I am a Buddhist and if anyone wants to question my beliefs then they are welcome to do so...

Frank says that I said that "experience is gained through meditation." Those may be my words, but they are not my meaning, i.e., I do not distinguish between meditation and an "enlightenment" result or product of meditation. In fact meditation IS enlightment.

One would have to study Dogen, the founder of Soto Zen for an intellectual exigesis of this perspective in which the means-ends division is transcended.

Sorry for my ambiguity. Maybe the right words will come to me later.

It is a guess that meditation results in some sort of enlightenment. It may only result in delusion.

Quote:

It is a guess that meditation results in some sort of enlightenment. It may only result in delusion.

If you had a problem, meditated on it, and then saw clearly the solution, your meditation resulted in some sort of enlightenment. Now, if the answer turned out to be the right one, and the problem was solved, it's pretty safe to say that it didn't result in delusion. At least not that time.

Actually, to my mind, Frank, your skepticism makes for good buddhism.

If you had a problem, meditated on it, and then saw clearly the solution, your meditation resulted in some sort of enlightenment.

Now, if the answer turned out to be the right one, and the problem was solved, it's pretty safe to say that it didn't result in delusion. At least not that time.

Razzleg wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Razzleg wrote:

i don't have a serious dog in this fight (although i think the current fight is largely pointless and ideological...) However, i do need to respond to this:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Unless you can say without question you are not deluding yourself when "meditating"...AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY SAY WITHOUT QUESTION YOU ARE NOT DELUDING YOURSELF WHEN "MEDITATING"..."a product of meditation" is nothing more than a belief, JL.

That's just the way it is.

JL is saying that "experience is gained through meditation."

It MAY NOT be.

All of the so-called "experience" gained while meditating MAY BE an illusion.

(Some people think they gain insights into REALITY while stoned on pot. It MAY BE a total illusion.)

The notion that the "experience" is gained...IS PURELY A GUESS.

"Belief" (pretending a guess about REALITY is something more than a guess)...is the cinder in the eye. Finally coming to grips with the believe/belief problem will do more for you than Buddhism.

If you said this about TM or some other meditation methods, i'd agree with you. But you misunderstand Buddhist meditation if you think the meditation "process" produces either beliefs, guesses, standards, or "results".

The only "product" of Buddhist meditation, properly pulled off, is the, sometimes vague, memory of experiencing it.

I did NOT say the meditation "process" produces beliefs or guesses. I have no idea of whether it does or doesn't.

Read what I said again...and I stand by it.

"Unless you can say without question you are not deluding yourself when "meditating"...AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY SAY WITHOUT QUESTION YOU ARE NOT DELUDING YOURSELF WHEN "MEDITATING"..."a product of meditation" (JL's words) is nothing more than a belief, JL."

Haha...man, Frank, sometimes you make me miss kennethamy.

Let me ask for clarification on the point you are making. Are you saying that a person who meditates, when speaking about the "product" of meditation, doesn't make a guess about reality, but is only pretending to make a guess about reality as an extension of an "act" or "state" or "experience" they are pretending to have?

That seems to be what you are saying, but i'm sure that i'm misinterpreting you. If i'm not entirely wrong, how do you support your "argument"?

Not sure what your problem is here, Razz, but if you will read my post at

http://able2know.org/topic/220485-64#post-5698625

I explain exactly what I mean.

JL, you have been arguing that “experience” (which you assert is gained through meditation) is “what matters.”

I have merely pointed out that unless you can say without question you are not deluding yourself when "meditating"…you cannot logically say that the “experience” you supposedly obtain through meditation…is experience. It MAY be delusion. Saying “it is experience” IS A BELIEF.

There is nothing difficult about that, JL…and I do not have to do any meditating in order for that to be a valid observation.

You do NOT know if you are being deluded during meditation. What you perceive to be “experience” may be nothing more than delusion. Any assertion that it is “experience”…is nothing more than belief (guesses.)

You are saying that meditation IS ENLIGHTENMENT.

I am still saying that the entire of the experience MAY BE A DELUSION.

Unless you can show that it IS NOT possible that it is a delusion...

...then anything derived from it IS BELIEF.

It is a guess that meditation results in some sort of enlightenment. It may only result in delusion.

The "transcendence" MAY BE AN ILLUSION.


I don't know how else to say that.

I am NOT saying it is an illusion (or delusion)...but I am saying that it MAY BE.

Without certainty that it CANNOT POSSIBLY BE an illusion or delusion...

...we are left with uncertainty...

...which you are resolving by guessing that "Dogen, the founder of Soto Zen"...and the guesses that come from that source...

...CANNOT POSSIBLY BE an illusion or delusion.

Unless you can show that it IS NOT possible that it is a delusion...

...then anything derived from it IS BELIEF.

Sheesh, Frank, you have the most long winded was of saying, "but what if it doesn't". Let's face it, that's the summation of your entire approach -- you're too afraid to commit to anything else.

Cyracuz was being extremely generous to you in his comparison of your skepticism and Buddhism. There is a lot of ambiguity in Buddhism, there is no ambiguity in your skepticism...

Please, Frank, prove to me that your skepticism is not delusional. i'm not saying that it is, but it may be.

There is nothing in your skeptical stance, as heretofor presented, that convinces me of, or communicates anything about, the contrary; i don't know that REALITY is at all touched by the denial of any and/or every possiblity. Some things may be true, but your skepticism is incapable of identifying which are, which can be , which may be, and which aren't, which cannot be, and which may not be. What does your skepticism do? [/b]

What do you believe your skepticism does?

Frank, you and I share extreme forms of SCEPTICISM, but they are fundamentally different. Your scepticism rests on our inability to achieve absolute proof for metaphysical beliefs which can be no more than guesses.

My scepticism reflects the view that we see/know the world in terms of our biological-neurological nature as it is by cultural-linguistic interpretations which can be no more than constructions..

Not necessarily so. The "solution" may or may not be the result of meditation. There are people who give a similar scenario which goes something like, "If you have a problem...pray about it...and then see the problem resolve itself...you can be sure that prayer was the instrument of resolution.

I think it presumptuous to suggest that "meditation" or "prayer" be treated as those two scenarios dictate.

Would you think it logical to assign that same degree of confidence to a theist praying for someone to survive an accident or illness...if the person for whom prayers were offered survived?

I think not.

Quote:

Not necessarily so. The "solution" may or may not be the result of meditation. There are people who give a similar scenario which goes something like, "If you have a problem...pray about it...and then see the problem resolve itself...you can be sure that prayer was the instrument of resolution.

I think it presumptuous to suggest that "meditation" or "prayer" be treated as those two scenarios dictate.

I understand. I see it slightly different. I think that prayer, meditation, thinking and so on... whatever you want to call it, isn't presumptuous in themselves. The assigning of supernatural or divine participation in these processes though... that is presumptuous.

I do not see meditation as something that includes anything but the human resources a person has at his disposal. Most people take it in stride that it is possible to learn mental techniques to improve memory or to combat bad habits. Meditation is similar to that, as I understand it. It's a mental exercise for achieving greater clarity of thought and focus.

Frank, I lost a post in which I noted that by "know" I meant simple "engagement", no different from the existential connection animals and humans have with their world(s)--rather than epistemological certainty.

Also, another contrast between our perspectives: your scepticism rests on a negative assumption that we cannot know some thing; my scepticism rests on a positive realization that we are fundamentally limited in what we can know--just as the biology of an ant prohibits its ever learning our language.;

JL was attributing "enlightenment" to the process...and "enlightenment" is more than those other things.

Quote:

JL was attributing "enlightenment" to the process...and "enlightenment" is more than those other things.

I don't really know what enlightenment is, though I have many ideas about what it might be. If it's an emotional state, which may be a crude but perhaps adequate description, then it's physical. You should be able to train yourself to attain that state, just as it is possible to calm your breathing by making the effort.

I hate to talk about "enlightenment". As I understand it it's too subtle for normal communication. We are all virtually enlightened from the beginning. Maybe I should refer to it as a default condition of proto-enligthenment.

In meditation, when it happens correctly, effortlessly, unambitiously, we realize this condition. It is often called Buddha Mind. It is not something we need to strive for since we already have it. I guess we can say that we simply must get out of its way. See why I hate to talk about it?

Frank, please forgive me if this has been discussed already, but it would be a lot more comfortable discussing things with you if you weren't yelling (bold font and/or HUGE ALL CAPS) all the time. That sort of posting is roughly equivalent to farting in an elevator, or worse, church.