To those who have decided that eastern philosophy is nonsense or cannot be understood: Please don’t waste your time reading or studying buddhism or taoism. There is absolutely nothing there for you.
JT
Excuse the curtness of the reply now. Unfortunately i have a very important interview next friday which i need to prepare (a lot) for so i can no longer spend quite the time on this issue that i’d like too. This being said however let me see if i get this straight.
You want me to find the truth of zen which underpins zen that you may assess its validity.
Towards the end of the text you claim that a truth of zen should be useful to its object.
Thats right no?
thats a fair assessment i believe? I dont think im pulling things wholly out of context. But do of course protest if you think i am.
Now, assuming the object of zen is being, or rather “just sitting”, (“when sitting sit, when standing stand, above all, dont wobble”), then what purpose would an epistemic truth have to this system? As i mentioned, wouldnt it be no foundation at all, but rather, an accessory to the truth of zen? A pretty decoration added to zen? But in no way useful to the actual truth of zen. Wouldnt this imply that the truth of zen is not only useful, but pertains entirely to its use. In what sense then do you wish to claim that it has no use or function? Thus, do i not show that the first criteria is fulfilled precisely in its relation to the second and vice-versa. For in what way could there be a truth of zen independent of its use. The truth of zen is precisely that it is functional. And further it does underpin ‘zen theory’ because its object is meaningful, and indeed attainable. (However, as ive already mentioned, the object being attainable is taken on faith on this side of the stream. But faith only need be taken on for so long. Eventually too it outlives its purpose, and so is naturally abandoned.)
This is precisely the reason i use the wittgenstein quote. Contrary to what you suggest i dont believe he’s making a mystical point in that expression at all. In fact he’s very concrete in what he says. Dont look for a system underpinning the way you use language. This is merely a discussion on language. Instead, simply use it, and use it meaningfully within the game in which it is home.
means that philosophy does not actually interfere at all in the ‘truth’ of the way language functions, it is instead an incidental discussion on the way langauge functions. To find the truth of language we neednt look for such a system, but instead simply look at how we use langauge.
(hence also the point on doubt from earlier. We dont talk about whether the chair exists or whether the book exists - whether its truth conditional. Instead we learn to fetch books, and sit in chairs. We learn practically how to use them, anything added to this ‘conversation’ is of itself ornamental. Hence, philosophy does in fact leave everything as it is. It provides no necessary grounds, for they are already there in the way we use language:
If you then follow his discussion on a private language you’ll see that for wittgenstein zen (or any philosophy that hopes to communicate - regardless of its object), must do so meaningfully. There must be agreement in the form of life - so to speak - in the sense of a proposition. Once again, in not allowing just anything to be spoken zen, far from being a private sensation known only to the trainee, in fact is a social institution with clear means of communicating meaningfully.
Something for instance that cant meaningfully be said in zen is: ‘master, i have found the truth of zen. It is…’ As mentioned before, through the expression, one moves away from the very truth of zen.
Zen, frustratingly, and stubbornly is a saying that cannot be said. But a noumena acts no different. You argue that you 'know what it is from your experience. But i ask you in all sincerity if youre pulling my leg. I put it to you that in fact you dont know what it is. And that you dont know what it is because a noumenal experience is a nonsense. In fact you dont know what it is because of experience. Since through experience you know what it isnt.
[size=100]Yet we come back again to the point i raised, if we only know what it is through the fact that we dont know something, what would be the point of even mentioning it? To say our experience is limited? How so? since we cannot transcend the boundary between noumena and phenomena to establish the very thing that makes it finite, i put it to you that the noumena is unknowable; and it is so precisely because there is nothing on the other side of the boundary with which to compare it against. Yet what does it do to a system such as kants if there is nothing to delimit knowledge? Does it actually affect it? Or is the noumena simply a reflexive grounds for its own sake? What purpose then of the noumena?
To extend the ANALOGY (for ultimately thats what it is - im speaking of zen through kant), the noumena is negatively defined. There is no positive definition of a noumena, precisely because to positively ascribe what a noumena is would be to undermine how its supposed to function. It would make it a total nonsense to say “the noumena is…” Instead we say what phenomena is - or rather where we ‘run up against the walls’ of phenomena - and from this contend that since phenomena rely upon an already given phenomenal explanatory model, then we simply can go no further. We say that what we experience isnt the thing in itself, but its phenomenal representation - its noumenal collision with our noumenal selves so to speak (vulgarly 
). Again though, since we cant experience it in itself at any point, what sense does it have to even talk of an ‘in-itself’?
To sum up: “the noumenal is ‘x’, is a nonsense.” The noumenal is defined negatively in relation to the positively ascribed phenomenal. It is what cannot be talked about without reducing it to absurdity.
Say it was positively ascribed: Das ding an sich? what the hell would that then be? We see the thing, but we’re not seeing the thing as it really is? what on earth can that mean? seeing and not seeing become one. Unless… unless we never can in fact see the thing in itself. Unless the noumenal is never positively defined at all. If you’ll therefore be so kind as to indulge me a little, i believe we have something of a parallel. When the monk asks the roshi what zen is, or what buddhism is he will, if the roshi understands the subject, get the straightforward ‘it is not…’ response.
as in…
Nansen came to see Hyakujo Osho. Jo said, “Is there any Dharma that the holy ones have not preached to the people?” Nansen said, “There is.” Jo said, “What is this Dharma that has not been preached to the people?” Nansen said, “it is not mind, it is not Buddha, it is not things.” Jo said, “you have preached.” Nansen said, “I am like this, what about you?” Jo said, “I am not a man of great wisdom, how can i tell if there is preaching or no preaching?” Nansen said, “i dont follow you.” Jo said, “i have talked quite enough for you.”
or if we refer to the earlier rinzai passage: [/size]
he explains that he is up there at that moment lying to the students about the way. But can do nothing about it since he has been asked (or rather compelled by persistent students asking him wrongly thought questions) to do so.
His whole speech is geared not around saying just anything but pointing out that the way isnt something to be spoken of. And here i believe ASEI to have misread what was actually said (or rather once more, totally understanding what was said but cant quite believe his/her eyes on the matter 
). Its not after all for nothing that he states quite clearly:
His intention isnt to make rational sense of the teachings, but to make them murkier, and more difficult to understand. He is saying in effect that the monks actually have too much faith in reason to ‘solve’ the problem for them. That they are depending too much on intellection to find the way, and so simply fail to understand it at all. Hence why he opens by stating that he should just keep his mouth shut lest people start sticking their feet in it. As he also remarks, there’s no more room what with his own feet now being in there.
Turning back to the purpose of these koans, in neither of these instances is the truth of zen ‘said’ - or positively ascribed. Its certainly negatively defined, and usually so with reason/intellection. But never meaningfully can the roshi turn to his students and say “the truth of busshism is…” As i mentioned before, a monk can present ‘the truth of buddhism’ in a glorious powerpoint presentation to the roshi, but the roshi will just wonder if the monk understands a thing about zen. And rightly so. Yet in neither instance is the monk given directions other than being ‘told’ what the way is not.
So what then of this seeing that cant be seen, or this hearing that cant be heard. Again, the analogy i hope can bear the strain of my acts of horrific cleaving, when i ask what then of a thing in itself? Can it make any sense at all? If you insist that zen is this model (a seeing which cannot be seen) , then in making sense of kants noumena dont you also make sense of the way? Yet i make no such claim. For i am sneaky 
, zen doesnt say there is a seeing that you cant see, it simply says, just look. Be both the looker and the look. When looking, look. Pertaiuning to this problem, nietzsche once remarked in beyond good and evil: It is so much easier to see the approximation of a tree". I believe that may be an example of what the roshi does not want you to do. There is no mystical eye, simply concentration - zazen - being. letting the object speak. Zen doesnt search for some truth through some mystical eye, but instead turns to the world for its truth.
When the monk asks joshu for teaching, and joshu tells him to wash his bowl, he also is pointing out that the way is not some special thing cut off from your life, but is all around. It is to be found even in washing your bowl, mowing your grass, doing the hoovering. The monk in asking joshu is under the impression that there is what you yourself believe me to be saying: a mystical eye to behold the secret truth of buddhism. Joshu is telling him to stop looking in the wrong direction, and look instead to the mundane. Simply be.
What is the meaning of bodhidharma’s coming from the west? Sitting long and getting tired.
or: sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
In simply being one is not attached. One sits when sitting, one gets tired when one tires. As Layman p’ang’s daughter once remarked to her father when he complained that his work was arduous:
What is difficult? when hungry, eat, when tired, rest.
And in a spirit true to thoise words, im off. Maybe i’ll have to call it a day at this point. Ive yet to cover the latter part of your discussion - particularly with reference to community/meaning/and sense (though i do believe i covered them in the part you yourself didnt cover in the earlier post, and have also touched upon them today). And also with your colourful interpretation of the koan 
But good discussion usually involves a final and fair last word from either party, so to speak. So given that i started, you can have the final word for the time being.
However, im also glad that your post following this one stated that probably what we have here is a religion.
You would be correct. I didnt think i was discussing anything else. Now if you wanted to know what japanese philosophers thought on philosophy, say, then you’d really be just re-encountering methods you’re already familiar with, (and in addition it would probably be iin a different part of the board ). Also, i have no idea being, as i am, a little unfamilliar with japanese epistemology (though id like to assume it isnt that much different from western epistemology. But you know what they say about assumption…)
Of course im hoping that by the conclusion ‘its only a religion’, you wouldnt be using that as a means to dismiss it all as worthless/pointless. Theres much to zen that can speak to philosophy. I hope ive at least marked out some of the places where its problems collide with some of our own.
Maybe we just take one teeny weeny little bite at a time.
Maybe if you could just explain what you mean by the quote above, in ONE, and i say again, [size=150]O N E[/size], [size=50]small[/size] paragraph.
Then, I think we have made progress, of course if progress is something meaningful in zen, which I do not know …
if you insist
(Levinas, Otherwise than Being.(2000), Duquenese Uni Press, (pp. 7))
Okay, maybe thats a little ‘technical’ for zen (and possibly, dare i say, a touch beyond even zen 
- if such a comment even makes sense?) So i’ll pull it back and say this instead:
just one more, then im done:
Pardon my intrusion, but I wanted to add a few different perspectives to the table.
I had one Buddhist teacher compare the difference between Zen Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism.
Imagine that seeking enlightenment is like trying to get to the bottom of a deep pool. Now in the Tibetan approach they go up to the pool, walk around it, stick in a toe, “Ah, its cold!†They slowly, gently and carefully learn how to swim in deeper and deeper water. Those more experienced swimmers give a lot of hints and coaching and instruction along the way.
In the Zen you drive into the pool and head straight for the bottom. When you surface the teachers say, “Wrong try again!†Anything your present to your instructor asking, “Am I close?†he replies, “No!â€
Zen was the Buddhism of old Samurai, old warriors. You only become an old Samurai by being very good at not getting killed in battle.
Another perspective, mainly from my study of Alan Watts:
Zen is primarily concerned with getting the individual to duplicate the experience of the historic Buddha, Siddhartha. As such Zen seeks to prevent the student from clinging to what they merely think the Buddha experienced. It seeks to avoid intellectual formulations and abstractions. It is not about understanding the enlightenment experience from a secondary or analytical point of view. As such there are no formulaic teachings in Zen. There is not any abstract knowledge to be gained, only the attainment of your own experience of enlightenment matters.
There is no sacred text to be memorized in Zen. Indeed for many teachers of Zen nothing is sacred. Hence the famous line from one Zen teacher, “If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha.†Avoid getting fixated. Your thought about what the Buddha is only keeps you locked out of directly experiencing the Buddha. You have to let go of that thought, that image, that icon, and that idea to have the direct experience.
This extends to everything. Your idea of what something is keeps you from having a direct experience of it. Zen is a process of reconditioning the mind to stop harmful mental habits.
One of the purposes of Koan training is not just about reaching a particular answer. An important part of Zen training is the buildup of enormous anxiety. You keep meditating on your assigned Koan trying to gain insight into it. Then you present your answer to your teacher who shows you how you do not yet have the correct answer. Then you go back looking for another answer, brining all of your mental activity together in singular focus. This continues until there is a break. Just when it seems as though you will never be able to answer the question you suddenly see the answer. This transcendent experience is the goal of all of that struggle.
Yet this experience cannot be aimed for directly. You would just get in your own way.
This explanation of Zen can act as a major hindrance to its goal. Getting stuck on any explanation of the experience prevents you from actually having the experience. That is part of the reason why many Zen teachings are expressed in such a mysterious manner.
what is the difference between the zen buddhist who has ‘reached enlightenment’ and the student who is on his way? does the teacher simply not have pre conceived notions of things in his way when he contemplates all future ideas? how is it that somebody can reach a goal and then not have any way of explaining the difference in their life that the goal has created for them
“meditating on your assigned koan and trying to gain insight on it” what exactly does that mean
In Hindu philsosophy the ordinary world is merely Maya, an illusion. It is the veil drawn between our mortal eyes and Absolute Divinity. This illusion can seen for what it is only with great effort. Once one can cleary see this ordinary world as a mere illusion then one can have directly see the divinity.
Human beings are essentially not of a different substance than Divinity itself. This is expressed in the Upanishads by the line Atman is Brahman. Atman being the word for the inner essence of a man and Brahman being the word for the Supreme Divinity.
A man, it his essence is identical to the Divine. Not any of his normal attributes, such as his body, deeds, mind, throughs, or emotions is divine, only his essence that preceeds all of those qualities.
The only true of the world is contained in the Divine. Either the Divinity outside or the divinity that rests hidden in our own essence. Once can gain access to the Divine through the worship of Divinity of through direct experience of the inner hidden essence of Divinity.
What is the difference between a virgin and a non-virgin? Or what is the difference between a seedling and a tree? Experience.
Also remember, after enlightenment, there is still laundry to do.
You can say that the Master has no preconceived ideas, but what does this mean to have no preconceived ideas?
If you stopped using words, how would you comminicate to anyone else how to stop using words? How can a locksmith open a door when his tools are locked on the other side?
To parphase Heinrich Zimmer: The best things canot be said; they are beyond words. The second best things are usually misunderstood because they are metaphors taken literally.
And Joseph Campbel expanded on this theme, “The imagery that has to be used in order to tell what can’t be told, symbolic imagery, is often understood or interpreted not symbolically but factually, empirically.”
A Koan is a kind of artificial mental dilemma. It is a question with no logical or sensible answer. Yet the assignment is to try to find an answer for it. You keep asking youself the question over and over looking for some kind of answer, despite the impossibility. This pushes the mind in new and unfamiliar directions.
my excessively ignorant yet self-amusing conclusion is that buddha realized he wasted a ton of time so he says “i did something so awesome i cant even explain it. be impressed. i swear i did not just waste a ton of my time”
whats an example of a koan? one hand clapping? tree with no observer? bah.
Interesting stuff. A few comments/questions:
-
I can understand what you are talking about.
-
Why is it philosophy and not religion?
-
Do you any knowledge of the origins of these thoughts, like at which point in history did these thoughts happened? For example for Greek philosophy we can say that the starting point is in the pre-Socratics and a specific time in history.
You asking me to leap into the void without giving me a reason why I should leap into the void?
At the least show me an example of someone who have made that leap and tell me what happened to him? There certainly cannot be a mystery about a person and his life and his deeds.
Is he someone worth emulating? or has he gained something worth striving for? I read the wisdom of Solomon, and it resonates with truth, beauty and practicality, and I yearn to apply and attain the wisdom that Solomon had. But what of zen? Is there a zen master whose story you can tell me? and whom whould stir in me a desire to emulate or to strive to attain?
Also there are options today. It is not like I like in a hermit kingdom with no exposure to alien ideas, and all I have is this thing called zen. Today if I compare The Way #1 and The Way #2 and if the former make sense and is demonstratable and is useful for a whole host of things, including answering questions of eternal life, whereas the latter is obscured, inexplicable, and risky (in that there are lots of unknowns, unknowables and uncertainty), then what is the common sensical and rational thing for anyone to do? I think the answer is obvious (which of course is a meaningless statement in zen, I suppose).
There is nothing wrong with saying A by stating ~A. I do that all the time.
(There is a working of communication or persuasion psychology here. Because you have to think about A, it comes from within you, and you have less resistance to accepting A than if it is perceived as externally imposed, especially if you have opposed me when I stated ~A. So sometimes it leads to more effective and efficient communication to say ~A when you meant A. It is what Socractic irony is all about.)
Further the quote here is saying that instead of saying ~A with a statement X you say ~X.
So I have to inferred backwards from ~X to X and then discern ~A in the inferred X - if such a process is linguistically and logically possible at all - and thereby arriving at A.
Now even if I give you the benefit of the doubt that such a convolution is possible and secondly that is absolutely necessary for the subject matter, for unknown reasons, I still do not know what is the subject matter being conveyed.
The quotation is merely a formula for saying a thing, without telling me why and under what conditions it is to be applied - and I thought zen is suppose to be useful - but most significantly it still does not tell me what is wrapped in such a convoluted formulation. So if I have learnt to say things in such a manner have I attained zen? Or have I just learnt to speak mysteriously and expect people to revere the nonsense that I spew?
If there is a continual stonewalling about the subject matter, then I have to conclude common-sensically that either there is nothing in the subject matter or even if there is you know nothing about it.
If the subject matter is ‘being’ and I do not know what is ‘being’ and zen is not addressing this question but the becoming instead then I say it foolishness.
Okay then. There is nothing to Zen.
My knowledge concerned the history of Hindu Philosophy is very limited. There are specific teachers and movements and such, but if you lack familiarity with Sanskrit, then it can be difficult to access them. Ancient Hindu names are also not simple for English speakers.
I am most knowledgeable about Vedanta philosophy, which is theistic. Most of the Hindu philosophy that has made it to the West is Vedanta.
I would ask, do you consider the writings of Aquinas to be religion or philosophy? Because I would say Vedanta philosophy is to Hindu religion as Aquinas is to Christian religion.
I’ve thought about this some more and came up with this distinction: Western philosophy and religion start’s with knowing and knowledge leading to understanding. Eastern philosophy begins with intuitive understanding that may lead to a personal knowing.
Perhaps this explain’s why the western mind has difficulty grasping a philosophy that emphasizes ‘not knowing’. The eastern approach is almost 180 degrees from conventional western thinking.
JT
But which ever approach you take, should not the common external measure of anything be the truth? For anyone can say anything about knowledge or understanding, even mad men and con men and stupid men. (And maybe now I am beginning to see the ‘goodness’ of fools, lunatics and hustlers.) How do I tell apart sense from nonsense? So Eastern or Western, Northern or Southern, it does not matter, as long as there is some common objective measure that is humanly meaningful and intuitively acceptable of the validity of one thing and not another.
And if someone who have “grasped” a thing cannot explained what was grasped, what should I think of it? Either that which was grasped was not or the one who grasped is dumb. And nothing is added to the pool of human knowledge and understanding at all. It was all futility.
To me religion is about beliefs and rituals. In some sense Christianity is not a religion, and Science is.
Philosophy is about reasoning, the process of seeking truths, and the justification of what is asserted or derived as such.
So if you just tell me do this and do that and you will get enlightenment, and dont question why, then that’s religion, ie it is any collection of unsubstantiated beliefs and practices. Whether or not such beliefs are consistent within themselves or crongruent with reality are not issues for religion. The more important thing is conformance to practices and rituals.
If you explain to me what is enlightenment, and why it is to be sought, and why such and such a process will lead to it, and justify it as true, and demonstrate that what is thought is systematically consistent and it corresponds to reality, as evidenced by its utility, then it is philosophy.
So the excerpt of Hinduism you have written is religion. It simply asserts what it sees as the world and nature but does not justify why it sees what it sees. Of course we can glean ideas from religion, and assert some as fundamental truths, and then upon it build up a consistent and systematic doctrine of truth, of metaphysics, of knowledge, of understanding, etc. But until then it is not philosophy.
chanbengchin,
From the western point of view you are correct assuming that there is an external truth, which even in western thinking can’t be assumed.
Eastern thought doesn’t concern itself with representations. It isn’t abouta thing, it is apprehending the thing itself. About is knowing, itself is understanding.
I know, more confusion. I’ll try one more way. Eastern philosophy is about releasing all preconceived ideas and thereby seeing that which is directly. Remove the colored glasses. Western thought relies on very precise definitions and careful logical construction. It works from a complex collection of preconceived ideas to find knowing or knowledge from which, hopefully, comes understanding.
Western thinking is about adding on, eastern philosophy is about stripping away.
Having been raised in western culture and having studied eastern philosophy for many years, I find the differences striking. Both approaches have their strengths, but I must say that eastern philosophy, as difficult as it is, has by far had more impact on my thinking. Or is it my not thinking? I always forget which.
JT
Isnt this a preconceived idea itself?
But that’s not exactly my point, which is how do we tell if Eastern or whatever philosophy is valid? If you say that Eastern philosophy is about a thing, perceiving it, experiencing it directly, so then that’s the measure of truth in that philosophy.
I need not judge what you say on some external, possibly irrelevant measure, but by what you say is meaningful to you or the purpose of what you said. If you say you want to go to a certain place, then I judge according to the fact of you reaching that place, or not. If you tell me this is a tool for hammering nails, then I judged the tool according to what it is claimed to do.
Now so if that philosophy seek for something and it failed to attain that thing, what then do I say?
But if you say you have attained the thing sought for in your philosophy but then you only cannot explained what this is or that you cannot described your experiences of it, how do I know you are not lieing?
For I hold the belief, a preconceived idea if you like, that all humans experiences are common: what you experienced I can experience, and thus it is knowable and communicable to me. The language may be imperfect, but because I experienced the same experienced, I can correlate from the bits and pieces, and suggestion and allusions in your language to be able to understand you, even accurately.
(So does zen has such notions? such as of the validity or reliability of human senses? or of the possibility of language to convey meaning? and what is a lie and what is a truth?)
Further even if I give you the benefit that you have experienced something other-worldly, beyond description and mundane common everyday experiences, then at the least you should be able to tell me what you did to attain that state of “highest awareness”. If again you say you cannot tell me, then I really cannot know whether you are lieing or mad.
Again I think the best judgement of Eastern philosophy (or religion?) is to see its effects on people subscribing to it, and actually having faith in it, ie put to practice what you say you believed (which I do not think is a high proportion, given the senselessness of it all).
So lets look at China, at India. And for zen lets looked at Japan. What it is today is essentially a result of Westernisation. What is the contribution to zen to Japanese society and values and knowledge etc. What about specific individuals? Who are the zen masters - real ones and not fictional ones - and what are their life stories? Well you have studied Eastern philosophy, care to share some stories of these? Or maybe ILP members staying in these countries would like to share what they see in their societies, for good or bad, that can be traced to their philosophical beliefs. Or maybe you just share how has it “impacted” your thinking or “not thinking”. (BTW if the ends of Eastern philosophy is not thinking, then there is no need for it.)
There is wisdom - a intutively agreeable and understandable one - that the tree is known by its fruits.
(And I do not or unable to discern the same quality of ‘intuitive truth’ in Eastern philosophy.)
In January of this year (2005) Ippolite, replying to Changbengchin, quotes a story about Joshu in which Joshu says “the real way is not difficult, it only abhors choice and attachment.” I’ve been trying to find the source of this quote. I thought it was from The Gateless Gate[i], but couldn’t find it in my copy. Can anyone tell me where this story comes from? Perhaps it’s from the Blue Cliff Record. (Too bad–I don’t have a copy).
I’ve only just found this forum now, in starting to search for the quote. It seems very interesting, but my first impression is that a number of people here are speaking past each other. Nothing new there of course. I’ll have to dig around a bit. Is there a breakdown according to topics? One member made an interesting comment about the ethical side of phenomenology and buddhist thought.
Thank you all; peace of mind and clarity of thought.