This may help on several threads that seem to have recurring themes right now re: awareness. I thought I would have posted that here at Shalomplace before but couldn't see where I had. It is a contribution I made to several other forums on interreligious dialogue and religion & science.

pax,
jb

Buddhism and Reality as a foil to other metaphysics

I think there are several conversations going on between Buddhism and reality, all very much related but all very distinguishable.

Buddhism may be asking of reality the classical philosophical questions:

Dear Reality, Should I be a rationalist (affirming a priori truth) or empiricist (denying a priori truth), an idealist (mind-dependent) or realist (mind-independent)? Should I place my emphasis on esse (existence) or essence (quiddity, etc)?

Buddhism may also ask of reality the post-modern questions: Should I be a pragmatist (reality is what works) or existentialist (reality is whatever one chooses)?

I think classical philosophy would classify most Buddhist thought as rationalistic idealism or Kantian thought, this as contrasted to rationalistic realism or Platonist thought, to empiricistic realism or Aristotelian thought (Aquinas) and empiricistic idealism or Humean thought.

I don't think that classical philosophy really handles Buddhism very well because the emphasis in Buddhism is on trying to lead one into a nondual experience of reality and its literature focuses on leading one into such an experience, existentially, and not so much into leading one into an essentialistic philosophical grasp of reality by asking ontological questions. To the extent that Buddhist writing and teaching efficaciously leads one into the nonconceptual and ineffable nondual experience, it would be expected that one might have some difficulty articulating the experience conceptually.

Buddhism might transcend classical philosophy in these regards and might more appropriately be classified with the postmodern philosophies, certainly moreso pragmatistic than existentialist (it is not nihilistic). For these reasons, perhaps, Nagarjuna may often be associated with thinkers like Deridda and Wittgenstein and their deconstructive approaches.

To some extent, the postmodern critique was good hygiene for classical philosophy and revealed that rationalism, empiricism, idealism and realism were insufficient descriptors of reality. To me, the empiricistic realism of Aristotle and Aquinas best answered the postmodern critique and, in doing so, the critical rationalism of Popper and critical realism emerged. I suppose it could be said that classical philosophy constructed our approach to reality, that postmodernism deconstructed our approach to reality and that critical realism reconstructed our approach to reality. Most modern scientists are critical realists and this is true for the atheistic, theistic and nontheistic scientists.

So, if we concede to Buddhism that it is not really a naive idealism (and I think we should), then the question remains, that if it is postmodernistic then, is it reconstructive? Does the nondualism of Zen buddhism differ from the Hindu advaita vedanta? I think the answer is yes, Buddhism is reconstructive, hence a realism, neither nihilistic nor purely idealist. How, then, does it differ from critical realism?

Well, first, let us restate its reconstructive aspect: First there is a mountain (constructive), then there is no mountain (deconstructive), then there is (reconstructive). This is not a philosophical tussle between realism and idealism, both of which are constructive enterprises. Rather, this is a commentary on premodernism versus modernism, which resolves postmodernistically, critiquing classical philosophy's approach to realism vs idealism. So, the key to where Buddhism stands with respect to critical realism does not reside in asking ontological questions per se because Buddhism may have been implicitly an empiricistic realism all along.

Ontologically, then, Buddhism affirms that reality is real and our approach to reality should be both empiricistic and realistic. How then does it differ from critical realism? It goes back to the question I listed above but did not address yet: Should I place my emphasis on esse (existence) or essence (quiddity, etc)?

Buddhism looks at esse, existence, as primary. Existence is real. Existence is emphasized. Essence is what we see in everyday awareness; things are differentiated. What is absolutely real, however, is undifferentiated. In everyday awareness, we see the mountain and its essence. In enlightenment, we see existence, alone, of the mountain and all else. In post-experiential reflection, the mountain emerges as neither subject nor object but presents itself purely existentialistically, nondualistically, its essence receding, all essence somewhat left behind, no distinctions even possible between this or that esse. Essence is suppressed. Esse is not.

This focus on esse, then, would present certain problems for doing science, which focuses on essences, if not for the fact that Buddhism can and does speak of essence. Science and Thomism, however, can encounter problems of their own in relating to reality, by allowing existence or esse to recede or to be left behind in an essentialism, concretizing and reifying essences. So, it is not that Buddhism doesn't acknowledge the essence of everyday awareness, it just doesn't consider essence primary where ultimate reality is concerned. Critical realism doesn't have to deny esse, for its part, but only deemphasizes it and considers essence primary where reality is concerned. The fundamental properties of reality, for science and phenomenology, are space, time, matter and energy, and, for some, also consciousness, or essences. The fundamental property of reality for Buddhism is being itself, or existence, or esse.

There are tradeoffs for emphasizing essence over esse or esse over essence. Zen loses its ability to articulate the realism of Buddhism, perhaps a realism as has truly experienced the ground of our being, has truly encountered that place within where we see God in the mirror of our truest self, though only as an image. Science, philosophy and metaphysics can lose their ability to pierce through the concepts of esse and essence in order to encounter esse subsistens, in order to distinguish between contingent being and necessary being, between received existences and unreceived or self-subsisting existence, dwelling too much in its essentialistic perspective.

Zen sees no analogue between the mirror image and self having lost sight of essences; all esse is therfore self-subsisting. Science sees no analogue between the mirror image and self having lost sight of esse; all esse is therefore self-subsisting. Science and Buddhism (and some pantheisms and nontheistic Hinduisms) can thus both be materialist monisms, though for different reasons.

See God, Zen and the Intuition of Being - Chapter 5 by Arraj , especially this imaginary conversation between Maritain and Izutsu:

quote:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Izutsu: There is no nihilism in Zen. When we speak of the absolute as Nothingness, it is not mere emptiness. When we speak of the non-subsisting character of the tree, we are not idealists. Nothingness is the "plenitude of being, for it is the urgrund of all existential forms." (27) In everyday awareness things are closed, seen essentialistically, if you will. Then in the process of enlightenment they are reduced to absolute undifferentiation or nothingness, and when they emerge from this nothingness they are ontologically transparent or open. Both subject and object are abstractions from the field of actus. "Nothing is to be regarded as self-subsistent and self-sufficient." (28) Zen wants to see the nonarticulated field articulating itself.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again: The fundamental properties of reality, for science and phenomenology, are space, time, matter and energy, and, for some, also consciousness, or essences. The fundamental property of reality for Buddhism is being itself, or existence, or esse. To me, Buddhism thus comes closer to describing ultimate reality through its apophatic denial of essences as being primary, because they are not. The kataphatic affirmation of the reality of essences can be combined with such an apophatic denial to yield the "essential" distinction between esse and esse subsistens.

God is esse is true, kataphatically but only metaphorically and analogically.

God is not esse is true apophatically and literally.

Unitively, God is neither esse nor not esse because God is a wholly different type of esse, esse subsistens, which as the Buddhists know, existentially, is perfect unity, oneness, which as Christianity teaches, essentiallistically, through creatio ex nihilo, pours out esse and essence in great diversity.

And that's why I think so many Buddhists make excellent scientists. We just mustn't confuse their ascetical practices and literature with ontological treatments per se. Now, how is it that advaitan Hindus can make good scientists? Well, for all sorts of reasons.

In the final analysis, if science hasn't flourished in this or that culture under this or that worldview or within this or that religion, it may have less to do with the inadequacy of any underlying metaphysic and moreso to do with what that religion, culture or tradition suggests that one ought to do with one's time, talent, treasure and technology.

Could be that some religions reinforce a quietism through their over-emphasis of the affective and apophatic while others reinforce a rationalism through their over-emphasis of the speculative and kataphatic. This may reveal how Buddhism and Western Science might best critique one another. Some fall prey to encratism (over-emphasis of apophatic and speculative) and pietism (over-emphasis of affective and kataphatic).

I suppose it all boils down to nurturing those tensions that reality reveals cannot be resolved and to properly collapsing those that can be resolved. Some paradox and ambiguity is inherent and very real and some is seeming and only apparent. Some is essential. Some accidental. Which is which? That's the crux. That's the rub.

The Questions Cosmologies Ask of Reality and the answers they�ll accept



The "Questions Cosmologies Ask of Reality" spreadsheet or matrix was intitally somewhat narrowly conceived as having an x-axis derived from Maritain's "Degrees of Knowledge" and a y-axis as derived from aspects of Merton's comparative mysticism. Actually, the matrix might be more broadly conceived to consist of an x-axis representing epistemology and a y-axis representing ontology. In other words, the matrix represents different philosophical systems.

Which epistemologies are deemed valid on the x-axis are determined by the ontological positions implicit in the various aspects of reality being considered on the y-axis. The x-axis thus explicitly represents phenomenology, science, metaphysics and theology and the y-axis implicitly sets forth attributes of reality or aspects of being that correspond to the ontological positions derived from various combinations of stances taken toward realism, idealism, rationalism, empiricism, pragmatism and existentialism.

For our purposes, it is understood that natural theology can be done within the epistemological domains of phenomenology, science and metaphysics while the domain of theology refers to revealed theology. It is not simply a matter of which domains of knowledge are deemed valid or invalid but also a matter of which domains are emphasized or deemphasized.

Without distinguishing between validity and emphasis, Religious Naturalism thus seems to dwell within the domains of phenomenology and science, invalidating or deemphasizing metaphysics and revealed theology. This would seem to include Pantheisms, Zen Buddhism and advaitan Hinduism and other religious but nontheistic approaches to reality. Scientific materialism would dwell exclusively in the domain of science, invalidating or deemphasizing other domains to varying degrees from one person's perspective to the next. Objectivism, a dualistic naturalism, would dwell within phenomenology and science as well as metaphysics, considering consciousness an immaterial reality, however natural. The Abrahamic Traditions and some theistic Hinduisms would dwell within all of the epistemological domains, variously emphasizing or deemphasizing the types of questions asked of reality and answering same differently. Protestant Christianity mostly dwells within the domains of theology and science, invalidating any approach to reality that involves either natural theology or mysticism. Deism disregards all of revealed theology and much of natural theology except for its minimalistic metaphysical conclusions.

Although it is essentially nothing more than a mnemonic device or heuristic, there are many insights to be gleaned from the matrix. One insight I wish to point out is the possibility for extensive dialogue between those traditions that dwell exclusively within the domains of phenomenology and science. It is my belief that, by dwelling exclusively within these two domains, one will be almost algorithmically driven to nondualism or monism. It is also my belief that Buddhism and Religious Naturalism are more closely related than many suspect.

First, let me identify where I think there may be some confusion. I think that most philosophers would distinguish Buddhism from other religious naturalisms by claiming that Buddhism is an idealist monism rather than a realist monism. For instance, Buddha might get categorized among the Kantian thinkers as a rationalist idealist and Nagarjuna among the Humean thinkers as an empiricist idealist. Nagarjuna might also be characterized as a deconstructionist among the postmodernists like Derrida and Wittgenstein. I think the postmodernist label is the best descriptor for Buddhism and I think the idealist labels are incorrect, at least for some forms of Buddhism. Here's why.

Buddhism ultimately makes a definitive conclusion about reality. Implicit in its conclusion that reality is nondual is Buddhism's conclusion that realty is also real. Buddhism, in fact, emphasizes esse or existence. Existence is primary. What it deemphasizes is essence or quiddity. Its deemphasis (or even denial) of differentiated reality does not amount to idealism. Rather, Buddhism is making a statement about reality, distinguishing between what is essential, in this case existence or esse, and what is accidental, in this case essence. Here, Buddhism is collapsing the essential into esse, viewing absolute being as undifferentiated. The nondualism that results is much closer to being a materialist monism than any type of idealism and may simply be proscribing any unwarranted reification of qualia, like any other naturalistic account of reality. In this regard, Buddhism might be considered to have provided science its own distinctive postmodern critique and may have provided realism an adequate answer to its critique by idealism. Buddhism might, therefore, properly nestle itself within such a critical realism as inhabited by other religious naturalisms.

Still, there are obvious distinctions between Buddhism and other religious naturalisms. Let me speak to their origins. What these hermeneutics have in common is nondualism and, if I am correct, also a materialist monism as well as a critical realism. Where Buddhism differs, however, from a more Western religious naturalism, is in its approach to nonduality. In a nutshell, Buddhism arrives at nonduality through a natural mysticism, or what Maritain calls a mysticism of the self. Its ascetical disciplines and doctrinal precepts set forth, if you will, rules for this journey toward natural mysticism, in our consideration, let's say a journey toward Zen enlightenment. Zen thus arrives at nonduality experientially. Nonduality becomes a conclusion one feels in her bones and in his marrow. It is an existential conclusion in favor of the nondual nature of reality that is nonconceptual, nondiscursive, apophatic and a litany of other terms that go along with this type of consciousness (as set forth in the matrix, in fact). It can be described phenomenologically, however, only with a great deal of difficulty because of the ineffability of the experience. It can be measured, perhaps, as a unitary state of consciousness, such as in the work of the late D'Aquili as continued by Newberg.

At the same time, there is another approach to the nondual nature of reality as described by Maritain and, likely, as suspected by most of you. It is the path of philosophical contemplation, which is taken via ordinary awareness through concepts and discursive thinking. This is set forth as the more difficult path, immersed as humans are in ordinary awareness with its attention to differentiated reality, essence and quiddity. It requires considerable meditative thought, even a tenacity, and may have its own affectivity. This path also deals with the distinctions between esse and essence or an "intuition of being", a being moreso viewed in terms of quantity rather than quality, of quanta rather than qualia, of emergentistic properties rather than ontological discontinuities. Like the natural mysticism of Buddhism, this philosophical contemplation of Western religious naturalism arrives at nondualism, discarding essence as a "thing in itself", phenomenologically and scientifically. Differentiated reality thus does not translate into ontological discontinuity.

Why then has Buddhism been considered an idealism, at worst, a mere postmodern critique, at best, rather than the critical realism it might really be in dialogue with other religious naturalisms? It is because the Buddhist literature and lexicon is oriented toward leading one through ascetical disciplines and doctrinal precepts that are existentialistic and experiential rather than essentialistic and academic. The Buddhist literature, its metaphysical koans and its philosophical paradoxes, does not set forth an ontology and does not comprise a metaphysics. Rather, it is intended to lead one to enlightenment, to an intuitive grasp of nondual reality in an experiential way. One might surmise that people immersed in Eastern cultures would more quickly come to an intuition of being via the route of natural mysticism or Zen enlightenment due to their dominant mode of consciousness, which is more apophatic, trophotropic, intuitive, using conjunctive awareness. Conversely, one would think that Westerners would arrive at their intuition of being and nonduality via philosophical contemplation due to their dominant mode of consciousness, which is more kataphatic, ergotropic, rational, using disjunctive awareness. At any rate, one might improperly conclude that Buddhism is an idealism by reading its literature as a metaphysical narrative rather than as a phenomenological guide.

Still, why do some consider Buddhism and other Eastern religions as nonstarters as far as science goes? Well, again, primarily because its literature gets improperly interpreted. Even then, if its implicit metaphysics is congruent with a critical realism and therefore consonant with science, why the predominance of scientific advance in the West? I think this answer resides in the difference in manners by which Buddhism and religious naturalism proceed from is to ought, from the given to the normative, from the descriptive to the prescriptive. Clearly, all of the religious naturalisms, including Buddhism, should be able to accomodate science with logical consistency, internal coherence, external congruence, interdisciplinary consilience and hypothetical and cognitive consonances? The differences in metaethical endeavors between Buddhism and western religious naturalisms likely derive from alternate emphases wherein Buddhism stands on the face of our diverse essentialistic reality focusing inward at unitive existentialistic being, wherein western religious naturalisms stand in the center of unitive existentialistic being looking outward at diverse essentialistic reality. Both are in touch with e pluribus unum or unity in diversity. Buddhism, however, ends up placing its ethical emphasis on internal mastery (internal environment) and enlightenment, on being at the expense of doing. Alternately, western cultures have placed their ethical emphases on external mastery, on doing at the expense of being. That would better explain their different preoccupations, not their respective metaphysics. This would actually be good news for scientific advances in the East. The western fundamentalistic elements of the Abrahamic traditions (NOT the traditions per se) would thus be the greater obstacles to good science and not, rather, Zen Buddhism or even advaitic Hinduism, which may have some parallels metaphysically and existentially with the script I have set forth for Zen Buddhism as a religious naturalism.

Buddhism critiques science with its emphasis on mindfulness and awareness, with its holistic thrust, with its noetic clarity and perceptual expansion, with its reconciling, nonreductionistic approach and sense of the sacred. Science critiques Buddhism with its emphasis on mastery of the external rather than internal environment, with its atomistic thrust, with its narrowed attentional field and perceptual contraction, with its polarizing, dichotomizing, reductionistic approach and ability to articulate its findings and strategies.

In conclusion, Western religious naturalisms might wholly comprise science's best answer to the Buddhist critique. A Thomist critique of the religious naturalisms would involve an attempt at further penetrating the intutition of being thereby deriving a further nuancing of esse and essence to propose a transcedent selfsubsisting esse. Such a consideration is beyond my current scope.

JB, these are intriguing insights. I have an exam to write tomorrow, but after that, I'll study these and all your language links etc. I want to find another theory of language that incorpoates the possibility (or inevitability of intuition) in regards to poetics. Can't wait to read into all this stuff after my exam.

Huuuuu

quote:

Originally posted by Asher:
[qb] JB, these are intriguing insights. I have an exam to write tomorrow, but after that, I'll study these and all your language links etc. I want to find another theory of language that incorpoates the possibility (or inevitability of intuition) in regards to poetics. Can't wait to read into all this stuff after my exam.

Huuuuu [/qb]

quote:

Bede Griffiths� first love was poetry, and he remained convinced of the importance of poetry as a way towards the realization of unitive spirit.

My interest in my youth had always centred on poetry, especially the English Romantic poets, Wordsworth, Shelley and Keats. It was they who taught me to look beyond the world of senses to the world beyond senses, the infinite and the eternal. Poets use language of symbolism which always points beyond the finite temporal world to the infinite and eternal. It was Jacques Maritain and his wife Raissa, who taught me to see the link between poetry and mysticism....

Both poetry and mysticism spring from the depths of the soul beyond the senses, but whereas the poet seeks to embody his experience of this inner mystery in words and images, the mystic seeks to go beyond word and thought to experience the hidden mystery from which all words and thoughts are derived. (Pathways to the Supreme, Introduction, ix-x.)

by Bruno Barnhart, OSB Cam

I know that I pointed you to western esotericism to find the poetic path to wisdom and how Byron, Shelley, Keats et al, along with Emerson & Thoreau et al might intersect with approaches that resonate with the East in many ways. But, I admit my leanings toward Maritain when it comes to epistemology, in general, and poetry, in particular. And here is a bridge where your and my hermeneutics can happily meet insofar as Bede Griffith esteemed Maritain, too. So, do see Poetic Experience By Jacques Maritain and, may your trail dust be stardust ...

quote:

Things are because we see them, and what we see, and how we see it, depends on the arts that have influenced us. To look at a thing is very different from seeing a thing. One does not see anything until one sees its beauty. by Oscar Wilde

and may the Muse be with you ...

Aesthetics is a normative science just like logic and ethics and plays an important role in both math and cosmology, especially in theoretical physics, where what is most beautiful has always been intuited as being also the most true, such as has launched the search for symmetry in both our cosmos and our equations. The poet sees the FIRE in the equations!

Richard Rohr has a set of tapes on Awakening the Soul that I positively resonate with and which led to this reflection , wherein I claim: it is an excess of spirit , which seeks to explain it all away, chasing after every new model, theory and rubric
and it is an excess of body , which seeks to numb it all in various fixes, shutting down the senses and clouding our perceptions so we don't have to face life's difficulties. You can see what I say about an excess of soul but our predominantly Western spiritual maladies are in the excesses of spirit and body and the balance we most need, today, is to Awaken Our Souls. If I have heard where you are coming from, the path of beauty and of soul and of poetry must surely be calling you onward and, whatever consolations you receive in that regard, I am sure will one day be ministered to others.

I have about exhausted my resourcefulness in this regard but of the oodles of stuff I have posted on awareness and intuition and such, perhaps none can better communicate than the following old poem that I wrote. Could save the poetically inclined the bother of reading my thick, dull narratives

From Hubris to Humility to Holism

If epistemology models ontology
Then let's just dawdle, putter and piddle
For no mental mapping of reality can ever solve
The ontological riddle

Why is there something rather than nothing
Asked Heidegger with a sigh
It's not how things are but that things are
Was Wittgenstein's reply

Meta-systems are unachievable
Due to our inaccessible ground
One can model their rules
But never explain them
Inherent constraints thus abound

Frustrated as a consequence of the system itself
Unable to transcend one's own framework
What's a poor philosopher to do
But give her metaphysical bootstraps a jerk

With no warrant, no proof, no assurance
No postulate, axiom or confirmation
No ground, no maxim, no certainty
No assurance nor justification

There's neither sanction nor authority
To give one's stipulation a boost
It seems Kant and Hume and Locke and Nietzsche's
Hatchlings are home to roost

Epistemological hubris results
From the Ontological A Priori
When both fideists and rationalists alike
Start to tell the untellable story
The latter claim the death of God
The former are superstitious
Whether modern or pre-modern, still
Their claims are based on wishes

Epistemological humility grew
From Ontological Undecidability
When relativists and deconstructionists
Realized their full nihilist possibility

The death of metaphysics was claimed
From the antics of postmodernity
The death of philosophy then ensued
However self-contradictory

Revealed in manifest absurdity
Their claims were indefensible
Ultra or hypermodern critiques
Resultantly reprehensible

But here we stand, no going back
The postmodern tide is in
The pre-modern and modern were washed away
Reconstruction must now begin

With epistemological holism marked
By the Ontological Hypothetical
Gifting modeling power par excellence
With an horizon eschatological

From the given, the is and descriptive
In an approach that's now fallibilistic
To the normative, ought and prescriptive
Governed by the probabilistic

Surrounded by fractals and holons
And logical consistency
Gifting explanatory adequacy
With increased predictability

Intelligibility now enhanced
By internal coherence and external congruence
Descriptive accuracy supplemented by
A most consilient influence

Insightfulness and consonance
With hypothetical fecundity
Are empirically corroborative with
Existential import and profundity

So what if we're not on dry land
So what if our foundation's afloat
We'll weave a web, a metanexus
And that'll be all she wrote

jb
07/26/2002

Good luck writing your exam, Asher.

pax,
jb

JB,

before I forget, I'll leave with a link. http://www.integralscience.org/gsc/

This book will interest you, in partcular, I think:

Merrell-Wolff, Franklin (1994).
Franklin Merrell-Wolff's Experience and Philosophy: a personal record of transformation and a discussion of transcendental consciousness: containing his Philosophy of Consciousness Without An Object and his Pathways Through To Space (Albany : SUNY Press). ISBN 0-7914-1964-9.

Thanks, Asher. You are correct. That book does interest me.

I like this poem of Wolff:

The Nameless
Above, below, to right, to left, all-encompassing,
Before and after and all between,
Within and without, at once everywhere,
Transforming and stable, ceaselessly;
Uncaused, while fathering all causes,
The Reason behind all reasoning,
Needing nought, yet ever supplying,
The One and Only, sustaining all variety,
The Source of all qualities, possessing no attributes,
Ever continuous, appearing discrete,
Inexpressible, the base of all expression,
Without number, making possible all number,
Containing the lover and the beloved as one,
Doing nought, remaining the Field of all action�
The actor and the action not different�
Indifferent in utter completion;
Diffused through all space, yet in the Point concentrated,
Beyond time, containing all time,
Without bounds, making bounds possible,
Knowing no change;
Inconceivable, yet through It all conceiving becoming;
Nameless ever and unmastered;
THAT am I, and so art Thou.

++++++++++++++++++++

Rich in its predications of the UnPredicatable aspects of that Who is otherwise Univocally Predicatable as the UberPredicated One

He is the UnPredicated.
She is the Univocally Predicated.
It is the UberPredicated.

Doesn't seem too radically apophatic or totally nominalistic like some in the nondual traditions? Maybe like the way I nunaced some Buddhist approaches to reality above? I dunno. Too early to tell. However ... the wheat and chaff are together in all of our fields 'til the Harvest ...

Another Wolffian dynamic after my own godelian heart:

quote:

Mathematical poetics, when practiced with great devotion and humility, necessarily involves the transformation of both mind and heart and inevitably involves both wisdom and compassion. In essence, it is like any enlightened poetics, combining the principles of One and Many, both revealing and veiling. Its logos manifests as numerical proportion, vibrational harmony, geometrical symmetry, and cosmic order. Enlightened poesis is the radiant creativity, the translucent manifestation that is not other than the radiance itself. May we all know and be it.

Mathematical Poetics of Enlightenment

gracias, muchas gracias
jb