The Ground of Morality
Part 2
Back to my home page: www.suzaki.has.it
Contents
Questions of SWM on Zen and Morality
SWM’s Experience: Bubbles on the surface of Boiling Soup
About H-max, Wholesome Act, and Utilitarianism
Find your own solution! The job has to be done by each individual
In this Part 2, I summarized the following to capture the essence of Zen and its implication to various topics such as morality, science, art, management, etc. SWM asked questions on Zen and the following dialogue covered broad areas of spiritual experience and its meaning, meaning of wholesome act (H-max), Utilitarianism, etc. At the end, everyone attempted to tie the diverse threads of discussion together – with the idea of “the ground.”
Thank you all for contributing this month-long dialogue. I am sure that sincerity and dedication we put into this should become a part of our fiber and bear fruit as we move on. Take care! - Kio Suzaki (July, 2003)
#3971 by me
Thank
you for your accommodating positions shared in the past few
posts. Here are the crude
summation of 'my view' on the subject.
Hope, such attempt can become
more than mere summation:
1) Zen master Ikkyu said, In Zen, there is nothing to offer.
2) (.. but, since I am not a master, I may rumble with my dose of delusion….)
3) From nothingness, wisdom/creation may be realized…as the nature may attest.
4) Also, for humans, there are awakening and satori.. or realization of mistakes, wrong use of our brain, etc.
5) So, Zen is about finding the ground.. unknown ground where the insight/wisdom/compassion is generated, and directly and experientially find the principle of how this universe operates.
6) How do we do this in the middle of changes in values, conditions, etc.?
7) By knowing thyself first!
8) In other words, we may ask: What is the most fundamental value? Meaning of life, happiness, etc.?
9) Such questioning may be seen as the origin of Zen. Rather, when such questioning can go no more, that is the beginning of Zen.
10)Without these questions resolved, Zen monks (including the Buddha) cannot go any more.
11)In the Buddha’s case, his problem consciousness was: “How do I resolve the suffering?”
12)To do that, he looked for the cause of suffering – by studying himself, his mind, body, and everything.
13)With his awakening/enlightenment realized in one early morning, he found the solution that dissolved this riddle.
14)But since we still suffer pain, get disease, and become old and face death, the solution he found was the solution of transcending nature.
15)This means, you cannot communicate the message directly but only to point the process, condition, etc.
16)In other words, each one has to go through the experience of his awakening to really know his message.
17)But, can this be done? He almost gave up.
18)Yet, because of compassion to those who still have chance to get the point, he spent the next 45 years of his life to teach the un-teachable.
19)His teaching was later organized into various sutras.
20)But Zen monks were interested in getting the same experience of the Buddha – rather than simply following what he said or accumulating the knowledge from the sutras. There are too many sutras any way.
21)So, the methods of Zen were invented (which we do not discuss here in detail).
22)Also, for those others who are not equipped to go trough the Zen approach because of various reasons, the Buddha still offered other approaches so that at least they get closer to eradicate the cause of suffering.
23)One basic structure of his teaching was for us to follow certain right conducts as described in the eightfold noble path (like the principle of morality that the Buddha found meaningful to follow – corresponding to his awakening).
24)This is like a process control idea. If we do not deviate from the right process, the chance of us getting into the problematic state will be reduced.
25)If we do not follow these, he realized that we will be unable to use our brain wisely such that we make unwise choices and continue to suffer or create suffering to others although we may not realize this.
26)If we follow these, we may be able to calm our selves down so that our mind is clear-er to make good judgment, or to generate wisdom to deal with various situation of life in a skillful manner.
27)Still, we may have accumulated negatively conditioned mind habit (say from being exposed to the bad behavior of parents, society, etc.) that stay more like a root and cause suffering as we encounter certain stimuli.
28)So, he suggested monks to meditate –like he did and used certain “techniques” to eradicate these errors/defilements in us. (One does not have to sit, by the way) This corresponds to the notion of getting the ground state - so to speak.
29)Here, eradicating the error is like cleaning up the computer program so that the program does not crash.
30)By following such process, some may gain an experience of awakening and find a way to move on. Some may practice the idea without knowing it. Yet, others may not have such “insight.” due to various reasons.
31)It could be that the process may be similar to pulling off one’s own teeth by himself since he needs to do something to go beyond the habitual pattern of his mind!
32)So, such approach may not be for everyone.
33)Yet once having gone through such experience, the habitual pattern may change and the base of living become that of generating wisdom to address whatever issues we face in life.
34)One can question however: “How many are those truly awakened ones in this world?” (I do not have answer to that question.)
35)In any case, what Wittgenstein did may have resulted in a state of “emptiness” where awakening could take place. Perhaps, Nagarjuna found this as well.
36)Also, I noticed that awakened ones have often gone through hardship like losing their parents in their early years as found in many cases.
37)Such situations may have driven them to find “the solution” given the constraints.
38)If we follow their awakening experience, it appears that they all went through very, very similar process – if not identical in principle.
39)That is: Realization of truth is gained when we “see” what we are doing as opposed to keep playing with words, images and logic blindly, thus using of our ability/brain in the wrong way.
40)So, the awakening is to realize the delusion. Or, we may say that we are born with awakened state. But because of delusion we can be awakened.
41)Only human has such a privilege - even to experience the continuous realization of the miraculous act of universe in front of us (Eyes of Eckhart) although this creates catch-22 syndrome for us in delusion.
42)Unfortunately and paradoxically, the bottom line is: when we know it, we know it. But when we think we know it, we do not know it.
43)This state of “seeing what is going on” should be practiced in meditation – or for that matter every moment if we are to live our sane life. In doing so, we may become conscious of unconscious as the solution is found outside our conscious field.
44)Since one is not blindly following the mind program of habitual kind at that state (no words/logic is functioning with its own momentum so to speak), it is as if the “ground” is set to bring out the wisdom.
45)At this point, we may find that there is wisdom to address internal suffering as well as there is wisdom to address the external issues, i.e., morality, science, management, etc.
46) However unless the total - external and internal – is harmonized to create a sane state, there will be strains left. In other words, the aim is the wholesome path.
47)If we are confined as in the case of the Buddha to extinguish the suffering, the solution state is the ultimate liberation. It is because we gain liberation without changing any external condition.
48)This is when we are our own master being able to take out the root of defilement. The destiny is in our hands. We live as we are meant to live.
49)While this is by itself a major accomplishment, we can use the same process in the other direction – so to speak. That is to be creative in using the ground to resolve the external problem, i.e., the problem of our world.
50)By the way, although my knowledge is limited, this second point is where Wittgenstein may have arrived in his later years. It may be the same position as the Buddha arrived as he decided to teach with skillful means.
51)But once the ground is found so to speak, I see it very probable to act in such a manner. This is also like Bodhisattva coming back to this world to help people as opposed to live in the mountain.
52)Now, with regard to the discussion of morality, the issue is how narrow one is (in the sense of how conditioned programmed mind is used – perhaps with corrupt programming) in making choices and coming up with the solution/insight.
53)Obviously, each situation is different. As animals and plants will come up with the solution, including the evolution as solution, humans may do the same except the challenge may be that we use our full potentiality of consciousness and unconsciousness.
54)The specific act/path may be different for each specific situation. The process of coming up with insight may be also seen different (- although the principle may remain the same.) It may be to collect their wisdom from many people.
55)We may call such path as the enlightenment path.
56)If such choice or wisdom end up in failing to produce the result of wholesome quality, we then go back to the ground again to capture the learning and start the process from that point as a new beginning.
57)As we eliminate the root cause as pointed earlier, we should keep moving forward as we are meant. The process is never-ending.
58)In any case, what was described here may characterize the general framework of how we may approach our life’s various situations – including morality, science, art, management, and other issues.
59)Although the discussion here was more from the Zen/Buddhist angle, since many of us may not get the depth of insight, there is a risk in taking such approach solely. (However, if we try, our behavior may be better oriented in the direction of less suffering and happier living.)
60)If so, what other approach are there available?
61)Well, we can keep doing what we have done. But, personally, I like the framework and the orientation that was described above –however confusing that may be.
