I don't have any problem with people having faiths of various kinds, provided they see, and admit, that it is faith. — Janus

Does this apply to you as well? Or just to other people?

That seeing things how they are has soteriological benefits — Wayfarer

Could we perhaps explore a distinction between the act of observation, and any conclusions which may arise from the observation?

OBSERVATION: The act of observation is aided enormously by setting thought aside, to the degree that is possible. This isn't some esoteric concept, it's simply a matter of what we are aiming our attention at. To the degree I'm distracted by my thoughts about reality, reality itself becomes harder to observe.

CONCLUSIONS: Conclusions which arise from observation often propagate like dividing cancer cells, constructing an ever larger conceptual edifice, real estate which is typically then hijacked by ego, which then comes in to conflict with other conceptual structures and their ego owners.

Observation takes us in the direct of peace, while conclusions take us in the direction of conflict.

This is the conclusion I've reached from observation. Should you dispute it in any way whatsoever, thus denting my cherished self image as a super concluder, evolved man of peace and merchant of the "one true way", I will have no choice but to totally kick your ass!!! :-)

I am merely pointing out that they can't yield falsifiable or verifiable knowledge in the sense that logic, math and science can. — Janus

I had no idea you felt that way!!

Uh oh, more snarky applesauce!

REASON: A shifting of focus from that which we can't use, to that which we can.

What's next?

The discarding seems reasonable to me. The apparent lack of any "whats next" does not. — Hippyhead

Poetry, music, dance, art, craft, learning about nature and developing a feeling of reverence, friendship, love, philosophy, in other words whatever impassions you.

My apologies. I wore myself out on the forum yesterday and by end of the day my brain had turned to toxic applesauce. Sorry, my bad! — Hippyhead

It's all cool, I don't take anything personally on here. :smile:



All of that's fine, but you're changing the subject now. Everything you quoted there from the Tractatus only goes to support my argument, not yours, as I see it.

I think the Vienna Circle misinterpreted Wittgenstein - see Wittgenstein, Tolstoy and the Folly of Logical Positivism Philosophy Now. — Wayfarer

Yes, they did. I'm well aware of the differences between the Logical Positivists and Wittgenstein, in fact I've been referring to that myself in some of my posts, and even outlined the differences; so I'm not sure what the point of this statement is. Perhaps you didn't read all of my responses; which would explain why you still haven't attempted to answer the question about different religions proposing different cosmologies etc.

But again he warns that we should not imagine that such games can tell us anything about the nature of reality. — Janus


'The nature of empirical reality', perhaps. — Wayfarer

Right, that has been my whole argument; that religious experience can tell us nothing about empirical reality other than that people have such experiences and may be moved by them to believe various things. Bear in mind that, for example, if there really were an afterlife that would be an empirical reality. "empirical" just means 'shared'.

There is no other reality to be told about other than a shared reality. Think about it; when we're both dead, and if I met you in the afterlife; you would be able to say to me 'See I was right after all" and I would be forced to admit that you had been, because now I would have the evidence that had previously been impossible. But this wouldn't mean that you had had any prior evidence, because the afterlife cannot be experienced, if it all, until after life. You would have just guessed right is all.

Right, that has been my whole argument; that religious experience can tell us nothing about empirical reality other than that people have such experiences and may be moved by them to believe various things. — Janus

What if it is 'empirical reality' itself that is the delusion? Then there would be no 'certain knowledge' obtainable of it. And that actually maps against the state of physics at this point in history, which is dissolving into enormous conundrums at every point. There is a massive search for the 'fundamental constituents of nature' - but what if there are none? What if the whole phenomenal domain is like a magic show, with no inherent reality? Maybe part of the 'religious experience' of Buddhism is based on understanding that. Then how would you accomodate that insight from within the framework of 'empiricism'?

you still haven't attempted to answer the question about different religions proposing different cosmologies — Janus

Cosmology, both traditional and modern, is an enormous subject area, which has developed over tens of thousands of years; considering that early humans learned to navigate by the stars, identify the constellations, and so on. Many of the early cosmologies are simply myths about the ancestors and divine beings. So the religious cosmologies developed out of those over the millenia, some of them sophisticated, some of them simple-minded. They become associated with the different major cultural forms, such as Indian, Chinese, Ancient Greek, and are developed in various ways, retaining some elements of their mythical antecedents and replacing others. So it's hardly surprising that there is a vast diversity of views in respect of cosmology.

