RoR: Forum

Haidt's TED talk where he champions Zen Buddhism:

Notable quote (shown at 15:50 into the video):

If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease.

--Sent-ts'an [Zen master], c. 700 C.E.

Recap:
We're in a state of ignorance but we still need to act. Therefore, we need to either shun principles outright (especially moral principles) or at least refrain from passing any kind of moral judgment in our lives. This habitual behavior (of never being for or against anything), once ritualized into our character, will lead us to Nirvana -- where truth stands clear before us.

Ugh! This is a professed anti-existentialism which, like some kind of a yin in response to a yang, never actually escapes from existentialism.

-----------------------------------
Zen Master: I'm all through with this shake-my-fist-at-reality ,will-to-power propaganda that you have been rambling on about.

Existentialist: Really? How so? How are you going to exercise or embody this new, alternative philosophy you say you have just adopted?

Zen Master: I'm going to shake my fist at reality and say "No! I will not choose some things over others!"

Existentialist: Cool. Let me know how that works out for you.
------------------------------------

:-)

Ed

Post 21

Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 4:51am

Like Christianity or Islam, Buddhism is a large, wide, deep, and changing religion whose past practitioners outnumber the living. I found a biography of "Seng can" on Wikipedia, (of course). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jianzhi_Sengcan

Other Zen masters taught other paths to enlightenment.

Raised in a Christian culture, we can differentiate the Quakers from the Grand Inquisitor. Similarly, Zen is not just what one master says, even if you could understand his words, which itself is a Zen problem. And Zen is just one sect of one school of Buddhism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen

In particular, these people spoke in Chinese and wrote in ideograms. It is hard enough to tease the theology from medieval Latin. All I can suggest with Buddhism is that you learn to read Chinese characters and understand for yourself what the masters wrote.

Realize, of course, that Buddhism is an Indian philosophy whose basic works are in an Indo-European type language that academics now label "Buddhist hybrid Sanskrit." When Buddhist monks went to China, Chinese monks learned that other language and then translated the teachings into their own.

So, I don't know what "Buddhists" believe.
(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 9/29, 4:55am)

Post 22

Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 9:18am

Mike,

In particular, these people spoke in Chinese and wrote in ideograms. It is hard enough to tease the theology from medieval Latin. All I can suggest with Buddhism is that you learn to read Chinese characters and understand for yourself what the masters wrote.

For a split-second there, I had a flashback and believed that I was communicating with Ted Keer. As that is something very similar to what it is that he would have to say, in a situation that would be very similar to this one that we find ourselves in.

:-)

I'm in a moral pickle. You see, if I refrain from undertaking the formidable task of learning the better part of a million Chinese characters, then you can blame me for 'passing terribly hasty judgment.' However, if I accept the obligation to undertake the exhausting enterprise of sitting down and teaching myself the better part of a million Chinese characters, then I will have sacrificed a good portion of my personal time and energy. So either way, I lose.

A way out of this dichotomy which you have indirectly proposed (by suggesting I either read Chinese or stay quite about it), is to reject it as false. In order to get into the position to be able to criticize something, it is not necessary that you are that one person on Earth who knows the most about it (which is where your dichotomy leads). It is not even necessary that you are close to being that one guy (by doing tons of history, and tons and tons of integration of wide-ranging data).

If, before being critical of Buddhism, I had to have first exhausted myself by memorizing all the avenues of developmental history -- i.e., that Confucius, Lao-Tzu, and the Buddha all died within the same decade; that Buddhism started as an ethics-focused schism from the more broad-based Hinduism around that same general time period; that Mahayana Buddhism was championed by Nagarjuna from southeast India as a kinder, gentler alternative to traditional Buddhisms such as Theravada Buddhism, etc. -- then yes, it follows that you can't say anything bad about Buddhism unless you are the Buddha himself.

Under your perspective (taken to its logical end), only the Buddha -- or someone on par with* the Buddha -- could criticize Buddhism, only Ayn Rand* could criticize Objectivism, only Jesus* could criticize Christianity, only Marx* could criticism communism, only Comte* can criticize altruism, only Rawls* can criticize what it means to see past a veil of ignorance, etc..

But that's post-modern, pragmatic elite-worship and I don't go in for that.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/29, 9:21am)

Post 23

Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 1:12pm

Well, I do miss Ted Keer...

You inspired me to resurrect an old article and make it a blog post. I taught myself to read Tibetan in order to identify, attribute, and price a collection for a dealer.

If you wish to criticize Zen koans from an Objectivist viewpoint, that is all well, fine, and good.

You must know about karate. Easily, it means "empty hand" in Japanese. But you have your choice of ideograms and one early master took "kara" as "nothing on your mind" or "empty headed" so as to teach "a mind like a still pond reflecting the full moon." In other words, you do not attempt to out-think your opponent, but only respond to his moves.

In American schools of karate, we reward aggression, but at root, it is a defensive martial art, in which you seek to immobilze the attacker. It is NIOF, as we would say: the attacker is immoral.

Post 24

Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 5:22pm

Mike,

In other words, you do not attempt to out-think your opponent, but only respond to his moves.

In American schools of karate, we reward aggression, but at root, it is a defensive martial art, in which you seek to immobilze the attacker. It is NIOF, as we would say: the attacker is immoral.

In order to check my facts regarding Buddhism, I consulted a book by Peter J. King: One Hundred Philosophers. King has a side-bar on each thinker, and a section called: "In a nutshell" wherein he summarizes each thinker in a single, albeit carefully-worded sentence. King's nutshell synopsis for Nagarjuna is telling:

Everything is relative, and nothing should be either affirmed or denied.

Nagarjuna refused to teach a system of thought and instead focused solely on responding to the moves of other thinkers. Yet you try to dress this poor behavior up by referring to it as NIOF, even though it makes every creator out to be an attacker (someone to be responded to and immobilized). There is little-to-no harmony of interest in something like that.

How meritorious is it to never create anything of value, but instead withdraw to the sidelines where you can throw confetti on the field without having any of your own skin in the game?

Ed

Post 25

Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 6:08pm

My experience with Buddhism is from time in South East Asia - the Theravada branch of Buddhism - and from some studies coming out of psychology. In South East Asia the religion is far from being "pure" whatever that might be. It appears to be held differently not just from temple to temple, and from priest to priest, but also in how it is adapted by people. They mix it with beliefs in ghosts and superstitious beliefs relative to karma.

I first looked at it as one of the most intelligent religions in that it was mostly psychological, mostly about self-interest, and seemed to be far less mystical and far less a tool of manipulation by an elite. The religion started at a time when suffering was the norm - something we, now, can only try to imagine. It offered the promise of relief from the suffering by using your consciousness differently. It was about a pathway to personal liberation.

The part we were shown in psychology were the "Four Noble Truths" and the "Noble Eightfold Path."

1. Suffering (physical and mental illness, growing old and dying, stress, dissatisfaction, etc.)
2. These are all experienced emotionally because we want, actually crave things.
3. This happens only because we are ignorant of the true nature of things.
4. If we correct our ignorance, and follow the proper path, we can be free of our suffering.
-----------

1. Wisdom: Viewing reality as it is, not as it appears
2. Wisdom: Having the right intentions (renunciation, freedom, and harmlessness)
3. Ethics: Speak in a truthful and non-hurtful way
4. Ethics: Acting in a non-harmful way
5. Ethics: A non-harmful livelihood
6. Concentration: Making an effor to improve
7. Concentration: Awareness to see things for what they are with clear consciousness (and without craving or aversion)
8. Concentration: Correct mediation or concentration
------------

I, of course, don't agree with Buddhism and have never practiced it, but I dislike it the least of all the religions. And I like that it focuses more on the practice of what is really psychology and some commonsense ethics as a way to achieve personal peace and a sense of freedom. It also has lots and lots of nonsense - as do all religions.

I saw a lot to be liked in the way Buddhism has contributed to the process of socialization in Thailand. A problem is that it is a religion and it is taken into the mind and communicated as a faith-based epistemology and what we need to do is have psychology and ethics and epistemology and philosophy as reason-based and to take the place of religion.

Post 26

Monday, September 30, 2013 - 11:42am

I practiced Zen for about 5 years in the 90’s. My first introduction after reading The Three Pillars of Zen by Philip Kapleau was when I visited the sangha established by him in Rochester, NY for a weekend retreat. Needless to say, this was a mind-blowing event for me or I wouldn’t have continued. The practice there is of the Rinzai sect, as contrasted to the Soto sect. Rinzai practice is more dynamic and intensive as exemplified by the reliance on koans, such as “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” whereas Soto practice is more passive in its meditation. Despite the fact that I was more attracted to the Rinzai school there wasn’t a sangha near my home town, I entered into Soto practice.

In my opinion, Zen is not a traditional religion — there is no afterlife, there is no divine intervention and it only provides guidance in living, in other words, it’s a philosophy. It advocates benevolence, but not altruism. The term “Zen” merely means “sitting meditation” and that is the means of deconditioning our perceptions of reality. As a means of survival, we learn to perceive reality according to our experiences. The fire is hot so we learn to behave in a way that avoids the pain of contact with it. Certain things cannot be unlearned, such as reading. Once one has learned to read it’s impossible to look at a sign and not read it, that is to say, see the wriggly lines without understanding the message, but the purpose of meditation is to re-wire the destructive connections that we have acquired in our brains. Long time practitioners of Zen meditation have been observed to view repetitive signals as a new experience each time the event occurs. When they were wired up to an encephalograph and subjected to the sound of dripping water the results showed that they didn’t get inured to it, as contrasted to those who were novice meditators. The conclusion is that they resisted getting conditioned to the sound, at least in this instance.

The epiphany of satori is the instantaneous break down of all the conditioning that was experienced and that which clouded the perception of reality. I haven’t experienced anywhere near that stage of enlightenment but know firsthand the feeling of contentment as one “lets go.” I haven’t practiced Zen for many years but it changed my attitudes in many ways. In my opinion, there is absolutely no conflict between Zen and objectivism and my only reticence is that Zen doesn’t sanction killing another human being, even in self-defense. The samurai perverted Zen for their own goals, using that practice to overcome their fear of death in support of their war-like activities. Zen is pure subjectivism and objectivism is pure objectivity and they are each appropriate in their respective realms and can coexist like the yin and the yang in a healthy personality. I think that there are some personalities that just aren’t receptive to believing that there is a valid subjective world that can be accessed and as long as it is contained appropriately it is valuable. At least, it works for me.

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 9/30, 1:25pm)

Post 27

Monday, September 30, 2013 - 4:56pm

"Chineasy."

http://youtu.be/troxvPRmZm8

Post 28

Monday, September 30, 2013 - 5:17pm

http://youtu.be/Ikr3kdMJ0BE

Watched this a month or so ago.

Cheap, interesting and effective prison program introduced by a couple of Buddhist guys to help violent inmates who wanted to make a change.

Focus is on meditation and self focus, something none of the inmates were used to. At all.

Many, if not most, continued with "sitting" after the program ended.

Post 29

Monday, September 30, 2013 - 6:10pm

An Objectivist says, “There are no contradictions.”

A Zen Buddhist says, “There are no contradictions — because there are no contradictions.” (i.e. in the mind of the practitioner nothing exists.)

A Zen Buddhist monk says to the hamburger vendor, “Make me one with everything.”

Sam

Post 30

Monday, September 30, 2013 - 7:47pm

Western culture encourages attacks on contradictions - logically the proper approach, but many people react badly to this psychologically and alter their thinking to avoid the APPEARANCE of a contradiction, or take a position out of ignorance rather than to be left appearing to be on both sides of an issue.

Eastern cultures following Buddhist practices are more open logically to contradictions, and that is a problem. But psychologically, they are often more open to examining both side, they are less concerned with what others think (regarding not having a position), and they often end up working together more easily with others in circumstances that would otherwise bring up conflict due to contradictory positions.

The West is clearly right about the epistemology, but we need a lot of work on self-esteem. We need to be able to say, "Right now I'm holding both sides of this issue up as possibilities. I'll have to pick one of them, but I'm not going to do just yet."

(I'm only talking about my very limited understanding of Theravada Buddhism which is nothing like Zen Buddhism as far as I can tell.)

Post 31

Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 6:41pm

Good stuff. Steve provide the 4 Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, which includes this:

7. Concentration: Awareness to see things for what they are with clear consciousness (and without craving or aversion)

Let's compare this to the other 2 quotes I was harping on about:

If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease.

Everything is relative, and nothing should be either affirmed or denied.

These 3 quotes, from top to bottom, appear to get increasingly irrational.

The first quote is actually pretty good, except for the fact that some facts have inherent value (i.e., there is no dichotomy between fact and value). The second quote gets worse in relation to this, and can be interpreted -- in an admittedly poor light -- as a suggestion for one to try to be inhuman. Existence is identity, so being human actually means things. There are logical corollaries to being human. It means being for some things (e.g., food) and against some things (e.g., poison), all else equal. The last quote is full-on gibberish that would wreck your life if fully adopted.

Ed

Post 32

Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 9:47pm

Ed, you can’t get there from here by using logic and reason to enter a realm that is purely subjective. It’s an exercise in futility and is self-contradictory. I’m only speaking from the point of view of Zen, but the purpose of a koan such as, “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” is to confound all attempts at reason. It is the desperate effort to solve it that causes a breakdown in the barriers to enlightenment. When one reaches the state of satori/kendo one realizes that the universe is perfect, in every sense, and if so, there can’t be any discrimination between right and wrong or good and bad.

Of course one has to use such discrimination in our daily lives or we would perish but we’re talking about the subjective realm. To prove my point, Zen masters go about their daily business in a rational and logical way. Btw, Steve Jobs seemed to have done very well, creatively, as a Zen practitioner. Google “Steve Jobs Zen” and you’ll get some good hits, e.g.

As a young seeker in the ’70s, Jobs didn’t just dabble in Zen, appropriating its elliptical aesthetic as a kind of exotic cologne. He turns out to have been a serious, diligent practitioner who undertook lengthy meditation retreats at Tassajara — the first Zen monastery in America, located at the end of a twisting dirt road in the mountains above Carmel — spending weeks on end “facing the wall,” as Zen students say, to observe the activity of his own mind.

The best I can do to give you more insight is to get “The Three Pillars of Zen” by Philip Kapleau, which you can get at any used book store, I’m sure.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Three-Pillars-Zen-Enlightenment/dp/0385260938/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380689368&sr=8-1&keywords=three+pillars+of+zen

Sam

Post 33

Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 7:44pm

Sam,

Of course one has to use such discrimination in our daily lives or we would perish but we’re talking about the subjective realm.

No, we are talking about the truth, specifically about the objective truth. You are changing the subject. Haidt's quote of the Zen master starts out with:

If you want the truth to stand clear before you ...

It serves no good purpose "to confound all attempts at reason" when you are trying to get the truth to stand clear before you. If that's what you want -- if you want the truth to stand clear before you -- then confounding reason is not the answer/solution. Rather, it is the removal of barriers/confounders to reason that is the key. That Zen master thought that reason and emotion necessarily conflict with one another -- i.e., that there is at least a mitigated Primacy of Consciousness (an inherent subjectivism/solipsism where emotions rule over-and-above reason) -- so you have to totally quiet-down your consciousness in order to get to the truth of a matter. In other words, you have to get rid of emotion and desire in order to see things clearly -- i.e., that you have to "become" totally impartial/disinterested.

But that is not correct. What is the sound of a Zen master speaking incorrectly?

:-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/02, 7:48pm)

Post 34

Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 9:28pm

Ed, said, “No, we are talking about the truth, specifically about the objective truth.”

You may be talking about the objective truth but when we’re talking about Zen we’re talking about the subjective truth. I gather that you reject any concept of such wisdom. Just because you haven’t experienced such a state, does that mean that it doesn’t and cannot exist? There are untold numbers of others that claim that they have experienced it. You can either claim that they are deluded or liars but you can never actually crawl into the brain of the subject that has claimed to attain it. The best one can do at the present is to observe by means of electroencephalograms the state of mature meditators.

“Rather, it is the removal of barriers/confounders to reason that is the key.” I agree completely, but only with respect to objective truth.

“In other words, you have to get rid of emotion and desire in order to see things clearly -- i.e., that you have to "become" totally impartial/disinterested.” Pretty close but not quite. You don’t “have” to become disinterested. “Striving” to become disinterested defeats the process — you naturally become disinterested as the depth of meditation deepens.

This dude, Haidt, is almost incomprehensible to me. I can’t figure out if I have anything at all in common with him or not.

Again, check out more on Steve Jobs. Here’s a very good analysis of his attitudes:

http://www.buddhismandaustralia.com/index.php/articles/articles-2012/116-steve-jobs-a-practicing-buddhist-an-entrepreneur-and-an-innovator-joshua-guilar-and-karen-neudorf.html

Sam

Post 35

Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 2:28pm

As a direct result of Ayn Rand's character "Ivy Starnes" in Atlas Shrugged and the introductory essay in For the New Intellectual, I was completely opposed to Buddhism (and tofu). But to complete a college requirement in physical education (1969; times were different), I took Tae Kwon Do: Korean karate. It was my first experience with meditation and my first experience contrary to the western idea that in boxing you can "outthink" your opponent. (Usually, I was too busy swinging wildly to think about anything except running away.) Tae Kwon Do taught me discipline.

Since then I have several classes in meditition, Tai Chi, and similar explorations. I also learned to actively read and write Japanese. (Nod to Tress about "Chineasy" -- That was how I was introduced to it as a child. Our library had a children's book about learning Chinese told from the viewpoint of an American boy circa 1940 whose father was in China as an engineer building roads.) I was in a bookstore and found the Baynes translation of the I Ching, the one cited in The Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick. I also have The Book of Five Rings and The Art of War.

I agree with that Sam: the truths are incommensurable with western logic. But they are truths.

Post 36

Saturday, October 5, 2013 - 6:38am

Sam,

You may be talking about the objective truth but when we’re talking about Zen we’re talking about the subjective truth. I gather that you reject any concept of such wisdom.

The original question was over whether Haidt was talking about an objective truth of the matter, or just a single or a bunch of subjective truths together. Now, Haidt is a natural scientist -- he studies the natural world -- and the natural world is an objective matter. There is good reason to believe that when he quoted a Zen master, he was doing so in order to provide guidance to others to get to the objective truths he studies. It is more of a stretch to say that, for a brief moment when referring to Zen, Haidt had stopped being a scientist and acted like a mystical guru -- reaching out to the audience in a moment of mass spiritual healing.

I gather that you reject any concept of such wisdom.

There is such wisdom, but I call it emotional intelligence and I do not grant to Buddhism any special pipeline or avenue toward its attainment. Buddhism isn't special, people are. Buddhism is just another in a long line of useful mistakes that humans have made over the centuries. Perhaps it is one of the better (most spiritually useful) mistakes that we have ever made. I suspect Marotta would have a different take on this -- viewing "mistake" only in the narrow, agent-centered sense. On that narrow sense, I can't take my broad view of the general and ultimate merit of Buddhism for the self-actualization of man, but instead could only evaluate it singly -- as to whether it "benefits" each single person who tries it.

There are untold numbers of others that claim that they have experienced it.

See above.

“Striving” to become disinterested defeats the process — you naturally become disinterested as the depth of meditation deepens.

This is an aspect of Buddhism with which I disagree. It's like there are 2 options for folks:

1) experience (joy, pain, suffering, exaltation, wonderment, unmitigated fulfillment, unhampered excitement, unrelenting celebration)
2) escapism (from suffering)

Buddhism teaches (2) at the expense of (1). It is a "foxhole" religion, only partly useful for part of us in part of our lives (rather than being completely useful for all of us throughout our lives). You may say that I ask a lot from a religion -- that it be completely useful for all of us, all of the time -- and I admit that I currently do not know how to disagree with (defend myself against) such a charge.

Ed

Post 37

Saturday, October 5, 2013 - 8:44am

Ed,

I'm not going to argue for Buddhism, or for this or that meditative practice (there are many in the area of personal growth (claiming to come more from psychology than religion), but I am going to say that there are many psychological practices that result in positive benefits even though they might look mystical, or subjective, or look escapist (which addresses the motivation, not the result or the practice as such), when seen from the outside.

Think of some primitive tribe that had a ritual where they chanted while gathered around a fire chewing on a plant.... to escape pain. Now imagine that scientists discovered the plant they chew to have a chemical identical to aspirin.

That tribe was primitive in their understanding of what conferred the benefit, and ignorant of science in general, but not in understanding that there was a benefit conferred by their practice.

My point is that we are still fairly primitive in our understanding of the best way to use our minds - and I'm not talking about reasoning or logic, but things more like the kind of control we exert over focus, or our degree of openness, or our degree of self-awareness. Yet we always feel as if those who went before us were primitive but we have finally come to understand the why of things. I think people in 100 years will look back on this time and have thoughts like, "Well, that was before people learned how to use their minds except in fairly primitive ways."

We put oil in the crankcase of our cars even though it doesn't directly effect the power to move the car. Mediation (and there are many kinds), can be thought of as mental lubricant, as opposed direct power like reasoning.

Post 38

Saturday, October 5, 2013 - 8:51am

My wife is little more Zen than I am and one time when we were looking for the next place to move to, she suggested Sedona, Arizona. I said, "Great! I can be a guru!" And what, she asked superciliously, would you teach in Sedona? "Logic! The Left Brain Power of the Ancient Greeks!!"
It might have sold, if I could have stopped laughing.

Post 39

Saturday, October 5, 2013 - 4:43pm