Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: The Logic of the Buddhist Tetralemma

  1. #1

    The Logic of the Buddhist Tetralemma

    Hello everyone:

    I recently finished reading a book from the Treeleaf recommended reading list called The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way by Jay L. Garfield -- though not light reading by any means, the book was an excellent commentary on Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika. Together with some lectures on podcast at the Upaya Zen Center website by John Dunne, the book really helped me begin to gain an understanding of the perplexing tetralemma which I first encountered several years ago in the Diamond Sutra. The basic structure goes:

    A
    -A
    Both A and -A
    Neither A nor -A

    One well-known example of this form from early Buddhist literature is:

    The world is finite.
    The world is infinite.
    The world is both finite and infinite.
    The world is neither finite nor infinite.

    When I first encountered these sorts of passages in Buddhist literature, I was left dumbfounded by what seemed to be mysterious riddles. My mind could not accept the blatant inconsistency and violation of what I have recently learned is called Aristotle's law of the excluded middle. Even now, my insight into these sorts of passages comes and goes, but I have persisted in studying the tetralemma because I strongly sense that this form is the finger pointing at the moon so to speak. I've never formally studied logic, so that leaves me at a big disadvantage...

    However, through the years, one explanation that resonates with me (perhaps because of its simplicity) is that these passages must be read in light of the doctrine of two truths and so as an expression of conventional (conditioned) existence v. the ultimate reality. In Garfield's book, the tetralemma is described as a way to say something about which nothing can really logically be said. Another commentary that I found tonight suggests that these verses are a reflection of anhomomorphic rather than conventional logic. While the article is over my head in many respects, I found it particularly interesting because it is persuasively argued that the logic of the tetralemma is the same as is used to accommodate quantum physics. I'm a nerd, so the link between quantum physics and Buddhist philosophy is one that I have found really fascinating and validating in many ways. Here is a link if you are interested in reading more about this argument:

    http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewconte...06&context=phy

    So, the reason I posted all of this is because I'm really interested in getting others' feedback and thoughts about these sorts of passages, and how you go about interpreting them.

    Gassho,
    Tanjin
    SatToday
    Last edited by Tanjin; 01-21-2017 at 04:41 AM.
    探 TAN (Exploring)
    人 JIN (Person)

  2. #2
    It is about the many ways of seeing all things (including ourself), and the viewless view ... each as precisely all, all as precisely each, each as precisely each, all as precisely all, each is just each and there is nothing else, ... each and all of the foregoing true at once! ... and, anyway, what "all" and what "each"? That's all!

    Some arises in the old Indian "Neti neti" as to what cannot be said or easily described ... not this, not that.

    Also, the Hua-yen Buddhist Golden Lion may also be helpful ... A teacher named Fazang made a small lion statue out of gold to represent the whole universe and all reality. Then, he asked us to look at it many different ways.

    The lion is empty; there is only the gold. Also, emptiness, having no self-nature, manifests itself through form. This means that since the gold takes in the totality of the lion, apart from the gold there is no lion to be found. This means that when we see the lion coming into existence, we are seeing only the gold coming in to existence as form. There is nothing apart from the gold.

    ...

    (1) The gold and the lion arise simultaneously, perfectly complete. (2) The gold and the lion arise compatible with each other, the one and the many not obstructing each other. In this situation, emptiness [li] and forms [shih] are distinct. Whether one considers the one [emptiness] of the many [forms], each entity maintains its own position.

    (3) If the eye of the lion takes in the whole of the lion, then the whole lion is purely the eye. (4) Since the various organs, and even each hair of the lion, takes in completely the whole lion in so far as they are all gold, then each element of the lion penetrates the whole of the lion. The eye of the lion is its ear, its ear is its nose, its nose is its tongue, and its tongue is its body. Yet, they all exist freely and easily, not hindering or obstructing each other.

    (5) If one contemplates the lion, there is only the lion, and the gold is not seen. The gold is hidden and the lion is manifest. If one contemplates the gold, there is only the gold, and the lion is not seen. The lion is hidden and the gold is manifest. (6) The gold and the lion may be hidden or manifest. The principle [emptiness] and the jointly arisen [phenomena] mutually shine. Principle and phenomena appear together as completely compatible.

    (7) In each eye, ear, limb, joint and hair of the lion is reflected a golden lion. All these golden lions in all the hairs simultaneously enter in to a single hair. Thus in each hair, there are an infinite number of lions. In addition, all single hairs, together with the infinite number of lions, enter in to a single hair. In a similar way, there is an endless progression of realms interpenetrating realms just like the jewels of Indra's net.
    Here is one version ...

    http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachin...lden_Lion.html

    The intimate intrapenetration and totalness of all realized in Zazen.



    Gassho, J
    Last edited by Jundo; 01-21-2017 at 05:35 AM.
    ALL OF LIFE IS OUR TEMPLE

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Tanjin View Post

    The world is finite.
    The world is infinite.
    The world is both finite and infinite.
    The world is neither finite nor infinite.
    That's just Heart Sutra stuff.

    Jishin practicing the deep practice of perfect wisdom perceived finite to lack intrinsic self and was struck by lightning. Jishin went on to preach:

    Finite is infinite and infinite is finite. Finite is precisely infinite and infinite is precisely finite.

    Sensation of finite, perception of finite, memory of finite and consciousness of finite are also boundless.

    All finite worlds are expressions of infinite, not born, not destroyed, not pure, not stained, neither waxing or waning.

    Thus in infinite nature, no finite form, no finite sensations, no finite perception, no finite memory and no finite consciousness.


    My finite 2 cents.

    Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_

  4. #4
    Thank you for sharing that Jundo! I will have to digest that slowly...

