From: ag@sics.se (Anders G|ransson)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Buddhism & Science
Date: 2 Jan 93 12:28:26 GMT
Organization: GRAMMA

In article <memo.836291@cix.compulink.co.uk>
shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk 
(Leo Smith) writes:


In an article to (bi757@cleveland.Freenet.Edu   (Ed Stutsman))
Leo Smith wrote;

************************************************************************

(...)

   Precisely. IMHO Buddhists have a FAR clearer picture of what is mind, 
   and what is not. Although I believe that modern philosophers are 
   getting close when they start talking about the all embracing role of 
   language.

(...)
   Agreed, but there IS more to it than 'only phrasiology' Buddhism is 
   perhaps the greatest 'thought experiment' that has ever been done. 
   Budhhism is the logical extrapolation of the greek idea that the 
   world could be understood by pure logic. Buddhism tried, and reports 
   back that all is mind :-)

   It should act as a salutary lesson to all scientists who espouse 
   logic over and above experience and experimental data.

************************************************************************



To this I replied;

________________________________________________________________________
        So we gather that Buddhism knows what is mind and what is not
        and that according to Buddhism all is mind. 

        And that Buddhism is a 'thought experiment' logically
        extrapolating the idea that the world can be understood by
        pure logic.

        What is a logical extrapolation? Taking it to be a spelling 
        out of the logical consequences of an idea, how can Buddhism be a
        logical extrapolation of the idea that 'the world can be
        understood by pure logic'?  


        A very superficial reading of 'The Diamond Sutra', 'The Sutra of
        Hui Neng' and 'The Heart Sutra' showed me that if anything Buddhism
        is the very opposite to the idea that the world can be
        understood by pure logic. 
________________________________________________________________________


And now Leo Smith answer this objection:

   Of course it is: The result of the extrapolation of the thought 
   experiment is to come to the conclusion that mind and language are 
   ultimately an impediment to understanding. 


Of course it is!!!   
Let's recapitulate:

   'Buddhism is the logical extrapolation of the Greek idea that the 
    world could be understood by pure logic.'

Now we see that the "result" (apparently something different
from the logical extrapolation itself) of this "logical extrapolation" is
to come to a conclusion; "that mind and language are ultimately
an impediment to understanding" and this is "Buddhism".


So we have:

          "the world can be understood by pure logic" 

        --Leo Smith extrapolates in a logical fashion-- 
                       and out comes:

  "mind and language are ultimately an impediment to understanding"


(Is 'mind' the word he wants here??? It doesn't seem to me to
tally with the use of 'mind' in Buddhism. Besides, in Leo
Smith's parlance "all is mind" which gives a certain charm to
the result above.)       
As is seen here "pure logic" has nothing to do with either mind
or language. This is presumably the kind of "logic" used in the
extrapolation itself.
   


   (...) 
   Leo Smith:
   (...)
   that they will give you yet more pictures in your mind - adaptations 
   of previous pictures. Ask yourself where, when and how you first 
   gained your idea about what the world is and what it is made of, and 
   then go and revisit the territory. See for yourself. Recreate the 
   experiment.


However that happened and whatever it was it was not an
experiment. At least not from my point of view. It didn't happen
in a territory. (I'm not 'hip' enough for this jargon.)


          (...) ag:
          In my view then the idea (if meaningful at all) that the world
          can be understood through pure logic has nothing at all to do
          with Buddhism. 
   
   Leo Smith:
   Well its a pity that they mark school essays for 'style' rather than 
   'content'.  You have taken an aspect of Buddhism - the written texts, 
   and where it says that language is a nono, you have extrapolated that 
   to mean that thought==language.

   Does it? Does it really? What is thought? What is thought when you 
   stop talking to yourself? THESE are the questions that PRACTICAL 
   mysticism can answer - experimentally. That is what meditation and/or 
   any number of mystical disciplines can shed light on. THAT is why I 
   called it the biggest thought experiment ever.. :-)

So I have extrapolated from "thought is a nono" to "thought is
equivalent to language". Now you credit me with extrapolational
powers almost of your own class!
What I did, and perhaps this is what you mean, was to associate
the 'logic' in your reference to the 'greek idea of
understanding the word with pure logic' with language.
This might not be the 'pure logic' you had in mind. Maybe your
reference was rather to the mystical tradition of Pythagoras
than to the logic of Aristotle. References such as 'The greek
idea' are open to this kind of problem. Perhaps you would care
to make this more precise?
How 'thought', 'language' and 'logic'(and perhaps 'pure logic')
relates to each other is a formidable question. Being the
subject matter of many millennium of discourse within Buddhism, Greek
philosophy, medieval philosophy and right up to the present days
with Tractatus as a suitable example, one is reluctant to
discuss this at all without at first and at least agree on some
principles to guide the discussion. This may be hard to do since
this tend to be circular. But I know that some people do not see
any problem here (in determining what logic to use to discuss
logic) and maybe you are one of them?



MTV-regards Anders

















--


If you see Saint Annie, please tell her - Thanks a lot.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta