Polysyllabic perhaps, but elegant nonetheless and worth the lingering read:
In short my liberty does not reside in the absence of all causation geared onto my organism, but in the perfect equivalence in me between that which is caused and that which causes it, between that which is conditioned and the Principle [Reality] which conditions it. If, at the moment at which I attain Realisation, I cease to be constrained, it is not because that which was constraining me has been wiped out, but because that which was constraining me has expanded infinitely and has coincided with the totality in which Self and Not-Self are one, in such a way that the word 'constraint' has lost all sense.
Failing the understanding of that, the natural [pre-realisation] man fatally envisages an act of free-will as an act of fantasy, gratuitous, arbitrary, connected with nothing, and he ends up thus at an absurdity, at that which no longer has any meaning. This illusory liberty . . . chimerically excludes our organism from the rest of the cosmos and thus contains an internal contradiction which wipes it out. In a book on Zen that appeared recently a Western author affirms that the man liberated by satori can do anything in any circumstances; but this is radically contrary to a true understanding, for the man liberated by satori can only perform one single action in a given circumstance. He can no longer do anything but the action that is totally adequate to that circumstance; and it is in the immediate, spontaneous elaboration of this unique adequate action that the enjoyment of the perfect liberty of this man lies.
Hubert Benoit
"Liberty as Total Determinism"
from Zen and the Psychology of Transformation
Hubert Benoit wrote:He can no longer do anything but the action that is totally adequate to that circumstance; and it is in the immediate, spontaneous elaboration of this unique adequate action that the enjoyment of the perfect liberty of this man lies.
There are some problems with this line of thinking. Finding peace in the deep understanding all our acts are caused is not liberation itself but acts for many more like a much needed sedation. The 'Man liberated by Satori' ('the new man' or whatever) does not come to bring or enjoy peace but he comes to bring the sword. No traces of comfort nor 'enjoyment' in there. He has become a spiritual terrorist and the 'adequate' actions are destruction, uprooting and renewal. Those are the adequate actions left to him and his wisdom in this world, eventually.
The 'Man liberated by Satori' ('the new man' or whatever) does not come to bring or enjoy peace but he comes to bring the sword. No traces of comfort nor 'enjoyment' in there. He has become a spiritual terrorist and the 'adequate' actions are destruction, uprooting and renewal.
Diebert, your comments bring up the same opposing views of satori I see argued elsewhere as well -- one that aligns itself (somewhat) with the peace of David's buddhamobile-in-space and one that fashions itself more along the warrior "terrorist" type lines.
In the peace case, alignment with reality assumes there would be nothing left to slash at - inside or out - unless it be reality itself to which one is wielding the sword (?). There is no need to be slashing even at the deluded, because they have expanded into this picture as well as deluded (what they are), and there is no longer any need to slash at oneself because the mechanisms of delusion have been assumed to have been removed.
In the warrior-terrorist type of "result" it is as you describe: psychic war, rather than peace continues and expands outward -- which indeed poses a dare to the daring and makes no promises for relief from this at all. One now assumes the roles of both Shiva and Vishnu - creator and destroyer. In this sense, the appeal to consciousness raising has the flavor of a chicken-run where only the brave may apply, and this identity, if you will, becomes an end in itself. One is forever and anon heading for the cliff, clenched hand on the door of their vehicle. This view does not remove any suffering and it makes no promises to, either. You will be on campaign, crusade, for life.
My problem with the latter is that it seems to still require a kind of clinging; it seems to appeal to another ego-sense - particularly the type that is already attracted to warrior-style personality and war-like missions. It potentially creates a safehouse where any summarily lashing comments can be mistaken for "ways to the truth" and any complaining asshole can sound well-upon the "path." I see a fair number of people get "stuck" in this mind-set, thinking: I will slash at delusion wherever I see it and this will make me wise, enlightened. Another problem with it I have is I cannot find anything commensurate to it in anything the spokesperson for buddhism/enlightenment ever said. It seems to be one that makes its most frequent appearance in western culture and western thinkers.
Why are you asking him to “correct†your impressions?
What does that mean??? Does it mean you suspect you are talking shit and are better off for so suspecting?
I am asking Diebert if I've read his characterization rightly from my response that follows. Some people blow off mis-impressions as not-worth the trouble. I'm asking direct that he don't.
To hell with cowboy-reactivity in philosophy. Let's all get together and phrase things the way you like. The way Faizi likes. The way anyone who just can't pass up a chance to let everyone know of their personal irritation and demand attention to same.
Let's all get together and phrase things the way you like.
Thanks, that'd be great. See, I'm uneducated and ignorant. I don't know half the names and, therefore, ideas of the people you mention.
However, I did not see one sign of "misimpression" in your reply. I saw you telling Diebert what you thought. Like this, for example:
There is no need to be slashing even at the deluded, because they have expanded into this picture as well as deluded (what they are), and there is no longer any need to slash at oneself because the mechanisms of delusion have been assumed to have been removed.
Pye wrote:Diebert, your comments bring up the same opposing views of satori I see argued elsewhere as well -- one that aligns itself (somewhat) with the peace of David's buddhamobile-in-space and one that fashions itself more along the warrior "terrorist" type lines.
Not sure about that specific opposition. Could you describe what your impression is of David's "buddhamobile peace" compared for example to Benoit?
In the peace case, alignment with reality assumes there would be nothing left to slash at - inside or out - unless it be reality itself to which one is wielding the sword (?).
Unless indeed "all things come into being and pass away through strife" (Heraclitus)
There is no need to be slashing even at the deluded, because they have expanded into this picture as well as deluded (what they are), and there is no longer any need to slash at oneself because the mechanisms of delusion have been assumed to have been removed.
Not sure why you bring up "slashing at deluded". Why would you assume the removal of the "mechanisms of delusion" and stop there? Which mechanisms would still be intact? Life? This seems quite a partial expansion and removal.
In this sense, the appeal to consciousness raising has the flavor of a chicken-run where only the brave may apply, and this identity, if you will, becomes an end in itself. One is forever and anon heading for the cliff, clenched hand on the door of their vehicle. This view does not remove any suffering and it makes no promises to, either. You will be on campaign, crusade, for life.
Why would the identity become an end in itself? I don't see the necessity you imply.
My problem with the latter is that it seems to still require a kind of clinging; it seems to appeal to another ego-sense - particularly the type that is already attracted to warrior-style personality and war-like missions.
Of course, every identity has its clingers. The peaceful silent Buddha under a tree, as well the razor sharp destroyer-shark. That's why teachers will show peace and inactivity when everyone else is running and fighting but when everyone is clinging to peaceful and meditational states, he will run, annoy and fight instead. Blowing up one or two things.
I see a fair number of people get "stuck" in this mind-set, thinking: I will slash at delusion wherever I see it and this will make me wise, enlightened.
As long as they don't forget to slash that mind-set too, where's the problem? It's an active principle. With more passive principles what's the chance unless someone else slashes them?
Another problem with it I have is I cannot find anything commensurate to it in anything the spokesperson for Buddhism/enlightenment ever said. It seems to be one that makes its most frequent appearance in western culture and western thinkers.
Buddhism has developed already from the start a very passive, introverted slant to all its own teachings. Perhaps this can be said for most populist movements born out of a sound philosophy - a "don't rock the boat" knee-jerk muffling of truth and truthsayers.
Zen, in my opinion, is the highest expression of Buddhism. It is the most intellectual, the most aggressive and the most direct. It focuses solely upon the core matter of breaking through into enlightenment, and pours scorn on all who back away from this critical task.
The 18 century Japanese Zen Mater, Hakuin, was a prime example. Here is what he said in The Importance of Kensho:
The Importance of Kensho
At present, we are infested in this country with a race of smooth-tongued, worldly-wise Zen teachers who feed their students a ration of utter nonsense. "Why do you suppose Buddha-patriarchs through the ages were so mortally afraid of words and letters?" they ask you. "It is," they answer, "because words and letters are a coast of rocky cliffs washed constantly by vast oceans of poison ready to swallow your wisdom and drown the life from it. Giving students stories and episodes from the Zen past and having them penetrate their meaning is a practice that did not start until after the Zen school had already branched out into the Five Houses, and they were developing into the Seven Schools. Koan study represents a provisional teaching aid which teachers have devised to bring students up to the threshold of the house of Zen so as to enable them to enter the dwelling itself. It has nothing directly to do with the profound meaning of the Buddha-patriarchs' inner chambers."
An incorrigible pack of skinheaded mules has ridden this teaching into a position of dominance in the world of Zen. You cannot distinguish master from disciple, jades from common stones. They gather and sit - rows of sleepy inanimate lumps. They hug themselves, self-satisfied, imagining they are the paragons of the Zen tradition. They belittle the Buddha- patriarchs of the past. While celestial phoenixes linger in the shadows, starving away, this hateful flock of owls and crows rule the roost, sleeping and stuffing their bellies to their hearts' content.
If you don't have the eye of kensho, it is impossible for you to use a single drop of the Buddha's wisdom. These men are heading straight for the realms of hell. That is why I say: if upon becoming a Buddhist monk you do not penetrate the Buddha's truth, you should turn in your black robe, give back all the donations you have received, and revert to being a layman.
Don't you realize that every syllable contained in the Buddhist canon - all five thousand and forty-eight scrolls of scripture - is a rocky cliff jutting into deadly, poison-filled seas? Don't you know that each of the twenty-eight Buddhas and six Buddhist saints is a body of virulent poison? It rises up in monstrous waves that blacken the skies, swallow the radiance of the sun and moon, and extinguishes the light of the stars and planets.
It is there as clear and stark as could be. It is staring you right in the face. But none of you is awake to see it. You are like owls that venture out into the light of day, their eyes wide open, yet they couldn't even see a mountain were it towering in front of them. The mountain doesn't have a grudge against owls that makes it want to hide. The fault is with the owls alone.
You might cover your ears with your hands. You might put a blindfold over your eyes. Try anything you can think of to avoid these poisonous fumes. But you can't escape the clouds sailing in the sky, the streams tumbling down the hillsides. You can't evade the falling autumn leaves scattering spring flowers.
You might wish to enlist the aid of the fleetest winged demon you can find. If you plied him with the best of food and drink and crossed his paw with gold, you might get him to take you on his back for a couple of circumnavigations of the earth. But you would still not find so much as a thimbleful of ground where you could hide.
I am eagerly awaiting the appearance of some dimwit of a monk (or barring that, half such a monk) richly endowed with a natural stock of spiritual power and kindled within by a raging religious fire, who will fling himself unhesitatingly into the midst of this poison and instantly die the Great Death. Rising from that Death, he will arm himself with a calabash of gigantic size and roam the great earth seeking true and genuine monks. Wherever he encounters one, he will spit in his fists, flex his muscles, fill his calabash with deadly poison and fling a dipperful of it over him, drenching him head to foot, so that he too is forced to surrender his life. Ah! what a magnificent sight to behold!
The Zen priests of today are busily imparting a teaching to their students that sounds something like this:
"Don't misdirect your efforts. Don't chase around looking for something apart from your own selves. All you have to do is to concentrate on being thoughtless, on doing nothing whatever. No practice. No realization. Doing nothing, the state of no-mind, is the direct path of sudden realization. No practice, no realization - that is the true principle, things as they really are. The enlightened ones themselves, those who possess every attribute of Buddhahood, have called this supreme, unparalleled, right awakening."
People hear this teaching and try to follow it. Choking off their aspirations. Sweeping their minds clean of delusive thoughts. They dedicate themselves solely to doing nothing and to making their minds complete blanks, blissfully unaware that they are doing and thinking a great deal.
When a person who has not had kensho reads the Buddhist scriptures, questions his teachers and fellow monks about Buddhism, or practices religious disciplines, he is merely creating the causes of his own illusion - a sure sign that he is still confined within samsara. He tries constantly to keep himself detached in thought and deed, and all the while his thoughts and deeds are attached. He endeavors to be doing nothing all day long, and all the while he is busily doing.
But if this same person experiences kensho, everything changes. Although he is constantly thinking and acting, it is totally free and unattached. Although he is engaged in activity around the clock, that activity is, as such, non-activity. This great change is the result of his kensho. It is like water that snakes and cows drink from the same cistern, which becomes deadly venom in one and milk in the other.
Bodhidharma spoke of this in his Essay on the Dharma pulse:
If someone without kensho tries constantly to make his thoughts free and unattached, he commits a great transgression against the Dharma and is a great fool to boot. He winds up in the passive indifference of empty emptiness, no more able to distinguish good from bad than a drunken man. If you want to put the Dharma of non- activity into practice, you must bring an end to all your thought-attachments by breaking through into kensho. Unless you have kensho, you can never expect to achieve a state of non-doing.
