From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ukma!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!aio!gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov!dlyndes Tue Mar 24 09:56:32 EST 1992
Article 4527 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ukma!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!aio!gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov!dlyndes
>From: dlyndes@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (David Lyndes)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Buddhism
Message-ID: <1992Mar18.004449.9503@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Date: 18 Mar 92 00:44:49 GMT
References: <1992Mar12.010517.23690@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar14.015607.1320@norton.com>
Sender: news@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (USENET News System)
Reply-To: dlyndes@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: Barrios Technology @ NASA/JSC; Houston
Lines: 316

Before I wade into this dialog between Mr. Yoder and Mr. Onstott,  it
may help Mr. Yoder appreciate the rationality of buddhism a bit
if we explain a bit of it.  Let us consider that paradigm of mystical-sounding
zen koans (I'm not giving anything away here, commentary on
koans are easily obtained in chinese and japanese, and some are
available in english translation):

	What is the sound of one hand clapping?

An answer is to make the sound of wind.  What does this mean?  Like
all the best riddles, there are many levels at which it works.  The
most naive is that a single hand clapping is a hand fanning the
air and producing a breeze.  The sound of wind imitates that breeze.

At a slightly deeper level, the answer is a response to the
questioner, rather than the question (?!).  It is a response to
the teacher that:

	I have heard a puff of air from you, but no question.

It is acknowledgement that not all strings of words with the
grammatical form of a question actually produce meaningful
questions, even if they sound "right".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Brian Yoder]
 
|> Which undoubtedly explains the vast achievements of Buddhist societies.
|> 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 
|> certainly such a thing as "trying too hard", but that doesn't mean that 
|> lack of striving is the way to achieve your goals.  It's mystical nonsense.

[Charles Onstott ...]
[Brian Yoder ...]
[Charles Onstott ...]
[Brian Yoder]

|> I am not "thinking in terms of industrial society".  I am thinking terms of
|> the facts of the one and only reality there is.  Reason is not "just another
|> way of thinking", it is the only valid way of thinking.  You seem to be 
|> an epistemological egalitarian who thinks that all methods of thinking are
|> equally efficacious.  If you would like to defend this point of view, please
|> feel free.  (Though I am curious by what means you propose to do this since
|> according to this kind of thinking a rational proof is no better than an 
|> irrational one.)

I am not sure how we got from a claim about the contributions of buddhist
societies to "thinking in terms of industrial society".  Mr. Onstott can
give me the hemeneutics in e-mail if he likes.  But we don't need hermeneutics
to see Mr. Yoder's initial claim for what it is, that is, simply too bizarre
an example of misrepresentation and ethnocentricity to let pass.
*******
First, Mr. Onstott (later in this dialog) has elegantly corrected Mr.
Yoder's butchering of the Four Noble Truths.  But more precisely and
for the record they are:

1) There is a cause of suffering
2) Desire is the cause of suffering.  Variations becomming more common include:
   Attachment to desire is the occasion of suffering, and
   Craving is the cause of suffering.
3) There is a way to end suffering.
4) The way to end suffering is to follow the eight-fold path.

Does the eight-fold path say anything about empty minds?  Nope.  The
eight-fold path reads more like the boy-scout oath.  Do buddhists in practice
pursue empty mind?  Some do, some do not.  How about Japanese Zen buddhists,
do they all pursue empty mind?  Again some do, and some don't.  Mr. Yoder
may want to investigate the difference between the "just sitting" and koan
schools of zen in this regard.  For the "just sitting" school, look at
_Dogen's_Manuals_of_Meditation_.  For koan zen look at anything by Suzuki.
For non-Japanese zen which pursues attentiveness and clarity (as opposed to
emptiness) of mind, look at anything by Thich Nat Hahn.

A secondary lesson here is to beware of generalizations about
buddhism.  Two generalizations you can beware of are:
- buddhism is much more diverse than christianity, even if you
  include eastern christianities, Jehova's Witnesses, and Church of
  the Sub-Genius, and
- beyond some doctrine of causality or other, the Four Nobel
  Truths and the Eight-Fold Path, there is not much in common
  among major buddhist sects.
********
Second, his claim that reason "is the only valid way of thinking" reminded
me of a passage in the Pynchon novel "V" containing conversation roughly
as follows:

   - "You can't kill yourself.  Life is the most precious thing you have.
   - "Why's that?
   - "Because without it, you'd be dead!

Kind of misses the mark, doesn't it?  There are many kinds of mental
activity each with its own purposes, all inter-related, and all
forming a whole.  Rationality is good for making inferences.  It
does not provide the premises.  Experience and praxis/practice provides
tests for matters of truth.  Senses of beauty, elegance, fairness,
spirituality makes possible a quality of life.  Shall we go on?  The
point is not "which is best", but "how do we harmonize the whole."
*******
Third, Mr. Onstott said NOTHING to warrent the inference that he denies
the existence of objective truth.  Also, the idea that anyone who
- rejects objective truth
must then accept that
- no belief is better than another
is a common mistake.  To clarify, I might assume that Mr. Yoder does not
claim to PERFECTLY understand the meaning of the word "yellow".  And
yet, he understands it (well enough) to communicate (well enough) using
the word.  Is there an "objective truth" to the meaning of "yellow"?
Well, it appears that we do not need one.  Does that mean that "yellow"
can mean anything at all?  Nope.  All it means is that we all need only
get a close enough fit in the way we use the word.  Methodologically,
all we need is "better" and "worse", we do not need "perfect" and "utterly
bogus"

Mr. Yoder expands on this theme in the next section, so let us read on ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next Line: [Charles Onstott]
 
|> When Buddhism was first born, there was
|> no such bird.  To ignore the culture elements of interpretation, is to chunk
|> hermeneutics out the window and walk over eggshells with clump feet.  Of
|> course, you can come to the concluseriod.
|> 
|> But becareful, there is plenty of comparitive literature available
|> that will show you where you have gone wrong.  Please review that material
|> before you discount the importance of societal influence.

[Brian Yoder]

|> I have read some of that "literature" and it's completely wrong since it's
|> (to generalize) based on the idea that there is no objective truth and that
|> there is no such think as objective meaning in writing or other communication.
|> Both of these are false premises, but if you would like to propose that 
|> I cannot read a book and understand objectively what the author said, then 
|> please feel free to attempt it.  First though, you ought to explain how it is
|> that you think you can understand the challenge I have set forth for you and
|> how it is that you think that I will be able to understand what you have
|> written.  This should be good.

Actually, if he is referring to "continental" style philosophy, comp. lit.
and the like, Mr. Yoder severely over-generalizes.  If there are trends
here, they are more like:
- Epistemology comes before ontology
- Epistemology is non-foundational
but definitely NOT
- there is no truth
- no beliefs are any better than any other.

If Mr. Yoder actually did read any of "that 'literature'", he must have
either picked a non-representative sample or else misunderstood what
he read.  If he wants some references, he can check on K. Otto-Appel or
M. Foucault.  Similarly, american philosophical pragmatism from C.S.Peirce
to W.V.O.Quine is anti-foundational, and there are threads of it which
either deny any role to Truth, restrict it to a smaller domain, or
ignore it altogether.  But they definitely do NOT fall back to
"anything goes"!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next Line: [Charles Onstott]

|> I don't think that Buddhist's meant that you could get what you want if you
|> quite striving if you assume that material things are the things you can get.
|> The idea here is to stop searching for the self--in so doing you are
|> distorting the self. 

[Brian Yoder]

|> They do say that, but they also say that this is a general rule for 
|> or accomplishing anything.  Perhaps you ought to study the nature of the 
|> "buddah-mind they are supposed to strive for.  George Romero couldn't have 
|> better!

[Charles Onstott]

|> The first tennant of Buddhism to remove suffering. How is this accomplished?

[Brian Yoder]

|> And even more interestingly, how was it determined that this the most
|> important issue?  What epistemology was used?  One based on intuition no
|> doubt.

Somewhere, I suppose, there is some buddhist who claims that "you get
what you want when you stop going after it", but I've never
heard of him, and he would be an odd duck
indeed.  Any references Mr. Yoder?  Dogen never says that, neither do
Thich Nat Hahn, nor Suzuki, nor even (sigh of resignation!) Ginsberg.  It
is not found in the Diamond Sutra, nor the Lotus Sutra, nor any other
of the buddhist scriptures I've ever read.

Next, while I'll grant that it may be that most buddhists consider the
elimination of suffering to be the most important aspect of their
religion (I simply do not know the demographics), it is by no means 
a universally considered the most important thing.  Furthermore, even
if true, it has no more validity as an explanation of why
- the europeans developed modern technology before others 
than
- christian preoccupation with sin explains the excesses of europeans
  and americans.

Just as most (modern) christians emphasize salvation rather than damnation,
most buddhist writers, when discussing that issue, emphasize enlightenment
over suffering.  They most often ignore the "suffering" aspect altogether.

For the record, I believe that most buddhists do NOT claim that buddhism
is the ONLY important aspect of life, merely that it is one aspect and
that it is an important aspect.  The impression I have is that for
most buddhist teachers,
- if you asked them about gods, they'd direct you to theologians,
- if you asked them about electrons, they'd direct you to physicists,
- if you asked them about art, they'd direct you to a potter,
- if you asked about metaphysics, they'd direct you to a philosopher,
but
- if you asked them about enlightenment, they'd ask you to sit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next Line: [Charles Onstott]
 
|> In part, by removing desire.  Desire for what?  For becomming and for
|> material possesions.  

[Brian Yoder]

|> In other words, if you stop wanting anything, you will never experience the 
|> feeling of unfulfilled desires.  Not a very helpful solution, if happiness is 
|> the goal, and not a very effective approach since if one eliminated all desires
|> for everything, one would starve or be hit by the first passing truck.  To 
|> practice this ideal consistently is to commit suicide.

Happiness is NOT the goal.  In fact, it is inappropriate to state
enlightenment as a goal.  This may be what Mr. Onstott was onto with
his reference to "industrial society" and its preoccupation with
means and ends.  Buddhism is a way of living, a process.  They do not
claim that all goal-orientedness is bad, only that it is incomplete.

Not long ago, there was a documentary on PBS about "happiness".  The
researcher asked a Thai buddhist monk if he was happy.  The monk thought
about it for a moment, then replied "No, but it's not that important to
be happy."

As to the suicide claim, it has some validity for some buddhist sects.
But the idea that all buddhists aim for that (even in those sects) is
no more valid than to claim that all christians intend to end up like
Mother Theresa or Francis of Assisi.  Mahayana buddhists have saints
(called "Bodhisatvas") and some of them starved to death out of
disinterest in food and hunger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
next Line: [Charles Onstott]

|> Why do we remove desire?  To remove suffering and to clear the
|> mind.  Get it right.

[Brian Yoder]

|> Sure, but what's the bottom line?  Empty the mind.  Given all of the
|> justification, that's the conclusion, and it's clearly wrong.

The best justification I can think of is found in practice.  It works.
The same justification used in ancient Rome for using certain kinds of
materials for certain kinds of construction.  It works.  The same justification
I use for taking I-45 home from the office.  It works.  And it works
better than any other route I've tried.

Clearly, the doctrines Mr. Yoder describes as buddhist are wrong.  But those
doctrines are not buddhist doctrines.  On the other hand, what kind of
mind would summarily dismiss the beliefs of over a billion people as
"clearly wrong".  Apparently one arrogant in his own virtue.  One convinced
of the absolute stupidity of so many people, that so many would buy into
something "clearly wrong".  One who must suspect the motives of brilliant
and well educated men like Buddha, Bodhidarma, Dogen or Suzuki, who
promote something "clearly wrong".

This guy is really starting to tick me off.  I'll just try to keep it in
mind that his arrogance is a product of his ignorance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[...]

[Brian Yoder]

|> What nonsense!  Reason (operating on sense data) is the one and only method 
|> for reaching knowledge the world.

Well, supplimented by experience, manipulation of the world in experiment,
with technology which makes further kinds of inquiry possible, and by
bouncing ideas around in a community, perhaps.  But knowledge isn't
the only thing there is.

Science may give us clues, but I doubt that it will provide us with
the answer to how best to live.  Or you you take it as
obvious true that the best way to live is to own lots of stuff
and achieve status?

|> What sorts of "distortions" do you think can
|> from being rational?  What sorts of benefits have you been deluded into
|> thinking can be achieved by irrationality?

Is irrationality Mr. Yoder's boogy man?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Brian Yoder]

|> Where's the "distortion"?  Is your assumption that any criticism of some 
|> mystical non-western doctrine must be based on a misunderstanding of it
|> and that it cannot be evaluated as false by reason?  On what basis do
|> your reach such a conclusion?

I think he (Mr. Onstott) reaches that conclusion by comparing buddhism to
what you say about buddhism.  The difference is like that between
a prime number and a german chocolate cake, not even close.

-- 
+-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| David K. Lyndes                     | "I assure you that all reasonable     |
| Barrios Technology                  |  precautions have been and are being  |
| email: dlyndes@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov |  taken." - General Margrave           |
+-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer nor of God. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