    Gassho,
    Tanjin
    SatToday
    探 TAN (Exploring)
    人 JIN (Person)

  5. #5

    The Logic of the Buddhist Tetralemma

    There was a great series of talks by Greg Fain at the SFZC on the Diamond Sutra, and they discussed this in one of them. Someone here had posted about the talks and they were amazing. You can find them on the SFZC page.
    Gassho
    Jakuden
    SatToday

    PS though the lion thing Jundo posted pretty much says it all!
    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Jakuden; 01-21-2017 at 03:44 PM.

  6. #6
    There is no enlightenment. This is why it's called enlightenment.

    Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Jakuden View Post
    There was a great series of talks by Greg Fain at the SFZC on the Diamond Sutra, and they discussed this in one of them. Someone here had posted about the talks and they were amazing. You can find them on the SFZC page.
    Gassho
    Jakuden
    SatToday

    PS though the lion thing Jundo posted pretty much says it all!
    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Thank you Jakuden! I will try to look those up.

    Question for anyone - in the form A and not A (-A), does -A represent everything other than A, or is it more limited than that?

    Gassho,
    Tanjin
    Sattoday
    探 TAN (Exploring)
    人 JIN (Person)

  8. #8
    I would think it is infinite in meaning. Including the Not more limited, but also the more limited. I don't think trying to pin it down intellectually is going to be very fruitful (been there done that)
    Gassho
    Jakuden
    SatToday


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Tanjin View Post
    Thank you Jakuden! I will try to look those up.

    Question for anyone - in the form A and not A (-A), does -A represent everything other than A, or is it more limited than that?

    Gassho,
    Tanjin
    Sattoday
    If we're talking about predicate logic, then A is a predicate, a function which can be either true or false. ¬A is the negation, or opposite of A. If a statement A is true, then ¬A is false. If A is false, then ¬A is true.

    Gassho, Zenmei
    #sat

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Zenmei View Post
    If we're talking about predicate logic, then A is a predicate, a function which can be either true or false. ¬A is the negation, or opposite of A. If a statement A is true, then ¬A is false. If A is false, then ¬A is true.

    Gassho, Zenmei
    #sat
    I'm not sure we're talking about predicate logic. The proposal that the logic of (Buddhism? For lack of better term) is similar to the the logic of Quantum theory, which on the surface seems to negate so many previously defined "truths," is definitely fascinating to the nerd-brain. I wonder if down the road someday science will find a way to reconcile the two forms of logic... but then I think, it will always be trying to define or quantify the infinite/unknowable into something our physical brains/human minds can process. This would be akin to us being able to smell a sound. We are just not built that way, so we have to acknowledge at some point that there is the ungraspable, even though we are it and it is us, that doesn't mean our minds can define it.
    Gassho
    Jakuden
    SatToday


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #11
    Totally my anecdotal observation but we humans seem hardwired to tend towards binary views. I think it's tightly tied to our need to minimize or reduce uncertainty and it's reasonable given the fact that the more you know about your situation the more likely you'll survive it. So it should come as no surprise that our ancestors were probably worry worts (since the oblivious ones most likely walked off cliffs or into bear caves...)

    So while we love to think it's either "this or that" (and yeah, in math and science it often is... ) actual human existence is about more than just Republican or Democrat, Coke or Pepsi, A or B.

    But if we can drop the need for "this or that" it opens up all sort of possibilities.
    Being a molecular biologist before I went to dental school I once worshiped quite sincerely at the alter of "this or that" but ultimately found it wanting. There's just too many unmeasurables and too many contradictions inherent in the universe. You can't measure how much you love your kids or how much you hate brussel sprouts and it's perfectly OK to hope the new president does wonderful things for the country while simultaneously fantasizing that he gets eye herpes.

    I too have been slowly going through Nishijima and Warner's translation of Nagarjuna's work and its simultaneously fascinating and, to quote the inestimable Mark Twain, "chloroform in print". (See? Another contradiction perfectly content to exist within the universe.) I'll get through it eventually but if nothing else it's a great reminder of how believing that logic, science, intellectualism and materialism will somehow "save you" is folly. I gave up trying to "figure out" the universe and it's been a much more pleasant experience ever since.

    Gassho,
    Hōkō
    #SatToday

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Hoko; 01-22-2017 at 01:47 AM.
    法 Dharma
    口 Mouth

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoko View Post
    Totally my anecdotal observation but we humans seem hardwired to tend towards binary views. I think it's tightly tied to our need to minimize or reduce uncertainty and it's reasonable given the fact that the more you know about your situation the more likely you'll survive it. So it should come as no surprise that our ancestors were probably worry worts (since the oblivious ones most likely walked off cliffs or into bear caves...)
    I think it's more than an anecdotal observation, if you studied biology you probably studied at least a little neurology at some point... our neurophysiology is designed to sense contrast. Desensitization happens if constant stimuli are applied, on both a microscopic and macroscopic level.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hoko View Post
    So while we love to think it's either "this or that" (and yeah, in math and science it often is... ) actual human existence is about more than just Republican or Democrat, Coke or Pepsi, A or B.

    But if we can drop the need for "this or that" it opens up all sort of possibilities.
    Being a molecular biologist before I went to dental school I once worshiped quite sincerely at the alter of "this or that" but ultimately found it wanting. There's just too many unmeasurables and too many contradictions inherent in the universe. You can't measure how much you love your kids or how much you hate brussel sprouts and it's perfectly OK to hope the new president does wonderful things for the country while simultaneously fantasizing that he gets eye herpes.


    I too have been slowly going through Nishijima and Warner's translation of Nagarjuna's work and its simultaneously fascinating and, to quote the inestimable Mark Twain, "chloroform in print". (See? Another contradiction perfectly content to exist within the universe.) I'll get through it eventually but if nothing else it's a great reminder of how believing that logic, science, intellectualism and materialism will somehow "save you" is folly. I gave up trying to "figure out" the universe and it's been a much more pleasant experience ever since.

