT SAME thing.
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 pm While the sciences were discovering the nature of the physical universe,
If the so-called "sciences" 'were' discovering some 'thing', then this infers that they had ALREADY discovered that 'thing', and, unless I have NOT YET been INFORMED, the discovery of the nature of the physical Universe has NOT YET occurred by 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, correct?

So, this appears to be Wrong written also. But if it is NOT, then I am SURE one of 'you' will correct 'me' here.

By the way, discovering the ACTUAL nature of the physical Universe is an extremely VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY thing to do.
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 pm philosophers were attempting to identify the nature of existence itself and what reality is (metaphysics); what the nature of material existence, the physical, living, conscious, and mental are (ontology); what the nature of knowledge itself is (epistemology); what principles determined how individuals must guide their lives to live successfully (ethics); how human beings must relate to each other (politics); and the ultimate nature of purpose, value, and happiness (aesthetics).
Do ONLY so-called "philosophers" do this?

And, did you ever find out what a "philosophers" was EXACTLY, to this writer?
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 pm While the sciences have been phenomenally successful, philosophy is a complete failure.
Well that is ONE WAY of LOOKING AT and SEEING things here.

But, what this just highlights, to some, is just how BLINDED this one REALLY WAS, or STILL IS, by their 'confirmation biases'.

And, if the so-called "sciences" have been, supposedly, "phenomenally successful", then in regards to 'what', EXACTLY? Hitherto when this was being written they have CERTAINLY NOT discovered the nature of the physical Universe. Or, have they?

If they have, then what, EXACTLY, IS the nature of the physical Universe?
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 pm Instead of discovering and explaining the ultimate nature of existence and reality, philosophy denies the existence the sciences study is real and describes reality as an illusion.
Wow this one seems to have REALLY changed what the meaning of the word 'philosophy' refers to. And, it appears they have done so to fit it in with their own, distorted, BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS. Which is just a seemingly "natural" occurrence among 'you', adult human beings, anyway, in the days when this was being written.
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 pm Instead of discovering and describing the nature of reality that makes it knowable, philosophy denies that reality can ever be truly known.
I did NOT KNOW that 'philosophy' could, supposedly, deny ANY thing, itself.

This writer appears to be so sucked into its OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS that it has changed the ACTUAL possibility of things around so much that it does NOT even seem to KNOW what it is saying and talking about here.
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 pm Instead of discovering and describing the nature of knowledge, philosophy denies that any certain knowledge is possible.
Does this one mean that it is "philosophers", and only some of them, who deny that some knowledge, like certainty, is possible?

Is this what this one is 'trying to' say here, or does this one REALLY mean that 'philosophy', itself, REALLY does deny CERTAIN things?

By the way, if ANY one, label "philosopher" or not, denies that 'any certain knowledge' is possible, then just provide a sound AND valid argument, then the discuss would be OVER, as the CLAIM would have been PROVED True, already.
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 pm Instead of discovering and describing the principles by which individuals can guide their lives successfully, philosophy denies there are such principles or reduces them to some kind of mystic mandates or mere custom.
AGAIN, this is just another GREAT EXAMPLE of 'confirmation biases' AT WORK.
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 pm Instead of discovering and describing how individual human beings must relate to one another, philosophy regards individuals as having no value or meaning except as members of some social collectives, from tribes, to states, to mankind.
What is the "must" here in relation to, EXACTLY?

Also, this ones CHANGED interpretation of the word 'philosophy' here completely CONTRADICTS what a LOT of people say 'philosophy' means or refers to. But anyway, each to their own.
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 pm Instead of discovering and describing a life that is worth living and how to achieve it, philosophy denies that true success and happiness are possible and reduces human life to a constant battle against evil.

.....
Is this REALLY what 'philosophy' DENIES?

And, if yes, then WHY do some of 'you', human beings, sign up to STUDY 'philosophy'?

What is 'it', EXACTLY, that these ones want to learn, and KNOW?
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 pm You are right. That kind of philosophy, which happens to be what is taught and promoted in every academic institution in the world, is not your friend. It is the enemy of all reason, knowledge, virtue and human success.
If that is what is being taught, and learned, by 'you', human beings, then there is NO wonder WHY 'you' had created and were living in such the mess that 'you' ALL were, back in the days when this was being written.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Philosophy Is NOT Your Friend

Post by Terrapin Station »

Age wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:35 am But could just 'inquiry', itself, make one Truly happy and/or content, if they are NOT finding answers?
Yes of course it could. Just about anything could make some particular person happy/content. Depends on the person and what they like, their preferences, their dispositions, etc.
After all what would be the purpose of 'inquiry' if one is NOT finding answers nor solutions?
It's possible for some people to just enjoy the process for its own sake, and they'd sure develop/refine the process as they're doing it, which is itself a kind of solution/answer (to what works as the process of inquiry).
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Philosophy Is NOT Your Friend

Post by simplicity »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:14 amSome may think they have free themselves from the illusion and attachments but at the finest levels they are still caught with it.

That is why I stated there is more to 'get it' than just 'get it'.
We're going round and round here, but I do wish you the best of luck in your search. You never know, one of these days something you may have read or thought of might finally "click" and you will transcend the choke-hold the intellectual has on you. In the meantime, enjoy your life and spend time away from the burden of having to figure everything out. Leave that task to the gods.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophy Is NOT Your Friend

Post by Age »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:23 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:35 am But could just 'inquiry', itself, make one Truly happy and/or content, if they are NOT finding answers?
Yes of course it could. Just about anything could make some particular person happy/content. Depends on the person and what they like, their preferences, their dispositions, etc.
After all what would be the purpose of 'inquiry' if one is NOT finding answers nor solutions?
It's possible for some people to just enjoy the process for its own sake, and they'd sure develop/refine the process as they're doing it, which is itself a kind of solution/answer (to what works as the process of inquiry).
You are right in that it is possible for some people to just enjoy inquiry itself even if they are NEVER finding out the answers. But if one is still never finding answers, then what would 'develop/refine the process' be in relation to, exactly?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophy Is NOT Your Friend

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

simplicity wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:17 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:14 amSome may think they have free themselves from the illusion and attachments but at the finest levels they are still caught with it.

That is why I stated there is more to 'get it' than just 'get it'.
We're going round and round here, but I do wish you the best of luck in your search. You never know, one of these days something you may have read or thought of might finally "click" and you will transcend the choke-hold the intellectual has on you. In the meantime, enjoy your life and spend time away from the burden of having to figure everything out. Leave that task to the gods.
I think you are very arrogant and condescending in the above and worst that is from ignorance of the very finer aspects of spirituality plus confirmation bias.

What I have been discussing is something synthetic i.e. incremental knowledge that will contribute to one's 'spiritual' development.

Btw, I have been reading, reflecting on spiritual matters plus meditating [two main types] for a VERY long time. I am not going into the details of my personal experiences but without the details you are not in a position to judge me.

One point is while there a wide variety of meditation practices, it has a core process when it get to the level of the internal brain activities towards its end purpose.
It is like the digestive system which end purpose is for the appropriate nutritional needs of the person where different people with different inclinations and environment produce, prepare and consume different food but the end result is to process the core generic proteins, carbohydrates [C-H-O], fibers, vitamins and other essential elements.

"Get it" is a very personal subjective issue.
Surely Suzuki hand-picked successor would have claimed he 'got it' but then note this;
Just last summer, a book was published that examined in uncomfortable detail the controversies that rocked one of the principal fountainheads of Zen Buddhism in this country: Shoes Outside the Door: Desire, Devotion and Excess at San Francisco Zen Center (Counterpoint, $26, 385 pp.)
focused on the trials and troubles at San Francisco Zen Center after the death in 1971 of its founder, Japanese Soto Zen monk Shunryu Suzuki-roshi, and the subsequent direction it took under Richard Baker-roshi, Suzuki’s hand-picked successor.
....
....
But the most damning accusations involved Baker’s numerous sexual adventures with women disciples, his continuing denials of same and (in a defense echoing the notion of papal infallibility) his resistance to being held accountable for any of his actions.

https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/sex- ... id=2174001

Also note this, Eido Roshi of the Rinzai School which besides other forms also practices zazen of sitting and expecting nothing.
Eido Tai Shimano (嶋野 栄道, Shimano Eidō, 1 October 1932[1][2] – 18 February 2018) was a Rinzai Zen Buddhist roshi. He was the founding abbot of the New York Zendo Shobo-Ji in Manhattan and Dai Bosatsu Zendo Kongo-Ji monastery in the Catskill mountains of New York; he was forced to resign from that position of 40 years after revelations of a series of sexual relationships with and alleged sexual harassment of female students.[news 1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eido_Tai_Shimano
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophy Is NOT Your Friend

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Simplicity,
I suggest you read the following article to note the following on why the avoidance of research on wider knowledge and critical thinking is a weakness to the person[s] further progress of well being and to humanity;

Richard Baker and the Myth of the Zen Roshi
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Cri ... e_Myth.htm
So why did none of Baker's students, as expressed in their interviews with Downing, show any awareness that institutional self-definition encouraged their idealization of Baker, which allowed, perhaps even fostered, the occurrence of many of the alleged abuses? No one took the opportunity to stand back and view the entire affair from any sort of sociological, anthropological, psychological or religious-historical perspective. Nor did anyone even think to view the situation through the lens of the Buddhist teachings themselves or even the particular teachings of their beloved founder Suzuki.