As for the inherent contradiction between religions - it's a fact of life and of human history. My interpretation is that they're all attempts to assimilate the insights of individual sages, prophets, visionaries, along with the historical and mythological accounts of the Creation. John Hick is an exemplary philosopher of religion with respect to the issues of religious pluralism.

It is not surprising that within human awareness many different God-figures have formed. Phenomenologically - that is, as describable - the Holy Trinity is different from the Allah of Islam, which is different from the Adonai, the Lord, of rabbinic Judaism, which is different again from the Vishnu and the Shiva of theistic Hinduism, and even more different from the non-personal Tao, or Dharma, or Brahman. All these are, in Kantian language, divine phenenoma [appearances] in distinction from the divine noumenon [reality] of which they are its appearances to humanity. Thus we need – I am suggesting - a two level model, with the experienced realities in relation to which the religious life is lived as manifestations of an ultimate reality beyond them.

Who or What is God?

What if it is 'empirical reality' itself that is the delusion — Wayfarer

He doesn't understand that his position is as faith based as anyone else's, on issues of this scale. He believes in the qualifications of his chosen methodology as a matter of faith, but doesn't know he's using faith. To him, those qualifications are an obvious given. Thus it never occurs to him to challenge them. So therefore he feels in a position to challenge faith, as if he's outside of it.

Extremely common sincere misunderstanding which powers the entire atheist internet. Nothing can be done about it. Once one's personal image is attached to this misunderstanding, it's game over.

I guess I'm being Mr. GrouchyPants again, but isn't there a degree of absurdity in the assumption that any of us know anything about issues of such enormous scale?

Example: When will science end? When we have learned all there is to learn? Thousands of years? Never? If it's true that science will continue at an ever accelerating pace for a very long time it logically follows that we currently know almost nothing, in comparison to what humans can know. And then there's all the stuff we'll never be able to know because of the limits built in to the human condition.

Philosophy can be very sophisticated, articulate, intelligent and educated. But is it rational? Is it rational to have centuries of endless debate when we probably only currently possess .0000001% of the information? Ok, fun. But rational?

If we are willing to consider such a debate as one would a game of bridge which is meaningless but entertaining, then I withdraw the complaint. Even Mr. GrouchyPants isn't against fun.

isn't there a degree of absurdity in the assumption that any of us know anything about issues of such enormous scale? — Hippyhead

First, define yourself as a primate species. Then, proceed solely on the basis of what you can touch, see, hear, feel and smell, and mathematics grounded in that. Good luck, and fare thee well!

Dodging the incoming fire now, are we? :-)

I always thought that was what the original Planet of the Aprs was parodying.

What if it is 'empirical reality' itself that is the delusion? Then there would be no 'certain knowledge' obtainable of it. — Wayfarer

I don't know what that could even mean. All human ideas of knowledge are derived from empirical knowledge. There is no absolutely certain knowledge if you take into account the human possibility of radical skepticism.

The only knowledge we have is relative knowledge, and the only inter-subjectively determinable propositional knowledge (knowing that) is empirical, logical and mathematical. Unless you can offer an example of some other kind of propositional knowledge.

Unless you can offer an example of some other kind of propositional knowledge. — Janus

This thread is about Ch'an or Zen Buddhism. It has generated a vast literature but it is not concerned with 'propositional knowledge' as such.

There is no absolutely certain knowledge if you take into account the human possibility of radical skepticism. — Janus

There is an historical connection between Buddhism and the Greek Sceptics. This goes back to Pyrrho of Elis who is said to have travelled to Gandhara, then a centre of Buddhist learning. 'Scepticism' in the original form was not doubting that any knowledge is possible, but 'withholding judgement regarding that which is not evident'. Their aim was ataraxia, which is a Greek counterpart of the Buddhist 'nirodha'('cessation'). A passage purportedly by Pyrrho that I found on Wikipedia is this:

"Whoever wants to live well (eudaimonia) must consider these three questions: First, how are pragmata (ethical matters, affairs, topics) by nature? Secondly, what attitude should we adopt towards them? Thirdly, what will be the outcome for those who have this attitude?" Pyrrho's answer is that "As for pragmata they are all adiaphora (undifferentiated by a logical differentia), astathmēta (unstable, unbalanced, not measurable), and anepikrita (unjudged, unfixed, undecidable). Therefore, neither our sense-perceptions nor our doxai (views, theories, beliefs) tell us the truth or lie; so we certainly should not rely on them. Rather, we should be adoxastoi (without views), aklineis (uninclined toward this side or that), and akradantoi (unwavering in our refusal to choose), saying about every single one that it no more is than it is not or it both is and is not or it neither is nor is not.

With respect to the last passage, there is an unmistakeably Buddhist influence:

By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "non-existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. — The Buddha

The theory behind this is that the 'the world' (i.e. objects of perception) have no absolute existence, as they arise dependent on causes and conditions and so have no 'own-being'. But it's also incorrect to say that they're simply non-existent.

So to return to the OP, whether Ch'an is based on 'logic' - the answer is, it is based on the logic of the 'two truths' of Mahāyāna Buddhism:

The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths differentiates between two levels of satya (a Sanskrit and Pali word meaning truth or reality) in the teaching of the Buddha: the "conventional" or "provisional" (saṁvṛti) truth, and the "ultimate" (paramārtha) truth.

The exact meaning varies between the various Buddhist schools and traditions. The best known interpretation is from the Madhyamaka school of Mahāyāna Buddhism, whose founder was Nagarjuna. For Nagarjuna, the two truths are epistemological truths. The phenomenal world is accorded a provisional existence. The character of the phenomenal world is declared to be neither real nor unreal, but logically indeterminable [this is the origin of Pyrrho's 'indeterminability']. Ultimately, phenomena are empty (sunyata) of an inherent self or essence, but exist depending on other phenomena (Pratītyasamutpāda).

Radical or absolute scepticism of the kind you encounter in Internet discussions is generally meaningless.

Joshu's Zen

Joshu began the study of Zen when he was sixty years old and continued until he was eighty, when he realized Zen.

He taught from the age of eighty until he was one hundred and twenty.

A student once asked him: “If I haven’t anything in my mind, what shall I do?”

Joshu replied: “Throw it out.”

“But if I haven’t anything, how can I throw it out?” continued the questioner.

“Well,” said Joshu, “then carry it out.”

//ps// I don't think that is an official Ko-an. It's one of the anecdotes in Zen Flesh, Zen Bones that I particularly liked.// — Wayfarer

:lol: Good one!

This thread is about Ch'an or Zen Buddhism. It has generated a vast literature but it is not concerned with 'propositional knowledge' as such. — Wayfarer

Yes, and that fact speaks to the argument I've been making, that you have been failing to address and that you are now apparently agreeing with. 'God exists", "there is an afterlife" "karma is real" etc. are propositions that are imagined by some to be justified by religious experience.

Radical or absolute scepticism of the kind you encounter in Internet discussions is generally meaningless. — Wayfarer

I agree that the advocation of radical skepticism is a performative contradiction, and as such incoherent. But the point is there is no absolute knowledge, only knowledge relative to conceptual and practical contexts. From this it follows that there can be no transcendental knowledge. No one can know the "true answers" to the "great questions" , in other words; but the questions remain valuable as stimulants to the poetic and mystical imagination.

Here's someone who does think they have found the nature of reality, and along very Buddhist lines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS3mMZblq0U

'God exists", "there is an afterlife" "karma is real" etc. are propositions that are imagined by some to be justified by religious experience. — Janus

That's how you will see it, but that in itself is also a statement of belief.

Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation; whereas those who have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment would have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation. — The Buddha

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.044.than.html


As I have said - there's no way from the perspective of the demand for 'empirical, mathematically verified knowledge' to view this as anything other than a 'faith statement'. But from within the Buddhist domain of discourse, although it acknowledges that faith is required at the outset, it claims that it culminates in certain knowledge (i.e. 'of the deathless'). But these two domains have what Thomas Kuhn called 'incommensurable standards', which is why I keep saying, and will say again, it's pointless to argue about it, and will henceforth cease.

Is Ch'an Buddhism more about observation and using logic to determine the nature of the world? — TiredThinker

You are using a comparative without an object. Is Ch'an Buddhism more about observation and using logic, than WHAT? Your sentence screams for an anchor to which you are comparing Ch'an Buddhism.

That's how you will see it, but that in itself is also a statement of belief. — Wayfarer

No it's not; it's merely putting assertions in their proper category. I don't understand why you are apparently so confused by this; any statement in the form 'such and such is the case' is a proposition. The statement 'God exists' is proposing that it is the case that God exists; it is thus a proposition. If you think this is wrong then please explain your reasons. Otherwise there will simply be no discussion. Isn't discussion what you are here for?

But from within the Buddhist domain of discourse, although it acknowledges that faith is required at the outset, it claims that it culminates in certain knowledge (i.e. 'of the deathless'). — Wayfarer

Do you have certain knowledge of the deathless? IF not, then you are relying on faith; faith that it is possible, and that others have it and can show you how to get it. These are things you have no way of checking, so how could they be anything but faith? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with believing those things; but intellectual honesty demands that you should acknowledge that they are faith-based.

Ask yourself why you resist acknowledging that, and why you won't address the questions that present difficulties for your position, and you, and this discussion, might get somewhere. Otherwise your thinking, and this discussion, will just be nothing more than, to quote Dostoevsky "pouring from the empty into the void".

As I asked before

What if it is 'empirical reality' itself that is the delusion? Then there would be no 'certain knowledge' obtainable of it. — Wayfarer

To which you replied:

I don't know what that could even mean. — Janus

Yet, somehow, I'm accused of 'ducking questions'.

You then repeat the positivist assertion: ' All human ideas of knowledge are derived from empirical knowledge' - only to then deny you're positivist! But through all this, I'm the one who is accused of 'intellectually dishonesty'.

Where I took issue with you is your first post in this thread.

the very idea that humans can directly know the nature of reality is itself an article of groundless faith — Janus

A statement not made abouit yourself or about me - but humanity generally! All claims to 'revealed truth' or 'spiritual insight' are, we're being told, 'acts of groundless faith'. Yet this is somehow also not positivism:

'Positivism: a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism.'

Ask yourself why you resist acknowledging that, and why you won't address the questions that present difficulties for your position and you, and this discussion, might get somewhere. — Janus

Indeed!

As I asked before

What if it is 'empirical reality' itself that is the delusion? Then there would be no 'certain knowledge' obtainable of it. — Wayfarer


To which you replied:

I don't know what that could even mean. — Janus


Yet, somehow, I'm accused of 'ducking questions'. — Wayfarer

You just keep changing the subject. The idea of the empirical being a delusion is your example of radical skepticism, about which you earlier said

Radical or absolute scepticism of the kind you encounter in Internet discussions is generally meaningless. — Wayfarer

so now you seem to be contradicting yourself.

You then repeat the positivist assertion: ' All human ideas of knowledge are derived from empirical knowledge' - only to then deny you're positivist! — Wayfarer

Even Kant held that all knowledge derives from experience (the empirical), so this is not an exclusively positivist statement. What's the point of continually trying to paint me as a positivist, anyway, when I have given good reasons to show that is not the case. You should be trying to refute my actual arguments instead of using ad hominem assertions, apparently to try to discredit what I'm saying. This is a low tactic.

the very idea that humans can directly know the nature of reality is itself an article of groundless faith — Janus


A statement not made about yourself or about me - but humanity generally! All claims to 'revealed truth' or 'spiritual insight' are, we're being told, 'acts of groundless faith'. — Wayfarer

I have no reason to believe that all humans are not fallible, and yet you for some reason, that you cannot give apparently, think that some humans are infallible. If you cannot give a reason for thinking that, then your thinking that is groundless; merely an act of faith.

If all humans are fallible, then all claims to direct knowledge are questionable, and if they cannot be supported by evidence or logic, then they are groundless. If you think they can be supported by evidence or logic, then explain how that would work. In any case if they claim to be direct knowledge, then they claim not to need support from evidence or logic. The point then is that that claim about direct knowledge not requiring evidence or reason to support it must itself be grounded in evidence or reason, and if it isn't then we have circular reasoning; which just shows again that the claim is groundless.

Your position is either inconsistent or groundless, why not simply admit that, and get on with your life? You can believe whatever you want; you don't have to justify it on here, but if you do come on here then you should be prepared to discuss your ideas in good faith, and submit your ideas to critical scrutiny; which you obviously are not.

The idea of the empirical being a delusion is your example of radical skepticism, about which you earlier said... — Janus

I’m not 'changing the subject'. We each have an idea of what is real - a worldview - that can be called into question without saying ‘nobody knows anything’ or ‘all propositions are false’, which is the internet scepticism I was referring to. The point about the ‘empirical as delusion’ was made by the Loy passage I quoted about the taken-for-grantedness of the secular worldview, which assumes that it sees the world ‘as it really is’ when ‘superstition’ (or ‘groundless belief’) has been shorn off of it. If it doesn’t mean anything to you, then forget about it, I won’t mention it again.

Even Kant held that all knowledge derives from experience (the empirical), so this is not an exclusively positivist statement. — Janus

He did not. He said that there a facts that are known a priori, and the ‘categories of the understanding, and that without them, empiricism could not be sustained. ‘Percepts without concepts are blind, concepts without percepts are empty’.

I have no reason to believe that all humans are not fallible, and yet you for some reason, that you cannot give apparently, think that some humans are infallible. — Janus

Within Buddhism, it is a given that the Buddha is ‘the Buddha’. You’re not required to believe that, but your belief that ‘all humans are fallible’ is just as much a belief. You’re no more able to prove the non-existence or fallibility of the Buddha than I am the contrary, and requiring ‘scientific or mathematical proof’ is positivism, even if you keep denying it. As you keep saying to me, if you acknowledged at the outset, ‘as far as I’m concerned....’ then I would never taken issue in the first place. But you are declaring your position as a matter of fact, on the basis that you seek ‘scientific and mathematical reasons’ for why anyone should accept that the Buddha actually knew what he claimed to.

You know, decades ago I studied David Hume, the godfather of positivism, and the lecturer pointed something out. He referred to the famous last paragraph of Hume’s treatise:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

He pointed out that the same could be said of Hume’s treatise!

And in that very spirit, Hui Neng, the legendary Sixth Patriach of Ch’an Buddhism, is depicted here ‘tearing up the Sutras’.

That's how you will see it, but that in itself is also a statement of belief. — Wayfarer

Thank you. Now break the news to him that it's a faith based belief.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with believing those things; but intellectual honesty demands that you should acknowledge that they are faith-based. — Janus

Yes, this is VERY COMMON internet atheist dogma. Everyone should acknowledge their position is faith based, except for the atheist. There is a factory assembly line somewhere which cranks out such identical thinkers, each one thinking they are unique and special.

Otherwise your thinking, and this discussion, will just be nothing more than, to quote Dostoevsky "pouring from the empty into the void". — Janus

If only it were so. A philosophy aligned with the vast majority of reality would be rational.

but if you do come on here then you should be prepared to discuss your ideas in good faith, and submit your ideas to critical scrutiny; — Janus

Please provide us with the proof that the rules of reason created by a half insane semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies are automatically binding on questions about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, a realm we can't currently define in even the most basic manner.

Submit your ideas to critical scrutiny.

Discuss them in good faith.

Personally, I think you are using good faith, but either aren't willing or able to do the critical scrutiny part.

For endless centuries the statement "the sun is rising" was considered to be factually accurate. The accuracy of that statement was taken to be an obvious given, as the rising of the sun was confirmed by a universally shared empirical observation. This conclusion was rarely questioned, and when it was the questioner was widely considered to be a wacko crackpot spouting obvious nonsense.

And then we obtained a wider perspective which revealed that that taken to be obviously true was instead obviously wrong.

If I understand it, Buddhists and others are reaching for that wider perspective, and forming conclusions based on what they discover.

The Hippyheadists say that it is the wider perspective itself which matters, not any conclusions which may arise from it. Looking of sufficient quality resolves all such questions, without answering them. We ask the questions and seek the conclusions for some reason, out of some need. If that need is met by the looking itself, then the questions and sought conclusions are no longer needed, and so melt away on their own.

Everyone should acknowledge their position is faith based — Hippyhead

He did not. He said that there a facts that are known a priori, and the ‘categories of the understanding, and that without them, empiricism could not be sustained. ‘Percepts without concepts are blind, concepts without percepts are empty’. — Wayfarer

“All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.” Immanuel Kant Critique of Pure Reason

Reason is developed by experience. Once we have a sufficient grasp on the generalities of experience, so-called a priori knowledge is possible; that is, we can say what basic forms any experience must take.

Kant rejected Spinoza's notion of "intellectual intuition"; which is exactly equivalent to "direct knowing". If you think direct knowing is supported by reason (the "highest: according to Kant) then please explain how that would work.

I'm tired of your failure to address questions and arguments. I won't respond further to you if you fail to address this.