    Gassho,
    Hōkō
    #SatToday

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk


    Gassho,
    Jakuden
    SatToday

  13. #13
    AKEMI:Tomatoes are delicious.
    BENJI: I'd rather eat shit than tomatoes.
    CHIKO: Raw tomatoes make me gag, but pizza without tomato sauce is yeuch.
    DAI: Tomatoes? I could take them or leave them.

    GORO: Trump is the devil.
    HIRO: Trump is our saviour.
    IZUMI: Trump has his good points and his bad points.
    JUNDO: I look at Trump and I see nothing bad and nothing good.
    Which of these people is telling the truth? Would the others agree with you?

    This is how I understand the tetralemma to work - recognising that there are multiple truths, all of which are true; all of which are false; none of which are true or false; all of which are true and false.



    Diarmuid

    #S2D

  14. #14
    Hi Every-One and All (Ha Ha ),

    May I offer a couple of small cautions here?

    For one, in the Zen traditions, it is generally more important to experience such, not so much to figure it out logically. Maybe there is a bit too much attempt to figure this out intellectually here, then to see and know this. Take, for example, the famous drawing of the young woman and the old crone (I think you all know this optical trick, so I do not need to explain) ...

    http://www.grand-illusions.com/opticalillusions/woman/



    Is this an old crone but not a young woman? (Yes, by one way of seeing)

    Is this a young woman but not an old crone? (Yes, by one way of seeing)

    Is this both at once? (Yes, both are there even if a little hard to see at once as one)

    Is it neither? (Well, yes, if we just realize it is ultimately lines of ink on paper or dots on a screen, and there is no actual woman or crone there at all)

    All true at once.

    The point is that, more vital and powerful than trying to figure this out philosophically or in a logical equation explaining how all the above truths can be true depending on the circumstance, is to actually see and experience and reallize all the above. Same with the universe as, for example, the so-called "relative" and "absolute" and all the permutations of the Golden Lion. More to be experienced, seen and embodied then intellectually "figured out". We come to see experience and realize such through Zazen more than intellectual ideas or logical equations (although Buddhist writings such as the "Golden Lion" and MMK are fingers pointing us to what Zazen should reveal, like your friend who explains the "optical illusion" to you for you to finally see yourself).

    Next, there are limitations to how this was used in Buddhism, I believe. For example, Tanjin in the OP gave the following example (I changed "world" to "universe" to be a bit clearer). In my understanding, these four points are not something that would be all simultaneously declared as true by the Buddha or most Buddhist philosophers of whom I am aware (even Nagarjuna), at least in the way you might assume:

    The universe is finite.
    The universe is infinite.
    The universe is both finite and infinite.
    The universe is neither finite nor infinite.
    For example, in my understanding, the Buddha first hesitated to make any statement on such questions as beyond his central concern ...

    "Malunkyaputta, did I ever say to you, 'Come, Malunkyaputta, live the holy life under me, and I will declare to you that 'The cosmos is eternal,' or 'The cosmos is not eternal,' or 'The cosmos is finite,' or 'The cosmos is infinite,' ... ?

    "No, lord."

    "And did you ever say to me, 'Lord, I will live the holy life under the Blessed One and [in return] he will declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,' or 'The cosmos is not eternal,' or 'The cosmos is finite,' or 'The cosmos is infinite,' ... ?"

    "No, lord."

    "Then that being the case, foolish man, who are you to be claiming grievances/making demands of anyone?

    ... "It's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is finite,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is infinite,' there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, 'The cosmos is finite,' and when there is the view, 'The cosmos is infinite,' there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now.

    ...

    "So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... are the same...
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....063.than.html
    Most Zen folks would also avoid such questions. We might say something like ...

    If ...

    The universe is finite ... chop wood and fetch water (i.e., get one with life and Practice)
    The universe is infinite ... chop wood and fetch water
    The universe is both finite and infinite ... chop wood and fetch water
    The universe is neither finite nor infinite ... chop wood and fetch water
    For example, if some philosophers (whether Western or Buddhist) or physicists were to assert one or more of the above propositions and, if that proposition or propositions (or something else all together) proves to be the case, we are fine with it. If they prove that there are multiple universes or different quantum states, in some of which some or none or all of the above is true, we are fine with it. In any case, we are fine with it ... chop wood, fetch water.

    But finally, the most subtle point is that, while Zen folks (and others such as the Hua-yan masters) might believe that there is more than one way to look at things, and while we have some perspectives that bend our normal logic and way of looking at things, that DOES NOT mean that anything and everything, no matter how illogical, is true.

    Thus, in a certain "Golden Lion" sense, there are no dogs and there are no cats because all separate selfness washes away in the pure Goldness of emptiness. We also see a perspective by which everything in the universe flows into and is so interconnected with everything else (like all the reflections of Indra's Net) that, in one way, we may say that cats (and each whisker of the cat in fact) hold all dogness and dogs hold all catness ... the old crones hold all young womanness and the young women each fully embody the old crones. But that is not the same as saying that, in this ordinary day to day world, a dog can literally be a cat at the same time, or that a cat can literally be a dog at the same time. Day to day young women are not also old crones, cats or dogs. That would just be illogical and physically impossible.

    So, for example, in one sense, there is no Jundo and no Jishin. All washes away in the Wholeness we sometimes call "Emptiness." In another sense, old woman Jundo fully embodies old crone Jishin. Yet, if I (Jundo) suddenly show up in Jishin's house claiming to be him, his wife will be fully justified in grabbing the shotgun and calling the cops! Same for whether the universe is both infinite and finite, if those are mutually exclusive propositions. Buddhist logic expands many of our usual ways of looking at things but, alas, it does not make every crazy possibility true.

