Three Views On Nirvana

[sabaijai]

Interesting article from Tricycle:

http://www.tricycle.com/issues/tricycle/pdfs/nirvana161.pdf

[rockyysdt]

Interesting article from Tricycle:

http://www.tricycle.com/issues/tricycle/pdfs/nirvana161.pdf

Three takes on Nirvana reveals contradictions & raises questions.

• Nirvana is nothing more than being awakened to the enlightened nature of our consciousness. That awakened nature is who we truly are from the very beginning.
  
  
• There is not a hair's breadth of separation between what we perceive as our separate, burdensome selves and Buddha-nature.
  

Who are we?

If we are already enlightened but don't know it, does this mean our ego needs to be aware as well?

• Neither Nibbana nor Samsara is a place. In attaining nibbana we don't escape from one location to another.
  
  
• Nibbana is what is realized when the clinging of greed, hate, and delusion is brought to an end, bringing the end of the cycle of rebirth.
  

If this is so won't the release from rebirth kill us after the last incarnation.

If you don't escape to another place then it appears the reward of enlightenment is to experience egoless reality.

Is this worth annihilation (end of rebirth)? Isn't a cycle of bliss & suffering preferable to a burst of sublime followed by non existence?

• As akin to desalinating a glass of seawater: The fresh water is there, but getting out the salt—our delusion—is a task of dedication, meticulously applied, over time.
  
• We have enlightenment in "this very moment, this very place; we are 'all done' just as we are."
  
• Although there is a consciousness, "featureless, infinite, and luminous all around," that is associated with Nibbana, it is not dependent on the conditioned world.
  
• Nor does it produce the conditioned world. Rather, it is a dimension of consciousness totally independent of circumstances in the world or in one's personal life.
  

Who is conscious?

Who isn't aware of it (awareness)?

Are we both there & here simultaneously?

Is it that our ego is the only thing that's not aware which is a contradiction as we must extinguish the ego to know?

• Because Nibbana is independent, people who fully realize it are said to be "unestablished"—in other words, free from any clinging that would confine their consciousness to any point in space or time.
  

Who is not confined to any point in space & time?

[khaowong1]

Interesting article from Tricycle:

http://www.tricycle.com/issues/tricycle/pdfs/nirvana161.pdf

Three takes on Nirvana reveals contradictions & raises questions.

• Nirvana is nothing more than being awakened to the enlightened nature of our consciousness. That awakened nature is who we truly are from the very beginning.
  
  
• There is not a hair's breadth of separation between what we perceive as our separate, burdensome selves and Buddha-nature.
  

Who are we?

If we are already enlightened but don't know it, does this mean our ego needs to be aware as well?

• Neither Nibbana nor Samsara is a place. In attaining nibbana we don't escape from one location to another.
  
  
• Nibbana is what is realized when the clinging of greed, hate, and delusion is brought to an end, bringing the end of the cycle of rebirth.
  

If this is so won't the release from rebirth kill us after the last incarnation.

If you don't escape to another place then it appears the reward of enlightenment is to experience egoless reality.

Is this worth annihilation (end of rebirth)? Isn't a cycle of bliss & suffering preferable to a burst of sublime followed by non existence?

• As akin to desalinating a glass of seawater: The fresh water is there, but getting out the salt—our delusion—is a task of dedication, meticulously applied, over time.
  
• We have enlightenment in "this very moment, this very place; we are 'all done' just as we are."
  
• Although there is a consciousness, "featureless, infinite, and luminous all around," that is associated with Nibbana, it is not dependent on the conditioned world.
  
• Nor does it produce the conditioned world. Rather, it is a dimension of consciousness totally independent of circumstances in the world or in one's personal life.
  

Who is conscious?

Who isn't aware of it (awareness)?

Are we both there & here simultaneously?

Is it that our ego is the only thing that's not aware which is a contradiction as we must extinguish the ego to know?

• Because Nibbana is independent, people who fully realize it are said to be "unestablished"—in other words, free from any clinging that would confine their consciousness to any point in space or time.
  

Who is not confined to any point in space & time?

you have raised a lot of good questions.. I can't wait to see some of the answers...

