Buddhism and logic

Originally posted by vistesd
As far as other metaphysical notions found in Buddhism—such as karma and reincarnation—I have nothing at all to say about such things.

All well put vistesd!

Before talking about the quoted I wanted to mention some of the satori stuff you brought up
You said you tend to stick to zen guidelines when it comes to this issue (e.g. following your own nature and morality rather than relying on some already established foundation of "action"😉

I think it's an interesting situation, anything we do to achieve satori is automatically a trap. Since awareness is supposed to separate us from desire and action (and ignorance), how can one apply a method to try and achieve it? Seems like a catch 22, we have a goal in which to attain, but by any means we deter ourselves from that achievement.

I think that's why zen put such an awareness and following your own true nature (adopting, very strongly, the daoism wu-wei). After all, its in our nature to try and achieve a "better" state (whether that be spiritual, emotional, wealth, et cetera) so there's no point in worrying about setting yourself up because it's just going to happen anyways. Another reason that koans are so prolific in zen writings, just trying to break down those barriers because there are none in the first place.

I can't really talk about karma too much that what others probably already know and conceptualize better than I do. Simply put, it's the connection of action and motivation. I think different religions handle it differently- some its a direct weighing of your actions. The more good deeds that outnumber bad deeds, the better you're next life will be blah blah blah. Newer schools of though tend to emphasize a very active progress with karma. Just an ongoing spiritual progression that is present rather than being held back for some judgement later on.

Reincarnation happens. Physics proposes the law of conservation of matter/energy which means that life is a constant recycling of universal material. We're all products of the same entity- the universe playing itself out in different manifestations of itself. I think its really interesting how the same building blocks are used for everything. We have atoms, where the only things that differentiate them are how many little floating balls are in it. The only thing differentiate those floating balls is how the little balls in them are spinning.

And the differences we associate with each other due to our relative positions are superficial and nonexistent.

Originally posted by Beyer
If reality transcends logic (according to the Buddhist viewpoint), then why can math accurately predict and model nature's motion?

A does not equal B, therefore A is B

Originally posted by Beyer
If reality transcends logic (according to the Buddhist viewpoint), then why can math accurately predict and model nature's motion?

It is fair to say that Maths can accurately predict and model nature's motion. Not only can we use maths to describe the motion as we find it but also sometimes the maths is discovered first and an application in nature only much later and independently. However, this is valid to the extent that there is very disciplined experimentation to establish and support this. For example, it was thought that planets must move in perfect circles and it emerged with difficulty that they follow an ellipse. It is also something that would have surprised the Ancients and it was quite a novel thing when Galileo and Newton set about using maths in this way.

Today I suspect that a great deal of Physics is done by mathematicians far from any laboratory or observatory. But Aristotle made very poor progress towards explaining or even describing Nature by means of reasoning. Before the emergence of the scientific method I suggest that any philosopher would have been on firm ground to argue that we can never penetrate nature by means of logic and reason.

From my reading I have the opinion (you may differ) that the Buddha did not attempt to challenge the cosmology of his time and place. I do not think either that he himself was concerned with such questions. He accepted many things as given, including notions about reincarnation and Karma. He was not inventing a new religion at all. What I think he was doing was establishing a method to achieve the goal set and widely recognised within that existing framework of beliefs. Specifically, his task was to enable people to escape from suffering and (whatever this means) to free themselves from the relentless wheel of reincarnation. He did not invent the task, the goal, the framework, but instead invented the method for achieving this based on his personal experience of trying many of the methods then considered worthy of attention. His criticism of the existing methods was this - they do not work.

Because I take this view, I do not think it is important for me to study and understand the complex, ornate cosmology which comes as baggage with many accounts of Buddhist belief. Indeed, I think that the Buddha himself said in many ways that they are exactly that - conceptual baggage that obstructs learning the things that matter most.

I think I see in Zen Buddhism a commitment to a particular aspect of the Buddha's path, which is also known as "mindfulness." I also go along with the description above of Buddhist practice as resembling a form of psychotherapy. I suggest that Buddhism offers a very profound and valid approach to human psychology and that its most important benefits are psychological. Beyond that, Buddhism offers very positive value statements about the way we can live in the world which are worth a great deal of thought. For that reason, I do not think it can be patronized by relegating it to the treatment of unhappy people or the search for a hippy version of Satori, perhaps enjoyed on a motorcycle.

Originally posted by ua41
All well put vistesd!

Before talking about the quoted I wanted to mention some of the satori stuff you brought up
You said you tend to stick to zen guidelines when it comes to this issue (e.g. following your own nature and morality rather than relying on some already established foundation of "action"😉

I think it's an interesting situation, anything we d ...[text shortened]... ciate with each other due to our relative positions are superficial and nonexistent.

A side note regarding Karma: according to miscellaneous exoteric traditions Karma (Sk. Karman, meaning literally: mission/ debt/ role and only under esoteric terms action/ energy, T. las) is the mechanism you understand (positive/ negative actions produce positive/ negative results). This is the universal archetype and it is adopted by every society regardless religion, time, nationality and culture.

However the Eastern traditions do not accept Karma under the ethical/ religious/ social terms alone. Karma is mentioned for the first time by the Brahmin Vedas and later by the Upanishads as the Cause-Effect law that is triggered under specific circumstances. In our very world the cause-effect is easily visible and clear, however the cause always engulfs a dynamism that always needs an agent to trigger it. This agent at the level of the Human is solely his spirit/ mind, therefore the effect is monitored primary over the human who triggered the specific action. This is the reason why the Hindus and the Brahmins believe that Karma is the dynamism one accumulates due to the fact that he is indeed an always active trigger of miscellaneous causes. Then the idea of Karma is transferred at the level of the universe -and this mechanism is so complicated that it does not need external (directly conceivable by us) causes in order to produce numerous effects. Of course all the above is exoteric, it is theology.

However the meditator is aware of the fact that Karma stands above dualism (Yin/ Yang), although many Buddhists religious they prefer to remain; this is the reason why, according to Sabda Maha Prasanga Tantra, all the traces left by Karma “are gathered at the primordial stage because of ignorance” (my translation). The meditator knows that “ignorance” is merely the “ignorance of the nature of everything” and of the “nature of the Human”, and immediately the Yin/ Yang becomes Gankyil. At this level the religious construction is decomposed because Karma is understood strictly at the level of nirvana, which itself has no cause: nirvana is merely the absence of the law of Cause-Effect, it is the absence of Karma
😵