    Gassho, Jundo

    SatToday (in this universe anyway, not sure about in some other)
    Last edited by Jundo; 01-23-2017 at 01:21 AM.
    ALL OF LIFE IS OUR TEMPLE

  15. #15
    Ps - I personally feel that questions such as "is the universe finite or infinite" or "if the universe had a beginning, what came before the beginning" or "if there was a cause, what caused the cause" arise from the fact that we human beings are simply asking the wrong questions, and limiting the answer to the wrong terms. For example, we are so used to living in a day to day world in which things seem to all have starts and finishes and finite extents and causes that we impose these mental limitations on the universe. It might be that reality is ultimately something beyond such concepts as start and finish, before and after, created or uncreated or whatever other anthropocentric concept we try to impose. Simply put, we are so used to thinking in terms of vanilla or chocolate, and thinking that the Sundae of the universe must only be one or the other, that we can't see that the universe might actually be strawberry or rocky road.

    Zen folks really don't care, because we know right where we are: RIGHT HERE, at the crossroads of whatever led here. This is the one place to be right now (where else can we be right now?), so chop wood and fetch water. Since whatever or who ever or nothing at all seems to have brought about our lives, despite all the seeming ridiculousness of it, right here and now in the middle of space and time ... best get on with living it, and live it well! If the universe is vanilla, chocolate or rocky road ... all yummy!

    I think my Zen Practice has, as some folks seek, shown me the reason and "meaning of life": Whatever is "the meaning of life" ... best to live life and live it with meaning. The reason of life and being born here, it seems, is to live and be here.

    I sometimes compare our human birth to a baby that finds itself alive in a crib with food and water somehow miraculously put in its mouth by the universe, plus air to breath and all the rest. We infants need not understand all the whys and wherefores ... no physicist, philosopher or Buddhist master has ever been able to explain it all. The infant knows little about the world yet, if it ever will. Not all seems to its liking, and some of it is downright painful. However, like the infant, we somehow trust and are grateful for it all. We accept it, live and grow. We even somehow feel that there is something right about it, that we are supposed to be here, and we feel gratitude. Thus I bow to Buddha, which is one name for all that.

    And, as the Golden Lion, I look out at the whole world and know that ... like cats and dogs, gold and lions, young ladies and old crones ... I am just that, and all that precisely me.

    That is enough, even without all the details which may be forever beyond our small comprehension, any more than an ant could ever understand the full structure or purpose of (or even recognize as we would) a jet airplane whose wing it walks across. It simply goes on its way. That is enough.

    PPS -

    I too have been slowly going through Nishijima and Warner's translation of Nagarjuna's work and its simultaneously fascinating
    The Nishijima-Warner "translation" of Nagarjuna's MMK had SERIOUS problems related to my Teacher's advanced mental confusion with old age when he wrote it. Please read my review on Amazon for my comments on the problems. I thought it should never have been published.

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-r...SIN=0983358907
    Last edited by Jundo; 01-23-2017 at 03:21 AM.
    ALL OF LIFE IS OUR TEMPLE

  16. #16
    Hi Jundo,

    See, now I had no idea about any of this! I just bought the darn thing because Brad plugged it. After the whole "the word/concept is not the thing itself" part was established it started to get repetitive. My gut reaction was to retreat into "I don't understand and that's OK" so maybe some good came of it. I don't know. Anyway, interesting stuff. (Sets book down and walks away slowly...)

    Gassho,
    Hōkō
    #SatToday

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
    法 Dharma
    口 Mouth

  17. #17
    Thank you Jundo for the example of the optical illusion - it helped me really understand how all of the seeming contradictions could be true at once.

    Gassho,
    Tanjin
    Sattoday
    探 TAN (Exploring)
    人 JIN (Person)

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Tanjin View Post
    Thank you Jundo for the example of the optical illusion - it helped me really understand how all of the seeming contradictions could be true at once.

    Gassho,
    Tanjin
    Sattoday
    Just recall that the Tetralemma does not mean that all propositions are necessarily true no matter how contradictory or illogical, although Buddhist logic expands our usual ways of looking at things and contains some logical propositions we are not usually accustomed to.

    Here are a couple of examples. Imagine an apple:

    It is an apple (yes)
    It is a fruit (yes)
    It is both an apple and a fruit (yes)
    It is neither an apple nor a fruit (yes, from the perspective of emptiness which washes away all individual self identity)


    All the above can be true. As well:

    It is an apple (yes)
    It is also a pear (yes, in the Indra's Net/Golden Lion sense of all phenomena of the universe holding and fully expressing all other phenomena)
    It is both an apple and a pear (yes, in the above Indra's Net/Golden Lion way)
    It is neither an apple nor a pear (yes, from the perspective of emptiness which washes away all individual self identity)


    For those not familiar with "Indra's Net"

    A frequently cited expression of this vision of reality is the simile of Indra’s Net from the Avatamsaka Sutra, which was further elaborated by the Huayan teachers. The whole universe is seen as a multidimensional net. At every point where the strands of the net meet, jewels are set. Each jewel reflects the light reflected in the jewels around it, and each of those jewels in turn reflects the light from all the jewels around them, and so on, forever. In this way, each jewel, or each particular entity or event, including each person, ultimately reflects and expresses the radiance of the entire universe. All of totality can be seen in each of its parts.

    Fazang illustrated the Huayan teachings for Empress Wu by constructing a hall of mirrors, placing mirrors on the ceiling, floor, four walls, and four corners of a room. In the center he placed a Buddha image with a lamp next to it. Standing in this room, the empress could see that the reflection in any one mirror clearly reflected the reflections from all of the other mirrors, including the specific reflection of the Buddha image in each one. This fully demonstrated the unobstructed interpenetration of the particular and the totality, with each one contained in all, and with all contained in each one. Moreover, it showed the nonobstructed interpenetration of each particular mirror with each of the others.
    A variation that looks like the "tetralemma" is also sometimes encountered when the Buddha in the "Perfection of Wisdom" Sutras, for example, is seeking to transcend all human opinions and point to emptiness ...

    Some philosophers call it an apple, but it is not that (from the perspective of Emptiness, where all self-identity washes away)
    Some philosophers might call it a fruit or a pear, but it is not that (from the perspective of Emptiness ... )
    Some philosophers might say it is both an apple and a pear and a fruit, but it is not that (from the perspective of emptiness ... )


    ... and here is the real kicker, which is meant to show how far beyond mental philosophical arguments reality is:

    Some philosophers might say it is neither an apple nor a pear nor a fruit, but it is not that either (because "emptiness is so empty" that we do not even stick a label or idea "emptiness" on it, for to do so does "it" an injustice. Even though the proposition seems technically right from the perspective of emptiness, just to say it in words is wrong! True "emptiness" is so empty that it is not just another perspective or idea.)


    A lot of Zen Koans are like that:

    Does a Dog have Buddha Nature ... MU! (a statement so affirming of Buddha Nature and Emptiness that we express it beyond and right through philosophical debate on the question and simple words "yes" vs. "no").


    That being said, the Buddha would not literally call an apple a "pear" in ordinary, day to day terms. That would be contradictory and illogical. One does not make apple pie with pears.

    Side Note: I posted in a different thread about Dogen and his way of bending language and logic in order to bring out new facets of Buddhist Truth, much like a jazzman such as Coltrane bends notes and musical time in order to bring out new facets of standard tunes. Dogen might actually make statements such as the following, filled with poetic imagery and seeming non sequiturs (the following is just me channeling his writing style a bit) ...

    Apples are Apples, Apples contain all the tree and every blade of grass.
    Do you think only that apple trees grow merely from apple seeds?
    Trees grow from apples as apples grow mountains and rivers and Buddhas.
    Apples are pears and in each pore of endless pairs of Buddhist Divas.
    An Apple is not an apple, not original sin nor Newton's Head.
    Yet it is the garden that holds all snakes and ladders.
    It is the pie in the sky which is all Kannon's 1000 Eyes.
    Where can you bite this Apple?


    Something like that would be Dogen's attempt in Shobogenzo to express Buddhist logic just stepping beyond even something like the "tetralemma".

    Gassho, Jundo

    SatToday

    PS - Now that I wrote the following, I am humming this silly song that is all the rage in Japan. I think overseas too judging from youtube. My daughter loves it ... as did I the first 100 times ...

    Last edited by Jundo; 01-24-2017 at 03:20 AM.
    ALL OF LIFE IS OUR TEMPLE

  19. #19
    Mp
    Guest
    Thank you for this explanation Jundo, loved it. =)

    Gassho
    Shingen

    s@today

  20. #20
    I think Dogen is absolutely ruined when you try to analyze what he wrote. It just trashes his poetry. Very bad. Just read it and savor it. That's all. It's honey for the ears.

    Much of the same goes for Zen or Buddhist logic. If you tell me what it is, I will tell you what its not. Just go with it.

    Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_

  21. #21
    My daughter will proclaim that "totally random" and enjoy it immensely, I'm sure.
    Thank you Jundo. Your explanations make perfect sense, and for the rest, it is fine to be an ant on an airplane's wing.
    Gassho
    Jakuden
    SatToday


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Jishin View Post
    I think Dogen is absolutely ruined when you try to analyze what he wrote. It just trashes his poetry. Very bad. Just read it and savor it. That's all. It's honey for the ears.

    Much of the same goes for Zen or Buddhist logic. If you tell me what it is, I will tell you what its not. Just go with it.

    Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_
    Well, I agree with just reading and savoring for Dogen. At the same time, he was a learned man and a walking encyclopedia of traditional Buddhist stories, Koans, Sutra quotes and doctrines. He was not playing his music outside of traditional Buddhist and Mahayana teachings, any more than a jazz musician simply blows in the wrong end of his sax, throws away the notes and calls it music (I am sure somebody did once in awhile to show how radical their vision, but then they had to come back to this world of notes and time and which end of the horn is up). He was playing from the standard tunes trying to capture something hidden there.

    Likewise, all the great Zen Masters of the past (even Hui-Neng, the supposedly illiterate one) were not just pulling teachings out of their ass, making it up as they went along, or saying weird stuff just to sound weird or trash all teachings and wisdom. They were pretty much all learned men (and women) working within established and widely shared Buddhist teachings and doctrines, simply trying to get to them past the philosophical obstacles surrounding them. You can take the Zen man out of the Mahayana, but you can't take the Mahayana out of the Zen man.

    A koan such as "Does a Dog have Buddha Nature? ... MU!" makes no sense at all unless one has some awareness of the philosophical debate that tied people up on whether dogs were sentient beings, whether they had or did not have Buddha Nature, what is "Buddha Nature" after all, whether it is something we have or achieve or are or something else all together ...

    All that mental debate is swept away in "MU!" which is Emptiness, which is "Buddha Nature." To truly pierce this "MU!" is to truly pierce Buddha Nature. Problem solved!

    They were not talking about fishing or auto mechanics or sports or out of thin air or whatever goes chaos. It is a Mahayana Buddhist thingy.

    Gassho, J

    SatToday
    Last edited by Jundo; 01-23-2017 at 04:15 AM.
    ALL OF LIFE IS OUR TEMPLE

  23. #23
    Zen is simple and obvious. I just don't think its necessary to talk about it so much. That said, it is necessary to talk about it so much until one realizes it is not necessary to talk about it so much.

    The talking should be done by someone with a big mouth (Jundo) and not with someone with a big mouth (Jishin).

    That's all.

    Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_

  24. #24
    Wonderful teaching Jundo, thank you. I'd comment on it further, something about emptiness and infinite buddhas, but my thoughts are better said as "just sit."

    The pen pineapple apple pen thing has indeed made it to the states. A close friend was this guy for Halloween. I have no idea how he was able to find the outfit.

    Gassho,
    Seido
    SatToday
    The strength and beneficence of the soft and yielding.
    Water achieves clarity through stillness.

  25. #25

    The Logic of the Buddhist Tetralemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Jundo View Post
    At the same time, he was a learned man and a walking encyclopedia of traditional Buddhist stories, Koans, Sutra quotes and doctrines...

    ...Likewise, all the great Zen Masters of the past (even Hui-Neng, the supposedly illiterate one) were not just pulling teachings out of their ass, making it up as they went along, or saying weird stuff just to sound weird or trash all teachings and wisdom. They were pretty much all learned men (and women) working within established and widely shared Buddhist teachings and doctrines, simply trying to get to them past the philosophical obstacles surrounding them.
    This sounds like Jundo.

    Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_

  26. #26

    The Logic of the Buddhist Tetralemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Jundo View Post
    Well, I agree with just reading and savoring for Dogen. At the same time, he was a learned man and a walking encyclopedia of traditional Buddhist stories, Koans, Sutra quotes and doctrines. He was not playing his music outside of traditional Buddhist and Mahayana teachings, any more than a jazz musician simply blows in the wrong end of his sax, throws away the notes and calls it music (I am sure somebody did once in awhile to show how radical their vision, but then they had to come back to this world of notes and time and which end of the horn is up). He was playing from the standard tunes trying to capture something hidden there.

    Likewise, all the great Zen Masters of the past (even Hui-Neng, the supposedly illiterate one) were not just pulling teachings out of their ass, making it up as they went along, or saying weird stuff just to sound weird or trash all teachings and wisdom. They were pretty much all learned men (and women) working within established and widely shared Buddhist teachings and doctrines, simply trying to get to them past the philosophical obstacles surrounding them. You can take the Zen man out of the Mahayana, but you can't take the Mahayana out of the Zen man.

    A koan such as "Does a Dog have Buddha Nature? ... MU!" makes no sense at all unless one has some awareness of the philosophical debate that tied people up on whether dogs were sentient beings, whether they had or did not have Buddha Nature, what is "Buddha Nature" after all, whether it is something we have or achieve or are or something else all together ...

    All that mental debate is swept away in "MU!" which is Emptiness, which is "Buddha Nature." To truly pierce this "MU!" is to truly pierce Buddha Nature. Problem solved!

    They were not talking about fishing or auto mechanics or sports or out of thin air or whatever goes chaos. It is a Mahayana Buddhist thingy.

    Gassho, J

    SatToday
    OK, here it goes:

    For work I write approximately 80 pages per day and edit another 80 pages per day. Mostly cut and paste though but I am still responsible for all the text. I also have been forced and continue to be forced to read a lot of material not produced by me. Because of this, I have acquired a distaste for wordiness. Another problem is that I have a tendency to catch on quickly to things intellectually and get bored easy. Because I am compulsive, I have a tendency to read most of what is written here against your advice. So I feel tortured when I am forced to read things here that I don't like. It hurts. That's all. I do enjoy what's written at Treeleaf but at the same time it hurts to read it. Ouch!



    Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_
    Last edited by Jishin; 01-23-2017 at 01:00 PM.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Jishin View Post
    OK, here it goes:

    For work I write approximately 80 pages per day and edit another 80 pages per day. Mostly cut and paste though but I am still responsible for all the text. I also have been forced and continue to be forced to read a lot of material not produced by me. Because of this, I have acquired a distaste for wordiness. Another problem is that I have a tendency to catch on quickly to things intellectually and get bored easy. Because I am compulsive, I have a tendency to read most of what is written here against your advice. So I feel tortured when I am forced to read things here that I don't like. It hurts. That's all. I do enjoy what's written at Treeleaf but at the same time it hurts to read it. Ouch!



    Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_
    Oh, that's easy. You've been around here long enough, Jishin, know basically all this baloney.

    Don't worry about it, get un-compulsive, JUST SIT!

    That's my prescription, Doc.

    Gassho, J

    SatToday
    ALL OF LIFE IS OUR TEMPLE

  28. #28
    Jundo - your examples are really helping me out on this thread! I need something concrete to really see into the non-concreteness of it all. I do understand that it is a common pitfall to try and intellectualize Buddhism or seek an ultimate philosophical explanation for things. With that being said, I also understand that context is important and some of the ideas need to be comprehended as a component of the raft I use to cross to river -- understanding that ultimately the raft is to be disguarded. So I really appreciate the effort made to help me in this respect!

    Indras Net is another one of those descriptions that I have encountered a number of times but which has left me scratching my head. While I can envision how the net would work in terms of everything reflecting everything else, I do need some help understanding how it is a metaphor for existence -- in other words, what characteristics (or lack thereof) of existence are reflective -- what does this represent? Are the terms interpenetration and interdependence used interchangeably here? Is the metaphor an expression of, for example, the idea that a piece of paper contains the sun, the rain, etc.?

    Thanks!
    Tanjin
    SatToday
    Last edited by Tanjin; 01-24-2017 at 05:02 AM.
    探 TAN (Exploring)
    人 JIN (Person)

  29. #29
    Here is a lesson. 11 "I" counted on post 26. 11 opportunities for trouble.

    Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Tanjin View Post

    Indras Net is another one of those descriptions that I have encountered a number of times but which has left me scratching my head. While I can envision how the net would work in terms of everything reflecting everything else, I do need some help understanding how it is a metaphor for existence -- in other words, what characteristics (or lack thereof) of existence are reflective -- what does this represent?
    Access to a kind of mystical or transcendent experience we call "Kensho" (yes, in Soto Zen too) is necessary to really grock this ... not simply an intellectual understanding in a mind stuck in our usual "me/you, this/that" divided way of cutting up the world.

    But I believe that it is an experience available to most people through Zazen, and I do not believe that it is so mysterious or "woo woo" once we understand something about the human brain. It is "this worldly", reproducible in a laboratory, not some "other worldly" magical fairy dust. Don't let the word "mystical" mislead on that.

    The human brain creates a hard sense of self/other in the prefrontal cortex and parietal lobe in connection with many other regions of the brain such as the visual cortex (in my limited understanding). In other words, data pours in through the senses, and the brain creates its own inner model of reality in which your "me" ends about at the border of the skin. Roughly, what is beyond the border is not yourself, what is within the border is your "me". The human mind also likes to separate and categorize, e.g., that a "chair" is not a "table" or a "tablecloth" (although it can also redraw borders to see the whole thing as a single "whole" of "dining set" for example.)

    In Zazen, those hard borders between "self" and the outside "other" that is not myself may seem to soften, perhaps fully drop away, so that all becomes experienced as an interflowing whole. It can happen all at once, in a big booming Kensho or subtly and softly like borders becoming gently translucent or crystal clear. Likewise for all the separate things of the world, which now can be perceived as an interflowing whole.

    Dr. Andrew Newberg is a radiologist at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital whose has made it his life's work to explore spirituality using neuroimaging tools ... His studies focus on two critical brain regions: The prefrontal cortex, which Newberg calls the "attention area" due to its role in focusing the brain on a specific task, and the posterior superior parietal lobe, a small region towards the back of the head which Newberg calls the "orientation association area," or OAA, responsible for orienting the individual in physical space. The OAA delineates boundaries between the body and its surroundings, giving us a sense of separate "selfness." Newberg theorizes that when activity in the OAA is depressed, people experience a diminished perception of individuality. During intense meditation or prayer, the brain combines decreased activity in the OAA with increased activity in the prefrontal cortex, leading to the feelings of unity, transcendence, and peace that form the essence of so many religious traditions.
    http://www.andrewnewberg.com/research/
    Something similar can sometimes also be experienced when "losing the self" in music or dance, in making love, in running, in knitting, in just sitting on the bus. Many times in life. Zazen just helps us get access to this more at will, and Buddhist philosophy aids us in interpreting and employing the experience.

    What results is a perfectly valid, alternative experience of reality in which the separation is replaced by wholeness, interflowing. The separate "tables" and "chairs" of reality (one of which is a chair called "you" feeling separate and apart from all the other chairs) become the Grand Dining Set of the Cosmos! All things are somehow felt to "hold" all other things, the proverbial "whole world in a grain of sand" ala Blake ...

    To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour.

    Since "chairs" are just the "Grand Dining Set", and since "tables" are just the "Grand Dining Set" ... chairs are just tables, for each is just the Grand Dining Set through and through!


    Okay, Ven Thich Nhat Hanh has his famous model of the "piece of paper" to express Indra's Net although, frankly, I find it a little cold and materialistic. It can be taken to mean that the "paper" symbolically holds the "sun" or the "woodcutter" rather than the above, real tangible mystical experience of all being connected and interflowing.

    If you are a poet, you will see clearly that there is a cloud floating in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud, there will be no rain; without rain, the trees cannot grow: and without trees, we cannot make paper. The cloud is essential for the paper to exist. If the cloud is not here, the sheet of paper cannot be here either. So we can say that the cloud and the paper inter-are.

    "Interbeing" is a word that is not in the dictionary yet, but if we combine the prefix "inter" with the verb "to be", we have a new verb, inter-be. Without a cloud, we cannot have paper, so we can say that the cloud and the sheet of paper inter-are.

    If we look into this sheet of paper even more deeply, we can see the sunshine in it. If the sunshine is not there, the forest cannot grow. In fact nothing can grow. Even we cannot grow without sunshine. And so, we know that the sunshine is also in this sheet of paper. The paper and the sunshine inter-are. And if we continue to look we can see the logger who cut the tree and brought it to the mill to be transformed into paper. And we see the wheat. We know that the logger cannot exist without his daily bread, and therefore the wheat that became his bread is also in this sheet of paper. And the logger's father and mother are in it too. When we look in this way we see that without all of these things, this sheet of paper cannot exist.
    For me, it is more than a mere "poetic" sense of connection and interdependency (what TNH calls "intra-being"). For me, it is a real, tangible experience of keenly felt and perceived unity, wholeness, interflowing. So, the model I came up with to convey this is a pregnant woman and her unborn child ...


    During the early months of pregnancy, can we clearly say that this is "one person"? "two separate people"? "One person with two hearts"? We cannot. All is "not one, not two." One interflows into the other. Moreover, the blood and oxygen flow so endlessly through mother and baby and back again, head to toe, that we might say that the mother head to toe flows into and creates the baby, and the baby flows back throughout the mother head to toe. Literally, every cell of the mother's toes holds the DNA of the baby, and every cell of the baby's eyes holds some material of the chin of the mother. Really, it is not mother and separate baby at this stage, but one being flowing into and out of itself. All is a great interflowing whole, a single motherbaby, literally breathing life into life. Something like that.

    Well, then the baby is born, the cord is cut, the prefrontal cortex and parietal lobe take over and suddenly the child comes to judge that there are "two separate people" in a world of separate people and things.

    Meditation, including Zazen, can reverse the mental process although, this time, the whole universe becomes "mom" and we come to see ourselves as still in the cosmic womb of sorts, star dust come to life. Separate individuals, yet not. All the world flowing in and out of us, and us into all of that. We realize and experience that, in a very real sense, you are not just "you" but that "you" are the whole shebang which surrounds and holds you, feeds and gives you breath, you are the whole universe from head to toe flowing in and out of you, you are what the whole universe is doing as you (as Alan Watts put it):

    What you do is what the whole universe is doing at the place you call 'here and now'. you are something that the whole universe is doing, in the same way that a wave is something the whole ocean is doing. the real you is not a puppet which life pushes around. the real deep down you is the whole universe.
    Something like that.

    I really don't mean it to be "woo woo". It is really not so mysterious. Nothing about modern physics or biology or neuro-science that I am aware of contradicts any of it. Even hard atheists like physicist Lawrence Krauss recognize that, in a very real sense, we are simply the universe come alive here and now for whatever reason, and our eyes are stardust looking at things which are stardust ... the universe looking at the universe.

    Gassho, J

    SatToday (and the universe SatToday)

    PS - Note how the below scientists can't seem to get away from saying "we are part of the universe out there" or "we come from the stars out there," still dividing the world into pieces in their way of expressing. That is one very correct way to see things. But Mahayana Buddhists and like folks more easily put it as "we are the out there now right here" and "we are the stars come to life." Those are perfectly defensible ways of expressing this too.

    Last edited by Jundo; 01-25-2017 at 04:00 AM.
    ALL OF LIFE IS OUR TEMPLE

  31. #31
    Beautiful! Thank you Jundo.

    Gassho,
    Jakuden
    SatToday

  32. #32
    Very nice explanation Jundo. Thank you.

    Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_

  33. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Jishin View Post
    Here is a lesson. 11 "I" counted on post 26. 11 opportunities for trouble.

    Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_
    "I" don't think using "I" is a sin. Language and labels are useful and even necessary devices, if one is aware of their limitations. When the use of "I" in a post is associated with expressions of suffering and preoccupation with the ego, though, then it might be a little flag that might provide clues about the source of suffering. Which probably was your point.
    Gassho
    Jakuden
    SatToday

  34. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Jakuden View Post
    "I" don't think using "I" is a sin. Language and labels are useful and even necessary devices, if one is aware of their limitations. When the use of "I" in a post is associated with expressions of suffering and preoccupation with the ego, though, then it might be a little flag that might provide clues about the source of suffering. Which probably was your point.
    Gassho
    Jakuden
    SatToday
    I was born in Utah, Salt Lake City but moved to Brazil when I was 4. I stayed there until I was 14. I completely lost the English language and when I came back to the US, I had to start from scratch. Kids would make fun of me when I would try to speak English. I tried my best to get English just right, but tried too hard. When beginning a sentence with "I", I would get stuck on "I" wanting the rest to come out just right. Thus, it would come out "I, I, I, I..." and my name become "I, I, I". Hey "I, I, I", how is it going today? So I am very good with I's, had lots of practice, dating back to my teens. Maybe even before since my mother told me that one of the first sentences I spoke was "I WANT!"

    Gassho, Jishin, ST

    PS: See how many "I"s I used in this post? I am the king of "I".

  35. #35
    Thank you Jundo for this teaching!

    Deep bows,
    Tanjin
    Sattoday
    探 TAN (Exploring)
    人 JIN (Person)

  36. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jundo View Post
    Well, then the baby is born, the cord is cut, the prefrontal cortex and parietal lobe take over and suddenly the child comes to judge that there are "two separate people" in a world of separate people and things.
    A fantastically helpful teaching. I am going to think of myself as part of a cosmological patio set, if you don't mind.

    One thing to further support your teaching is that there is no "sudden" judgement that there are two separate people. In fact, the baby is born, as far as science....sorry "SCIENCE"....tells us, believing that it is the universe and the universe is it. The establishment of a sense of self is gradual and it is not before the child is close to two years old that a clear sense of self emerges and it won't be until they're close to about 6 or 7 that the concept becomes fully baked (although maybe a little gooey in the centre...mmm....coooooooookiessssss).

    All hail sci...Science!


    Diarmuid

    #S2D

  37. #37
    Awesome, Jundo!

    Deep bows & gratitude.
    🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

    This reminds me of a quote from Joseph Campbell that I came across in the book we're reading by Loy:

    "If you will think of ourselves as coming out of the earth, rather than having been thrown in here from somewhere else, you see that we are the earth, we are the consciousness of the earth. These are the eyes of the earth. And this is the voice of the earth. "
    -Joseph Campbell The Power of Myth

    Only perhaps for the sake of this discussion he's thinking too small and we could replace "Earth" with "everything" or "the universe" or "reality" or some term that is more all-encompassing.

    Gassho,
    Hōkō
    #SatToday

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Hoko; 01-26-2017 at 03:50 PM.
    法 Dharma
    口 Mouth

  38. #38
    Member Getchi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Between Sea and Sky, Australia.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoko View Post
    Awesome, Jundo!

    Deep bows & gratitude.
    ��������������

    This reminds me of a quote from Joseph Campbell that I came across in the book we're reading by Loy:

    "If you will think of ourselves as coming out of the earth, rather than having been thrown in here from somewhere else, you see that we are the earth, we are the consciousness of the earth. These are the eyes of the earth. And this is the voice of the earth. "
    -Joseph Campbell The Power of Myth

    Only perhaps for the sake of this discussion he's thinking too small and we could replace "Earth" with "everything" or "the universe" or "reality" or some term that is more all-encompassing.

    Gassho,
    Hōkō
    #SatToday

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk


    Really love that imagery Hoko; eyes and brains of Earth.


    I heard once "There is Here, and there is There; but is there Between?". Seemed relevant.



    Gassho,
    Geoff.


    sattoday
    Nothing to do? Why not Sit?

  39. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoko View Post
    Awesome, Jundo!

    Deep bows & gratitude.


    This reminds me of a quote from Joseph Campbell that I came across in the book we're reading by Loy:

    "If you will think of ourselves as coming out of the earth, rather than having been thrown in here from somewhere else, you see that we are the earth, we are the consciousness of the earth. These are the eyes of the earth. And this is the voice of the earth. "
    -Joseph Campbell The Power of Myth

    Only perhaps for the sake of this discussion he's thinking too small and we could replace "Earth" with "everything" or "the universe" or "reality" or some term that is more all-encompassing.

    Gassho,
    Hōkō
    #SatToday

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
    As Bodhisattva Jerry Garcia sang:

    Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
    Wake now discover that you are the song that the morning brings
    Gassho, zenmei
    #sat

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •