Split from Awakening versus enlightenment

[Brian]

Intellectual understanding is a nice starting point but there is much that is experiential yet ineffable. There are many who cling to one extreme or the other, or who swing between them, and don't recognize that the "rational" and the "mystical" are complementary in that they provide context and insight into legitimate aspects of "that which is" from different perspectives. Absorbing and integrating these perspectives which may seem disparate reveals them to be harmonious and opens a new perspective greater than the sum of the parts.

 

<shrug>

[Karl]

Yet another thread turned into Karl's views on logic, aren't we lucky. In Zen trying to get enlightened through the regular mind is considered one of its cardinal sins: 

 

"To seek Mind with the discriminating mind is the greatest of all mistakes" Hsin-Hsin Ming - Verses on the faith-mind

 

So I guess we can say that all this talk of logic is a good example of how to avoid awakening and enlightenment. 

 

It's only because you say illogical things. This is an example:

 

Getting 'enlightened' through the ordinary mind is considered a sin !

 

Really ? a sin ? I don't believe Taoists ever used that term or even knew what it meant.

 

Ordinary mind ? Is there an extraordinary mind ? No there isn't. You have a mind and that's it.

 

You have to know if the person who is spouting things like-'don't use the discriminating mind' is saying so because they don't want you to start questioning their power.

 

This is the first thing that should be learned. Anyone who says you should not question things is a dud. Ignore them. Question everything. In fact I'm sure that is precisely what Buddah said. Now, if such an enlightened being as Buddah should say this, then surely those that follow these things should be motivated to use the discrimination of the mind.

 

In armies soldiers are taught 'don't think, just do'. Anyone trying to pull a con will tell you that 'it's already been thought about by experts' it's 'too hard to think about' or 'thinking will impair the effect'. That's traditional con artistry at work. Do you think that's a wise use of the natural reasoning ability you have ?

[Brian]

No. This is the classical Trivium. I noticed Brian thanked you for it. That's because this is the way he was taught to do it. The first part is to be able to understand the grammar. Everyone glosses over this most important part because they believe this is an elementary thing which they learned at primary school. It is the most important thing and most people are unable to do it because they have had an education which has ensured they cannot really think the way that tells a person what is being said. Logic only works once that stage is past, it is a transitory stage for integrating concepts.

No, Karl. The classical trivium is grammar, logic and rhetoric -- in that order. This is precisely the order presented in The Trivium Method, too, but the believers of this "Method" (proposed, as I understand it, by some guy who had an epiphany while tripping on acid) maintain that this order has been secretly and intentionally corrupted in order to trick the population into slavery. You repeatedly assert that I learned it in some bastardized fashion -- despite me repeatedly stating you are incorrect in this assertion -- and you use that false assertion as the basis for claiming that I just don't understand.

[Karl]

Intellectual understanding is a nice starting point but there is much that is experiential yet ineffable. There are many who cling to one extreme or the other, or who swing between them, and don't recognize that the "rational" and the "mystical" are complementary in that they provide context and insight into legitimate aspects of "that which is" from different perspectives. Absorbing and integrating these perspectives which may seem disparate reveals them to be harmonious and opens a new perspective greater than the sum of the parts.

 

You only have your mind Brian. You have 5 senses with which to know the universe and one mind to make sense of those inputs.

 

We can simply analyse any incoming data then we figure out if it's junk or relevant. Once you open the window to 'I don't need to do that with mystical things' then you stop analysing and start accepting without reasoning. You have already made a fatal decision and by that action you may voluntarily accept a Trojan horse as a genuine prize. It is not forbidden to go checking out the horse for signs of hidden traps. You would do so if you bought a car. If the salesman said 'don't bother checking the engine because it's beyond your ability to do so' would you accept it ? If he said that 'mind could not comprehend the condition of the body work' would you be won over ?

