Warning: Long, Messy Post.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't understand "essence" in the same way as you, but we have the same idea about "form".

You might be having a discussion about existentialism. I am having a conversation with a couple of people. What do you think about vistesd's notion of a dialectic between Zen and existentialism?

1. 'Form' has a much more static and materialistic connotation than 'essence', which is why I prefer the latter term even though the two can often be used interchangeably.

2. I don't think vistesd has posited a synthesis of Zen and existentialism as much as assimilating existentialism into Zen to such an extent that all its essentials (there's that term again!) have been destroyed. Existence no longer precedes essence. Consciousness is no longer intentional. Personal existence is no longer real, nor personal. There is no room for angst in Zen, unless it is deliberate.

EDIT: This isn't a pointed criticism of vistesd's attempt to synthesise the two. I just feel the synthesis he posted on page 1 had watered down existentialism to such an extent that it was no longer really necessary or part of the synthesis.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. Essence isn't matter. Indeed, in classical metaphysical terminology, 'essence' is closer in meaning to 'form' than 'matter' (which, in turn, is not the same as what we mean by 'matter'/'material' in the scientific sense today). Water and chemicals are not the essence of human beings, they are [part of] the matter. Indeed, a [fresh] corpse possesses biguous. What does it mean to "promote existence"? The existence of what?

How is the 'ineffable ground of being' not another 'i-thought'?

As soon as I use the words (or think them), it is. As a matter of fact, I want to take all of that “Zen posits” stuff back. Thank you.

Is there any reality behind the thoughts (images, feelings, etc—i.e., the makings of our mind)? Can such a reality be experienced, or do we just speculate about it?

The most personal form of these questions is directed at oneself: “Behind the makings of my mind, before all images, thoughts, words—who/what? Is there a real “I” there that is not just a thought or a complex of memories and other thoughts? Can such an “I-reality,” if there is one, be experienced, or do we just speculate about it?”

In terms of our discussion here, these are somewhat rhetorical questions. Not because the answers are obvious, but because metaphysical speculation—even at a high and complex level—is just more metaphysical speculation. The questions are too personal; to try to answer them in any impersonal way is to distance oneself from them. (I have spent too much time doing that—it is a form of cowardice on my part; my spiritual/existential journey has often been an oscillation between bravery and cowardice.)

__________________________________________

Form versus Essence:

I think this is a point where Buddhism and existentialism (probably Western thought in general) just use the language so differently that it may be impossible to communicate. “Form” in the Buddhist sense I think would apply to existents and their relationships as they appear from the perspective of differentiated reality (to use LH’s term); the Buddhist use of “emptiness” or “void” to describe the essence—since it is ineffable. I don’t think that it is ineffable because of some “mystique,” but because it’s the all-of-all-of-it, including me. Maps become metaphorical, since as soon I speak, I am imposing form.

If I speak in general of the “nature” of a thing, is that close to essence? Sartre, if I recall rightly, used “condition” and “conditionality.”

___________________________________________

A note on “illusion”—

I use the term illusion to mean strictly seeing/experiencing things as other than they (really or wholly) are. To use a common metaphor, to see only the trees and not the forest is illusion; to see only the forest and not the trees is also illusion. I use the term “delusion” if I want to speak of seeing something that isn’t there at all, or vice versa. In Zen, maya refers to the first—illusion; I think in some schools of Hinduism, it also refers to the second, delusion.

__________________________________________

And now, I must do the work. The questions you all are raising in this thread may be helpful for that—and if so, I will use this discussion shamelessly. But I do not want to once again get lost in the discussion (even the ones I run in my own head) as a way of avoiding direct engagement with the questions...

EDIT: Just saw your last post. Re the attempted synthesis of existentialism and Zen: I think you are right.

EDIT EDIT: Welcome back! 🙂

Correction: Existence in Zen is real and personal and immediate. I feel it. When there is toothache, there is toothache; when there is laughter, there is laughter; when there is thinking, there is thinking. But existence is also transient. I know the language gets confusing, depending on how you use terms such as "real," "really real," etc.

Anguish, however, is rooted in craving the transitory nature of existence to be other than what it is (to put it simplistically). Anguish is not necessary. Therefore, again, it is different from existentialism.

Originally posted by vistesd
How is the 'ineffable ground of being' not another 'i-thought'?

As soon as I use the words (or think them), it is.

Do you see the problem here? If thinking about it "collapses" it (in our minds) into another 'i-thought', then we cannot predicate any actions or thoughts based on it because all such actions and thoughts are also 'i-thoughts'. We can try to experience the IGB ('Ineffable Ground of Being'😉 again, but we cannot do or think about it for the same reason.

It's a bit like chasing a mirage.

EDIT: Besides, if the IGB were truly ineffable, then it would be impossible to say that it's ineffable, wouldn't it?

"I can describe this about IGB to you, that I cannot describe anything about IGB to you".

EDIT^2: Thanks!

Originally posted by vistesd
Is there any reality behind the thoughts (images, feelings, etc—i.e., the makings of our mind)? Can such a reality be experienced, or do we just speculate about it?

The most personal form of these questions is directed at oneself: “Behind the makings of my mind, before all images, thoughts, words—who/what? Is there a real “I” there that is not just a t ...[text shortened]... my spiritual/existential journey has often been an oscillation between bravery and cowardice.)

I think you dismiss metaphysics too easily. Every time you speculate about the nature of reality, you are engaging in metaphysics. If you say that reality is illusion you are being metaphysical. If you say that reality is not illusion you are being metaphysical. Every thought, every action, every speculation of the human being involves some metaphysical assumptions.

I would've thought that figuring out what those assumptions were would be critical in "deconstruction".

How can you experience the "I-reality" without thought? If I prick your finger, you feel pain. But pain is another thought (admittedly, a very elementary one), another "image". If you experience "I-reality", that experience in itself is another thought.

Put another way, BdN claims he wants to deconstruct himself to clear himself of all illusion. How does he know the deconstruction process in itself is not another illusion?

Originally posted by vistesd
Correction: Existence in Zen is real and personal and immediate. I feel it. When there is toothache, there is toothache; when there is laughter, there is laughter; when there is thinking, there is thinking. But existence is also transient. I know the language gets confusing, depending on how you use terms such as "real," "really real," etc.

Correction: Being is real and personal and immediate. 🙂

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Do you see the problem here? If thinking about it "collapses" it (in our minds) into another 'i-thought', then we cannot predicate any actions or thoughts based on it because all such actions and thoughts are also 'i-thoughts'. We can try to experience the IGB ('Ineffable Ground of Being'😉 again, but we cannot do or think about it for the same reason. ...[text shortened]... t IGB to you, that I cannot describe anything about IGB to you".

EDIT^2: Thanks!

Do you see the problem here? If thinking about it "collapses" it (in our minds) into another 'i-thought', then we cannot predicate any actions or thoughts based on it because all such actions and thoughts are also 'i-thoughts'.

Isn’t that what we do every day? Do you not predicate your thoughts and actions on prior thoughts (including “i-thoughts,” God-thoughts, essence-thoughts, etc., etc.)? That is why, for the moment, I want to withdraw my talk about “ground of being.”

EDIT: Besides, if the IGB were truly ineffable, then it would be impossible to say that it's ineffable, wouldn't it?

That’s just really a language problem, isn’t it? I mean, it really just says, “If it’s truly indescribable, how can you say it’s indescribable? Isn’t that a way of ‘describing’ it?”

Suppose I say, “Maybe it’s effable, but I can’t describe it except in limiting and essentially metaphorical terms.” Someone else says, “I can describe it; it’s _________.” But how can I understand that that description is anything other than limited and metaphorical—the way in which that person’s mind translated the experience into “effable” terms to try to grapple with it? (We’re back to the map and the territory, I think.)

On the other hand, as I noted above, I am dropping the phrase “ground of being,” as I see that that too implies some metaphysical speculation.

So, my choice is whether to attempt to offer a paltry “map,” hoping that it does not get confused with the territory—or simply to shut up. The only map I can really offer is the koan; the only reason I can offer it is that it has gotten me there before.

Okay—taking some risk here, suppose I try to “eff” it just a bit. The quality of light seems different, thicker but not “foggy”—there is intense clarity. There is a vibrancy to everything, a common, harmonious vibrancy in which everything seems intimately inter-woven, in movement to the same deep rhythm, intimately part of the same deep rhythm, as I am. I can function; I can even hold a conversation. I am aware—

Well, you see what I mean; note the word “seems.” I’m not sure that it isn’t akin to being “in the zone”—maybe it’s exactly the same thing. Nothing “mysterious.” Perhaps just a clearer, more heightened, intimate way of being in harmony with the tathata, “suchness” of it all, whatever all of it is—another perspective, not the perspective. According to some Sufis, alternating between everyday “differentiating” perspective/experience and a more “undifferentiated” perspective/experience (how careful I am trying to be with my language here!) is a natural oscillation. I really don’t want to speculate about it anymore...

Perhaps now I will only speak about intimate and powerful experience of the tathata, of which I also am.

Gee, my friend, you may have brought me finally to near silence...

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Correction: Being is real and personal and immediate. 🙂

How can you experience the "I-reality" without thought? If I prick your finger, you feel pain. But pain is another thought (admittedly, a very elementary one), another "image". If you experience "I-reality", that experience in itself is another thought.

Exactly. However, I’m not sure that I have used the phrase “I-reality,” just “i-thought.”

Correction: Being is real and personal and immediate.

Existent or nonexistent being? 🙂

Originally posted by LemonJello
“Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world - and defines himself afterwards.”

--Jean-Paul Sartre

First, I'd like to say that this is by far, the most interesting thread I've seen in this forum so far (and I've browsed through some earlier threads as well). Too bad the name was chosen so poorly. I usually don't even take the time to read something that says: "long, messy post". Then again, that may have been on purpose to keep jibberish out (normally produced by the likes of me). Hope you don't mind that I finally took the time to peek in here, and respond.

I would like to add to this discussion my own thoughts on the matter, if you don't mind. To understand Sartre ("existence precedes essence" ) I must understand what he meant by 'existence' and 'essence'. I'm not sure I do.

My existence (as it is now) began with the unity produced by my mother and father. As the very first cell divided, my existence had begun. I used to think that this is where the essence of me began as well. My essence being the unique, growing life, that is my physical self. Then existence and essence are not distinctly different, such that one can precede the other (they would be one and the same).

Another definition (and this is the one I'll go with) is that my essence is the idea of me; the thought of me; the definition of me. Not my physical self, but what I feel, think and do.

Well, maybe not do - that would be the result of what I feel and think.

And, of course, not think - that would be the result of what I feel.

And, naturally, not what I feel - that would be the result of what I experience.

'''

I would still say that the thought of me is my essence. The idea that I have about myself, is the very essence of me. The idea that I have about myself, is also what I'm always communicating to others through my physical (and now digital) identity.

It is, of course, possible to have an essence (like this) without actually having formed the idea. Then, your essence becomes the idea about you that others construct, based on what you do. Then, you do not express your essence through your physical self consciously, but your imptrinted behaviour is what you express and what gives others an idea of your essence (we usually get very upset when someone is lying about who we are - even if it's flattering - simply because we don't like others to define our essence). During childhood we allow ourselves to be defined by others to a certain degree (usually our parents). Once we start thinking for ourselves (if ever) we also start forming our own ideas about ourselves. Those who live their whole lifes allowing others to construct their essence are the most unhappy of all (I think). And perhaps, they are also the most dangerous, because they can be used to absurdity by the people defining them.

Spawning off further. I consider feelings to be the lack of experience and thought. Feelings come into the picture when I'm not sure what to think and my experiences doesn't give me any clue. Through the process of thinking I can better understand the feelings I experience. And the result of my thinking is what eventually helps me define moral laws to help me co-exist with everyone else. The moral laws is like a description of my essence.

My essence is in an ever-changing state however, and so therefore are my moral laws. Hopefully (although there are little traces of it yet) I will become wiser and my moral laws will allow me to function better in society while preserving the feeling that there's a meaning to my life (even if not a glorious one as being eternal or having a huge impact on the world at large).

If you actually read this whole post, I applaud you. As usual I made little sense within the parameters of the discussion. I will defend myself by saying that the title did, after all, not specify the subject and it invited me to get long-winded. 🙂

[Edit]

Besides, some of the other posts in this thread are (if still more interesting) way more long-winded than mine. So I won't feel guilty about this post. U-uh! No I won't! :

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. People burning heretics at the stake is very much an expression of moral outrage.

2. How is that relevant to your statement vis-a-vis freedom and another's suffering?

Moral outrage based on fear of a demonised Other, in league with Satan, feasting on powdered baby flesh, and all the other lies spread to fuel mob hysteria.

Freedom, to me, consists of detachment from desire, or freedom from compulsion, if you will. A murderer needs a victim, needs to kill...A chronic do-gooder needs to do good...These people are not free.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Put another way, BdN claims he wants to deconstruct himself to clear himself of all illusion. How does he know the deconstruction process in itself is not another illusion?

How do I set about this process, LH?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Do you see the problem here? If thinking about it "collapses" it (in our minds) into another 'i-thought', then we cannot predicate any actions or thoughts based on it because all such actions and thoughts are also 'i-thoughts'. We can try to experience the IGB ('Ineffable Ground of Being'😉 again, but we cannot do or think about it for the same reason.

It's a bit like chasing a mirage.

You've got it!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Moral outrage based on fear of a demonised Other, in league with Satan, feasting on powdered baby flesh, and all the other lies spread to fuel mob hysteria.

Freedom, to me, consists of detachment from desire, or freedom from compulsion, if you will. A murderer needs a victim, needs to kill...A chronic do-gooder needs to do good...These people are not free.

I just realized that to die a free man, is to die after having broken free from the need to eat and drink, but to die a happy man is to die while excercising the need to procreate.

Seriously, I think you're on to something. Do you think it's possible that we can never really be free while we're in this flesh and blood container; our bodies?

I think maybe, we can never achieve true freedom. When we die, we won't even have our bodies to excercise our freedom. While we are alive, our freedom will always be limited by certain needs that we cannot break free from. Perhaps, it's not about being free, but feeling free. I think to feel free, one must learn to break free from certain needs to retain that feeling of random happiness.

😕

I think.

lucifershammer: "Correction: Being is real and personal and immediate."

vistesd: "Existent or nonexistent being?"

__________________________________

I withdraw the facetious question.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Freedom, to me, consists of detachment from desire, or freedom from compulsion, if you will. A murderer needs a victim, needs to kill...A chronic do-gooder needs to do good...These people are not free.

Freedom = freedom from desire? Isn't desire the prerequisite of action? Thus freedom = freedom from action (freedom to do nothing)?