I think this happened because Zen's teaching to avoid words and explanation was taken too literally and has fostered an unfortunate narrowing of perspective.
This is also extremely disempowering which can lead to all sorts of problems, as the SFZC case clearly shows. With one or two exceptions, the only views expressed of Baker's errant behavior among the Center's members was in the context of their personal experience. I assume that Downing would have included a broader view if he had heard it from any of the interviewees.
My point is Soto Zen's principle of not exploring relevant extensive knowledge and wisdom it a weakness that will hinder the greater progress of the seeker.
One cannot rely on one's own judgments of 'get it' even with the confirmation of any teacher or superior who also rely on their subjective judgment based on inclusiveness and exclusiveness without the necessary on rigorous critical thinking supported by deep and wider knowledge and reflection.

There is some benefits from meditation [done properly] in general but self-confirmation of 'get it' can be a delusional conclusion that has negative impact such as those of Richard Baker, and if you read the article Suzuki Roshi did not have "get it" highly moral traits.

It was claimed the Suzuki Roshi was anti-war, but note in this article,
Brian Victoria was so interested in the possibility of a public pacifist/anti-war Soto monk that he contacted Suzuki's son Hoitsu who told him:
"I don't know where all of this antiwar talk comes from, but my father and the rest of the family supported Japan's war effort just like everyone else."

Furthermore, Chadwick told Victoria that when he (Chadwick) had once asked Baker himself about the basis for the claim, Baker replied that he could not remember!

This story [Suzuki as anti-war] appears to be an example of modern day creation of hagiography that will be repeated in the future.
I presume you will not read the above linked articled since your motto is 'no research, reading, etc' thus for you 'ignorance is bliss' which I believe is a net-negative [more negatives than positives] move.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Philosophy Is NOT Your Friend

Post by simplicity »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 6:35 amBtw, I have been reading, reflecting on spiritual matters plus meditating [two main types] for a VERY long time. I am not going into the details of my personal experiences but without the details you are not in a position to judge me.
This is perfect explanation of those who are quick to criticize but have nothing to offer on their own [because they have no idea what they are talking about].

End the conversation here unless you are willing to tell of personal experiences. I am not interested in your quotes and speculation [as obviously you have missed the entire point of Hui Neng's story].

I give you ten [metaphorical] whacks with the Keisaku in order to get you back on your path.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Philosophy Is NOT Your Friend

Post by simplicity »

Age wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:32 am It is. But that feeling is dissipated by not being able to share that understanding, FULLY, with "others" YET.
I've always figured that if anybody can get .01% of an idea across, they're probably doing an amazing job.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophy Is NOT Your Friend

Post by Age »

simplicity wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:33 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:32 am It is. But that feeling is dissipated by not being able to share that understanding, FULLY, with "others" YET.
I've always figured that if anybody can get .01% of an idea across, they're probably doing an amazing job.
Accepted, but getting 100% across is and feels much better.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophy Is NOT Your Friend

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

simplicity wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:30 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 6:35 amBtw, I have been reading, reflecting on spiritual matters plus meditating [two main types] for a VERY long time. I am not going into the details of my personal experiences but without the details you are not in a position to judge me.
This is perfect explanation of those who are quick to criticize but have nothing to offer on their own [because they have no idea what they are talking about].

End the conversation here unless you are willing to tell of personal experiences. I am not interested in your quotes and speculation [as obviously you have missed the entire point of Hui Neng's story].

I give you ten [metaphorical] whacks with the Keisaku in order to get you back on your path.
Resorting to violence? in this case mental as habitualized from your real physical experiences by your teacher? This is why I am very critical of Zen in this regard.

What sort of teachers have been following?
The first thing one learn from a reputable teacher would be not to 'brag' about one's spiritual experiences in public.
I can choose to tell you about the many paths of practices I have taken and ending with an eclectic one, but I will not bother.

What I prefer to discuss is more about the principles involved, the knowledge and critics of various paths. I have read the Platform Sutra many times and loads of other information on Zen, and my final view is I don't give much high regard to Zen as an ideology and practice.

I suggest you read the article I linked above, it is from a very popular Zen site;
Richard Baker and the Myth of the Zen Roshi
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Cri ... e_Myth.htm
It is a critique of the Soto Zen ideology and practices that enable personalities such a 'Richard Baker' to emerge from it.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Philosophy Is NOT Your Friend

Post by simplicity »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:53 am I suggest you read the article I linked above, it is from a very popular Zen site;
Richard Baker and the Myth of the Zen Roshi
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Cri ... e_Myth.htm
It is a critique of the Soto Zen ideology and practices that enable personalities such a 'Richard Baker' to emerge from it.
Have you ever heard the saying, "Burn the Buddha?"

