RobertGreenSky wrote:David Quinn wrote:Nagarjuna is speaking some sense here. Note the, "Without knowing how they differ, You cannot know the deep", bit - this is the application of A=A in a nutshell. And the last bit is true as well - "Without intuiting the sublime, You cannot experience freedom." That is, without understanding and being aware of nirvana (not just in a second-hand conceptual sense, but in a direct sense as well) one cannot enjoy its freedom.
I'm not sure that understanding the difference between 'samvriti' and 'paramartha' implies somehow that A = A is permanently validated.
It's the other way around. It is because A=A is permanently valid that 'samvriti' and 'paramartha' can be distinguished.
If A = A is useful in ascertaining conventional truth, observe however that as we saw today in the quote on catuskoti, or as it is known in the west, tetralemma, 'What Nagarjuna wishes to prove is the irrationality of Existence, or the falsehood of reasoning which is built upon the logical principle that A equals A....'
I'm not sure what that guy is trying to say, but it sounds dubious. Nagarjuna would be performing a miracle if he could somehow prove things without using reasoning based in the principle of A=A. He was a clever man, but he wasn't a magician.
Entering into nirvana doesn't require one to break the rules of logic, or to reject reason, or to otherwise become irrational.
Also, 'nirvana' is such a problematic word, given 'nirvana = samsara', given also that people want to make a goal of it, that I like to avoid using it. I also don't like 'Buddha', 'Bodhisattva', and a lot of other words in these areas.
They're useful words. If they don't cast a spell on you, then you don't need to avoid them. They do help in making visible to others, and to oneself, what is required to reach nirvana and become wise, which is important.
None of the scriptures around the world avoided spiritual words and concepts, or refrained from talking about goals. Lao Tzu, for example, talked about how the greatest virtue is to "follow the Tao and the Tao alone". Nagarjuna regularly utilized spiritual concepts, such as samsara and nirvana, and constantly focused his attention on the goal of abandoning illusion and realizing truth. If these two men can use spiritual concepts, articulate goals and employ reasonings without losing sight of the Tao, then it is perfectly reasonable that you and I can do so as well. And speaking from experience, I certainly don't have any problem doing it.
Regarding nirvana and samsara, they are not really the same thing, even though in another sense they are. Yes, nirvana is none other than the world we live in, but ordinary people don't experience this nirvanic world as nirvana. They experience it as samsara. Thus, it is perfectly valid and correct to talk about the need to strive for nirvana, even though it remains true that we are already steeped in nirvana in every single moment of our lives.
RobertGreenSky wrote:... the meditative process doesn't involve pushing away concepts and trying to achieve a blank mind, as is popularly believed. Rather, it involves the natural falling away of concepts (and desires) as the meditative mind ceases chasing after enlightenment in the realization that neither enlightenment nor the mind really exist. Meditation is the art of dismantling deluded behaviour in the mind, and is as much an intellectual process (wherein false concepts of the Tao are exposed) as it is a process of observing and paying close attention to what is actually happening in the present moment.
'Blank mind' could suggest 'lifeless mind' or 'quietistic mind' and that is certainly not desirable, nor is any enforced silence. I do not consider meditation an intellectual process. I characterize this area of human endeavor not as 'rational' but as 'hyperrational'. Unidian recently used 'transrational'. We don't give up thinking and we are not irrational, but ordinary rationality is too limiting and Nagarjuna, etc. consider ordinary rationality a part of the problem. Nagarjuna wrote, 'The pacification of objectification is peace', although I can't remember which of the translations that's in - Garfield, I think, which I no longer have.
That's interesting. What are the similarities and differences between "ordinary reason" and "hyper-reason"? Can you articulate them?
RobertGreenSky wrote:David Quinn wrote:RobertGreenSky wrote:Writing about the Tao is not conceptualizing the Tao in the sense of having 'intuited the Dao directly' (Unidian, above). 'The Tao is hidden and without name' means the Tao is beyond conceptualization. 'The nameless' is 'the sublime' and it must be intuited rather than conceptualized. 'The Tao cannot be conceptualized' is by necessity a concept, but it is true (conventionally) nonetheless.
These are easy, vague words which could be true or could be false, depending on what is meant by them. I personally agree with them, but then I probably have a very different interpretation of them than what you have.
I didn't think I wrote vaguely. How about, 'you can talk about the Dao but the talking about the Dao is not the meditative penetration of the Dao and which is necessary for real psychological transformation'.
Well, that's rather stating the obvious, but my concern was more about the role of thought and reason in becoming conscious of the Dao and the accompanying transformative process.
RobertGreenSky wrote:Let me ask you this: Does "intuiting the Dao directly" depend on the cessation of all thought? And by the same token, if a person does engage in thought does it automatically mean that he has stopped intuiting the Dao directly?
What do you think?
The flash of insight, satori, does suggest a la the sudden school of enlightenment that one is not caught up in thinking at that moment, but one obviously was thinking before the fact and one was obviously thinking after the fact. We don't give up thinking, we just reorder its significance.
So does this mean that if a person engages in thought he automatically stops intuiting the Dao directly?
RobertGreenSky wrote:'Emptiness does not entail abandoning the dualities of thought and language, but learning to live with them more lightly.' (Batchelor, Verses, p. 166)
More lightly, enlighten, lighten up. In this light thinking is not the end purpose of human consciousness but instead a tool for our use. The meditative state is Zen, Ch'an, dhyana, and which is the life itself.
I more or less agree with that, but this is what makes your reaction (and Nat's) to the use of reason so very curious. You guys seem to treat reason not as a tool for our use, but as some kind of mortal enemy that has to be obliterated. I'm talking about your general behaviour here, and not what you like to claim to be the case.
-