***
One of the advantages of this kind of Zennish aggressive warrior-type activity is that it tends to attract only those who are truly serious about becoming enlightened and scares away all the rest. Zen, as a social movement, only became corrupted when its leaders backed down from this kind of aggressiveness, and passively and unwittingly allowed the more flakey elements of the population in. Nowadays, it's completely corrupted, at least in the West.
It appears from his writings on ideal genius, that Weininger successfully deciphered self-nature, his conscious "I," but with little grasp of its sustainable potency, he rapidly succumbed to superstition, and perished as a result. Nietzsche, while insane, attempted a correspondence to a close friend, saying something to the effect: "I would have much rather moved back to Basel to teach philosophy, than to have become God." The tragic plight of both philosophers further illustrates the importance and authority of supreme enlightenment.
From Wicki:
The Kensho experience
In Kensho, one experiences the illusionary nature of the separate self ("I"). Because of the nature of the mind, any perception seems to involve a perceived object, the process of perception, and a perceiving subject. For example, 'I see you': I - the subject (which appears to be separate from the perceived objects), see - the process of perception, you - the object. Trying to find the "I," the subject, through introspection leads to the realisation that this "I" is completely dependent on the process of perception, the associated thought/feeling complex, and the memories tied to them.
While Kensho is good as a process for setting the mind to begin to understand reality, as it points to the non-separatedness and interconnectedness of all things, it is not the full reality in relation to the “selfâ€.
Like all things the self is both separate and not separate. It is not inherently separate but while it exists it contains a degree of intrinsic separateness. It is not inherently separate because it is not at any time self-caused, but at the same time it is intrinsically separate because it is a meeting point of other causes, it is formed by other causes and interconnected with other causes, but is not those other causes, not those other things. It is physically hollow, it has no property apart from this hollowness which is the cause of its innate ability to cause other causes to have a certain configuration of casual force flow.
Lol…my theory of Universal Duality raises its head yet again. (my theory is simply that Expansion and Contraction forces are all that exists, and that these causes are intrinsic and tandemly self-causing – one causes the other at all times. Their interaction, being the ultimate in dualistic differentiation, causes spatial dimensions, time, movement, creation and destruction, things).
The former part of the above bolded sentence “It is not inherently separate because it is not self-caused†is akin to the basic Expansionary Force of nature, the Shiva-Yang creationary side of reality, the spatially infinite, the unbounded. It is the side of “the many causesâ€. It is the never-ending cause of the movement of the universe, the infinity causing agent - only something with the property of continual expansion can do this, however in order to create “thingness†or patterns of like or compatible force flows it must work always in concert with its opposite - the force of Contraction.
The latter part “it is intrinsically separate because it is a meeting point of other causesâ€, is a representation of the Contracting Force. It is the finite amongst the infinite, the effects amongst the causes. It is Vishnu-Yin, it is the one created from the combination of causal parts of many. It is the effect in the centre caused by the surrounding causes, the centre of gravity (or in the case of the mind mental gravity). It is the stable centre, whose very emptiness in comparison to the expansionary force, is what binds the surrounding causes into “oneâ€, and then into larger grouped casual flows, and so on. It is the thing that is the necessary opposite to its causes. Being opposite to its causes makes it intrinsically separate. It is the bottom of the perfect cone or the top of the pyramid, the centre of the whirlpool, the black hole in the galaxy, the bottomless pit, the emptiness that can never be filled. It is the thin middle of the hourglass. It is the cause changing agent, the force that changes Old Cause-of-Form X into New Cause-of-Form Y.
And so it is to for the self. The self is forever empty of its own content, and it is for this reason, this very emptiness, that it thus has the ability to be a casual agent itself – it modifies the external world that surrounds it. All things do this of course, from a quark, to a life form, to a galaxy. The more a life form develops the more it creates buffers between itself and the external world, the more protection it places between external causes that could break its Expansion-contraction balances apart – the more evolved a thing of life is the more organs and memory and emotions it will have. In equivalent terms, for us humans, the more evolved a non-life thing is the more mass it will have - not that the term can be applied to non-life things as time is not relevant, thus no values like “evolution†can exist.
Pye wrote: My problem with the latter is that it seems to still require a kind of clinging; it seems to appeal to another ego-sense - particularly the type that is already attracted to warrior-style personality and war-like missions. It potentially creates a safehouse where any summarily lashing comments can be mistaken for "ways to the truth" and any complaining asshole can sound well-upon the "path." I see a fair number of people get "stuck" in this mind-set, thinking: I will slash at delusion wherever I see it and this will make me wise, enlightened. Another problem with it I have is I cannot find anything commensurate to it in anything the spokesperson for buddhism/enlightenment ever said. It seems to be one that makes its most frequent appearance in western culture and western thinkers.
The realisation of Kensho, or anything for that matter is relatively meaningless in terms of enlightenment as non-enlightened people can imagine same. In my opinion enlightenment can only ever be emotionally based, even where the sense of enlightenment is caused to exist by the use of rational thinking.
Essentially Enlightenment =Fundamentalism. Truth, although a factor, has little to do with it whether one can call themselves enlightened or not. Truth could be considered as those patterns within memory that are organised to work in concert with one’s feelings. With fundamental viewpoints such as those the QRS hold, or a born again freak, what this does is enable all interactions with the universe to be categorised, so that one can deal with the now rather than the future.
The trouble with gaining knowledge of reality, as per the QRS, is that it becomes far harder to hold fundamentalist viewpoints, the more you learn the more unsure of how one needs to think in order to relate to the changing universe. In the end you need to place your mental grounding somewhere amongst the infinitely linked casual chains, or you’ll be lost, in the sense that you will not have a rest place for the self, a place of quietude. You thus attach yourself to that which has driven your mindset to become the way it is, namely truths of reality.
Fundamentalism creates the ability to be a warrior as it induces the striving (for-the-impossible-perfection) emotions, mostly because it reduces the satisfaction achievable from other emotion inducing agents. For myself, I’m presently still in the lost category. From what I understand of “truth†in my opinion, such truths are far too limited as reflections of reality, so I don’t have great desires to make a fundamentalist mindset based on truth. Scholarly folks attach their emotions to matters of detail, and become fundamentalists about detail, but I don’t have the speedy memory required for such activities, so that is out of the question. So I remain in the thought purgatory of Uncertainty (reality) versus Certainty (fundamentalist) limbo land, seeking entertainment like the majority of lost souls.
I am developing a fundamentalist attitude in regard to my thoughts relating to the underlying Expansionary and Contracting forces of the universe, and thus a sense of personal gratification which may lead to the treasured fundamentalist mindset. There is a kind of depth to this theory that is additional to those truths that the QRS promote, and although past philosophers of note have recognised it (people like the Buddha’s, Nietzsche and Weininger), they did not go on to develop it fully. They shove it aside saying “this dude is just repeating the old Buddhist yin/yang stuffâ€, which is true to an extent, but the difference is that one can apply the Expansionary/Contracting theory to all areas of modern science, as it is less new agey and spiritually wanky than Yin and Yang.
Trying to find the "I," the subject, through introspection leads to the realisation that this "I" is completely dependent on the process of perception, * the associated thought/feeling complex, and the memories tied to them.
While Kensho is good as a process for setting the mind to begin to understand reality, as it points to the non-separatedness and interconnectedness of all things, it is not the full reality in relation to the “selfâ€.
How do you define the basis of self? For me, the self can only ever be "associated thought/feeling complex, and the memories tied to them," through the eye of non-duality.
Like all things the self is both separate and not separate. It is not inherently separate but while it exists it contains a degree of intrinsic separateness. It is not inherently separate because it is not at any time self-caused, but at the same time it is intrinsically separate because it is a meeting point of other causes, it is formed by other causes and interconnected with other causes, but is not those other causes, not those other things. It is physically hollow, it has no property apart from this hollowness which is the cause of its innate ability to cause other causes to have a certain configuration of casual force flow.
I would define its physicality as its ability to configure "causal force flow."
Lol…my theory of Universal Duality raises its head yet again. (my theory is simply that Expansion and Contraction forces are all that exists, and that these causes are intrinsic and tandemly self-causing – one causes the other at all times. Their interaction, being the ultimate in dualistic differentiation, causes spatial dimensions, time, movement, creation and destruction, things).
Interesting. Our perception interacts like a clock.
The former part of the above bolded sentence “It is not inherently separate because it is not self-caused†is akin to the basic Expansionary Force of nature, the Shiva-Yang creationary side of reality, the spatially infinite, the unbounded. It is the side of “the many causesâ€. It is the never-ending cause of the movement of the universe, the infinity causing agent - only something with the property of continual expansion can do this, however in order to create “thingness†or patterns of like or compatible force flows it must work always in concert with its opposite - the force of Contraction.
Formless for form. :)
Cool.
The latter part “it is intrinsically separate because it is a meeting point of other causesâ€, is a representation of the Contracting Force. It is the finite amongst the infinite, the effects amongst the causes. It is Vishnu-Yin, it is the one created from the combination of causal parts of many. It is the effect in the centre caused by the surrounding causes, the centre of gravity (or in the case of the mind mental gravity). It is the stable centre, whose very emptiness in comparison to the expansionary force, is what binds the surrounding causes into “oneâ€, and then into larger grouped casual flows, and so on. It is the thing that is the necessary opposite to its causes. Being opposite to its causes makes it intrinsically separate. It is the bottom of the perfect cone or the top of the pyramid, the centre of the whirlpool, the black hole in the galaxy, the bottomless pit, the emptiness that can never be filled. It is the thin middle of the hourglass. It is the cause changing agent, the force that changes Old Cause-of-Form X into New Cause-of-Form Y.
Pause/Play button on the Vishnu-Centre-Recorder.
And so it is to for the self. The self is forever empty of its own content, and it is for this reason, this very emptiness, that it thus has the ability to be a casual agent itself – it modifies the external world that surrounds it. All things do this of course, from a quark, to a life form, to a galaxy. The more a life form develops the more it creates buffers between itself and the external world, the more protection it places between external causes that could break its Expansion-contraction balances apart – the more evolved a thing of life is the more organs and memory and emotions it will have. In equivalent terms, for us humans, the more evolved a non-life thing is the more mass it will have - not that the term can be applied to non-life things as time is not relevant, thus no values like “evolution†can exist.
This section brings to mind alaya consciousness (eighth consciousness), developed within certain Zen sects. Alaya is known as "storehouse consciousness," where our memories that form the self are grounded. The more in tune with this eighth consciousness, the higher the evolutionary potential.
Unless indeed "all things come into being and pass away through strife" (Heraclitus)
This in itself is sufficient answer and explanation of your initial paragraph of (warrior) comments. It is saying, in essence, that strife is the nature of existence and the cause of existence because it creates existence itself. Without strife, no coming-into-being, no passing-away. Strife as First Cause/Creator. Is this where your thinking rests? I ask in an effort to clear up this "Unless."
Comments to Jamesh upcoming to contain my own take on these speculations about the pure 'force' (or assumed forces) that manifests existence.
While we're on the PreSocratics, I add Empedocles to the mix, for he saw a complementary force to Strife which is Love. And this is love in the sense of a merging force to things - a becoming one-with; and strife as a separation of things-against-each-other. For Empedocles, this was the teeter-totter of dual universal forces. I guess Heraclitus would call the teeter-totter itself a condition of Strife. I promise I am rolling around to a synthesis of my thinking here, but I'd like to linger a moment in these distinctions.
Things that would constitute Empedoclean Love are of course far more than humans getting it on. Certainly this is an urge to merge - lose one's sense of self into another, chuck the burden and isolation of individuality. When we love something, we seek to possess it; make it ours; become more-than ourselves. So too, though, would entropy, decay, gravity, mutation, things that can be dissolved, mixed, synthesized, etc. All attraction/mergence impulse and phenomena goes into this force of Empedoclean love, definitionally. Strife, of course, demands the condition of separate phenomena and their lack-of merging character.
By these definitions, the nature of Kensho is Love - I am speaking in the Empedoclean sense, so hold onto your reactive hats. The illusory nature of the "I" is the end of this sense of separation and this mergence with, as in "enlightenment" itself - in the sense of becoming the One with everything that One is. And the problem with romantic human love is that its mergence is a form of exclusivity, trained upon a singular piece of existence and not the whole. The merging force is there, operating as it does, but it inevitably becomes Empedoclean strife for its lack of inclusion. We have to take note here, too, of the value-neutral sense in which Empedocles views the presence of these two forces. It isn't Love:good/Strife:bad. But it isn't Strife, alone.
Jamesh, I find your post exceptionally thought-provoking, and your description of the self as a meeting point of causes to match pretty well with my sense of the self as a hub of existence. Such a hub is very busy with things inputted and outputted from the causal webs, and so that activity its-self stands in a loose form as activity. This is how I meant to address it to NOX who could not find his mind, as though it could be located; as though it is a "thing." It is only constituted by its activity. That activity/motion itself is very real, no matter how deluded said activity is coursing along. Intellectual acceptance of non-inherency is the easy part. And even if one hub cannot think thoughts for another one, we are still in constant exchange and re-formation each time we put a thought near or into each other's heads.
Now here are my reservations about your Universal Duality theory. About all duality theory - Love/Strife; Expansion/Contraction; Creation/Destruction; Yin/Yang; Motion/Stillness, etc. In a certain line of Zen thinking, each of these are called inferior principles, for in naming these as existence, one is essentially noting that the World is 2 things, and not the "World." This certain line of Zen thinking suggests that duality models are unstable, in that they spin like a pinwheel without noting the pinwheel itself -- better yet, the Superior Conciliatory Principle into which they gather and from which they come.
It is appealing, but difficult logic to express existence as 2 things and their interplay. Which thing came first? Do they come into existence together? (hence they would have a singular source) What holds them together in dynamic? What makes then interplay? etc. I happen to think that all duality thinking stems entirely from the experience of consciousness itself, in that the sense of two-things is borne out immediately in becoming conscious. To become conscious is to become conscious-of something. So there is the seer and the thing-seen. The thinker and the thing thought-about.
Of course the rest of your rhetoric is dancing all around THE thing (world/existence/infinity, however you would like it said) but insisting upon the dual forces as the primary cause of their being any thing. This says that there are these 2 things before there is a thing. It makes no sense put this way.
Jamesh writes as well:
In my opinion enlightenment can only ever be emotionally based, even where the sense of enlightenment is caused to exist by the use of rational thinking.
If you are willing to consider a "sense" as a feeling or emotion, then I am not having any trouble with this characterization. "Emotionally based" is an emotionally charged phrase, but if you mean it to expand into a non-speaking (as in non-rational i.e. "emotional") experience, then I am fine with that.
One of the things I like most about Zen is its utter impatience with the palaces of reason. I find both in myself and other people that an intellectual understanding of enlightenment (being able to speak its precepts/explain its shape) is not the same thing as the sense of it. Perhaps at that moment of conceptual expression, we are never more far away from it than then. Too, intellectual comprehension is too easily and too often assumed to be the stopping place; the thing in itself. The NOX experience is the inevitable fallout of this state of affairs, for the edifice will come crashing down as the edifice without the experience. I have a number of things myself that intellection has introduced to me, but sorting and filing these things is like administrative busywork, and it prevents me from the sentient understanding -- the real movement that overturns us at the cellular level.
I suspend my taking-after the warrior mind-set as the cowboy-western way as David's excerpt reminds me. I do this, still knowing, though, about a type of western personality that takes up the sword in a way different from the east (the cowboy way). So I still have these reservations I presently suspend.
You are right, though, David (and Diebert) about the mistaken do-nothing sedation that so often becomes westernized Zen.
My office mate at the big uni has a PhD in religious history and teaches Islamic philosophy there on a part-time basis. She is by her own declarations deeply into what she calls American Zen.
She recently took some sort of zen-buddhist vow or other from her teacher and two buddhist nuns from Nepal. You'd think we'd have something there, but this woman (she's probably about 10 years older than me) is the most unmitigated flake I've ever met. In light conversation at our desks the other day, she told me that Zen was, for her, all about aesthetics. She goes to the weekend retreats for love of the incense, the chanting, the rituals, and she wears and possesses all sorts of clothing and "zen" jewelry symbols, and her perfume chokes me when she's in the office with me, as well as long after.
Further, this woman is the type of person who absolutely must respond to everything with her like/dislike of it. Even if it is a conversation I am having with a student in which she is not included, she must pipe up from her desk exactly what her feelings are on the subject, particularly her feelings of dislike. We must all stop and handle her attachments for her on the spot. To her credit, she has joked herself about being the world's worst example of a zen practitioner. Her excuse for her materialism (a phenomenal wardrobe of expensive clothes and lots of shiny cosmetic things on her desk, spilling out of her purse) is that you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
She asked me this semester if I wanted her to come in and speak one day in one of the eastern philosophy classes I'm doing -- let the students see what a zen practitioner is like, and I laughed and said no, reminding her of her world's worst example.
See, I'm uneducated and ignorant. I don't know half the names and, therefore, ideas of the people you mention.
What "half-the-names-and-ideas," Leyla? One new name - Benoit. And one very old idea, spot-on to a forum theme. (Okay. I admit. I'm mentioning Empedocles up there.)
Well I guess it is just as easy to get attached to one's ignorance as one's education (or lack thereof). Still, I cannot believe you consider education a formal, institutional affair, nor ignorance un-address-able. Neither of these things are institutionalized and both are happening in the here-and-now.
Ignorance is addressable. Willful ignorance is not.
And education is happening all the time - the further away from its institutions, the better . . . .
While Kensho is good as a process for setting the mind to begin to understand reality, as it points to the non-separatedness and interconnectedness of all things, it is not the full reality in relation to the “selfâ€.
In Hakuin's usage, "kensho" refers to the enlightened experience of Reality. His constant stressing of the importance of "kensho" should make this obvious. Without this vital experience and understanding, nothing of any importance can be accomplished.
Unless indeed "all things come into being and pass away through strife" (Heraclitus)
This in itself is sufficient answer and explanation of your initial paragraph of (warrior) comments. It is saying, in essence, that strife is the nature of existence and the cause of existence because it creates existence itself. Without strife, no coming-into-being, no passing-away. Strife as First Cause/Creator. Is this where your thinking rests?
Yes, existence arises and perishes out of conflict. Difference, discord, violation, war, on all levels. Existence is a conflict, an objection, violence, naked force. From the individual human perspective we are just standing in the eye of a storm, a momentary perceived lapse of totality.
While we're on the PreSocratics, I add Empedocles to the mix, for he saw a complementary force to Strife which is Love. And this is love in the sense of a merging force to things - a becoming one-with; and strife as a separation of things-against-each-other.
As you already added: "I guess Heraclitus would call the teeter-totter itself a condition of Strife." It's a matter of how wide the perspective is allowed to go.
Certainly this is an urge to merge - lose ones sense of self into another, chuck the burden and isolation of individuality. When we love something, we seek to possess it; make it ours; become more-than ourselves.
Which is all not very hard to see as violent movement in itself. Love is a destroyer - the destroyer aspect of strife - in every sense. It annihilates the boundaries that causes anything to be defined; eventually it will undo ones consciousness. Love is the kiss of death. But each synthesis makes only room for further conflict.
Strife, of course, demands the condition of separate phenomena and their lack-of merging character.
Strife, when seen bare bones, is a form of separation as well as merging. This is Shiva. In every emerging, the destruction, re-merging is already present.
Love . . . annihilates the boundaries that cause[s] anything to be defined; eventually it will undo ones consciousness.
Diebert, I am interested how you might see this in juxtaposition to the shape of enlightenment often described (by some) here? -- a shape that has no shape; a self that is also all selves; a being that becomes being-itself, Reality-itself, and the like? Unless I'm wearing shades and missing the subtleties, I hear 'annihilated boundaries' in the descriptions of a great many of the seekers here.
This is an interesting view you have; I've been thinking about it a lot (strife). I once found this thought easier to assume (for the obvious sort of laws-of-physics reasons), and this topic like something I had shelved - unconsciously! :)
Diebert wrote:Love . . . annihilates the boundaries that cause[s] anything to be defined; eventually it will undo ones consciousness. But each synthesis makes only room for further conflict.
Diebert, I am interested how you might see this in juxtaposition to the shape of enlightenment often described (by some) here? -- a shape that has no shape; a self that is also all selves; a being that becomes being-itself, Reality-itself, and the like? Unless I'm wearing shades and missing the subtleties, I hear 'annihilated boundaries' in the descriptions of a great many of the seekers here.
There shouldn't be any juxtaposition occurring. My aim was the shape of consciousness and reality that forms through that. Not a description of enlightenment itself.
Annihilation, love or death when used in the correct way is describing transformation. Enlightenment shouldn't mean that mountains stop being mountains and that's it. Which the term 'annihilated boundaries' might suggest to some. But the mountain becomes, in this new light, clearer defined than it ever was.
I'm not ignoring what you said and I'm part way throught preparing a response. Tis a pity any response I could give is unlikely to adequately clarify anything - but what the hell.
Jamesh thanks for the note. Myself I am buried under a pile of final term papers but expect to see some rare leisure space in a few days. I write back to tell you I am interested in what you have to say on your universal duality theory, whether you reach clarity or agreement or whatnot.
You make a good yard-dog for the place, chained to it, growling. That's a thought I've had :)
Very profound observation there, Pye. Same observation that has been made about my contributions to this list for eight years now. Very keen and penetrating observation. Very impressive.