[camerata]

• Because Nibbana is independent, people who fully realize it are said to be "unestablished"—in other words, free from any clinging that would confine their consciousness to any point in space or time.
  

Who is not confined to any point in space & time?

The person who previously thought he was an individual, separate from everything else, and now knows he isn't.

[rockyysdt]

• Because Nibbana is independent, people who fully realize it are said to be "unestablished"—in other words, free from any clinging that would confine their consciousness to any point in space or time.
  

Who is not confined to any point in space & time?

The person who previously thought he was an individual, separate from everything else, and now knows he isn't.

I suppose we may end up talking in circles & this has been covered to some extent, though perhaps to me not satisfactorily.

It's already been stated that there is nothing inside, no soul, no being, no ego, just a series of memories one taking over from the previous.

All that there is, is Impermanence & Conditioning.

It's a bit of a catch 22.

It still comes back to who or what?

I can understand the concept of "realising reality free from ego, clinging of desire hate & delusion", but if there is nothing inside who or what is experiencing this?

If there is a person who previously thought he was an individual, separate from everything else, and now knows he isn't, doesn't this conflict with "there is nothing, neither soul nor anything else".

Unless ego bound we are a singularity in time & space, but without ego we are part of everything (everything that there ever was & everything that there ever will be, all at once & forever).

[camerata]

I can understand the concept of "realising reality free from ego, clinging of desire hate & delusion", but if there is nothing inside who or what is experiencing this?

If there is a person who previously thought he was an individual, separate from everything else, and now knows he isn't, doesn't this conflict with "there is nothing, neither soul nor anything else".

Who says "there is nothing."? This sounds like more confusion with Mahayana concepts of sunyata. No Theravadin denies that there are the 5 aggregates, just that they don't constitute an enduring self. As Ajahn Sumedho has said, after you attain nibbana you still have a personality, it doesn't vanish into thin air. If nibbana is beyond conceptual thinking, you can only answer questions like "Who experiences it?" in a limited way. There is a mind experiencing it, but it has no sense of self or ownership, so asking "whose mind is it?" is pointless. You could say that consciousness is experiencing it.

Unless ego bound we are a singularity in time & space, but without ego we are part of everything (everything that there ever was & everything that there ever will be, all at once & forever).

I think "ego" is a fairly modern concept with different meanings in common usage and psychiatry. It would be better to say that without self-identity (personality-or-ego-belief : sakkāya-ditthi) we lose the separateness from everything else. Or almost. That puts us at Sotapanna level, and there is still a way to go before arahantship.

To further understand these teachings, one must understand the definition of anatta (anatma), which is “non-self, non-ego, egolessness, impersonality.” (See, Ven. Nyanatiloka, Buddhist Dictionary, p. 16 (BPS 2004)). “The Anatta doctrine teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego-identity, soul or any other abiding substance.” (Ibid.) Therefore, it is said that “Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; the deeds are, but no doer is there, Nirvana is, but not the man that enters it; the path is, but no traveler is seen.” (See, Visuddhi Magga XVI verse 90).

http://www.pabuddhistvihara.net/Q___A.html

[rockyysdt]

Who says "there is nothing."? This sounds like more confusion with Mahayana concepts of sunyata. No Theravadin denies that there are the 5 aggregates, just that they don't constitute an enduring self. As Ajahn Sumedho has said, after you attain nibbana you still have a personality, it doesn't vanish into thin air. If nibbana is beyond conceptual thinking, you can only answer questions like "Who experiences it?" in a limited way. There is a mind experiencing it, but it has no sense of self or ownership, so asking "whose mind is it?" is pointless. You could say that consciousness is experiencing it.

This personality sounds very much like a soul.

Is it unique (mine is different to yours)?

Is it asleep (no conscience of itself) while we are ego attached, or is it self conscious but my ego is not conscious of it?

[camerata]

This personality sounds very much like a soul.

Is it unique (mine is different to yours)?

It's just a person's behavioural characteristics, as per the dictionary definition: "the visible aspect of one's character as it impresses others." Nothing to do with a soul. Just the way you behave. Probably a mixture of things you are aware of and things you aren't aware of.

[rockyysdt]

This personality sounds very much like a soul.

Is it unique (mine is different to yours)?

