Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: Buddhism & Science
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:52:00 +0000


[...]

    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.

Sigh...here we go again.


     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. 

Of course it is: The result of the extrapolation of the thought 
experiment is to come to the conclsuion that mind and language are 
ultimately an impediment to understanding. That was the point I was 
trying to make.

     In fact it is constantly drummed in that language (and therefore logic)      tak
e you nowhere at all and a first step to what is known 
s          'enlightment' (Buddhistic insight) is to realize that 
language is          useless when it comes to real insight.

     The obvious objection is that this knowledge (that language is a
     hindrance to 'enlightment') has to be given in words and so
     language is indispensable after all.

??? you are treading on thin ice here. All Buddhism IMHO says at this 
point is of the order of 'This sentence is a lie' and ' you may be in 
the swamp, but the way out is over there?' That is, if you like, the 
self may be incased in its own machinations to the extent that it is 
unable to see beyond them, but those machinations have a source, and 
it is towards the source that the individual is directed. To say that 
the TV is not reality, is not to say that instructions received over 
the TV on how to switch it off are invalid. Any three year old could 
see that. 

     The answer to this seems to be that if you only know (the words
    in the) Sutra you again know nothing at all. Naturally there is then
    the question: if the words gives you nothing why then read
    the Sutras at all?

Words give you what words give you. All that Buddhism is saying is 
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.

 [...boring bit deleted..]
 
     So language is at best used as in the Sutras (in which language
     are used to undermine itself) 

Er ... IS used is the grammatically correct form in the singular I 
believe. 
Agreed. When getting to the source, the use of language is to 
undermine language. This is standard enlightenment technique.

          i.e. as a means of connecting new
          disciples but for the real understanding it has no bearing at all.

disciples? What disciples? I hope you meab that in the sense of 'one 
who adopts a discipline' rather than in the common term of 'one who 
adopts a dogma'


       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. 

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.. :-)




Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta