Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: david@star2.cm.utexas.edu (David Sigeti)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Buddhism and the reality of the phenomenal world (was Re: bloody Buddhists!)
Message-ID: <1990Dec22.083800.2400@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 22 Dec 90 08:38:00 GMT
References: <1990Dec18.004932.9293@nas.nasa.gov>
	<1990Dec18.184453.16768@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
	<1990Dec20.012217.6422@nas.nasa.gov>
	<1990Dec21.224123.27840@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,soc.religion.eastern
Organization: University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 215
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov


In article <1990Dec21.224123.27840@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> 
muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:

   In article <1990Dec20.012217.6422@nas.nasa.gov> 
   david@star2.cm.utexas.edu (David Sigeti) writes:

   >In article <1990Dec18.184453.16768@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> 
   >muttiah@maize.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:
   >
   >   In article <1990Dec18.004932.9293@nas.nasa.gov> 
   >   david@star2.cm.utexas.edu (David Sigeti) writes:

   >      This is worth repeating: WE ARE NOT WHAT WE THINK WE ARE [*].
   >                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
   >      I can't think of a more important insight in the whole of
   >      Buddhism.  I found this conclusion increasingly evident and
   >      inescapable pretty early in my practice of zazen: "Good
   >      Heavens, I really am *not* what I thought I was."  When the
   >      emperor asked Bodhidharma, "Who are you?"  Bodhidharma
   >      replied, "I don't know."  Do *you* know who *you* are?
   >      Lin-chi (Rinzai) said, "No man, but causation."  There is no
   >      human being, only a chain of causation.  The old man (who
   >      was really a fox) said to Pai-chang (Hakujo), "I am not a
   >      human being."  Indeed, are any of us "human beings"?

   >   So say we reach some stage of attainment (whatever that is) say
   >   this follows from [*].  Then we discover that the method of
   >   that attainment itself was flawed by [*].  Thus [*] is self
   >   contradictory.
   >
   >   Is this QEA or QED ?
   >
   >Each of us continually takes herself to be *something*. ...
   >Of course, the problem is that this *something* is constantly
   >shifting.  Not only is the thing that we take ourselves to be
   >itself changing constantly, but we ourselves are constantly
   >shifting our point of view, constantly changing what it is
   >that we think we are.
   >
   >The sensible conclusion is, of course, that we really aren't
   >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   >anything at all.  It is characteristic of the Pali suttas that
   >they simply state this conclusion baldly -- "All things are
   >without self (anatta)".

   David, I'm not sure whether you are understanding what I was trying
   to say here.  Let me ask you, how did you or any of these other so
   called "masters" arrive at this conclusion.  Buddhism seems to
   reject things out of hand, but on what basis?  I really don't know
   what people seem to be talking about in this instance.  It seems to
   be about almost nothing.

   Here's a sample conversation:

           A: B you nut, nothing is real and you aren't yourself.
           B: Give me a break A.  What the f*&^ are you talking about?
              You use vague spoken words and you are telling me I'm
              not what I am?  Grow up and go see a shrink.

           A: No really, I just know that we aren't what we think we
              are.
           B: Ok, I'll play by your game and debunk whatever it is
              that you are hand waving about.  So you say that you
              want to reach a stage whereby you reach some state
              wherein everything is rejected including the "soul."
              But then since you are into this rejection ball game
              then you also HAVE TO REJECT THIS METHOD OF REJECTION
              ITSELF.  Thus your whole program is flawed B.  In a
              similar light it is easy to disprove this whole Godel
              theorem.  Just codify in the language of the model the
              statement, "This proof is invalid" and you will see.

           A: oh, sh&^.  I didn't see that coming, what religion did
              you say you were into?

I think that I should begin by trying to clear up some possible
misunderstandings.  Firstly, please, *please* don't get the
impression that I am trying to present myself as some kind of
"Zen master" or Buddhist teacher.  I'm hardly even a student!
All I am trying to do is present some of what I have learned in
my reading on Buddhism and maybe a little of what I have learned
from the practice of Buddhist meditation.  I really don't think
that this gives me some special knowledge that makes me better
than other people.  If anything, it has made me more aware of my
faults.  It certainly isn't the purpose of Buddhist meditation to
give its practitioners excuses to feel superior to other people
and that isn't why I took it up.  If, after reflecting seriously
on what I have written, you feel that this is what I am doing,
please feel free to let me know.  Even if your impression is a
mistaken one, I would still want to know how you felt.

Secondly, *please* don't get the idea that I am presuming to tell
you what you do or do not know.  That is why I use the first
person plural in my writing.  If you don't feel that what I am
saying applies to you, please feel free to exclude yourself from
the word "we" in my articles.  I hope that you don't see my
writing as a personal attack.  It really isn't intended that way.