It's just a person's behavioural characteristics, as per the dictionary definition: "the visible aspect of one's character as it impresses others." Nothing to do with a soul. Just the way you behave. Probably a mixture of things you are aware of and things you aren't aware of.

Sorry to inquire further because I haven't grasped what you're saying in terms of what the Buddha taught.

I'm not referring to the conditioned & impermanent self, nor referring to the perceived self (ego) which is just a series of thoughts within a body giving the illusion of self & which culminates in a spark upon death which initiates the first thought when rebirth occurs.

Quote: The person who previously thought he was an individual, separate from everything else, and now knows he isn't.

It can't be "the person who previously thought he was an individual" because he is an illusion & expires upon death.

Is "the person who previously thought he was an individual, separate from everything else" an individual personality or entity which attaches itself to or is associated with the conditioned & impermanent self (illusion)?

[camerata]

Sorry to inquire further because I haven't grasped what you're saying in terms of what the Buddha taught.

I'm not referring to the conditioned & impermanent self, nor referring to the perceived self (ego) which is just a series of thoughts within a body giving the illusion of self & which culminates in a spark upon death which initiates the first thought when rebirth occurs.

Quote: The person who previously thought he was an individual, separate from everything else, and now knows he isn't.

It can't be "the person who previously thought he was an individual" because he is an illusion & expires upon death.

Is "the person who previously thought he was an individual, separate from everything else" an individual personality or entity which attaches itself to or is associated with the conditioned & impermanent self (illusion)?

There are two aspects to nibbana: before death and after death. My answer related to nibbana before death, i.e. before the loss of the 5 aggregates. See the dictionary entry at http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhi...nary/dic3_n.htm

So what you call the "conditioned and impermanent self" is what I called "the person who previously (i.e. prior to arahantship/nibbana) thought he was an individual, separate from everything else." At the point of attaining nibbana, that person ceases to have the illusion of self/separateness, but he still has a body, thoughts, memories, etc and is still a "person" as far as everyone else is concerned.

If you are talking about nibbana after death, I think the Buddha answered that by indicating that "existence" was something other than these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death. Beyond that, we know nothing, and the implication seems to be that anyone asking the question is asking the wrong question.

[rockyysdt]

There are two aspects to nibbana: before death and after death. My answer related to nibbana before death, i.e. before the loss of the 5 aggregates. See the dictionary entry at http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhi...nary/dic3_n.htm

So what you call the "conditioned and impermanent self" is what I called "the person who previously (i.e. prior to arahantship/nibbana) thought he was an individual, separate from everything else." At the point of attaining nibbana, that person ceases to have the illusion of self/separateness, but he still has a body, thoughts, memories, etc and is still a "person" as far as everyone else is concerned.

Thanks camerata

At the point of death & rebirth, apart from the khammic influence, is there an original person/entity/essence which "was" & continues in rebirth?

In other words, is there a common being (the part of us which is revealed if there is no illusion) between each incarnation?

Or another way of putting it, I have had many lives each with different bodies, memories, & experiences but beneath these does the same egoless one exist?

[camerata]

At the point of death & rebirth, apart from the khammic influence, is there an original person/entity/essence which "was" & continues in rebirth?

In other words, is there a common being (the part of us which is revealed if there is no illusion) between each incarnation?

Or another way of putting it, I have had many lives each with different bodies, memories, & experiences but beneath these does the same egoless one exist?

You asked essentially the same question and we went through all this in detail a year ago in the topic Rebirth, What is it? You might want to review that thread.

The actual mechanism of rebirth is only described in the Abhidhamma, AFAIK, which I haven't studied. Some interpretations I've seen suggest that nothing enduring like a self is passed between lives but one's accumulated "experience" is (as one mind-moment conditions the next). This seems to imply that in modern terms your accumulated experience is deep in your subconscious and you have access to it while in the 4th jhana, i.e. when you recall your past lives. In Mahayana they call this "store consciousness." But I've never seen a really clear explanation of it, and I doubt there is one.

If you're looking for a "common being" or "essential you" that passes from life to life, I don't think you'll find one.