I don't care what anybody has to say or [really] what anybody else did. My practice is my own.

Again, keep reading and reading and reading [for 10,000 lifetimes]...at some point you will realize that it is time to stop reading and start doing. It's the entire point of practice, that is, to bring your meditation into your everyday life.
mikomasr
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 4:36 pm

Re: Philosophy Is NOT Your Friend

Post by mikomasr »

simplicity wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 8:18 pm It is also my appreciation that we humans mis-use our intellect to a degree where it completely fucks-up most people's lives.
This idea is quite prevalent in modern psychotherapy, where there is talk of ’the dictator within’ and the ’problem-solving mind’ which prevents us from simply enjoying what is there to be enjoyed.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophy Is NOT Your Friend

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

simplicity wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 8:48 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:53 am I suggest you read the article I linked above, it is from a very popular Zen site;
Richard Baker and the Myth of the Zen Roshi
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Cri ... e_Myth.htm
It is a critique of the Soto Zen ideology and practices that enable personalities such a 'Richard Baker' to emerge from it.
Have you ever heard the saying, "Burn the Buddha?"

I don't care what anybody has to say or [really] what anybody else did. My practice is my own.

Again, keep reading and reading and reading [for 10,000 lifetimes]...at some point you will realize that it is time to stop reading and start doing. It's the entire point of practice, that is, to bring your meditation into your everyday life.
Based on your own claim that you abhor reading deeply, widely and extensively I can understand your point and ignorance re the above.

Japanese Zen traced all its way back to Hinduism from >10,000 the Vedic, then the path of knowledge/wisdom was already established as one of the 6 main paths to suit the different inclinations of different people.

Japanese Zen which specialize on non-knowledge and a form of 'faith' is merely one of the 6 paths and it emerged in the 12th century was traced to Hui Neng in the 7th century.

I wonder where do you have the authority to judge others when your related knowledge/narrow is so narrow plus your enlightened state I believe is dubious.
This is so subjective and anyone can claim whatever. Surely Richard Baker would have claimed he 'got it' and Suzuki would have confirmed that to hand over his lineage to Baker. But the scandals that Baker was embroiled in and sacked from his Zen leadership is indication what Baker claimed he 'got it' is not a genuine case.

So you being a gnat in that wheel of Suzuki's Zen cannot be that certain you 'get it', thus whatever your subjective feelings is likely to be dubious.
I don't doubt you have had positive spiritual benefits from your years of "just sit". But the results of spiritual meditation is very wide and refined. What you experienced may be 25/100 re spiritual ratings but not the 50/100 or >80/100 ratings that is expected.

I don't think you would understand what it takes to achieved >80/100 ratings in spiritual represent and this is justified with empirical evidences. You will need to research on it. As expected you will dismiss such things, but actually it is your personal and opportunity loss to ignore such knowledge.
You may insist "I don't care or give a damn about such things" but remember this is a Philosophical Forum for discuss of anything philosophical, thus such knowledge. End of the day, it is your discretion to do whatever within limits.

The knowledge/wisdom path is not merely on knowledge alone but it is done in co-ordination with meditation [the core activity]. Therefore before one is enlightened [a vague term] one is seeking knowledge and after enlightenment, one will continue to seek knowledge.

The point here is the seeking of knowledge/wisdom is not seeking for enlightenment per se [enlightenment is not a final destination one arrive at] but knowledge is continually needed to support whatever state one is in.
Example: It should not the end that you can drive and own a Ferrari, but it will much better if you understand the workings of the whole car, i.e. the full mechanics of it, the electrical systems, its performance ability, its other limits, etc. In addition you should learn more knowledge about driving with relevant practice to improve your skills.

Note the famous Zen saying,

"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."

So why not,

"Before enlightenment, read, seek knowledge/wisdom. After enlightenment, read, seek knowledge/wisdom "

Are you familiar with the Zen 10 Bulls Story?
https://medium.com/@slowwco/zen-stages- ... acdbccffd6
The message is the same as the "chop wood, carry water" after and before enlightenment.

"Burn the Buddha" ???
The more famous saying is Lin Chi's
"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!"
That is limitation when you don't read widely.

This is similar to the Buddhist's Raft Metaphor,
the Gita, "Do not be attached to the fruits of action."

To be more sophisticated re the above I mentioned the Doctrine of Two Truths and Four Truths.

Note all the above knowledge will not help significantly in one's core "enlightenment" but merely support it in whatever ways. The warning is not to cling to the knowledge and wisdom, and even whatever 'enlightenment' or 'get it" you claimed to achieve.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Philosophy Is NOT Your Friend

Post by Terrapin Station »

Age wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 12:00 am But if one is still never finding answers, then what would 'develop/refine the process' be in relation to, exactly?
The methodology of doing philosophy
Post Reply