Bedrock

Originally posted by Sepia Tint
But if we are present to be concious of the reality does not that reality include us and our conceptualisations anyway? Is the bedrock but one element of this, "a moon in the marble" towards which the fingers of zen may point?

From my first post: “There is a bedrock in terms of our experience of reality. And this bedrock is just—experiencing, without thoughts or mental representations of any kind—this, now, including ourselves in and of it. (The conceptual boundaries separating us from it disappear.)” [Bold added.]

I should perhaps have said: “...without making any thoughts or mental (conceptual) representations...”.

Yes, that reality includes us with our mind that, among other things, makes concepts. Behind the concept, is there a referent other than another concept (or system of concepts)? If so, that referent is itself pre-conceptual. If we lose, in a whirlwind mind of continual concept-assembling, contact with the referent we can begin to assume that our conceptual representations are the referent.

We also can lose the sense that, as you point out, we are included in and of it; we can begin to assume that we can think about a reality that does not include our thinking about it (metaphysically speaking). We can forget that our view of reality as being separate from our view of reality is nothing more than—a viewpoint.

That is simply expanding on the moon-in-the marble metaphor: There is a moon in a marble in your mind, in a moon in a marble in your mind... The point of such a metaphor is to dizzy your thinking-about-it mind, till you just stop thinking about it and be—aware. It’s like spinning you around until you’re dizzy, and when you stop: Ah! There “it” is, of which “I” am... (As you can see, when I start to put it into words, adding anything to that “Ah!”, it can all to easily start spinning again—as soon as I add that “There ‘it’ is, of which ‘I’ am”...)

The pointing finger points beyond that last vestige of I-it conceptualization. And that seems to be the experiential “bedrock” where language breaks down: the “referent” from which we are not separate.

Originally posted by josephw
You know what I mean, and I know what you mean.
If words have no meaning then we may as well shut up.
I know what I know. Which is very little. I also know that some of what I think I know may be wrong, and often is. But I'm not walking around in a fog either. At least not all the time.

What I don't understand is why, or how, you can ascribe to a philo ...[text shortened]... ld love to hear your explanation.
And perhaps I missed the whole point of your original post.

If words have no meaning then we may as well shut up.

Words are signs. A sign consists of a “signifier” and a “signified.” The signifier is the word-letters (and sound) “s-i-g-n”. The signified is what the word means to us in discourse (e.g., the dictionary definition of a “sign” ).

The sign is supposed to refer to a “referent.” The referent might just be another word/sign—as if I say, “Look up the word ‘sign’ in the dictionary.” If all the referents are just other signs, then all we talk about is words; all we think about is concepts—or signifiers.

If I say, “Sign”—and point to a road sign over there, I am indicating the intended referent. I point to enough of them, of different kinds, and you can form a general concept (“signified” ) of “sign.” That concept is then the meaning (signified) of the signifier “s-i-g-n”.

Until you form that mental concept, the referent has no meaning—and you might see all sorts of placards on posts and wonder what they might be for... The placard on the post has no meaning until we assign it one.

We make meaning. It is not given in the rocks and roses, and the scorpions and the stars, nor in our heartbeat or breath.

Meaning is in the domain of thinking, of concept-making. The referent of “reality” is pre-conceptual. It is, we are. The “bedrock” experience of that reality is before we make concepts about it. In that experience, we can only be aware, of just the suchness of it, that includes ourselves being aware of the suchness of it, that... (See me reply to Sepia Tint above.)

Then we can make up meanings for it, if we wish.

____________________________________

If you understand the word “meaning” in such a way that something has “meaning” without our mental participation—i.e. some “meaning” that is just given to us by the universe, before our own mental/conceptual processes—then I do not understand what you mean by “meaning”; hence my asking you to explain what you meant by that word. For example, some people seem to mean something like a “purpose”, or a set of “values” that is simply given.

We identify in reality (the universe) facts, relationships, patterns. Then we form concepts. We make the meaning—in philosophy, in religion (science simply attempts to describe, relate and explain the facts, relationships, patterns; that explanation is sometimes called “meaning” ). Meaning—in the philosophical sense—seems to be far closer to art than science, compositions of meaning far closer to Beethoven than to biology.

Originally posted by vistesd
From my first post: “There is a bedrock in terms of [b]our experience of reality. And this bedrock is just—experiencing, without thoughts or mental representations of any kind—this, now, including ourselves in and of it. (The conceptual boundaries separating us from it disappear.)” [Bold added.]

I should perhaps have said: “. ...[text shortened]... periential “bedrock” where language breaks down: the “referent” from which we are not separate.[/b]

All this seems rather impenetrable to me, and somewhat by the by. If the spiritual principle here is to point out the dangers of preconceived ideas when approaching our relationships with the world, why not simply say so?

Our brains talk to us, or not, in every experience. No mystery there.

I once classified myself as a seeker, nowadays I am not convinced that there is anything much to find. . . .

Originally posted by Sepia Tint
.... why not simply say so?

Maybe the concepts he is trying to convey cannot be put into words but must be either 'felt' in between the words he is using or found through your own journey of discovery guided by his words.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Maybe the concepts he is trying to convey cannot be put into words but must be either 'felt' in between the words he is using or found through your own journey of discovery guided by his words.

If it is a concept, it can be expressed in language surely? And to be honest I think he has expressed it, much as many other Zen people have previously.
I spent some time looking at Zen myself but in the end didn't buy it.

One of the reasons for that, and maybe the Scientists can help me out here, is because the "experience" is sensed by the brain registering actions of the nerves, and he is trying to draw a line between the particular chemical reactions relating to the sensing and the chemical reactions relating to the interpretation/conceptualisation. Is that possible?

He calls one side of the line "bedrock" and suggests trying to spend some time there, ie "ignore" or "observe" the secondary synapse activity the sensing brings...pre-conceptual experience. Attempting to "observe" this (e.g. insight meditation) strikes me as psychologically dangerous, particularly if the only point is to say, "Oh yeah, all your previous experience is affecting the way you perceive things going on in your dealings with this person in front of you, just remember your pre-conceptions may be a stumbling block to the best outcome" (spiritual principle). . . .

Do we really need the smoke and mirrors?

Somehow Beckett's "Neither" seems appropriate for this thread:

to and fro in shadow from inner to outer shadow
--
from impenetrable self to impenetrable unself by way of neither
--
as between two lit refuges whose doors once neared gently close, once away turned from gently part again
--
beckoned back and forth and turned away
--
heedless of the way, intent on the one gleam or the other
--
unheard footfalls only sound
--
till at last halt for good, absent for good from self and other
--
then no sound
--
then gently light unfading on that unheeded neither
--
unspeakable home

Originally posted by Sepia Tint
All this seems rather impenetrable to me, and somewhat by the by.

Somebody I was speaking to yesterday dismissed Mallarmé in much the same way.

Le vierge, le vivace et le bel aujourd'hui
Va-t-il nous déchirer avec un coup d'aile ivre
Ce lac dur oublié que hante sous le givre
Le transparent glacier des vols qui n'ont pas fui !

Un cygne d'autrefois se souvient que c'est lui
Magnifique mais qui sans espoir se délivre
Pour n'avoir pas chanté la région où vivre
Quand du stérile hiver a resplendi l'ennui.

Tout son col secouera cette blanche agonie
Par l'espace infligée à l'oiseau qui le nie,
Mais non l'horreur du sol où le plumage est pris.

Fantôme qu'à ce lieu son pur éclat assigne,
Il s'immobilise au songe froid de mépris
Que vêt parmi l'exil inutile le Cygne.

Originally posted by Sepia Tint
If it is a concept, it can be expressed in language surely? And to be honest I think he has expressed it, much as many other Zen people have previously.
I spent some time looking at Zen myself but in the end didn't buy it.

One of the reasons for that, and maybe the Scientists can help me out here, is because the "experience" is sensed by the brain re ...[text shortened]... outcome" (spiritual principle). . . .

Do we really need the smoke and mirrors?

The next time you’re on the verge of “experiencing” a powerful orgasm, just remind yourself how dangerous it would be to stop thinking about it at the same time...

Originally posted by Sepia Tint
If it is a concept, it can be expressed in language surely? And to be honest I think he has expressed it, much as many other Zen people have previously.
I spent some time looking at Zen myself but in the end didn't buy it.

One of the reasons for that, and maybe the Scientists can help me out here, is because the "experience" is sensed by the brain re outcome" (spiritual principle). . . .

Do we really need the smoke and mirrors?

...and maybe the Scientists can help me out here...

There’s a book I acquired sometime back, but for some reason never got into—forgot I had it until just now, but you have given me more incentive to delve into it:

Zen and the Brain; James H. Austin, M.D.; MIT Press, 1998. Austin is Clinical professor of Neurology at the University of Missouri health Science Center, as well as Professor Emeritus of neurology at the University of Colorado. He is also a Zen Buddhist.

Thanks for triggering my memory. When I’ve gotten through it, I’ll get back to you... 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd


There’s a book I acquired sometime back. . .Zen and the Brain; James H. Austin, M.D.; MIT Press, 1998. ...

I looked at a web summary of this book - looks interesting but I noticed it said there were 844 pages. If that is true you may be some time...

I think it must be useful to understand what is going on physiologically when we try to describe and understand religious experience. So much of what is said and written seems to be arbitrary line drawing, interpretation etc... as you were saying in the first post of this thread. We know scientists have been busy for the last few hundred years, so there is no reason to be stuck in the first millenium CE with these concepts. Perhaps a Theory of Everything may be nearer... I don't know... I am not a scientist.

Zen is interesting because on the face of it it tries to dump an awful lot of the baggage of other philosophies and religions, highlighting the bedrock experience you have been talking about. . .Intrigued, I went to my local (Soto) Zen group to find them reading through a two page soliloquy, offering incense to a 1" high statue of Buddha on the table, and ringing a bell at precisely the correct moments in the ritual, before assuming the position in front of a wall. I came out smelling of smoke and somewhat disappointed... This experience seemed to be utterly divorced from the "theory" I had been reading about.

Questions arose such as:

Was Buddha a half starved pyschiatric patient?
To what extent is meditation a trick of the mind?
Is Buddhist "awareness" a sign of a split personality?
Is there a reason why subconcious mental activity is subconcious and is there much to be gained by trying to be aware of it?
Why does sitting still in a relaxed state seem to be useful way to deal with some of the pressures of life?
Do we need the guff that often goes with it?
Is it a useful or dangerous practice?
To what extent do the writers, gurus, theorists et al. have anything useful to say in trying to understand what is going on here, and how much is conjecture and arbitrary line drawing from the pre scientific age?
Should they get a proper job?
Was the guy who wrote "on having no head" a snake oil salesman?
Is bedrock experience simply forgetting oneself for a moment?
If you remember yourself at the same time as forgetting yourself are you a psychiatric patient?
Is Buddhism just something to do to convince oneself we are tackling existential pain?
If so, is watching a football match a better use of the time?


Is what we know of psychology a better map for our interactions with people than tablets of stone, noble eightfold paths, vows, rules for life etc?


Can any sensible spiritual principles can be derived from any of this?

Probably the answers to these questions are deeply individual until we know what is going on physiologically, when I believe much of it will be "exposed" for the BS I think it is...never mind we can always use all the buildings for something else!

Originally posted by Sepia Tint
Is what we know of psychology a better map for our interactions with people than tablets of stone, noble eightfold paths, vows, rules for life etc?

What do we know of psychology? Who's in these days, who's out? Freud rocks, but can you trust him? Question from someone on the out-side.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]If words have no meaning then we may as well shut up.

Words are signs. A sign consists of a “signifier” and a “signified.” The signifier is the word-letters (and sound) “s-i-g-n”. The signified is what the word means to us in discourse (e.g., the dictionary definition of a “sign” ).

The sign is supposed to refer to a “referent.” The referent ...[text shortened]... far closer to art than science, compositions of meaning far closer to Beethoven than to biology.[/b]

At bottom what you are saying is that no 'thing' carries with it an inherent meaning, and that meaning is an artificial invention. Correct me if I am wrong.

Biblical texts seem to suggest otherwise, however. Note Romans 1:18-20:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

According to the Holy Spirit, speaking through Paul, we are able to perceive God's "invisible attributes ... in the things that have been made." This seems to suggest that there is an inherent meaning in created things, which we do not create ourselves, but discover.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
At bottom what you are saying is that no 'thing' carries with it an inherent meaning, and that meaning is an artificial invention. Correct me if I am wrong.

Biblical texts seem to suggest otherwise, however. Note Romans 1:18-20:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrig an inherent meaning in created things, which we do not create ourselves, but discover.

I don't think that is what vistesd is trying to say. I don't know, but I think he is speaking more directly toward contingency, impermanence, and also the failings of talk, the mistaking of the finger for the moon, etc.

But also, I wanted to ask that if the meaning that you speak of is contingent on the attributes and existence of some agent, your God, then in what sense are they inherent with respect to the things of this world? Would the things of this world that you take to mirror God's attributes -- just as they are! -- be meaningful if it were actually the case that your God doesn't exist? You may have problems with that question in principle if you take God's existence to be ontologically necessary. But, I guess my question is roughly this: if the things of this world purportedly have no meaning without your God, then in what sense can you say that the meaning they purportedly do have with your God is inherent to these things?

EDIT: It seems to me that you are using 'inherent' here just to qualify "meaning" or whatever, that exists independently of human perspective, but I think that is sloppy because there is no necessary connection between that and the idea that the meaning is intrinsic or essential. For example just because the meaning supposedly exists independently of human perspectives shouldn't mean it exists independently of all observer perspectives since you're the one postulating the existence of other observers, like God. This is what I don't understand: so many theists seem to be at bottom subjectivists (privileging God's perspective) and yet at the same time want to insist that meaning and value are inherent to things. Basically, I'm trying to understand why you think what you said counters the claim that there is no inherent meaning.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I don't think that is what vistesd is trying to say. I don't know, but I think he is speaking more directly toward contingency, impermanence, and also the failings of talk, the mistaking of the finger for the moon, etc.

But also, I wanted to ask that if the meaning that you speak of is contingent on the attributes and existence of some agent, your God ...[text shortened]... that the meaning they purportedly do have with your God is inherent to these things?

I guess my question is roughly this: if the things of this world purportedly have no meaning without your God, then in what sense can you say that the meaning they purportedly do have with your God is inherent to these things?

What the scripture alludes to, I think, is an intuitive knowledge. "He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end" (Ecclesiastes 3:11).

Whether it is a grasping of God's eternal nature through contemplation of the unbounded universe and its innumerable galaxies, or, as J. R. R. Tolkien suggested, perceiving the wisdom of God in the design of a tree; the intuition of God's "invisible attributes" can arise from an infinite variety of natural things.

"Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory" (Isaiah 6:3). "God ... is not far from each one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:27-28).

So to answer your question, the meaning inherent in created things is inherent in an intuitive sense. Further, the meaning inherent is God Himself; God's 'handiwork' is, according to the passage cited in Romans, meant by God to be self-revelatory.

Originally posted by Sepia Tint
I looked at a web summary of this book - looks interesting but I noticed it said there were 844 pages. If that is true you may be some time...

I think it must be useful to understand what is going on physiologically when we try to describe and understand religious experience. So much of what is said and written seems to be arbitrary line drawing, inter ...[text shortened]... BS I think it is...never mind we can always use all the buildings for something else!

All excellent questions, Sepia. (I’ll address a few below.) I had a similar experience at a (also Soto) Zen temple I visited. That’s why I might call myself a Zennist, but not a Zen Buddhist.

To what extent is meditation a trick of the mind?

I would say that it depends on what kind of “meditation” you’re doing. A lot goes under that heading.

Is Buddhist "awareness" a sign of a split personality?

I don’t see the connection at all. At any time that you’re not actively thinking/conceptualizing about stuff, is that a sign of a split personality?

Do we need the guff that often goes with it?

If by “guff” you mean the often-accompanying religious metaphysics, I have to say, “No.”

Is it a useful or dangerous practice?

Any contra-habitual (contra-conditioning) practice, I suppose, has the potential for being dangerous. Weaning oneself from a drug addiction can be dangerous. Challenging someone who is under the influence of a post-hypnotic suggestion can be dangerous.

Was the guy who wrote "on having no head" a snake oil salesman?

I always suspected so...

Is bedrock experience simply forgetting oneself for a moment?

Might depend on what you mean by “self”. See my post on orgasm...

Is Buddhism just something to do to convince oneself we are tackling existential pain?
If so, is watching a football match a better use of the time?

I am not into escapism as an existential practice. (As a matter of fact, it seems patently anti-existentialist. Which is not to say that we all might sometimes need a period of respite—for which a football match would seem just fine to me.)

Is what we know of psychology a better map for our interactions with people than tablets of stone, noble eightfold paths, vows, rules for life etc?

My first instinct was to say simple’ “Yes”. However, a lot of what the ancients came up with was likely the best “psychological maps” they could develop.

Probably the answers to these questions are deeply individual until we know what is going on physiologically, when I believe much of it will be "exposed" for the BS I think it is...never mind we can always use all the buildings for something else!

This may well be correct. But since you keep conflating religion with straightforward awareness, I’m not sure what you think is BS. You seem to think that at any moment that you are not actively thinking/conceptualizing about what’s going on, you are in some kind of psychological danger zone. If so, make sure that you keep on conceptualizing (except perhaps when you’re asleep)...