From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!psinntp!norton!brian Tue Mar 24 09:55:21 EST 1992
Article 4427 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!psinntp!norton!brian
>From: brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: mean,meaner,MEANING-est/ intention-and-self the buddhist way
Message-ID: <1992Mar12.031053.15904@norton.com>
Date: 12 Mar 92 03:10:53 GMT
References: <kr5b29INN4hu@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <1992Mar06.011801.8699@norton.com>
Organization: Symantec / Peter Norton
Lines: 139

>In article <1992Mar06.011801.8699@norton.com> brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder) writes:

>>I realize that they claim that you get what you want when you stop going
>>after it, but what in the world makes you think that's true?  There is

>I'd be interested to know what led you to form this conclusion.  I'm not a
>Buddhist myself.  But  the understanding of Buddhism  that I have leads me
>to believe that what the Buddha taught was not how the  mind works or what
>the  structure of the  Universe is.  The  Buddha taught  what  sadness and
>happiness are and  how  one can escape  from  sadness into happiness.   

Sure, and by implication that human interests and reality are or ought to be 
severed.  The particular doctrine we were discussing was a specifically anti-
striving point of view...that to be happy was not to achieve one's goals, but
rather to give up the idea that one ought to have any goals in the first
place.  Do you deny that this is the essence of this doctrine?

>In
>Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha, Gotama explains exactly this to Siddhartha who
>incessantly keeps  asking him  about the nature  of the  Mind and  of  the
>Universe.

And how can one be "happy" by giving up on wanting anything?  It seems to me
that this is just a retreat from taking any chances or having the potential for
any loss.

>See also the famous `Poisoned Arrow Analogy' that the Buddha uses to
>explain his path to Malunkyapatta, another nosy fellow who wants to know
>how the Mind works.

What's so bad about wanting to knwo how hte mind works?  Buddhism seems to 
be at least as interested in the subject (in it's own wany) as any 
other approach (like science for example), but it just chooses some simple
default positions and stops asking questions.  Do you defend the buddhist
"method" of discovering what's enlightened and what isn't?  You certainly seem to.

>Also, as Nagarjuna's Treatise   of the Middle  way  clearly  demonstrates,
>Buddhist philosophy  is the   philosophy   of "No position".   

Nonsense!  Buddhisms takes very difinite positions on philosophical issues.  st, are
>not fundamentally connected with  how to feel happy.  

And he thereby points out that he believes that happiness is the ultimate 
measure of whether something ought to be done.  That sure does look like 
philosophical position to me!  It is also one I disagree with.

>In  other words, one
>does not have to know how the watch works in order to  be able to tell the
>time.

But one DOES need to know what a watch is, what time is, and have some reason 
to care what time it is.  It is possible to talk about certain subjects without 
having a perfect understanding of them.  It makes no sense to have a discussion 
about any subject without any philosphical foundations.  It is literally impossible
to do so.

>>lack of striving is the way to achieve your goals.  It's mystical nonsense.

>When you go after something, it is not that thing you are after, it is the
>happiness you think that obtaining that thing will give you.  

How can you prove that?  It is particularly a difficult thing to prove because
the implication is that no course of action is undertaken because of 
existential facts of reality and that includes the argument itself.  Are you
pursuing a philosophical truth here?  Or are you just trying to make yourself
feel good by making a pattern of light appear on your screen?

As for myself, the ultimate reason I pursue the values I do is not the emotions
that getting them generates in me.  Trust me on that!

>According to
>the Buddha, happiness is  intrinsic to Human nature;  you don't need to go
>after something in order to feel happy.  

That is why buddhists so prize the zombie-like state of non-thinking 
meditation.  I say such a state is not happiness, it is mindlessness.  A blank
mind is NOT a happy mind.

>When  you go after something, you
>lose sight of the `here and now'  and the  fact that you are intrinsically
>happy.   

Intrinsic happiness?  How do we know that blank minds are not better characterized
as being "tortured", "bored", or "asleep"?  Can these guys prove that a blank mind
is in some sense happy?  I think that blank minds are blank, not happy.

Perhaps an analogy would be in order.  Is a car more "happy" when it's in a dark
quiet garage, or zooming down the highway at 100mph?  Is a computer more "happy"
when executing a bunch of NOPs, or when generating a TV commercial?  Is a man
more happy when he finishes a novel, or when he eats a good meal, or when he 
is chanting mindlessly at a statue?  Happiness derives from the achievement of
values, not from refraining from thought.  If anything, the more mental effort
that goes into the pursuit of some value, tng by actually relinquishing its pursuit!

That is only true if the premise that the state of "pure happiness" is the 
same as the state of "pure mindlessness".  That is something that has hardly
been established. No?

>There  is nothing mystic  about Buddhism.  ly  denies
>affiliation with it.  

Nonsense!  There are plenty of philosophies that at least CLAIM to be non-mystical,
and at least one that actually delivers on the promise (mine!).

>See for example, `What the Buddha taught' by Walpola
>Rahula,  (Grove press Inc.  NY) Christianity,  Hinduism, Islam and Judaism
>all have  Mystic doctrines in them.  

I don't disagree on that point.  I think that Christianity, Hinduism, Islam,
and Judaism are all mystical nonsense too, but that's neither here nor there.

>In  Buddhism,  if something cannot be rationally justified then  it is discarded.  

Yeah, Christianity (post-Aquinas anyway) is supposed to be that way too, but
that doesn't seem to deter the diehards who stick to the dogma no matter what
reason says about it.  How can they explain where they get this idea that 
"a blank mind is a happy mind"?  Do they really claim that they  can get there via reason?

>Also note that you don't find many Japanese going around saying that India
>is pitz because Hinduism's Karma theory teaches Deterministic Inevitability
>or that USA is dipping  into recession because they  believe  in a god who
>created the world in seven days.

Where does this fit in?  Is this a criticism of me for questioning the validity
of buddhism?  (More specifically, I was criticizing the idea of applying 
buddhist mysticism to the creation of intelligent computers.)  In your 
opinion would you say that it is necessarily superior for someone to refrain 
from questioning the validity of the religious doctrines of others?  I don't
think it is.

--Brian

>[*] Pure Philosophy: read as Philosophy without Pragmatic implications

-- 
-- Brian K. Yoder (brian@norton.com) - Maier's Law:                          --
-- Peter Norton Computing Group      - If the facts do not fit the theory,   --
-- Symantec Corporation              - they must be disposed of.             --
--                                   -                                       --