[Xangsamhua]

With apologies, can I put forward (italics below) something I wrote in another forum, responding to a Christian Brother who talked about silence being "God's language", that "words can clutter my mind", and how "being in the silence with one's God will open me [the Brother] to be transformed - to be open to take risk, to trust in my God and to allow the embers of the fire to flare into energy and life".

All sounds very mystical and ethereal. Really, though, you can't switch off your mind by switching off the words. The words are your mind. You can displace them for a while with an image, perhaps, but they're still there in the background. "Switching off", as much as you can, is relaxing, but that's all it is.

Buddhists say you can go beyond words in meditation, beyond the consciousness that depends on words. In doing so, they've actually left their minds, mind understood as an aggregate of words and images. They've gone beyond aggregates to the place where being (or at least becoming) ceases – nirvana – beyond the realm of arising and ceasing, of cause and effect and interdependence.

To the Christian or Sufi mystic that is where God is - beyond being, where there is "no thing" - not another being with whom one has a non-verbal conversation (in "the language of God"). Tillich spoke of God as the God beyond God. Others speak of God as the ground of being (but not being itself), beyond form, beyond language, beyond comprehension.

I find the discussions about nirvana/nibbana, consciousness without an object, and the cessation of being/becoming pretty hard to grasp, but probably worth pursuing, though maybe my first paragraph (in italics) is about as far as I can get right now - a post-modern, non-realist position.

I'd appreciate any feedback on whether what I've said above has any validity in a discussion on nirvana. I don't mind being shot down in flames - it helps me to learn.

[camerata]

From the Buddhist perspective there are things that are beyond conceptual thinking (i.e. nibbana). Since language is conceptual, it's impossible to communicate their nature by language. "The words are your mind" is a statement not compatible with Buddhism.

[Brucenkhamen]

With apologies, can I put forward (italics below) something I wrote in another forum, responding to a Christian Brother who talked about silence being "God's language", that "words can clutter my mind", and how "being in the silence with one's God will open me [the Brother] to be transformed - to be open to take risk, to trust in my God and to allow the embers of the fire to flare into energy and life".

Interesting they refer to "the embers of the fire to flare into energy and life" as this is directly opposite tot the literal meaning of the term Nibbana.

Nibbana means extinguished, like a flame going out due to lack of fuel, see http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologi...?c.2:1:324.pali for quite a thorough definition on this. Basically the fire goes out because you've stopped feeding it.

What is extinguished? Self view and suffering, the fuel is greed aversion and delusion that perpetuates that self view and suffering.

Now if communion with God had the same affect as this then we could say it was Nibbana also I guess.

Buddhists say you can go beyond words in meditation, beyond the consciousness that depends on words. In doing so, they've actually left their minds, mind understood as an aggregate of words and images. They've gone beyond aggregates to the place where being (or at least becoming) ceases – nirvana – beyond the realm of arising and ceasing, of cause and effect and interdependence.

To the Christian or Sufi mystic that is where God is - beyond being, where there is "no thing" - not another being with whom one has a non-verbal conversation (in "the language of God"). Tillich spoke of God as the God beyond God. Others speak of God as the ground of being (but not being itself), beyond form, beyond language, beyond comprehension.

This sounds much like Nibbana to me, much more like the extinguishing rather than the flaring into energy, a pity all theists didn't see things this way. I'm not sure what the concept of "God" is adding to the process but if it works then great.

[Brucenkhamen]

"The words are your mind" is a statement not compatible with Buddhism.

Perhaps what he is really trying to say here is that the words are not you, something that is compatible with Buddhism. Sure they aren't the mind either, just a product of the mind.

[Xangsamhua]

TNH speaks of "mind-consciousness" - the first level of "mind".

Mind consciousness is the first kind of consciousness. It uses up most of our energy. Mind consciousness is our "working" consciousness that makes judgments and plans; it is the part of our consciousness that worries and analyzes. When we speak of mind consciousness, we're also speaking of body consciousness, because mind consciousness isn't possible without the brain. Body and mind are simply two aspects of the same thing. Body without consciousness is not a real, live body. And consciousness can't manifest itself without a body.

(TNH "The Four Layers of Consciousness" at

http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2006...sciousness.html)

Perhaps it's this level of "mind" or mental activity that I'm thinking of in the statement: "the words are your mind". As the operational and largely propositional level of mental activity, this level would be largely, if not entirely, dependent on language, even if we are not consciously speaking to ourselves when we are thinking. It differs from the consciousness of an animal, which is instinctive and constructed by memory of stimulus-response experiences. It also, in Buddhist terms, at least according to TNH, differs from store-consciousness (Bhavanga in Theravada), which seems to inform mind-consciousness and corresponds to the psychoanalysts' "unconscious".

If I maintain that there is no para-psychological level - nothing higher than mind-consciousness, then I suppose I'm in conflict with the Buddha's teaching. However, if the Buddha taught that we must transcend concepts by transcending the conceptual, phenomenal mind, then is it still "Buddhist" to say that the conceptualizing mind is constructed from language (itself hard-wired into the brain)? It's just a less developed mind. The higher development is necessary to access nibbana/nirvana. The "mind behind mind" must be developed to access the reality behind phenomena/aggregates.

[rockyysdt]

All sounds very mystical and ethereal. Really, though, you can't switch off your mind by switching off the words. The words are your mind. You can displace them for a while with an image, perhaps, but they're still there in the background. "Switching off", as much as you can, is relaxing, but that's all it is.

Maybe that's the key.

Perhaps we undervalue "relaxing" or "letting go" & the depth this process can go.

Maybe the deeper you go the further the images fade.

For me I can't get over the "I".

Thinking without a thinker. Feeling without a feeler. What is our anger without our "self"?

Even if "l" is an illusion it's pretty sophisticated, & to us, as good as being real.

When we meditate, we practice looking deeply in order to bring light and clarity into our way of seeing things. When the vision of no-self is obtained, our delusion is removed. This is what we call transformation. In the Buddhist tradition, transformation is possible with deep understanding. The moment the vision of no-self is there, manas, the elusive notion of "I am," disintegrates, and we find ourselves enjoying, in this very moment, freedom and happiness.

In this statement the the "self or "I am" is replaced with the "no self" or "we"?

[camerata]

If I maintain that there is no para-psychological level - nothing higher than mind-consciousness, then I suppose I'm in conflict with the Buddha's teaching. However, if the Buddha taught that we must transcend concepts by transcending the conceptual, phenomenal mind, then is it still "Buddhist" to say that the conceptualizing mind is constructed from language (itself hard-wired into the brain)? It's just a less developed mind. The higher development is necessary to access nibbana/nirvana. The "mind behind mind" must be developed to access the reality behind phenomena/aggregates.

I think it's the standard understanding of Theravada Buddhism that "the conceptualizing mind is constructed from language," but this is an acquired behavioral trait (that can be undone) rather than genetic programming (that can also be undone). I think Theravada sees them both as "defilements" to be eliminated so that we can get back to a pure mind. The way I see it is a newborn baby has the defilements of genetic programming but not of language/conceptualization. With nibbana you get rid of the lot and you have the additional benefit of knowledge and wisdom. Ajahn Chah once said that if you've built up 20 years of defilements, it may take you 20 years to get rid of them. This idea of the pure mind polluted/corrupted by defilements that have to be dismantled is different from the Mahayana idea that you just have to realize that your mind was always pure (i.e. has Buddha nature). Regarding the Mahayana take on it, Ajahn Chah said that if someone hands you a silver plate that's had shit on it, you still have to clean it before you can eat off it.

Any non-Buddhist would assume that "words are your mind" and they are always in the background, but this is not true. A concert pianist is not thinking "OK, I'm going to play this note next" during a concert. You can be totally concentrated on something so there are no words in the mind. Also, even an amateur meditator can stop the background chatter for a few seconds, and in jhana as I understand it, there is none at all.

One of the most convincing points I've ever heard about nibbana was related by Ajahn Chah, I think in Venerable Father. After describing a remarkable mental experience he had (not while meditating) one day, which he doesn't put a name to but sounds like his attainment of sotapanna or arahantship, he says that after that day he was "thinking differently from everyone else," that he didn't dream again, that he could go for several days without sleeping, and that while he was sleeping he was aware. To me this means he had stopped all the mental chatter even at the subconscious level, and the reason he could go without sleep was because there was so much less electrical activity going on in his brain all day (and all night). His brain simply didn't get tired because it was doing so much less unnecessary work.

I don't see anything supernatural in this. It's simply that the Buddha discovered how to change the brain's most fundamental processes and gain peace as a result.

[rockyysdt]

Ajahn Chah once said that if you've built up 20 years of defilements, it may take you 20 years to get rid of them.

Doesn't sound promising.

If you include accumulated defilements from previous incarnations, our practice must be akin to removing a grain of sand from all the beaches on earth.

Is this so?

[camerata]

Ajahn Chah once said that if you've built up 20 years of defilements, it may take you 20 years to get rid of them.

Doesn't sound promising.

If you include accumulated defilements from previous incarnations, our practice must be akin to removing a grain of sand from all the beaches on earth.

Is this so?

I don't think Ajahn Chah ever talked about accumulating defilements from other lives. He was referring to the ones we acquire in this one. I don't think it's a matter of quantity, i.e. 50 defilements in this life versus 5 million from previous lives. It's more a matter of the strength of the defilements. If one is born a very selfish person through genetic inheritance, presumably it's tougher to get rid of than the selfishness most of us develop as we grow up.

[Xangsamhua]

I think it's the standard understanding of Theravada Buddhism that "the conceptualizing mind is constructed from language," but this is an acquired behavioral trait (that can be undone) rather than genetic programming (that can also be undone).

Camerata, are you saying that Theravadin Buddhism has a view on the source and acquisition of language, and that it is a behaviourist one, or is that your understanding of how Theravadin Buddhists tend to think about language development? My own view follows the innatist one associated with Noam Chomsky, that language is innate, that we are born with a genetic capacity to produce and acquire systematic language at a more complex level and much faster rate than we can acquire it from the environment. This "hard-wired" capacity gives us language; the environment gives us particular languages.

Any non-Buddhist would assume that "words are your mind" and they are always in the background, but this is not true. A concert pianist is not thinking "OK, I'm going to play this note next" during a concert. You can be totally concentrated on something so there are no words in the mind. Also, even an amateur meditator can stop the background chatter for a few seconds, and in jhana as I understand it, there is none at all.

I think (and I'm not entirely sure what I think) that, when I say that language is in the background, it doesn't necessarily mean the kind of background chatter you may be aware of at a party when you're trying to have a conversation with a particular individual. And, certainly, when we are performing familiar acts - playing the piano, using a hammer, talking about domestic matters - we're not consciously articulating what we will do or say next. These capacities have been practised to the point that they have attained automaticity - they are "ready-to-hand" in Heidegger's terms. However, the attainment of automaticity in the performance of skilled or relatively unskilled functions has been acquired through exposure to and interaction with a vast number of linguistic experiences.

Still, if we're talking about attainment of Nirvana, theories of language acquisition and automaticity may not be so helpful as Buddhist teaching - whatever the school - on the nature and function of the mind, and it seems to me that people often talk about the mind as if we all know what it is. However, some seem to see it as a container in which thoughts, words, memories and images are contained. Others view it as a construct made up from the aggregates from which conceptualisation ensues; and as a construct it may be fair to say that there is no such thing as "mind" apart from the functions and aggregates we attribute to it -rather like there is no such thing as a "university" apart from the faculties and colleges and schools, etc, that comprise it (see Ryle, The Concept of Mind). Hence, I've suggested that when Buddhists are talking about mind as a conduit to and locus (?) of Nirvana, they're really talking about a mind beyond the mind most of us have "in mind". There must be a term for this in Buddhist discourse, but I don't know what it is.

[sabaijai]

Not to drag this too far off topic, but Chomsky's notion of hardwired grammar, the black box, deep structure, universal grammar etc has pretty much been discredited by psycholinguistic research carried out since his MIT heyday. There are still people who support Chomskyan linguistics, esp his former students, but there is zero acquisition-centred research to support it and plenty to refute it.

The main problem with his central theory, aside from the suggested counter-evidence, is that 'universal grammar' is unmeasurable and untestable, and therefore his theory is not a true hypothesis. It's speculation using inductive reasoning, rather than scientific methodology.

I don't see language getting any specific scientific treatment in Buddhism. Rather it's nama (naming; mental construct) on one side of the coin and rupa (form; physical vibration) on the other. It has no specific value unto itself relative to other conditioned phenomena. Any academic theory of language transferred to Buddhism is thus a graft, and not indigenous to the system.

[Xangsamhua]

Not to drag this too far off topic, but Chomsky's notion of hardwired grammar, the black box, deep structure, universal grammar etc has pretty much been discredited by psycholinguistic research carried out since his MIT heyday. There are still people who support Chomskyan linguistics, esp his former students, but there is zero acquisition-centred research to support it and plenty to refute it.

The main problem with his central theory, aside from the suggested counter-evidence, is that 'universal grammar' is unmeasurable and untestable, and therefore his theory is not a true hypothesis. It's speculation using inductive reasoning, rather than scientific methodology.

Thanks, Sabaijai. I think you're right that a discussion on language acquisition theory is a bit off-topic. I would not be as dismissive of innatism and universal grammar, though I agree that it is a speculative theory and not falsifiable; hence limited. It still makes sense to me, but I may be too influenced by Stephen Pinker (The Language Instinct, 1994) and haven't kept up. I guess behaviourists have to attack it, but it seems they haven't come up with satisfactory behaviourist explanations for the way in which language is acquired and produced. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6884...4/ai_n28173271/ There's some discussion in Wikipedia for those who want to know a bit more about UG. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar

Having said all that, the unresolved question (for me) is the nature of the mind apart from language and its relationship to nirvana and the cessation of being/becoming.

[camerata]

Camerata, are you saying that Theravadin Buddhism has a view on the source and acquisition of language, and that it is a behaviourist one

No, I'm not talking about language acquisition, I'm talking about defilement acquisition. Concepts require language and most of he defilements are conceptual. We aren't born with conceit (māna), speculative views (ditthi) or skeptical doubt (vicikicchā), for example. They develop along with the development of the ego. Therefore, to attain nibbana, one has to dismantle these concepts. Arguably some of us are born with the defilement of greed (lobha), but this can also been viewed conceptually and dismantled.

[Xangsamhua]

Camerata, are you saying that Theravadin Buddhism has a view on the source and acquisition of language, and that it is a behaviourist one

No, I'm not talking about language acquisition, I'm talking about defilement acquisition. Concepts require language and most of he defilements are conceptual. We aren't born with conceit (māna), speculative views (ditthi) or skeptical doubt (vicikicchā), for example. They develop along with the development of the ego. Therefore, to attain nibbana, one has to dismantle these concepts. Arguably some of us are born with the defilement of greed (lobha), but this can also been viewed conceptually and dismantled.

Thank you. That's nice and clear.

[sabaijai]

I would not be as dismissive of innatism and universal grammar, though I agree that it is a speculative theory and not falsifiable; hence limited. It still makes sense to me, but I may be too influenced by Stephen Pinker (The Language Instinct, 1994) and haven't kept up. I guess behaviourists have to attack it, but it seems they haven't come up with satisfactory behaviourist explanations for the way in which language is acquired and produced.

And we have the emergentists, who I think reign at the moment UG also can't explain why the order of acquisition of syntax is diferent for first and second languages. Likewise the critical age hypothesis has replaced Chomsky's notion that children learn quickly because of UG.

I like William Burroughs theory that 'Language is a virus from outer space.'

[camerata]

One thing the speaker at today's WFB talk on Nibbana mentioned that I didn't know was that the Zen circle (enso), representing completeness and emptiness, is a symbol for enlightenment.

[camerata]

From an interview with Susan Blackmore, author of Ten Zen Questions:

Well Dualism is the natural way that people seem to think about the world. It's not only the way Descartes described it. We have the sort of, mental world and physical world, and according to Descartes, they met in the pineal gland in the brain. It has not only been philosophically important; little children seem to begin very early on being natural Dualists. There's a lot of research now showing that from the age of even two or three, children kind of imagine that people are physical bodies inhabited by minds that sort of push them around. It seems to be the natural way of thinking. But for centuries, philosophers and scientists have recognized that Dualism doesn't work. There can't be two kinds of stuff in the world. It seems to be that I am a conscious being inside my head, looking out through my eyes, but if you look in the brain, you just find neurons, all connected up in million of ways. Where is the “me”? Where is the mind? And if mind and brain are separate things, how can they interact? If they interact, they can't be separate things. So dualism is generally thought by nearly everybody to be hopeless.

So the alternatives are, you've got to have some kind of Monism, you've got to say the world is made of one kind of stuff, not two completely different kinds of stuff. And there your options, crudely speaking, your options are either to plump for materialism, which a lot of scientists do, and say that everything, the whole world is made of material stuff. You know, atoms and molecules, and whatever. And there's nothing else, there's no mind, or, you know, spirit or whatever. It's all material. Then you have real trouble accounting for consciousness. How come there can be the blueness of the blue sky I'm looking at now, or the greeness of those trees over there, or the feeling of my feet on my desk as they are at the moment. How can these feelings and experiences arise from a material world? On the other hand, if you take the other extreme and say, well, the world is all made of thought, or the world is all, you know… It's all mind. Then you have trouble explaining the existence of a physical world. Because everybody's mind is different, everybody experiences things in a different way. And yet, we can all agree that there is a desk here, and it's holding up my feet, and this chair that I'm sitting on is solid, and so on. So, philosophically, there is an enormous problem. As soon as you allow consciousness and experiences into the picture of science, you have a problem. And nobody has solved this problem. I mean, lots of people say they have, and other people disagree. Basically, there is no agreed solution to this fundamental problem about how we fit together, a physical universe and our own private, subjective, conscious experiences.

[...]

You can't look at Buddhist literature and find, as far as I can tell, and find the solution that we can then adopt. They've argued all about this. Now, you could say that people who have realized oneness, who have overcome duality. Have seen it experientially, have seen directly how not to be dualists, how not to divide the world up. And that that is what enlightenment is about. You might want to say that, but it's tricky.

Then arises the question that fascinates me. If you were enlightened… If you were able to perceive the world without delusion, without self getting in the way, without dividing things up into this and that, and mind and matter, and whatever. You wouldn't necessarily, I think, be able to say what it was that you had seen, or solve the problem in a way that would satisfy Western scientist or philosophers.

[Xangsamhua]

If she is a non-dualist, why is she discussing ontological dichotomies? Why would she pose matter and mind as alternative sources of being? Why does she discriminate between the physical and the conscious? I realise she is thinking on her feet and we don't know what's already happened in the interview, but her angst seems misplaced to me.

Monism doesn't have to be matter or mind. It can be neither and both. William James and Bertrand Russell spoke favourably of "neutral monism" as a way to describe the irreducible fundament of being. We don't need to rehearse again the question of what gives rise to phenomena.

We are aware of the vast emptiness that seems to underlie phenomena - that aggregates are aggregates of aggregates, etc. and there appears to be no irreducible source from which phenomena arise. Yet we know that these aggregates of nothing much become pretty solid and you would not be wise to stand in front of them if they are big and moving fast. However, maybe mulling over the essence of things is not the way to go. Rather than ontology - studying the nature of being, we should be focussing on etiology - the study of causes.

But isn't that what the Buddha and Buddhists have been doing all along? Not looking at the mind vs matter, dualism vs monism polarities, but at laws and dynamics underpinning all phenomena and events, the fundamental law being that of cause and effect and the generative principle in the Buddhist cosmos being interdependent origination, or co-dependent arising. It's not what is that's at the heart of the matter, but what does. What does happen is that events occur that by their nature give rise to further occurrences (effects). If the causes are sufficient, the effects must result. This is the principle of sufficient reason. If an expected event doesn't occur, there was not sufficient reason for it to occur. My behaviours bring about results - karma/kamma. A sufficient interconnection and sequence of behaviours will produce inevitable results, and the causative behaviours have been in turn determined by preceding causes and effects. Hence, there's not much, if any, scope for free will.

We will be enlightened, it seems, only if we can break the nexus between cause and effect. I don't know how we do this, but clearly enlightenment isn't just a process of mind controlling matter. This kind of duality doesn't make sense, as Susan Blackmore points out. Enlightenment can only be the result of overturning the principle of sufficient reason, of somehow overcoming the law of cause and effect, of turning the world upside down.

End of rant.