62)Otherwise, we may find a better way to process these, so that we can continuously find a path that is wholesome.
63)Whether or not we succeed in doing this, as any living organism try to perform the best to live, such process may continue eternally as if this is the engine of the universe.
Good day,
Kio
#3972 by swm
So
by "the ground" you have in mind the condition or state we attain
through Zen (or similar)
practice which then enables our other
thoughts and behaviours to
arise in a better (more satisfactory or
more effective) way? If this is
correct, are you arguing for
spiritual practice and its
outcome, first, moral development and
correct moral choices later?
How do moral judgements get
made by those who lack, or fail to
practice, the appropriate
methods, then? Can they, in fact, be made
at all under such a condition? If
so, what do such, less developed
judgements consist of and how
are they different from (or similar to)
more developed moral thinking?
The idea of moral goodness refers,
I think, to valuation judgements
applied to actions by agents
who have an understanding of what they
are doing (and thus an
intention vis a vis the outcomes of their
actions). Animals do not act
morally and neither do plants or
inanimate things though we may
speak of the action of the wind, for
instance, or call great
disasters like hurricanes or
earthquakes "evils".
But usually, what we mean by moral valuing, I
think, is the evaluation of
human and other actions which are the
result of intelligent sentient
beings' choices.
Moral judgements have, in fact,
been applied to the full gamut of
human actions, including those
which involve intentions and those
that may be quite
unintentional.
The idea of Zen is to get us in
touch with the deep mind, the one
that is free of the artificial
and illusory categories of daily life,
the one that is most in touch
with being in pure form. Thus, the aim
is to just be, just do, just
act. How do we reconcile this idea of
just acting, with the claims of
morality that we must consider the
outcomes and implications of
our actions
and adjust them to favour
some of these results but not
others? Is not that to invoke a
thinking and, thus,
categorizing mind?
A moral act, typically, is one
that looks out for the interests of
others instead of ourselves. How
then does Zen get us there?
Some have also characterized
morality as the kinds of behaviours that
society sanctions or that
reflect rules of behaviour that are deemed
somehow intrinsic to us as
human beings. Does Zen have anything to
offer on this view?
Can the Zen mind, in fact, give
us moral judgement as we normally
understand that term or does it
take us beyond moral judgement? If
so, how does that work and is
it to be moral in a different
and "higher" way, or
is it just to be amoral?
I knew a Roshi once who
observed a strictly vegetarian diet and
advocated avoidance of killing
other living things but, when he got
hungry one day and the nearest
restaurant was a McDonald's, he took
his student there and they
enjoyed a couple of Big Macs together. A
Zen koan? Or something else?
SWM
#3974 by me
>
So by "the ground" you have in mind the condition or state we
attain
> through Zen (or similar)
practice which then enables our other
> thoughts and behaviours to
arise in a better (more satisfactory or
> more effective) way?
In a way, yes. Better=>wholesome.
If this is correct, are you
arguing for
> spiritual practice and its
outcome, first, moral development and
> correct moral choices
later?
>
We should be clear as to why we
exist first, if possible. Then, the
passage we take would be in
line to that Understanding.
> How do moral judgements
get made by those who lack, or fail to
> practice, the appropriate
methods, then?
By having a confused state as
we all do whenever we use our
brain. So, we need to find a
way of using our brain.
Can they, in fact, be made
> at all under such a
condition?
No. I like the argument of
information theory (?) discussed by
Mike. It is about obtaining the
perfect information (and wisdom)
vs. not having it. And if not
having it (obviously), what is the
ground make that judgment. Here,
how intuition/wisdom/awakening
(and the use of our brain)
plays the role. It depends on the
situation.
If so, what do such, less
developed
> judgements consist of and
how are they different from (or similar
to) more developed moral
thinking?
>
See previous point.
> The idea of moral goodness
refers, I think, to valuation
judgements
> applied to actions by
agents who have an understanding of what
they
> are doing (and thus an
intention vis a vis the outcomes of their
> actions).
I went through this thought
pattern before. I called it H-max. It
is like having a net present
value of happiness creation (equivalent
of liveliness as living being)
for various action potentials. My
argument is that our action
should maximize the H-max for all. (I
hear there is a professor in
Oxford who is working in this
direction. I also heard once
that Teilhard de Chardin had similar
thought per Wilbro.) In
Buddhist term, this is to live in the
wholesome manner.
Animals do not act morally and
neither do plants or
> inanimate things though we
may speak of the action of the wind,
for
> instance, or call great
disasters like hurricanes or
> earthquakes
"evils".
This goes back to the structure
of who we are. Evils is
not evils, it is evils. (Prajna's immediate
denial logic.) Form
is not form but emptiness, this
is form. This is seeing things as
they are.
> But usually, what we mean
by moral valuing, I
> think, is the evaluation
of human and other actions which are the
> result of intelligent
sentient beings' choices.
The basis of evaluation (or how
we use our brain) is the concern.
Not so much of what to do or
why but how. Again, the process brings
the results.
> Moral judgements have, in
fact, been applied to the full gamut of
> human actions, including
those which involve intentions and those
> that may be quite
unintentional.
Yes, and on what ground? What
is the cause?
> The idea of Zen is to get
us in touch with the deep mind, the one
> that is free of the
artificial and illusory categories of daily
life,
> the one that is most in
touch with being in pure form. Thus, the
aim
> is to just be, just do,
just act.
Let’s call that as step one
of finding the nature of
emptiness, seeing things are
they are.
> How do we reconcile this
idea of
> just acting, with the
claims of morality that we must consider the
> outcomes and implications
of our actions and adjust them to favour
> some of these results but
not others? Is not that to invoke a
> thinking and, thus,
categorizing mind?
Yes, because we have the brain
we use. Then, the question goes back
to how to deal with that state - unwholesomely or not?
> A moral act, typically, is
one that looks out for the interests of
> others instead of
ourselves. How then does Zen get us there?
Always orienting to the wholesome, H-max
way (as I see it)
See also the foreword by the
Dalai Lama to my book:
http://www.oocities.org/suzakico/foreword.html
He may do a better
job than my numerous words.
> Some have also
characterized morality as the kinds of behaviours
that
> society sanctions or that
reflect rules of behaviour that are
deemed
> somehow intrinsic to us as
human beings. Does Zen have anything to
> offer on this view?
One basic structure of Buddhism
is: Shila(moral conducts)-Samadhi
(find the ground)-Prajna (insight/wisdom).
This was mentioned in my
previous post perhaps with
different words (please read again).
(shila at 23), samadhi-28),
prajna-30)) They have to have a good
balance so to speak. Our path
should have these in good coordination.
> Can the Zen mind, in fact,
give us moral judgement as we normally
> understand that term or
does it take us beyond moral judgement? If
> so, how does that work and
is it to be moral in a different
> and "higher"
way, or is it just to be amoral?
>
> I knew a Roshi once who
observed a strictly vegetarian diet and
> advocated avoidance of
killing other living things but, when he
got
> hungry one day and the
nearest restaurant was a McDonald's, he
took
> his student there and they
enjoyed a couple of Big Macs together.
A
> Zen koan? Or something
else?
>
> SWM
As mentioned, the answer has to
be found by each on every step of
the way from moment to moment,
taking each specific case as
representing the universe of
here and now.
BTW, Here is the second set of answer
for your amusement that I
wrote first:
A person who practice (or train
himself in) Zen may be seen as self-
centered in a sense that he may
be resting in a position away from
those many questions you have
raised. However, one counter argument
may be: if you have so many
questions, when do you rest to see the
world directly, experience the
world directly, and live the world
directly? What is the origin of
these questions? Who is the one
asking these questions
continuously? Why? Is it because of the
unsettling mind? If so, is it
not saner if we can answer these
questions - perhaps in a
different dimension - once and all? If we
keep questioning, would that
not orient us to be eternally restless,
unresolved, and perhaps
confused?
It is as if you are going to
the direction after the duality is
founded, having eaten the apple.
(OK, First, there were
words...so stated in the bible)
Zen, however, points what is before the
foundation of duality. In other
words, you may raise a question and
another one and another... ad
infinitum, using your brain,
intelligence, etc. Certainly,
the humans developed the civilization
and science, philosophy, etc.
because owe never stopped asking
whys. Still, as Ikkyu said, Zen
has nothing to offer because it is
about the health of our mind
itself - to be sane. As I see it,
living by Zen is to live in
that conflict/paradox without losing the
ground. It is to use the brain,
listen to the heart and live with
the mission.
Good day!
Kio
#3975 by swm
---
In WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com,
"suzakico" <suzakico@y...>
wrote:
> > So by "the
ground" you have in mind the condition or state we
> attain
> > through Zen (or
similar) practice which then enables our other
> > thoughts and behaviours
to arise in a better (more satisfactory
or
> > more effective) way?
>
> In a way, yes. Better=>wholesome.
>
Yes, I would have thought so. Of
course, this is already to import a
notion of value into the
discussion but it seems we'd be unable to
talk about any of this if we
could not rely on such notions.
Thus "value" is seen
to be irremovable from our basic vocabulary.
However, since we are working
here to clarify what is meant by moral
valuing, we must presume that
the "better=>wholesome" category you
are referencing is not,
already, a moral type of "better". If it is
not, then what type of
"better" is it and how do we know it? Needless
to say, defining moral goodness
in terms of this other kind of
goodness may enable us to
understand what is meant by moral goodness
and certainly opens the
possibility that we can reduce moral value to
some other more familiar and
less troublesome kind.
> If this is correct, are
you arguing for
> > spiritual practice
and its outcome, first, moral development and
> > correct moral choices
later?
> >
> We should be clear as to
why we exist first, if possible. Then,
the
> passage we take would be
in line to that understanding.｡
Is Zen meant to answer that
question? I'd have thought no, actually,
and presumed, a la
Wittgenstein, that it really aims to dissolve that
question, that is, there is no
reason we exist and no sensible reason
to even ask, or seek an answer
to, that question. But one has to
realize this in a deep way, not
just intellectually, in order to
fully demolish the confusion
that prompts us to constantly seek such
an answer to such a question.
Finding this state of
non-disturbance over such pseudo issues
presumably leaves us with more
equanimity, less turmoil over worldly
matters, hence we see things in
the world, and act toward them, in a
different way. Is this way what
you have in mind? Is it the outcome
of the practice which grounds
you and does it, therefore, manifest as
the right kinds of actions?
> > How do moral
judgements get made by those who lack, or fail to
> > practice, the
appropriate methods, then?
>
> By having a confused state
｡as
we all do whenever we use our
> brain. So, we need to find
a way of using our brain.
A confused state is the
ungrounded state?
Do we really need to find out
how to use our brains or is that a
misnomer, i.e., we don't use
them but arise, in some sense, from
them? Certainly we all of us
know how to use our brains from the get-
go, at least those of us who
are normal and not somehow deranged of
suffering from a debilitating
mental condition. Perhaps you only
meant that we need to find a
way to use our mental faculties to best
advantage where that advantage
is defined as fostering and
maintaining that state of being
grounded you seem to be referring to?
>
> Can they, in fact, be made
> > at all under such a
condition?
>
> No. I like the argument of
information theory (?) discussed by
> Mike. It is about
obtaining the perfect information (and wisdom)
> vs. not having it. And if
not having it (obviously), what is the
> ground make that judgment.
Here, how intuition/wisdom/awakening
> (and the use of our brain)
plays the role. It depends on the
> situation.
>
Yes, I think that's true and
Mike is quite right as well. Every
situation is different and it's
damned hard, if near impossible, to
ever know all the facts of a
given case. Much of what we do in moral
valuing depends on the facts
and so, in light of this great obstacle,
one always has to be careful in
deciding moral issues, especially
since, on my view, what
uniquely characterizes the moral is concern
for the good of others
regardless of our own good.
> If so, what do such, less
developed
> > judgements consist of
and how are they different from (or similar
> to)
> > more developed moral
thinking?
> >
> See previous point.
I'm not clear on how the
previous answer responds to this question
but it is a difficult question
to get one's arms around, I'll grant
you! I guess what I was driving
at was can anyone make morally right
decisions if to make such
decisions one must first have achieved the
state of being grounded you
have alluded to? (I am equating this
state of yours with what I've
previously called here an insight into
being.) My reason for asking is
what do we tell those who haven't had
access to this insight or
condition? That everything they do is
necessarily non-moral, even
when they think it is? Or is moral but at
a less advanced stage? Does one
need this insight or condition to be
moral and, if so, what about
all those who haven't got it or don't
think they have?
>
> > The idea of moral
goodness refers, I think, to valuation
> judgements
> > applied to actions by
agents who have an understanding of what
> they
> > are doing (and thus
an intention vis a vis the outcomes of their
> > actions).
>
> I went through this
thought pattern before. I called it H-max. It
> is like having a net
present value of happiness creation
(equivalent
> of liveliness as living
being) for various action potentials. My
> argument is that our action
should maximize the H-value for all. (I
> hear there is a professor
in Oxford who is working in this
> direction. I also heard
once that Teilhard de Chardin had similar
> thought ｡per Wilbro.) In Buddhist
term, this is to live in the
> wholesome manner.
>
I'm afraid I don't understand.
> Animals do not act morally
and neither do plants or
> > inanimate things
though we may speak of the action of the wind,
> for
> > instance, or call
great disasters like hurricanes or
> > earthquakes
"evils".
>
> This goes back to the
structure of who we are. Evils｡ is
> not
> evils｡ it is evils｡ (Prajna's immediate
denial
> logic.) Form
> is not form but emptiness,
this is form. This is seeing things as
> they are.
So you mean that
"evil" is only part of the delusion? Does this apply
to all characterizations of
evil or do we differentiate when we come
to an evildoer, let's say Hitler,
for instance? Was Hitler's cruelty
and program of conquest and
eradication of other human beings not
really immoral or evil but
merely something we call that because we
are deluded? On this basis,
could we say that a morally bad guy is
not really anymore morally bad
(or evil) than a storm or earthquake?
And, if so, is he no more to be
blamed (and others to be discouraged
from following his path) than
the weather or the earth itself?
>
> But usually, what we mean
by moral valuing, I
> > think, is the
evaluation of human and other actions which are the
> > result of intelligent
sentient beings' choices.
>
> The basis of evaluation
(or how we use our brain) is the concern.
> Not so much of what to do
or why but how. Again, the process
brings
> the results.
>
But moral valuing is about
choosing between competing actions. The
process is all about choosing. The
results are the actions chosen and
their outcomes. Presumably we
evaluate the prospective actions based
on their anticipated and actual
outcomes. Why should we care about
the good of others if we get
what is good for us? That, in the end,
seems to me to be the main
moral question. I don't think the answer
above addresses that. But I may
just not see where you are going with
this so perhaps you can clarify?
> > Moral judgements
have, in fact, been applied to the full gamut of
> > human actions,
including those which involve intentions and those
> > that may be quite
unintentional.
>
> Yes, and on what ground? What
is the cause?
>
Yes, that is my question too. It
seems to me that we cannot separate
ourselves from a moral valuing
process (anymore than we can extricate
ourselves from valuing more
generally). But what does it mean to
morally evaluate something as
opposed to any other kind of
evaluating? Mike suggested that
he has a problem when I suggest that
there is a "special
authority" that accrues to moral valuing. All
that I mean by this is that
when confronted by two different courses
of action, one practical and one
moral, the very nature of the moral
judgement involved tells us
that we must choose the moral over the
practical when the two conflict.
(If they do not conflict or if there
is no moral dimension to the
question at hand, then this is moot.) So
moral overrides practical by
its nature. If moral is shown to be
rooted in the practical, then
it loses its special authority to
override.
> > The idea of Zen is to
get us in touch with the deep mind, the one
> > that is free of the
artificial and illusory categories of daily
> life,
> > the one that is most
in touch with being in pure form. Thus, the
> aim
> > is to just be, just
do, just act.
>
> Let’s call that as step one
of finding the nature of
> emptiness,
> seeing things are they
are.
>
Perhaps, but I am unaware of
step two then, since it seems to me that
the practice which aims to
foster that state is fully achieved when
that state arises in us. What
is beyond this? Can anything be?
> How do we reconcile this
idea of
> > just acting, with the
claims of morality that we must consider
the
> > outcomes and
implications of our actions and adjust them to
favour
> > some of these results
but not others? Is not that to invoke a
> > thinking and, thus,
categorizing mind?
>
> Yes, because we have the
brain we use. Then, the question goes
back
> to how to deal with that
state ｡unwholesomely or not?
>
Then the question goes back to
what is the basis for a claim of
wholesomeness which is, itself,
a value claim.
So you say, as I do by the way,
that it is fine to use our mental
faculties but that the issue is
how we apply them. Just as I think
one can do philosophy (with all
the back and forth of debate that
that entails) and still find
and exist in the Zen mind, so too can
one make moral judgements and
still not depart from Zazen. But this
still leaves somewhat open what
we mean by moral judgements and how
do we know what is or is not
morally right?
> > A moral act,
typically, is one that looks out for the interests
of
> > others instead of
ourselves. How then does Zen get us there?
>
> Always Orienting to the wholesome - H-max
way (as I
> see it)
> See also the foreword by
the Dalai Lama to my book:
> http://www.oocities.org/suzakico/foreword.html
He may do a better
> job than my numerous
words.
>
Is
there a Zen notion here that I am not seeing? Can you not just
offer a brief statement of how
Zen applies in this case? If morality
can be explained philosophically,
then shouldn't we be able to do
that here and now?
> > Some have also
characterized morality as the kinds of behaviours
> that
> > society sanctions or
that reflect rules of behaviour that are
> deemed
> > somehow intrinsic to
us as human beings. Does Zen have anything
to
> > offer on this view?
>
> One basic structure of
Buddhism is: Shila(moral conducts)-Samadhi
> (find the ground)-Prajna
(insight/wisdom). This was mentioned in
my
> previous post perhaps with
different words (please read again).
>
> (shila at 23),
samadhi-28), prajna-30)) They have to have a good
> balance so to speak. Our
path should have these in good
> coordination.
>
I make a distinction between
cultural and social values on the one
hand (those rules and principles
that society espouses and often
requires of us) and the sense
we have to care about the good of
others which may, and I think
should, transcend social situations.
There are many rules that vary
from society to society and these are
often thought to have moral
force. But since they are contingent
based on the society one finds
oneself in, they are somewhat relative
and thus cannot partake of the
moral claim since if they were all
that moral valuing is, it would
lose that special force I've alluded
to above.
> > Can the Zen mind, in
fact, give us moral judgement as we normally
> > understand that term
or does it take us beyond moral judgement?
If
> > so, how does that
work and is it to be moral in a different
> > and
"higher" way, or is it just to be amoral?
> >
> > I knew a Roshi once
who observed a strictly vegetarian diet and
> > advocated avoidance
of killing other living things but, when he
> got
> > hungry one day and
the nearest restaurant was a McDonald's, he
> took
> > his student there and
they enjoyed a couple of Big Macs together.
> A
> > Zen koan? Or
something else?
> >
> > SWM
>
> As mentioned, the answer
has to be found by each on every step of
> the way from moment to
moment, taking each specific case as
> representing the universe
of here and now.
>
> BTW, Here is the second
set of answer for your amusement that I
> wrote first:
>
> A person who practice (or
train himself in) Zen may be seen as self-
> centered in a sense that
he may be resting in a position away from
> those many questions you
have raised. However, one counter
argument
> may be: if you have so
many questions, when do you rest to see the
> world directly, experience
the world directly, and live the world
> directly? What is the
origin of these questions? Who is the one
> asking these questions
continuously? Why? Is it because of the
> unsettling mind? If so, is
it not saner if we can answer these
> questions - perhaps in a
different dimension - once and all? If we
> keep questioning, would
that not orient us to be eternally
restless,
> unresolved, and perhaps
confused?
>
Yes, one cannot keep asking
these bottomline questions while one is
acting. One just has to act. But
part of acting is applying moral
valuations. So the issue is what
part of acting is this and how can I
select the best choices when
confronted with an array of options? Are
there any rules or ways of
acting that are to be preferred over
others and, if there are, why
are they preferable? I do think that we
apply moral judgement all the
time, along with the many other things
we do. But from a philosophical
standpoint it is still useful, I
think, to ask what is meant by
this kind of judgement. To ask this
does not mean we must cease to
act or apply our judgement. But it is
reasonable and useful to want
to know what things mean.
> It is as if you are going
to the direction after the duality is
> founded ｡having eaten the apple. (OK,
First, there were
> words...so
> stated in the bible) Zen,
however, points what is before the
> foundation of duality. In
other words, you may raise a question
and
> another one and another...
ad infinitum, using your brain,
> intelligence, etc. Certainly,
the humans developed the
civilization
> and science, philosophy,
etc. because owe never stopped asking
> whys.
And that's a good thing though
we must also know when to stop asking
and just do.
Still, as Ikkyu said, Zen has
nothing to offer because it is
> about the health of our
mind itself - to be sane. As I see it,
> living by Zen is to live
in that conflict/paradox without losing
the
> ground. It is to use the
brain, listen to the heart and live with
> the mission.
>
> Good day!
> Kio
You make it a psychological
matter which, perchance, it is. So, on
your view, to enter the Zen way
is to settle the self and become a
more grounded being whose
actions are then somehow less bad because
of the purer intentions of the
enlightened being? Is this where you
are going with this?
SWM
--
#3976 by wilbro
> So by "the
ground" you have in mind the condition or state we attain
through Zen (or similar)
practice which then enables our other
thoughts and behaviours to
arise in a better (more satisfactory or
more effective) way?<
Yes, but with a twist. Without
this twist, the answer is not the
answer. If the one looking for
the answer cannot find the answer, then
looking for the answer does no
good.
>And that's a good thing
though we must also know when to stop asking
and just do.<
So, has one stopped looking for
the answer because they believe such
nonsense, or because the one
doing the looking no longer exists? The
difference is immeasurable. First
find the one doing the seeking. Then
there is no second. Obviously,
as is my wont, I am only playing with
words again.
#3977 by swm
Willy
said:
>
> So, has one stopped
looking for the answer because they believe such
> nonsense, or because the
one doing the looking no longer exists? The
> difference is immeasurable.
First find the one doing the seeking.
> Then there is no second. Obviously,
as is my wont, I am only laying
> with words again.
You keep talking about
"the one doing the seeking" ceasing to exist.
This is easy to say but Will hasn't
ceased to exist though he seems
to often tell himself he has
(and suggest this to others).
What does it mean find the one
doing the seeking and then there is no
second? I take it you are
suggesting we are all one and that what
lies beneath is all that's real.
This may be, but how does that work
in our everyday moral valuing
and discourse?
SWM
#3979 by wilbro
Did
you not, in your insight in the "soup of us" seem to lose your
separate sense of self? There
is an insight into oneself of the same
sort in which that which is
lost is one's temporal sense of self.
There is a step into
self-presence that reveals the prior sense of
self as if it were a daydream. The
only thing that changes is one's
grasp of oneself as oneself. Everything
else stays the same. The
seeker is part of the daydream
and is seeking, within the daydream, to
polish that dream of self. It
goes nowhere. There is nowhere to go.
But that cannot be known until
the one doing the going is seen as
occupying the dream of
self-improvement. This does not bring seeking
to an end, but it does bring
the self-seeking to an end; there is no
image of the self in the
practical matters that requires the setting
and meeting of goals.
Nowhere do I say that we all
are one; the loss of the dream-self does
not lead to lead to no-self,
nor does it lead to a ground of reality.
The only ground we can know is
our self-ground, i.e., self-knowing,
the self-to-self relation. When
we are whole in that transparent
reflection, that which we find
ourselves in reflects that whole
quality. There is a loss of the
self-image. One does not need an image
of oneself to be oneself. In
fact, that image, when identified with,
is the problem. That is all I
am saying. As to whether this is Zen or
not, I cannot say.
#3980 by swm
I
did describe an experience, Willy, during which I visualized a
large pot of boiling soup in
the night sky above my head and thought
that this was what it meant
"to be" . . . that all of us are bubbles
on the surface of the soup and
that we form and pop and return to the
substance of the soup of which
we were always a part both before,
during and after our experience
as bubbles. And, in realizing this, a
great grief I was then dealing
with seemed to diminish, to fall away,
though it did not entirely
disappear. Instead, by realizing that what
we were was the soup, not the
bubbles, in the end it seemed to me
that I hadn't lost what I
thought I'd lost because the soup endures
and that was all that the
person I'd lost had been.
It was a moment when my perspective
shifted, yielding a deep
alteration of my core feelings
about life and the world and being
itself. It wasn't verbal at all
and it manifested as a purely mental
image which I could not,
thereafter, put readily into words. But the
image was so vivid in my minds'
eye at the time that it seemed more
real to me than many things
I've actually seen with my two real eyes
and, to this day, it lives on
vividly when I recall it, more so than
many things I actually saw at
the time.
I mentioned this experience in
our discussions of insight and what
that might consist of (what the
term itself might really mean) when I
was trying to determine if this
was of the same character as other
moments of knowing, or if it
was a sort of special case, something
mystical, in keeping with ideas
of mystical experiences, mystical
visions and the like.
You and I had many discussions,
subsequently, trying to see if we were
talking about the same thing or
something different. Your words
tended to confuse me, talk of
self-to-self relations and such, and,
perhaps, my words were
confusing to you. I know that you adamantly
insisted that what I had
described was not what you were describing.
I thought there might be some
similarity and, in fact, that there was
every reason to suppose we had
in mind the same thing, in spite of
our difficulties in finding a
shared vocabulary, though we never
found agreement on this
particular question.
I also proposed that
experiences of this sort might lie at the core
of what we mean by morality,
when we strip away the superficial
garments with which we tend to
clothe that concept. But you seemed to
want to say that when we found
this self-to-self relation (as you
described it) the old questions
faded away (not unlike the fading of
my grief perhaps?) and we found
that we were new selves insofar as we
no longer felt the needs of the
old self or the urgency to answer
questions of the old self, like
"what is good?".
Here we parted company, I
think, because my experience has not led me
to so completely reorient
myself in the world that the old problems
simply no longer bother me. And
in this we may, indeed, just be
talking of different things.
Although, like Wittgenstein
with the problems of philosophy, I no
longer feel troubled by the
idealist-materialist dichotomy or the
question of whether I can ever
be certain of the world in which I
find myself, still I find that
I want to know why I should care about
others and why I should
supppose that others should care about others
like I think I should . . . and
how I can make others see that they
should. Or if I should. These,
it seems to me, are the fundamental
moral questions and here I find
an answer in the supposition that, at
bottom, this caring is grounded
in a different way of seeing the
world, a way that recognizes
the fundamental ties we have to all
being and to all beings.
I think this is a
religious-mystical event or insight, but I'm not
sure how it fits into the
essentially rational process of moral
argument which I see as
essential to the idea of moral valuing
itself. That is, to make a moral judgement or
recommendation of
action, one has to be able to
adduce reasons, offer them to others
(and to ourselves perhaps?),
and defend them. It is not enough, I
think, to say "well I have
had this insight and you should abide by
it", or "you must
find a way to have an insight like this as well".
How can we make such claims for
others? (Just ask James that one!)
But if we cannot, how do
we invoke this idea of insight into the way
things really are to support
our moral judgements?
So yes, I did reference a
moment in my own history where I had what I
took to have been an insight
into how we are placed in the world.
This insight has come to inform
much of my thinking though it has not
changed me into someone else or
brought me to the conclusion that my
old self has ceased to be or
has been replaced with a new and
different kind of self or even
a "no self". I still consider that I
am the same self who had, and
now recalls, that moment of seeing the
world in a different way.
Talk of banishing the very
question of what is good does not solve
the problem of what it means to
act and judge morally, on my view,
because we cannot take
ourselves out of life, and to live (in the
form of life in which we find
ourselves) we must always engage in
valuing. And one of the things
we apply valuing to is our actions.
This is the specific class of
valuing that we call moral valuing.
Even my roshi who ate the big
mac was choosing his actions. Zen
teaches that the enlightened
man or woman just is, does not agonize
over things but acts from deep
within him or herself,
unselfconsciously and with
freedom from the binding delusions of
categories. That is what it
means to be liberated. Yet even the Zen
master makes choices. So are
his choices more justifiable, in some
sense, than the choices made by
those who worry over options and
ramifications? If the Zen
master kills without remorse, is that okay
because he is enlightened? Do
the ordinary "rules" we think
constitute morality cease to
apply to him?
Zen seems to teach something
like this though it is paradoxical since
the Zen master must follow the
eightfold path and the middle way no
less than any other Buddhist. But
Zen is founded on paradox, isn't
it? Zen means to break the
categories that bind us by forcing us into
paradoxes which we cannot
explain ourselves out of. We must just be. ((Although you use this word,
what do you mean by it??? Is there a state that is experientially recognized
when you refer to this?))
That is a route to a particular
kind of experience that entails a
different way of being in the
world. Is that the basis of all
ordinary morality? Or of an
extraordinary one?
SWM
#3982 by mike
>
I went through this thought pattern before. I called it H-max. It
> is like having a net
present value of happiness creation (equivalent
> of liveliness as living
being) for various action potentials. My
> argument is that our
action should maximize the H-max for all. (I
> hear there is a professor
in Oxford who is working in this
> direction. I also heard
once that Teilhard de Chardin had similar
> thought ｡ｦper Wilbro.) In Buddhist
term, this is to live in the
> wholesome manner.
This sounds like utilitarianism.
Would you care to comment?
> No. I like the argument of
information theory (?) discussed by
> Mike. It is about
obtaining the perfect information (and wisdom)
> vs. not having it. And if
not having it (obviously), what is the
> ground make that judgment.
Here, how intuition/wisdom/awakening
> (and the use of our brain)
plays the role. It depends on the
> situation.
My field of study is economics.
I was doing reading on game theory and
decision theory which led me to
find the aspects of information and
uncertainty of particular
interest for further study. This whole idea of
having subjective estimations
of future events and their worth that can be
updated with additional
information and with which decisions can rationally
be made would fall under the
purview of decision theory. Once it finds
application to moral decisions,
I don't know if that changes.
Mike
----
#3984 by wilbro in response to 3980 by swm
I
think I have said before that the difference has to do with the bind
we are in at the time that
binding breaks. Your bind had to do with a
relation to another, while my
bind had to do with the relation to
myself. If you were to return
to that seeing, if possible, and inquire
of what has changed with
yourself, you might find a difference. I
don't know. All I have said is
that we had different binds breaking
and that the nature of the
break determines what is seen. Who knows,
maybe there are separate
insights for different grasps of self. Let me
comment on the following and
see if I can tie that in:
>Zen seems to teach
something like this though it is paradoxical since
the Zen master must follow the
eightfold path and the middle way no
less than any other Buddhist.
But Zen is founded on paradox, isn't it?
Zen means to break the
categories that bind us by forcing us into
paradoxes which we cannot
explain ourselves out of. We must just be.
That is a route to a particular
kind of experience that entails a
different way of being in the
world. Is that the basis of all ordinary
morality? Or of an
extraordinary one?<
What does it mean, to just be? Zen,
as with other approaches to
answering that question, says
that the only answer is the living
answer. If there is not something to make that
answer concrete, that
answer is not the living
answer, but the imagined answer. The only
thing that takes the
imagination out of it is the cessation of an
imagined sense of self. This is
why that shift is often characterized
as an awakening. If it is the
imagined sense of self, as identified
with, that is controlling the
seeking ・which is to say that it is
another image than the one
present that is being sought, then the
imagination controls the change
of image. This situation is often
referred to in terms of
Narcissus catching sight of his image in the
pool.
When this changing of
images is blocked, by, say, a Koan, which means
that the new image just cannot
be imagined, if for no other reason
than it will not parse, than an
insight into the imagined identity
becomes a possibility. Just a
nudge will cause an awakening that
carries away both the image and
its identified with center; the whole
structure collapses.
This is what it means, just to
be. ((Yes,
and this is experiential, living facts of life))The image breaks and
one is left
only with what-is. There can be
anxiety in that newly scrubbed look,
and that anxiety may lead one
to reacquire the image. When one learns
that the anxiety /is/ the
identity, then the reforming of that
identity is opened for
understanding. If that identity is the source
of a moral problem, then
getting shut of it is the solution to that
problem, and, obviously, a
different morality would come into play. Is
that the answer to the problem
of morality? ((This leads to the discussion of “becoming” as in the
case of Picasso also – was it Popper? ))
Ok, the words have spoken and I
have no idea of what I have just said,
so let me post this as is. ----willy
------
#3985 by me
> This sounds like
utilitarianism. Would you care to comment?
> My field of study is
economics. I was doing reading on game theory
and
> decision theory which led
me to find the aspects of information and
> uncertainty of particular
interest for further study. ...
I skimmed the description of
Utilitarianism at Britannica and found
in essence it is very similar. You
being in the area of economics,
you should be familiar with the
idea of net present value. With H-
max, I thought about bringing
in the discount rate to accommodate
the time dimension (each having
different rate perhaps depending on
age, sex, etc.) to compare
various actions with same principle to
choose the path.
As I read the description of
Utilitarianism, I found it interesting
to picture one to use
"skillful means" just as parent to change the
behavior of kids in this line
of thought. The Buddha has similar
example of showing kids toys to
have them come out of the house in
fire.
Another dimension is (and tied
to the ongoing? Discussion), how one
may get deeper to the ground
(as in Unconsciousness) to scan the
brain to come up with better
solution/idea as opposed to simply
depending on the negatively
conditioned mind program (as we all
have). As I practiced the
corporate strategy work at the company
called The Boston Consulting
Group, this kind of thinking and
insight generation process was
something we needed to have. Of
course, the same principle can
be used in "managing" our life, so I
thought. (I even developed a
portfolio of H-value and Needs matrix.)
My recent book, Results from
the Heart, has an element of it as a
way for any organization to
find the course in generating values in
the company and in the society
although I do not talk like this in
the book as much (as I thought
nobody may follow my thinking
pattern). Additionally, Kegon
school of philosophy seems to have
similar element. In summary, I
see the same idea is equally applied
in organization, each
organization unit (my term is, mini-company),
each individual, and each
individual brain and body cells as
well as all interacting among
themselves. (Sounds like a complexity
theory?)
One more interesting point may
be to tie this idea of H-max, with
Maslow's hierarchy. As we live,
our brains will keep searching for
more potential course of
actions from moment to moment. As I think
and write like this on this
subject for example, I see me going
through the same process
following the idea of H-max at various
dimensions. So, if we can
process this in various dimensions
individually and among people,
we as a society should be able to
come up with some interesting
path....so I think.
We can also tie all of these
with the mechanism of inspiration.
(See Human Brain Computer Model
by Nakayama at my home page:
www.suzaki.has.it ) Perhaps, it
is the nature's way to be happy, to
use our talent, and help with
each other. May all beings be
happy!・
Kio
PS. I tried to put all of these
in a book form (now 350 pages or
so). But seeing the difficulty
of conveying my message with others,
I am waiting to see if I can
come up with better way to package it.
#3986 by swm
Willy,
your words leave me confused too sometimes. But I think that
either you have grown clearer
over time or I have at last begun to
learn some of your vocabulary.
This last post of yours was much less
opaque to me than in the past.
On the other hand, Kio grows
less and less clear to my way of
thinking. Kio, are you
suggesting that one needs to go through
complex utilitarian
calculations everytime one makes a moral
judgement? If so, what happened
to the Zen idea of "no mind" and just
acting?
Also, Kio has invoked quite a
lot of words in his text to explicate
Zazen though I'd have thought
that no words would be better in most
cases or, on a site like this,
at least no more than a few words.
Mike, are you saying that you
think utilitarianism is the proper
model for moral judgements? If
so, I'm surprised since I'd have
expected a different viewpoint
from you based on your past comments.
Perhaps I misread you?
James, are you still there? You
made a point or two recently and left
me anxious to respond on this
question of moral valuing but then you
seem to have disappeared again!
SWM
#3987 by Mike
>
Mike, are you saying that you think utilitarianism is the proper
> model for moral judgements?
If so, I'm surprised since I'd have
> expected a different
viewpoint from you based on your past comments.
> Perhaps I misread you?
I am most certainly not
advocating utilitarianism and I think that you have
read me correctly in the past. My
point in bringing up utilitarianism was
only to ask Kio of his opinion
on the subject and to inquire as to its
relation to his theory of the
H-max. Economics is often closely aligned to
utilitarianism, by economists
and others. However, reading Richard Posner's
book on the Economics of
Justice has been an encouraging and enlightening
experience in terms of
distancing economics from this and advocating a
system of wealth maximization. This
is something that I'm somewhat new to,
so bare with me as I accept the
criticisms that arise in discussion into my
investigation of this model. Wealth
is used in a fairly broad sense. I quote
from Posner below:
"The difference between
utilitarian and economic morality, and the
source, I believe, of the
"monstrousness" of the former, is that the
utilitarian, despite his
profound concern with SOCIAL welfare, must
logically ascribe value to all
sorts of asocial traits, such as envy and
cruelty, because these are
common sources of personal satisfaction and hence
of utility. In contrast,
lawfully obtained wealth is created by doing things
for other people--offering them
advantageous trades. The individual may be
completely selfish but he
cannot, in a well-regulated market economy,
promote his self-interest
without benefiting others as well as himself. This
may be why laziness is a
disfavored trait in our society. The lazy person
substitutes leisure--which does
not produce any consumer surplus for the
rest of society to enjoy--for
work, which does."
To highlight and expound on
just a couple of things:
1) Posner advocates
"consent" as a criteria for valuation. When I go to the
grocery store and purchase
food, I engage in a voluntary exchange in which
it is obvious that the goods
are worth more to me than to the grocer and
vice versa. The same is true of
the grocer's interaction with those who
produce the goods he purchase
for procurement for sale, etc. In each
voluntary exchange of goods,
value is created in society.
2) The criteria of consent is
slightly more complicated than it might seem
at first glance. Posner does
not advocate strict consent, for example,
because there are so many
situations in which the costs of information are
so high that the transaction
would otherwise not occur were we to require
strict consent. Rather, he
argues for implicit consent, of which strict
consent would be a logical
subset. Drawing up a perfect contract, or a
creating a specific contract at
all, would make many exchanges infeasible.
Hence the law provides for the
arbitration of things not considered in
contracts, and for the
existence of implicit contracts inferred from action.
Implicit consent is fairly
far-reaching. It prevents individuals from simply
objecting to the actions of
others and demands that they support their
objections with a willingness
to pay for things to be otherwise. The party
to whom they object is pursuing
actions that obviously have value and can
demand that whatever loss they
incur from an abstinence from such actions be
compensated--and so it is
arbitrated. If I really don't like the noise from
the planes flying over my house
I should be able to make an offer to the
parties flying the planes to
induce them to abstain from their actions. My
value for quiet (as seen in my
willingness to pay) and their value for the
airspace above my house will be
the deciding factors in the future existence
of non-existence of a contract
prohibiting their flight over my house.
Implicit consent is a necessary
feature of efficient wealth maximization. If
we limit reasonable actions to
those actions to which all individuals
unanimously consent, the
constraint will be unbearable and the costs of
information prohibitive.
3) To quote again from Posner:
"I have tried to develop a moral theory that
goes beyond classical
utilitarianism and holds that the criterion for
judging whether acts and
institutions are just or good is whether they
maximize the wealth of society.
This approach allows a reconciliation among
utility, liberty, and even
equality as completing ethical principles."
More later. There are some
fascinating implications from Posner's approach
of non-market a
nalysis
using market techniques. Kio--investigate
utilitarianism a bit more
before you give it your approval. :-) It's
received a lot of criticism and
doesn't, in my opinion, stand up. Posner's
approach seems different
enough, despite similarities in vocabulary at
times, to be reasonable and
defensible.
Mike
#3988 by Me
First, regarding the questions
from swm:
To your last post with many
additional questions addressed to me
(#3975), I reread many of
previous posts from the beginning and felt
that they answer most of the
questions you raised. So, I would not
repeat or rephrase them any
further. If you do not find any answer
in my previous posts, my
suggestion is to answer these questions on
your own. Since finding the
ground and unknown is tied to the
creative process, I hope you
understand this point. (Also, This is
the very point of Zen anyway. We
are not after the words and
knowledge so much. The job has
to be done by each individual.)
As to the Utilitarianism:
I used my intuitive sense to
comment on utilitarianism. However,
please note that I mentioned
the value I look at is like happiness
or more like
"Liveliness" and that I am simply offering the
thinking framework. Also,
please note that Zen does not preclude
the use of brain (Re: koan on
wild fox Zen if you want to get into
this). It is just that we want
to use the brain and not to be
used. As to investigating
U-ism, I am hesitant to get into
"knowing" more at
this moment as the dimensions and the scope does
not seem to fit easily anyway. (For
example, I doubt if they
address the happiness of each
cells, and their interrelationship ・
as in holon structure ・as well as fully
utilizing the conscious and
unconscious part of brain.)
Take care, and good luck!
Kio
----
#3991 by swm
Kio, I would not have asked
those questions if I had thought the
answers were clear, as you
suggest, from what you'd already written.
So either I am unable to grasp
what you've written (assuming I read
your comments through, which I
did) or you did not answer the
questions as you think, either
because you were unclear in your
answers or because you are now
mistaken in your idea that you dealt
with them in your comments
(which could be the case if you've
misunderstood my questions, for
instance).
There are a number of
possibilities here, as you can see. However, if
your answer is to say you won't
go further into this because you've
already dealt with it all, then
we are at an impasse (as so often
seems to occur on these lists).
I have said here and elsewhere many
times that I am interested in a
philosophical inquiry into the nature
of moral thinking though I have
been unable, to this moment, to get a
genuine discussion going that
does not end somewhat like this: one
interlocutor announcing he's
already answered the questions and I
should just go back and re-read
what he said so that he need not
repeat himself. As noted, this
is no answer for the reasons cited.
I do understand a Zen-like
reluctance to delve deeply into verbiage
to address this matter and that
I certainly respect. I happen to
share that view to an extent. However,
you have, it seems to me, been
quite willing to elaborate in
many words here before so, unless you
are now recognizing that you
may have gone too far down the verbal
road and so wish to pull back,
you are being a bit disingenuous, in
my opinion, in backing away now
from further elaboration,
particularly in light of the
very specific questions I've posed.
Discussions like this cannot
advance when one party to the discourse
chooses to limit the questions
to be asked, or refuses to offer
answers to sincerely posed
questions. Now it is certainly possible
that you may wish to avoid
repeating yourself, etc., as you say, but
please bear in mind that on my
view you would not be doing so since I
do not see how you have
answered my questions before (though it is
certainly possible that further
elaboration from you would, in fact,
demonstrate that you have
answered some or all of them).
On my view, the best way to do
Zazen is to just sit. However, for me
discourse is part of just
sitting. Philosophy is part of just
sitting. It is when such things
become a source of inner turmoil and
attachment that these, like
anything else, cease to be Zazen and
become its opposite.
My roshi once went round the
room in the sangha and asked each of us
why we had become interested in
Zen. Many reasons were given
including a desire to stop
worrying, to overcome a fear of death or
illness, to learn to be more in
touch with oneself, to be more
sensitive to others around us,
to find God, etc. He then explained
each of these reasons to the
students, sometimes saying, ah, this is
a psychological reason, or this
an emotional one, this religious,
this esthetic, etc. When he
came to me I could not think of a good
reason why I had come and so I
blurted out, unthinkingly, that I just
wanted to be better than I was.
Ah, he said, this is a spiritual
reason. And so I thought that
mine was the best reason of all. Of
course these were all just
labels for the same motivations that we
all had and he was just giving
us words to help us understand what we
were about in our own terms. But
later on I realized that his use of
the term "spiritual"
may have been the right one afterall, however
faciley chosen, and that my
interest in improving myself was just
that, a kind of spiritual
endeavour. All my actions, when I was in
the right frame of mind, seemed
to grow out of that interest and so I
came to think there must be a
spiritual dimension to all moral
valuing since that kind of
valuing is what we do vis a vis our
actions and our selves.
The point of the ongoing
discourse on this site re: moral concerns,
for me, has been to try to
understand what it means to value and
choose our actions and to show
how some choices are, in fact, better
than others for reasons that
are better than others. Wanting to be
better than we are is, I think,
the fundamental impulse that drives
the moral mind and I want to
clarify and elaborate this process
enough so that everyone can see
it for him or herself if he or she
cares to look.
Whether you choose to answer
the questions I've posed will not matter
in the end since this is my
project, and when I have got it done,
that I understand the matter
will be enough. Others may understand as
well, if they care to engage
the issues in the same way, but that is
not as important to me as
understanding this for myself. Your answers
to my questions would be
helpful but are not essential.
SWM
P.S. Mike, I am intrigued by
this economic calculus idea, wealth in
some sense replacing happiness
as the product toward which humans
strive and which, through the
interplay and creation of value
(defined, I presume, in an
economic way), gives rise to moral
judgements. I will follow your
posts as you elaborate this view.
#3992 by wibro
> SWM, you always have me to palaver with. Not being a Buddhist, I have
> no fear is explaining what they are all about. As I had stated before,
> I also did the Zen bit, complete with Roshi and Koan, and came out
> with the sense that the answer was so ritualized that the answer gets
> caught up in the ritual and ceases to be the answer. Even if one
> "gets" the answer, there is no "getting" the answer, and any system
> set up to "get" the answer becomes the Buddha to be slain when met. If
> the answer is to be an answer, that answer must be understood, else it
> is not an answer. Even if the understanding is expressed only in
> action, it must be understood.
>
> Kierkegaard put it very succinctly: "The only fundamental basis for
> understanding is that one understands only in proportion to becoming
> himself that which he understands." (Papers, V B 40)
>
> At the center of each worldview is the understanding of the worldview,
> and unless that at the center, the one who understands, has
> self-understanding, that worldview has no grounding. This is what I
> see as the grounding necessary to ground one's worldview. This is the
> meaning of grounding. And this segues to a favorite theme of mine.
> There is grounding and there is grounding. There is the grounding of
> the self-assured, those who have their answer. The other grounding is
> not for them. It may be that there are two possible natures of this
> beast we call us. It may be that there are those of us who lack the
> self-assured gene and need to find that other ground; the one you call
> the spiritual. If that were so, and an entire culture were spiritually
> driven, then those whose nature really belongs in a practical culture
> would be the odd person out. Anyway, that theme is an interesting one
> to play with.
>
> So, you and I are of the same nature, or so it would appear. I say
> that there is a ground that settles your spiritual question once and
> for all, and that that ground is to be found in the self-to-self
> relation. That is the ground Zen points to. The difficulty in
> separating out that ground from the dogma is the same difficulty that
> adheres in separating out that ground from Kierkegaard's Christian
> terms. Ok I ramble. If anything catches your attention, give a hollar.
> ----willy
#3993
Yes,
Willy, I have long thought that we were on the same wavelength
despite our many and ongoing
communication problems. I guess my issue
is that I think the moral
valuing process can be dissected and laid
out in such a clear way that
others will see this and, more, it will
make them say, why yes, of
course, that's what it means to be moral
and that's why we should be. A
really odd idea, actually, given that
no philosopher has really
satisfactorily done what I am proposing to
do in thousands of years! Nor
have I done it myself since I first
became fascinated by this
problem. In fact, as I have said here
before, this failure of mine is
one of the reasons I gave up
philosophy so many years ago
since I concluded then that I really was
not likely to "solve"
this problem, in which case it was unlikely I'd
be anything more than a
middling academic philosopher in the
end . . . and I didn't want to
be that! Of late, thanks to these
lists and the many interesting
and challenging interlocutors I have
found on these sites I have
begun to think, again, that this might be
doable and that I might be able
to do it. And so I continue to worry
this particular bone. – SWM
---
#3994 by me
I
am not sure if my English is good enough to follow this dialogue
without misinterpreting this
tricky topic. Nevertheless, I would
like to ask few questions to
swm (willy also, if you like) since
there seem to be understanding
developed that the ground is shared
between two of you according to
the last few posts. Given the
ground, :
1) Wouldn’t you be able to
answer all the questions you have
raised? If not, why not?
2) What question do you have
left?
3) Then, what?
Sincerely,
Kio
#3996 by wilbro
Kio,
I'll let SWM handle those questions, if he so desires, and would
like to ask you a question or
so from a different perspective of your
questions. If the ground is as
I have described it,
self-understanding, and one can
only understand oneself, as you have
suggested, and I agree,
wouldn't the only way to establish that there
is a common ground be the
ability to share the same understanding,
i.e., to communicate with
another and discover that we had the same
understanding? If that were
possible, wouldn't it lead one to think
that at the very center of our
being, our separate individual being, a
common thread could be touched?
Wouldn't that say that the one that we
are is not an undifferentiated
one, but a fully differentiated one?
So, if that were the case of
it, if there were a self-understanding in
which to understand the one is
to understand the all, wouldn't that
in-common understanding stand
out like a beacon to all who understood,
regardless of the words that
understanding was presented in? And
wouldn't one who understood be
able to express that understanding in
an unending number of ways? Hmmm, maybe those were statements rather
than questions.
#3998 by me
Willy
san,
Thank you for your
question/statement/response/utterance from the
ground about the ground and on
in the most colorful manner. If I
am not mistaken, you have just
answered my question 3)!
...unending... yes, unending!
Kio
BTW, you said: Wouldn't that
say that the one that we
> are is not an
undifferentiated one, but a fully differentiated
one?
Can we say, undifferentiated
and differentiated? (Hope I am not
opening a can of worms...)
#4001 by wilbro
Kio, on your can of worms, I am
not sure I follow what you are saying.
Why would you mix the two?
Isn't understanding always differentiated?
Also, isn't it a fact that the
understanding of which we speak comes
before one can say what the
understanding is? If that were the case,
the questions would not
automatically say that there is no
understanding, wouldn't it?
#4003 by me
LOL
Let me see...somehow, I knew there could be worms.
Yes, I agree what you are saying from 'that angle.' No qualm. But if I may explain what I meant there, first, I was 'thinking,’ as I mentioned before, if you know it, you know it. (as you pointed out) But if you think you know it, you do not know it. So, there is a trap hidden to our 'understanding.' In other words, understanding of the context of understanding is important. I hope this much is clear. (Although we need to clarify what that understanding is if we want to spell them out. But that goes back to the series of posts - the whole point of finding the ground – and your idea of ‘self-understanding,’ or ‘know thyself.’)
Now, when I read your point, “Wouldn't that say that the one that we are is not an undifferentiated one, but a fully differentiated one?” (#3996), I mistakenly took the word, ‘undifferentiated,’ more like ‘equality,’ ‘emptiness,’ ‘unconscious,’ ‘no-self,’ ‘non-duality,’ or ‘grounded’ when everything is as it is – as contrasted to differentiated view developed by consciousness/brain. (i.e., different from your intended meaning) However, when the ground is regained, there may be a realization which says; undifferentiated is differentiated and differentiated is undifferentiated. Or, equality is inequality, emptiness is form is, … and vice versa. Hence, I thought of rephrasing to; “Wouldn't that say that the one that we are is undifferentiated and differentiated?”
So, while you generally refer to the self-reflected terms as I remember now, which I agree, I also view from the angle of non-duality, etc. as mentioned above. In either case, I can see both pointing to the same moon. (In a dynamic process of binding and unbinding, perhaps more from self-referral terms; while in a more static or general sense, it may be realized as the absolute affirmation of what is as mentioned above.) Although these terms can cause trouble especially when the understanding is not there or when different shade of color is added to that understanding so to speak, as you pointed, “one who understood would be able to express that understanding in an unending number of ways.” (Or, may I also say ‘such understanding’ is the ground to express who we are in myriad of ways?)
If I then touch on these various ways of expression, they may include our daily behavior, moral judgment, use of the brain, practice in art, music, management, science, etc., etc. although because of the upbringings, genes, DNA, talent acquired, etc., the application of this principle way– as it were - may vary in each case and from moment to moment. (Use of English may be added to my list so that my expression is clearer to deliver the message.) Still, the fundamental process is the same. I may be expanding ‘the process’ in a much broader dimension here, but, that is how I see it, leading into my question 3) in #3994: “Then what?” In essence, it may be seen as moment-to-moment koan practice of how we live our life. One way to characterize the direction is: May all beings be happy!
(Please tell me if you find more worms…and… if you did, it would be most helpful if you also share your question/response/statement/view/utterance as you did in the last two posts.)
Good day, and thanks for clarification.
Kio
-----
#4002 by swm
Kio
asked:
Given the ground:
1) Wouldn't you be able to you
answer all the questions you have
raised? If not, why not?
2) What question do you have
left?
3) Then, what?
SWM replies:
1) I still remain unsure of what
is meant by "the ground" in this
case. I take it to mean, at
this point at least, a condition wherein
one is fully at ease with
oneself and all about oneself is clear or
at least seems to be to the one
who is in that condition. In such a
case, of course, the assumption
would be that that one would be able
to answer all non-factual
questions that were still real questions
(since even a fully grounded,
dare we say enlightened, person would
still not be expected to know
all there is to know) about him or
herself.
This is to say that questions
about one's self as they relate to how
one is oriented in the world,
what one should do perhaps, would be
accessible to such answers
insofar as they could be answered. I have
said before that I think there
is a sense in which such a state is
the basis for understanding
moral valuing (defined as I have said, as
caring about the well-being of
others regardless of ourselves). But
my interest is to show how this
lies at the bottom of all moral
thought, not just the thought
of those who enter into particular
practices, achieve particular
experiences, follow particular
religions, etc. I want to see
if this can be established as a basis
for moral reasoning and
argument generally and if it can be used to
convince folks of what is really
good and, further, to convince them
to actually choose the good
once it is shown to them.
James once described a
situation where he was counseling a criminal
and trying to convince the
criminal his acts had been wrong. Though
James knew it was his job to
convince this criminal, he didn't really
think he had any arguments to
marshall to achieve that end which
would be convincing. No doubt
this is because James accepts a kind of
existential nihilism. He felt
he should have been able to convince
this guy . . . but could not. Nor
was he happy with my suggestion
that the key was to convince
the guy to feel compassion. James'
position was that you can't
help what you feel, whatever acts you
choose to undertake.
So the answer to your first
question, Kio, is even if one would be
able to answer all relevant
questions for oneself, there is still the
problem of finding a way to
make the case for others. Part of moral
valuing is making the case.
2) How do we make the case for
ourselves and others if we have not
had the experiences involved or
they have not had them? And are those
experiences the genuine
article, i.e., are they the basis for moral
judgements or does something
else better characterize and explain
morality? If so, what?
3) Then we must continue to
inquire and think about the matter and
try to formulate an answer
which addresses the above and, most
especially, solves James' (and
everyone's) problem.
SWM
-----
#4004 by me
My take is that we did our best and the moment has arrived for the silence to prevail. Each may take his own koan – so to speak -from here on and address it truthfully - hopefully from the ‘ground.’
May all beings be happy!
Kio
--------------
* Here is a punch line:
"Morality is not a matter of seeking something apart from the self -- it is simply the discovery of something within the self.” – Kitaro Nishida
* Back to my home page: www.suzaki.has.it