| Miscellaneous 2 |
| The following are just some more of the things I've written in my online journal over the past several weeks. An email reply to a friend [21 Sep 2001|05:52pm] > I was just told to question things, to > figure it out for myself. but I don't know what to figure out- I don't > think I ever will. I'm > not sure anyone does. How are they all so sure? I personally think that some of the parents who just tell their kids to figure it out themselves are doing just as much a disservice as some of the ones who force a belief system down their kids' throats. If you're going to try to figure it out on your own, you have to be willing to not have answers to all your questions. At least not right away. I agree that most people probably never really figure it out. The ones who think they know all the answers simply haven't asked all the questions. Being concerned about this as a sophomore puts you ahead of me by about a year. Sure, I wondered about spiritual things all along, but it really wasn't until halfway through my junior year that I started asking the right questions (the right questions for me, anyway). If you keep asking those questions, and remain open to the answers, you'll find what you're looking for. > I wish I could be... sometimes I even > wish I had been told what to believe, and why. that everything had an > answer. All I have > are questions. Most of my friends at school seem to Know everything, but > I didn't think > much of it. Most high school students who think they know much of anything at all are ignorant of their own ignorance. The vast majority of adults never figure it out. I think people are just unwilling to admit when they don't know something. It's okay not to know. It's okay to question things. If the questions you're asking now don't seem to be getting you anywhere, start at the beginning. Question everything. My current spiritual path began when I decided reality didn't exist. You have to be willing to accept, for a time, whatever conclusions you come to, and work from those. In the end, you may not have answers for everything. Some lines of questions literally lead to nothing. That is, you come eventually a place where no logical thought is necessary or even possible. I have seen this place, though only in brief glimpses, and it is beautiful. More on God and Western Philosophy [24 Sep 2001|11:42pm] Now in my philosophy class we're looking at arguments against God. I have just as many problems with these arguments as I had with some of the arguments for the existence of God. Mostly, these problems come from the mere fact that we're trying to understand and explain God in terms of mere human logic. Every argument for or against God that I have so far encountered has had at least one faulty premise. The latest argument seeks to prove that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive. The author claims that because there are some concepts that can only be understood through experiences that an omnipotent being couldn't have. For instance, he argues that God couldn't experience fear, since He would never believe himself in danger of anything, and if He can't understand some concept, then He can't be omniscient. One problem I have with this argument has nothing to do with its assumptions. If I were to make an argument along these same lines, I would pick a concept related to some experience that requires ignorance. That is, I would try to prove that omniscience is contradictory in and of itself, rather than bringing omnipotence into it. This would not be hard to do, since nearly every human experience is characterized by at least some level of ignorance. After all, we're not the ones who are omnipotent, right? But that's just a little criticism of how he could have made his argument stronger if it had worked in the first place, but I don't think it does work. In stating that certain concepts can only be understood (even by God) through experience, Blumenfeld (I finally looked up his name just now) implicitly makes the claim that God must learn something in order to know it. This is a completely unfounded assumption. He assumes that God wasn't always perfect in every way (learning implies a previous lack of knowledge) in order to "prove" that God can't be perfect now. I could explain a number of alternative explanations for how God can understand this type of concept, but I really should be getting to bed. Therefore I'll only bring up one: If there is an omniscient God, then wouldn't He have to know all the memories of each and every human being? At this instant, the only knowledge I have of fear (and all the other concepts Blumenfeld says God can't understand) is in my memories. I remember experiencing fear, even though I'm not currently experiencing it. Couldn't God then have a perfectly good understanding of all these concepts through his knowledge of human memories? An email to my Intro to Buddhism discussion group leader: [26 Sep 2001|02:56pm] I was looking at the stuff I've previously written about emptiness, and couldn't find any one writing that summed up my thoughts on the matter, so I decided to start over. (The first three paragraphs deal with why reality is something different from what we percieve, and then I (try) to describe how reality is actually empty). --- There can be no ultimate reality as we typically think of "reality." This is because every perception can be falsified. In fact, every time we dream, we ourselves create a "false" version of reality. Dreams, though, serve as a less than perfect example. After all, can't we usually tell when we're dreaming? I believe that the primary difference between dreams and what we call reality is how internally consistent each is. In "reality," things usually happen in ways that can be predicted through natural laws, whereas in dreams, things seem to happen somewhat randomly. However, if we assume for a second that our explanation of our perceptions (this explanation is what we call "reality") is the correct one, then sensory perception is a matter of electrochemical signals sent to our brain. Through computers, we can produce any arbitrary sequence of electrical signals. The only requirement for creating a consistent version of reality, then, is figuring out what signals correspond to what perception, and then fitting those into a computer simulation. This would be a more consistent version simply because computers tend to be better at following programmed "laws" than our own minds are. (These laws, of course, are simply the laws of nature we use to describe what we observe). What we observe around us, then, can be explained in at least two different ways. One is that everything we percieve is "really" there. The other is that everything we percieve is a simulation of some kind. The crucial point of this is that each explanation is equally good. That is, there is nothing we could possibly percieve (through sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, and mind) that would point to one explanation over the other. Therefore, there can be no highest level of reality that is qualitatively similar to this one, because that level, too, could be a mere simulation. Spiritually, this is the conclusion I had come to about a month before I began reading about Buddhism. I made the connection between my conclusion and Buddhism during a conversation with my (Buddhist) aunt in which she told me that reality is not a concept. It took me quite some time to have even a basic understanding of what she meant by that, but now I feel I have at least a fair understanding of what is meant by "emptiness." As I understand it, the Buddhist idea of emptiness means empty of all concepts. Concepts include anything that we can concieve. That is, anything that applies to any of the six senses (because concepts can be explained using some combination of these senses). But we've already seen that sensory perceptions can be falsified or produced artificially. Also, there is the more intuitive fact that each of us percieves things differently. So can there be some ultimate reality that contains any of these concepts? In a word, no. When we think of existence, a host of ideas related to that concept pop into our minds. When we think of the opposite of existence, namely nonexistence, all those ideas are simply replaced by their own opposites. Existence and nonexistence are obviously concepts, but they are also conditions. When we equate conditions with concepts, we see that "unconditioned" simply means "free of concepts." (I don't know if this is what the Madhyamika had in mind, but it's how I understand it.) In samsara, some things exist and some things don't exist, so there is existence and there is nonexistence. More accurately, there are concepts of "existence" and "nonexistence." There are also concepts of "no-existence" and "no-nonexistence," which we often use to try and describe nirvana. But in nirvana, there is no "existence," there is no "nonexistence," there is no "no-existence," there is no "no-nonexistence." There is nothing conceptual in nirvana. Nirvana is completely empty of all concepts. If you think you can concieve of such a place, you misunderstood me. You're not supposed to be able to concieve of nirvana. How could you do so, when nirvana has no concepts? We're used to understanding things conceptually, but the only real kind of understanding we can have comes from experience. In order to understand nirvana, you need to experience it. In order to experience nirvana, you need to stop yourself from using concepts. Because what we think of as "thought" is entirely made up of concepts, this amounts to stopping yourself from thinking—about anything. But unconsciousness wouldn't work, because then you're also not experiencing anything. The trick is to stop from thinking anything, but to still be experiencing things. Obviously I have no idea how one would go about doing this. If I did, and had actually accomplished it, then I would already have seen nirvana and thus be a stream-enterer. (Of course, it's entirely possible that any one of us is already a stream-enterer, it's just that we entered the stream in a previous lifetime and we don't currently remember it.) --- Okay, reading back over this, I don't know how much sense it makes, but oh well, at least I tried. Another AIM conversation [26 Sep 2001|06:18pm] Straubreys: wow, it would never occur to me to think of reality as empty Straubreys: isn't that depressing for you? g mali vuk: not at all g mali vuk: everything else is impermanent g mali vuk: change is suffering Straubreys: change is suffering? g mali vuk: yeah, in one way or another g mali vuk: everything you love, everything you care about, will end Straubreys: well yeah, but so will you so it all works out Straubreys: it's not like you have to live for an eternity watching everything you love disappear g mali vuk: but most of what you love disappears while you're still alive g mali vuk: (and if you believe in reincarnation, then you do have to live forever and watch everything decay) Straubreys: yeah, but every time you're reborn you rediscover things to love and you don't remember losses from before Straubreys: and there are always new things to love g mali vuk: which die Straubreys: yeah, but there are things to take its place g mali vuk: from the buddhist perspective, if you think this life is better than the nothingness of nirvana, it's because you're attached to the notion of self Straubreys: yeah, but I'm also not buddhist and I don't really think that when you die or reach nirvana there is nothingness. at least not the way I think of nothingness g mali vuk: yeah, the way most people think of nothingness is as the absence of all positive things, which means when somethign is empty it's cold, dark, and lonely g mali vuk: but nirvana is also the abscence of desire, and being cold, dark, and lonely means you desire heat, light, and companions g mali vuk: if there is no desire, then lack of everything else won't be bad Straubreys: mmmm, sounds boring. but I guess once you're there you don't think of that g mali vuk: you dont' think, period Straubreys: but....I mean.....what's the POINT? g mali vuk: because there is no longer a self g mali vuk: having a point implies having a goal towards which you're working, which implies change g mali vuk: but in nirvana there is no change Straubreys: why? g mali vuk: why what? g mali vuk: because there is nothing to do the changing Straubreys: but why do they believe this? g mali vuk: because in deep meditation people can see nirvana g mali vuk: or God or whatever you want to call it g mali vuk: they come to something beautiful and incomprehensible g mali vuk: and being incomprehensible means there are no concepts to be comprehended, which means nothing there that can change from one thing to another Straubreys: seeing is a concept g mali vuk: seeing is the wrong word Straubreys: and if it's beautiful, that means they percieve g mali vuk: they experience it directly g mali vuk: without the senses Straubreys: hm g mali vuk: and calling it beautiful means there is a physical feeling of bliss that accompanies the experience g mali vuk: bliss, of course, is a concept, but what they "see" of nirvana isn't g mali vuk: i mean, obviously in trying to explain it to someone else, one has to use concepts g mali vuk: beacause all words are concepts g mali vuk: as is anything that can be described in words g mali vuk: which is why reality is not a concept Straubreys: true Straubreys: um Straubreys: because reality cannot be explained? g mali vuk: right Straubreys: hm Straubreys: so you believe in Nirvana? g mali vuk: or more accurately because there is no single explanation that is better than a completely contradictory one g mali vuk: i think i've come close to seeing a place like nirvana g mali vuk: there have been times when my thoughts have mostly stopped g mali vuk: and nirvana can also be called God, if you want to use that label Straubreys: I don't like using the word God much g mali vuk: except that God is usually described in terms of existing or not existing g mali vuk: which are both concepts Straubreys: yeah g mali vuk: which is why i claim neither to believe in the existence of God nor the nonexistence of God g mali vuk: because what I call God is more along the lines of nirvana Straubreys: ohhhh, right. so that's what you mean by agnostic Straubreys: okay g mali vuk: exactly Straubreys: whew Straubreys: that's a lot to think about g mali vuk: yeah, but it's better not to think at all g mali vuk: :-) g mali vuk: at least when it comes to issues of God and nirvana and suc g mali vuk: h g mali vuk: because thinking uses concepts Straubreys: lol Straubreys: whatever Mr. Buddhist Person g mali vuk: i'm not a buddhist g mali vuk: i just use some buddhist terminology because it comes closest to what i'm trying to say Straubreys: okay, Mr. Pseudo-Buddhist Person Straubreys: okay Straubreys: that ruins my name for you though Straubreys: huh! g mali vuk: i guess you'll just have to come up with another one then, won't you Straubreys: okay, Mr........Nirvana-ish Being g mali vuk: that doesn't really work, either, because i haven't reached or even seen nirvana itself Straubreys: I know Straubreys: Mr.....I don't know g mali vuk: that works Straubreys: yeah Straubreys: it's almost conceptless g mali vuk: that being what agnostic means Straubreys: except it's the absence of knowledge Straubreys: oh, right g mali vuk: well, i really need to finish reading the odyssey if i'm going to come up with that cheap rip-off version by christmas g mali vuk: so i'll talk to you later g mali vuk: bye Straubreys: okay, talk to you later! Straubreys: bye |