 

 

[Karl]

No, Karl. The classical trivium is grammar, logic and rhetoric -- in that order. This is precisely the order presented in The Trivium Method, too, but the believers of this "Method" (proposed, as I understand it, by some guy who had an epiphany while tripping on acid) maintain that this order has been secretly and intentionally corrupted in order to trick the population into slavery. You repeatedly assert that I learned it in some bastardized fashion -- despite me repeatedly stating you are incorrect in this assertion -- and you use that false assertion as the basis for claiming that I just don't understand.

I agree and you are right, I don't know. Let's explore that. I'm as interested to see if what you are saying is correct. I have never learned the classical method and it would do me no good at all just to accept the words of some guy telling me that there is a difference. I would be failing in my application of the method by doing so.

 

Where do we start ?

 

I know you studied the classic trivium, so you have a better basis than I do for assessing the differences.

 

I used the books as recommended to become familiar with grammar and then did the peikoff course. Peikoff does not say he is teaching anything other than a basic logic course. He isn't teaching 'the trivium method' just an introduction to logic.

 

I know peikoff is careful to refute the work of some logicians for others.Lionell Ruby is the guy that Peikoffs lectures are built around. That's why I was asking which text books you had used at college ? We didn't get very far with the discussion because I felt I was intruding on your personal life, but that was where I was headed by a long winding road.

 

See, present an argument that is logical and I will sit up like a demented squirrel and start looking about. Keep telling me things are beyond mind, unknowable and mystic and I just need to do practices and I'm going to get snarly. :-)

Edited September 11, 2015 by Karl

[Jetsun]

It's only because you say illogical things. This is an example: Getting 'enlightened' through the ordinary mind is considered a sin ! Really ? a sin ? I don't believe Taoists ever used that term or even knew what it meant. Ordinary mind ? Is there an extraordinary mind ? No there isn't. You have a mind and that's it. You have to know if the person who is spouting things like-'don't use the discriminating mind' is saying so because they don't want you to start questioning their power. This is the first thing that should be learned. Anyone who says you should not question things is a dud. Ignore them. Question everything. In fact I'm sure that is precisely what Buddah said. Now, if such an enlightened being as Buddah should say this, then surely those that follow these things should be motivated to use the discrimination of the mind. In armies soldiers are taught 'don't think, just do'. Anyone trying to pull a con will tell you that 'it's already been thought about by experts' it's 'too hard to think about' or 'thinking will impair the effect'. That's traditional con artistry at work. Do you think that's a wise use of the natural reasoning ability you have ?

 

I didnt say  getting enlightened through the ordinary mind is a sin, but trying to go that way is a sin in Zen because it is a waste of time and effort because it is impossible. It is basically what everyone is doing all the time anyway... and failing.

 

Buddhists question everything to go beyond their mind not to stay trapped by it. To destroy concepts and positions. What do you think the point of Koans is? they lead directly beyond the regular mind to something else where there is a greater intelligence which they call prajna.

[Nikolai1]

Anyone who uses logic as an oberver analysing an independent objective realm is failing to grasp the core teaching of the Buddha.  Buddha was a logician, and his follower Nagarjuna especially so, but it was logic deployed in the attempt to go past logic.

 

Maybe this is why the Zen Master, perhaps in a moment of rhetorical flourish, calls logical thought a sin.  Most religions take a dim view of the rational mind.

[Karl]

I didnt say  getting enlightened through the ordinary mind is a sin, but trying to go that way is a sin in Zen because it is a waste of time and effort because it is impossible. It is basically what everyone is doing all the time anyway... and failing.

 

Buddhists question everything to go beyond their mind not to stay trapped by it. To destroy concepts and positions. What do you think the point of Koans is? they lead directly beyond the regular mind to something else where there is a greater intelligence which they call prajna.

 

Can't you see the circular logic in that argument ? This is what I'm getting at. You are clearly very bright and intelligent, but you can't see the basic errors in your argument. If you can't see those then you will accept any old thing.

 

We don't know why Buddhists are doing it, only what Buddah purportedly said. He didn't not say to go beyond mind. It's a thing when a mans philophy is perverted by those who can pretend they knew what that man really meant. This is what happens all the time. Some people sense a movement, a vulnerability, a fashion and realise they can jump on its back and make money, obtain power, sex, property, adoration by aligning themselves as gurus and disciples.

 

I say, look at al, the Buddhist monks-I've know several through my sister living in a Buddhist place. Seriously they would sell their own mothers if they thought it got them more adoration, sex or money. They were constantly back stabbing each other. I don't know why they wore orange because red would be better to have covered up all the blood.

[Brian]

I agree. Let's explore that. I'm as interested to see if what you are saying is correct. I have never learned the classical method and it would do me no good at all just to accept the words of some guy telling me that there is a difference. I would be failing in my application of the method by doing so. Where do we start ? I know you studied the classic trivium, so you have a better basis than I do for assessing the differences.

You start with Aristotle. Start with the Organon and, within the Organon, start with the Categories. This should be the entry-point and should be followed by On Interpretation. These both focus on language and structure and should be viewed as preparational material for beginning Prior Analytics (which is where syllogistic logic is introduced).

 

BTW, the term "trivium" doesn't appear to have emerged as meaning "the collection of grammar, logic and rhetoric" until the Middle Ages but the classical subjects date back to ancient Greece or before.

[Karl]

Anyone who uses logic as an oberver analysing an independent objective realm is failing to grasp the core teaching of the Buddha.  Buddha was a logician, and his follower Nagarjuna especially so, but it was logic deployed in the attempt to go past logic.

 

Maybe this is why the Zen Master, perhaps in a moment of rhetorical flourish, calls logical thought a sin.  Most religions take a dim view of the rational mind.

 

Nikolai logic is only an intermediate tool. Read what I have said. Going 'beyond logic' doesn't mean anything. you go beyond logic once you have ceased to use logic for the concepts that are being integrated. Once that is done then the new concept is created. You cannot knit a jumper without needles. Once the jumper is finished then the needles are set down. The jumper gets used and it doesn't require the needles to be as it is,

[Karl]

You start with Aristotle. Start with the Organon and, within the Organon, start with the Categories. This should be the entry-point and should be followed by On Interpretation. These both focus on language and structure and should be viewed as preparational material for beginning Prior Analytics (which is where syllogistic logic is introduced).BTW, the term "trivium" doesn't appear to have emerged as meaning "the collection of grammar, logic and rhetoric" until the Middle Ages but the classical subjects date back to ancient Greece or before.

 

Right. I didn't start with Aristotle. I began with grammar by relearning all the nouns, verbs etc and how they build into sentences. What each part of the construction meant. In other words I re-taught myself to read. I hadn't realised that I couldn't read but simply copied. That sounds weird but I assure you that is the case.

[Brian]

Right. I didn't start with Aristotle. I began with grammar by relearning all the nouns, verbs etc and how they build into sentences. What each part of the construction meant. In other words I re-taught myself to read. I hadn't realised that I couldn't read but simply copied. That sounds weird but I assure you that is the case.

<google-google-google>

Try this:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Organon

[Karl]

Try this:https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Organon]https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Organon[/url]

I have emailed Gene with that question. I shall be interested to see what he says. Personally, as things stand, I cannot see why someone who has studied logic would be any more or less capable of high levels of reasoning. I can believe that people have different degrees of reasoning ability.

 

Let me get a reply. Gene is pretty fast at responding and I will post it. If he doesn't respond then I would be very curious. All grist to the mill :-)

 

Edit: Right I looked at that wiki entry as it gives a translation. It's clearly straight into logic and no mention of grammar. I don't understand why this would make a difference if you have already studied grammar ? Presuming you studied grammar during English Language classes. Hmmm it's a bit of a mystery. Let's see what Gene says.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Karl

[Brian]

I have emailed Gene with that question. I shall be interested to see what he says. Personally, as things stand, I cannot see why someone who has studied logic would be any more or less capable of high levels of reasoning. I can believe that people have different degrees of reasoning ability.

 

Let me get a reply. Gene is pretty fast at responding and I will post it. If he doesn't respond then I would be very curious. All grist to the mill :-)

 

Edit: Right I looked at that wiki entry as it gives a translation. It's clearly straight into logic and no mention of grammar. I don't understand why this would make a difference if you have already studied grammar ? Presuming you studied grammar during English Language classes. Hmmm it's a bit of a mystery. Let's see what Gene says.

Have you read "Categories" yet? A first pass doesn't take long (but it does take some time to "unpack").

 

EDIT: Categories

Edited September 11, 2015 by Brian
Added link

[Karl]

Have you read "Categories" yet? A first pass doesn't take long (but it does take some time to "unpack").EDIT: Categories

 

its this bit that I think is the key to the methods having differences. This is Aristotles version of grammar. I'm busy digesting it. I think it was referred to in some of the Trivium method instructions.

[Brian]

its this bit that I think is the key to the methods having differences. This is Aristotles version of grammar. I'm busy digesting it. I think it was referred to in some of the Trivium method instructions.

Follow that with On Interpretation

 

These are the bedrock foundations upon which modern reason are built.

[Karl]

Follow that with On InterpretationThese are the bedrock foundations upon which modern reason are built.

 

Ah, it's the way in which it is taught and not the tuition itself I grabbed this from one website :

 

The Classical Trivium is based on the emphasis of “effective” rhetoric, towards sophistry and clever oration as an art. This creates a false correlation that “good” speech, convincing speech, makes you a “good” person. It is to convince people and thereby create a status of being a person who is honest and true, all to gain favor and influence over others. This is part of Emotional Mind Control. Modern age sophistry is the politics to make people “feel-good” and applaud for their leaders because they are convincing. It is making promises they can’t deliver, a false pretense. It is telling people what they want to hear, things that sound impressive. It is counterfeit wisdom, anti-truth.

 

The Trivium Method is direct truth, not focused on “effective” communication to convince someone, but of simply speaking the truth about the condition of reality. The modern “magician” uses our attention against us to trick us into seeing things that are not really there, and buy into things that are not real. A modern “magician” can make us pick the card they want us to pick, or make us see what they want us to see. In life, this is having us “choose” our “own” path, while actually offering predetermined pathways for “success”. They have us looking at certain aspects of reality they want us to so that we just go along with it. Much of it is based on suggestion, influence, neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) and greater comprehension of the sensual and psychological domain to create various deceptions .

[Karl]

A chess game is won not by practicing end-game finishing techniques.

It's won by one pawn push and simple piece trade at a time. Then when the board is less cluttered, if your early pawn game was strong, openings to mate start to present themselves.

If you sit down to play chess intent on a 1st move checkmate, good luck.

This is like sitting down and attempting zazen mind states without realization of the nature of mind, good luck!

So much focus on end game, comparatively no intrest in clearing the board to a point at which it makes sense to even bother looking at end game practices.

First live the basics (universal compassion, conclusion of fear-thought/attachment, foundation realizations etc).

At this point every second of life is already so unbreakably beautiful and fantastic that looking for checkmate stops being a clinging want, and hence it becomes possible.

Until the basics are the rock you live/sleep/dream/breathe, trying to move beyond them seems unlikely to yield more than delusion and frustration.

If one meditates before recognizing the nature of mind, how can one know what they are perceiving isn't exclusively mind delusion tricks?

If all the folks in the world today focused on chants or energy flow or scheduled ritual practice were instead to choose to spend that same effort towards living universal compassion to all living beings, we would be living in a world with a lot less suffering and a lot more realized beings then capable of begining a journey to enlightenment awareness.

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

Right, but what if you stop playing the game ? Instead you focus purely on reality without caring if it confers any advantage at all ? I said this in earlier posts but perhaps you didn't get this, or maybe you cannot comprehend it ? I'm beginning to see why this might be an impossibility to explain. It's like trying to explain to a desert dweller how abundant water is because you live near a lake. The desert dweller is occupied with the careful gathering and conserving of water, where as the lake dweller sprinkles it liberally over his car or lawn.

[Bud Jetsun]

Right, but what if you stop playing the game ? Instead you focus purely on reality without caring if it confers any advantage at all ? I said this in earlier posts but perhaps you didn't get this, or maybe you cannot comprehend it ? I'm beginning to see why this might be an impossibility to explain. It's like trying to explain to a desert dweller how abundant water is because you live near a lake. The desert dweller is occupied with the careful gathering and conserving of water, where as the lake dweller sprinkles it liberally over his car or lawn.

 

 

To stop playing the game would be to conclude the delusions. 

 

The Trivium is a composite delusion built from a foundation of composite sub-delusions based in human construct game pieces called words. 

 

At no point does any aspect of stacking additional layers of the non-real make the real. 

 

One is inherently free to chose belief in whatever delusions they like, however it doesn't make them real beyond the mind of the believer. 

 

I respect that you are operating in your own personal web  of delusions like the rest of us. The error is in assumption belief in the human-construct delusions is better or worse than belief of any other kind in any other delusion. 

 

The tools for "knowing" are inherently delusion.

 

Knowledge flees from Wisdom like darkness flees from a candle flame. 

 

When one is ready for wisdom, the games of knowing-delusion are replaced by awareness there was nothing to be known. 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Karl]

To stop playing the game would be to conclude the delusions. 

 

The Trivium is a composite delusion built from a foundation of composite sub-delusions based in human construct game pieces called words. 

 

At no point does any aspect of stacking additional layers of the non-real make the real. 

 

One is inherently free to chose belief in whatever delusions they like, however it doesn't make them real beyond the mind of the believer. 

 

I respect that you are operating in your own personal web  of delusions like the rest of us. The error is in assumption belief in the human-construct delusions is better or worse than belief of any other kind in any other delusion. 

 

The tools for "knowing" are inherently delusion.

 

Knowledge flees from Wisdom like darkness flees from a candle flame. 

 

When one is ready for wisdom, the games of knowing-delusion are replaced by awareness there was nothing to be known. 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

Yet you still appear to be very keen to keep on using those 'game pieces' and the reasoning that goes with them to try and prove what you think reality is.

 

Kind of hard to reach for a cup of tea if you have no limbs.

[3bob]

Bud, of "unlimited Love",   the historic Buddha had all sorts of knowledge which he did not reject, and which were part of his practice directed with wisdom... your dichotomy of such is groundless.

[Bud Jetsun]

Bud, of "unlimited Love",   the historic Buddha had all sorts of knowledge which he did not reject, and which were part of his practice directed with wisdom... your dichotomy of such is groundless.

 

 

There is only your perceptions in the infinitesimal emptyness of Now.

 

If one makes a thought about the perceptions, one has already transitioned to delusion, as thoughts have a beginning, middle, and end, and hence cannot exist in the infinitesimal of Now.

 

Buddha is recorded as saying many things to many folks who were lost suffering in the maze of the dual illusions.

 

This does not change the nature of reality.

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Karl]

There is only your perceptions in the infinitesimal emptyness of Now.

 

If one makes a thought about the perceptions, one has already transitioned to delusion, as thoughts have a beginning, middle, and end, and hence cannot exist in the infinitesimal of Now.

 

Buddha is recorded as saying many things to many folks who were lost suffering in the maze of the dual illusions.

 

This does not change the nature of reality.

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

What about those having the thought of delusions about the thought of delusions ?

There is no end to that game Bud.

Reality is reality. Any thoughts about reality are simply what they are-thoughts about reality.

[Bud Jetsun]

What about those having the thought of delusions about the thought of delusions ? There is no end to that game Bud. Reality is reality. Any thoughts about reality are simply what they are-thoughts about reality.

 

Yes, those would be additional examples of composite delusions, as it would anything word and/or thought based.  Reality is Reality, accepting human constructed substitutions would only be cheating ourselves out of the ineffable beauty and wonder of Now that encompasses all that is real to the limit of a humans perception limited ability to know it.    We are in agreement brother. :-)

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[3bob]

Buddy boy, you side step the teachings and practices of the historic Buddha while proclaiming Buddhism per Bud, now that is AN EXAMPLE of delusional.

Edited September 13, 2015 by 3bob