On the question of attacks, I suppose that it is fairly obvious
that in my postings to talk.religion.misc and
soc.religion.eastern, I am often trying to clear up common
misconceptions about Buddhism in general and Zen in particular.
Sometimes I may become a little strident on these subjects.
Partly, this is because I feel that popular misrepresentations of
Buddhism and Zen left me seriously misinformed about both
subjects and that it took me a long time in my practice to
overcome my misconceptions.  When I am particularly insistent in
opposing some popular idea on these subjects, it is probably
because I have found the idea to be a definite barrier in my own
practice.  I can only ask your forbearance in realizing that
sometimes it is my own demons that I am wrestling with.

Finally, I thought that it would be clear from my original post
that:

   1. I don't believe that "nothing is real";

   2. This is not what Buddhism teaches.   

This was, after all, the whole point of the original post.

O.K., on to your questions.  The first point that I should make
is that statements like "We are not what we think we are," or
even "All things are without self," are not really intended as
propositions or "conclusions".  They are really much closer to
observations -- observations about the operation of our own
minds.  Even the term "observations" is probably not right
because the terms in the statements are almost impossible to
define in the ordinary way.  It might be better to say that the
statements are simply pointers to a particular experience.  

Since these statements are really just pointers to a certain
experience, it really isn't appropriate to treat them as if they
were factual propositions.  Russell Turpin makes this point
frequently.  It is only when the statements made by a
philosophy/religion are intended as factual propositions (either
openly or surreptitiously) that it makes sense to bring the
apparatus of scientific criticism to bear on them.  Russ does
this very well, in part because he knows where it is appropriate
and where it is not.  May he return to the net soon!

So how does one go about having the experience to which these
statements are pointing (presuming that one wants to)?  There may
be people who can see into the point of these statements
immediately or by means of ordinary "introspection".  The famous
Scottish philosopher of the 18th century, David Hume, seems to
have done this to some extent.  William James might be another
example.  For most of us, though, it seems that we have to take
the route that traditional Buddhism considers essential -- we
have to practice Buddhist meditation.

There is fundamentally nothing mystical or mysterious about the
practice of Buddhist meditation.  Usually one takes the process
of breathing as a "central object" of attention but, really, the
practice is simply a careful observation of the operation of
one's own body and mind.  One attends to mental and physical
phenomena as they arise without attempting to suppress random
thoughts or to artificially "calm" one's mind.  This is why the
mental faculty that Buddhist meditation most seeks to develop is
not concentration but *mindfulness*.  (The central Buddhist text
on meditation is entitled "The Setting Up of Mindfulness".)  If
you are interested in knowing more about the practice of Buddhist
meditation, I can give you references to several good books.

Anyway, it should be clear just from what I have written so far
that the point is not to reach some "state" where one "rejects"
things.  There may be forms of meditation where one attempts to
"reject" or "suppress" the "ego" but this is not a Buddhist
practice.  In Buddhist meditation, one simply tries to observe,
as carefully as possible, the operation of one's own body and
mind.

In the course of this observation, most people come to see that
there is really nothing in the body/mind process that corresponds
to a "self" or "ego".  Certainly, the mind in particular is a
wondrously complex process, full of sensations, perceptions,
emotions, and thoughts changing constantly and at almost dizzying
speed.  But, when observed closely and carefully, it really seems
to be pretty impersonal -- maybe almost mechanical.  Certainly,
it is difficult to see what in it would constitute a "self".  

There is really nothing frightening about this realization.  In
fact, most people find it quite liberating.  This is part of why
I presented my own experience in almost frivolous terms -- "Good
Heavens, I really am *not* what I thought I was."  (I am speaking
here of an early stage of the practice.  Later on there are more
likely to be problems.)

As I have intimated just above, what I have described is really
just the barest beginning of Buddhism (and of practice) and it
certainly isn't all hearts and flowers.  But this basic
realization is really at the heart of the whole thing.  One comes
back to it again and again.  This is the "beginner's mind" that
Shunryu Suzuke says one must strive to keep one's whole life
long.

I would like to say that I really enjoyed your little dialog.
You may be reluctant to believe it but I definitely found myself
sympathizing more with B than A.  A certainly does come off as a
pompous ass.  The whole little drama does a very neat job of
capturing what is wrong with using one's insights as a club to
beat people with.  I did find B's attempt at a logical refutation
of A a bit pedantic, though.  In any case, I thought that A's
flustered question at the end was a particularly good touch.

That said, I am going to imitate him after my fashion and ask you
where *you* are coming from.  It would really help me to
understand your postings if I had a better idea of what *you*
think about this stuff.  Are you and atheist, an agnostic, a
Hindu, a member of another religion?  I have tried to be as open
as I can be about what I believe.  How about you?

--
David Sigeti    david@star2.cm.utexas.edu    cmhl265@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu