David,
That’s a nice try, but you’re bumping against the limitations of your own generic mentality here.
First comment, a putdown. Yeaaaaaaa!
Just because a person utilizes logic doesn’t necessarily mean that he is looking for a fixed state, or a conceptual certainty, to grasp at. That is a very presumptuous assertion for you to make. It is entirely possible that he might have a very different goal in mind – for example, he might be seeking to free his mind from all conceptual prisons in order to open it up to the great reality of Emptiness that is everywhere around us, and in us.
Logic is about the mind and functions within it. Trying to use logic to go beyond the mind is like trying to use a spaceship to go beyond space. Perhaps it can show you the contradictions inherent in ego but that has never seemed to be your point. Am I wrong in saying that you insist logic is the means to enlightenment?
This great Emptiness that I speak of has nothing to do with a particular state, or point of view, or concept. It is not tied to any particular form. It cannot be found within any duality. It is identical to the living, breathing, ever-changing flow of Nature which comprises all things. It is the very same Emptiness that the Buddha spoke so eloquently about.
Okay.
In a recent thread, called Fundamental Assumptions, I made these comments:
These issues [of certainty and uncertainty] only arise when you're not in that place I spoke of. When you are in that place, then even the affirmation of A=A is no longer necessary. You have transcended everything - even the need to affirm A=A; even the need to think that you are in a particular place. The very idea of being in a particular place loses all meaning.
But when you are not in that place, you are suddenly looking for certainties. You are being taken in by duality and looking for solid ground in some kind of dualistic haven. When this happens, you have no choice but to rely on logic and A=A to get you back in that transcendent place.
Hmm. "A=A" is no different than "A", or "I am." "I am" isn't logic as that term is commonly understood. If you insist on calling it logic, then I would say you have a need to appear logical, which is about your image, not about logic.
Certainty and uncertainty, sanity and insanity - these are phantom issues which only arise to the degree that you are being taken in by the phantom of duality.
Yes, this is my point, that certainty is within duality, the realm of mind. Bringing it to emptiness is throwing away the baby to splash around in the bathwater.
What happens when you use knowledge and concepts to reach a realm in which you no longer depend on any concepts, points of view, or forms at all?
Free-fall is our natural state.
Sure but you have to give something up to get there. You are trying to drag all your baggage with you when you embrace logic from the standpoint of emptiness.
It is like using a boat to cross to the other side. Once you reach the other side, you no longer have any use for the boat. You no longer have to rely on it. You can put it aside and move on. Logic is that boat.
Okay, you and I probably agree more than not about the other side. My difficulty is you purporting to be on the other side and clinging to logic at the same time. You say you put it down and move on but you don't. Your teaching is about logic and certainty.
If the boat takes you beyond the duality of true and false, sane and insane, real and unreal, etc, then [certainty and uncertainty] no longer becomes an issue for you. There is no you.
Sure.
If, on the other hand, you are still battling for certainty and experiencing doubts, then it means you are still being taken in by duality. In that instance you have no choice but to utilize the tools of A=A and logic to work your way out of duality.
Logic makes you logical. Am I being illogical when I say that? Or are you saying emptiness is logical?
Is it insane to go beyond all duality? The issue has no meaning for the person who is beyond all duality.
Is it insane to value A=A and ensure that one's thinking conforms to it? The person stuck in duality has no choice about the matter. To reject A=A is to fall into the realm of incoherence and contradictory nonsense, where most people dwell.
No one rejects "I am." The problem is attaching "I am" to "this" or "that." And even that is problematic only when suffering arises.
As for your (generic) idea that emptiness embraces paradoxical thinking, that is laughable.
Ah, let's see your perspective!
From the perspective of an enlightened sage, there is nothing paradoxical about emptiness. He understands it completely.
Understanding cuts two ways. There is "I understand" as in "I know" and there is the understanding that is about not knowing. The former is about certainty, but the understanding of a sage isn't about what is known. Remember, the tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. What can't be known is what is eternal. And yet that "not knowing" seems to be what distinguishes the sage and his ease. That is a paradox since everyone else seeks more knowledge to arrive at peace, not less.
However, whenever ignorant people try to grapple with it, they invariably project their own delusions onto it and that is what creates the contradictions or "paradoxes". They unwittingly build unrelated edifices onto it and turn it into something that it's not.
Sure. It's not approachable by mind, where certainty resides.
Given this, whenever people start affirming and praising paradoxical thinking, you can take it as a given that they are trying to justify the contradictions in their own thinking. Christians do this all the time whenever they talk about God or the Bible being "paradoxical". It is a case of irrational people trying to rationalize their own irrationality.
Paradox is not simply that which can't be understood by conventional reasoning. Nonsense can't be understood either, that doesn't make it paradoxical. True paradox is not about what the mind can reason out, it is the use of contradiction to point to a higher truth. For instance, the Tao is about paradox, is it not?
Look, and it can't be seen.
Listen, and it can't be heard.
Reach, and it can't be grasped. Above, it isn't bright.
Below, it isn't dark.
Seamless, unnamable,
it returns to the realm of nothing.
Form that includes all forms,
image without an image,
subtle, beyond all conception. Approach it and there is no beginning;
follow it and there is no end.
You can't know it, but you can be it,
at ease in your own life.
Just realize where you come from:
this is the essence of wisdom. (v.14, Mitchell)
Pure paradox.
We also see this essential dynamic in the Zen koan. A Zen koan is simply an expression of emptiness, couched in words. To the ignorant, it is a paradoxical riddle. But to the enlightened, it is clear and direct pointing to the nature of Reality.
The reality will always appears as paradox within duality. You cannot express non-duality without paradox. That's why koans use it.
As for your attempt to distance yourself from your own mental certainties, which clearly informed the content of what you wrote above, that is also laughable. It is hard to take anyone seriously if they are so out of touch with their own minds that they cannot recognize the role of certainty in their own thinking.
I love this. It expresses your essence beautifully. First, your certainty about my certainty. What could be more wonderfully you than that! Next your condemnation. Also, perfectly you, setting yourself up on high. Finally, your dismissal of me based on your certainty of your own projection! Voila! You are the perfect product of your teaching. But your teaching is much more than what you think it is.
For the record, my experience of emptiness comes from sources such as the Tao and teachers both living and dead. Am I certain there is something besides certainty? It is pure foolishness to see it in those terms. Whatever I believe is not the point. I am not here trying to impress anyone with my certainty. I am asking you and others to look at your own certainty just as I look at mine. Are you saying that this is a useless exercise? What is this forum for if not to question both certainty and enlightenment and what each points to?