Balder
New member
One more thing. You have asked me on several occasions if I believe there are any universal laws. My answer is that I believe there are certain universals, which might be called laws (a metaphor taken from human social experience), depending on how one uses the term. But I would add that I believe that many of the things we call laws are more likely universal habits. Certainly, this is the contention of Buddhism, and a number of modern physicists and biologists agree: things manifest and behave in a certain way, along certain "grooves" or lines of development, not because abstract laws compel them to, but because a momentum has built up which makes one sort of happening more likely than another, given certain prevailing conditions. If immutable laws were actually in effect in all areas of the development of systems and organisms, then how would mutations and variations occur ... whence would come novelty? Quantum physicists says that absolute determinism is out; there is an openness at the heart of reality which allows for the new, even though the "old" carries a lot of weight and makes movement in one direction much more likely than in other ways...
So, when you speak of laws, what exactly are you thinking of? Are you talking about lawfulness and order in general, or about specific laws that are observable in the universe? Do you think gravity, entropy, and the speed of light are all specifically derive from similar laws that exist in the nature of God?
As I said in earlier posts, two Buddhist tenets -- the primordiality of experience or "mind" and the radical interdependence and co-determination of phenomena -- are quite capable of accounting for the order of cosmos. The primordiality of "mind" is not something many physicists readily accept, though some (like David Bohm) speak about the primordiality of meaning (soma-significance and signa-somatics), but the idea that the universe is holistically interrelated, somehow seamless or "entangled," in which the whole is implicate in every part, is more strongly supported by current evidence and is not viewed as far-fetched by many quantum physicists, as I'm sure you're aware. So, although Buddhism does not depend on nor look to science for support, its teachings on interdependence definitely find their reflections in many modern theories. The verity of these teachings may also be found in phenomenological exploration of direct experience in meditation, and they are quite philosophically sound as well (that's another discussion).
Since you just love translator Herbert Guenther's way with words, especially when he's trying to explicate a Dzogchen text and whippin' out the hyphens, I will quote some passages from him that are relevant:
"The quest for life’s meaning reaches its completion in the realization and enactment of meaningful existence, which implies, as inseparable from it, a sensitivity to and discovery of meanings in lived-through experience. However, behind this short and manageable term 'meaningful existence' lies a complex structure which can be circumscribed by the rather clumsy and yet more precise phrase of 'experience-as-a-thrust-towards-meaning-oriented-concreteness-in-lived-through-experience.' The hyphens serve to indicate the close bond that holds in an interlacing manner between 'existence' and 'meaning' and 'experience,' and also makes it possible to grasp these configurative constituents more specifically without sacrificing the contextual frame.
'Existence,' as used here, is neither a designation of that-ness nor a designation of finite existents in general. Rather it points to the open texture and dimension which in its very openness is already pregnant with possible meaning. 'Meaning' also is not something fixed once for all, but is an emerging, developing, and projective movement of the open dimension of existence, and acquires its full scope in lived-through experience. Since meaning is always meaning for someone, who yet never stands outside the configuration of lived experience, this circumstance points to the human being (or existent) who, in the search for ‘meaningful existence’ – for the meaning of (his) existence – cannot but start from the 'experience' of existence as the being he himself is. Such a starting point precludes any attempt to resort to such notions as 'substance' (which means different things to different persons, be they philosophers or lesser mortals), or 'particular existent,' which is always meant to be a particular ‘this’ in contrast with some other particular 'that,' and about which propositions are entertained as to the ‘what’ this particular existent is, be this 'what' then declared to be a substance or an essence.
The configuration 'existence-meaning-experience' is therefore not a category in the traditional sense. Its presentational and, at the same time, developing character directs attention to the 'how' rather than to the 'what,' and it is this 'how' that introduces the dynamic character into what otherwise might be conceived of as something static and lifeless. Moreover, this 'how' is presented in immediacy and is present as a kind of invitation to a response. The response is never mechanical, but always interpretive by virtue of lived-through experience. Presentational immediacy is already a situation open to interpretation. In its openness it is bound to the open texture of Being, and in its dynamic unfolding it is self-presenting, self-projective, and linked to interpretation which can take two different directions: the one, preserving cohesion, leads to 'meaningful existence'; the other, losing its anchorage, leads to 'fictitious being.' However, the important point to note is that 'existence-meaning-experience' is both configuration and process, and as such the constituents are throughout dialectically interpenetrating ontological features at work in every lived-through experience.
This configuration-process character of Being – an idea characteristic of Dzogchen thought and a distinct contribution to Buddhist philosophy – is in terms of facticity described as 'unchanging' and 'indestructible,' for which latter term the symbol of the diamond (vajra) is used. In terms of presentational presence it is described as a 'thrust towards and invitation by limpid clearness and consummate perspicacity'; and in terms of experience, as 'calmness,' which is meaning-orientedness and meaning-saturatedness in the experiencer’s concrete existence. Each of these three 'layers' acts as a 'founding stratum' and they all are related to each other by 'mutual foundedness.'
The first set of terms is used to make it clear that throughout experience an element of facticity is already in force which, negatively stated, implies that existence as existence can do nothing about its ‘existing’ and hence can neither be subject to change (qualitatively) nor destroyed (substantially). As facticity the open texture and open dimension of Being is in no way prejudged, contradicted, or restricted. 'Thrust towards and invitation by limpid clearness and consummate perspicacity’ points to the projective character which is inseparable from open texture in facticity, and in its presentational immediacy it preserves elements of this open dimension and facticity and solicits a response to its presence. 'Calmness' illustrates the response to the presentational immediacy of existence in experience which gives it its specific 'meaning,' that is 'calmness.' In the same way as the projective feature of existence retains its open-dimensional character, so also 'meaning' is not merely a passive resultant of the stimulus-response interaction. It, too, retains the projective texture by opening up ways towards understanding. It is therefore obvious that this configuration-process complex, first of all, is not an object alongside other objects (which in order to gain meaning would necessitate a subject). Objectification is made possible by virtue of the projective character of this configuration-process complex. Second, it follows that this configuration-process complex also is not a subject in the manner of transcendental ego, be this of the Kantian or Husserlian variety, the one synthesizing the operation of perception, imagination, and conception, the other functioning as the ultimate source of intentional consciousness. The constitution of a subject emerges late and in conjunction with the process of objectification. Moreover, the subject-object structure which belongs to and underlies all representational thinking, as one possible direction, but certainly not the only possible one, into which interpretation can move, simply does not apply here.
‘Buddha’ cannot and must not be equated with an ‘object’ or a ‘subject.’ Rather as this configuration-process complex, ‘Buddha’ points to experience which makes the emergence and constitution of a subject-object determined world-horizon possible. In this primary sense ‘Buddha’ is a term that sums up what we would call the ontology and ontogenesis of experience, which from the outset is configurative, open-dimensional, dynamical, meaning-oriented and meaning-saturated, and includes the experiencer in whom it is concretely present and who in this phrase is ‘Buddha.’ When in the interpretive analysis of experience the latter’s existentially significant, embodying and embodied character is singled out and referred to as ‘founding stratum of meaning’ (chos-sku) where founding stratum is understood as the absoluteness of Being concretely experienced, knowing as a process of disclosure (ye-shes, wisdom or knowledge of Truth) is already at work…”
Just as the heart of a lotus flower
Does not shine outward, since it is shut in by petals,
So also the capacity for Buddhahood, shining in its own light, cannot be seen
Since it is concealed by the thousand petals of subject-object constructs.
But just as the flower is there in its brightness once the petals open,
So also when we are free from the foliage of mistaken identifications that
Come due to the subject-object division,
The triple structure of our existentiality in limpid clearness and consummate
perspicacity shines by itself.
Therefore be sensitive to the presence in yourself
Of the continuum that is the internal logic of Being, the ultimately real, a
Sheer lucency…
In the above lengthy quotation [of which I have only posted two verses, to spare your eyes and your mind!], which epitomizes the multifaceted nature of experience, two themes stand out. One is that of indivisibility (dbyer-med, nonduality), the other that of configuration (dkyil-‘khor, mandala or world-horizon). Both, however are intimately related.
As we have seen in a previous chapter, indivisibility, also referred to as nonduality, names the functional operation of complementarity. It does not indicate the obliteration of differentiations, nor does it imply a fusion of disparate entities. Rather, it emphasizes the presence of a continuum from which, negatively speaking, dichotomies such as exterior and interior, subject and object, are suspended. More positively stated, these dichotomies are seen and felt to interpenetrate 'like the reflection of the moon in water.'
The indivisibility of Being and Existenz can be illustrated by analogies taken from the realm of science, which speaks of the indivisibility of energy and its radiation and of the vacuum and its fluctuations. But in Dzogchen thought there is the additional factor of intelligence which inheres in the very dynamics of the unfolding universe itself, and which makes primordiality of experience of paramount importance. The atemporal onset of this unfoldment occasions the emergence of various intentional structures, thereby allowing felt meanings to occur. Since this onset is structurally 'prior' to any functional splitting, one speaks of the indivisibility of openness (emptiness) and its presencing (form), which involves the gauging of what will become the 'world' (as the specific horizon-form of lived-through experience)…"
If you survived the above read (only a German could do that to the English language), I'll tie it in closer to this discussion with a few questions:
Do you believe existence has an origin? How about sentience or intelligence? Does it have an origin? Must these things neccessarily have an origin? Is there a relationship between them? Does God exist? Is He sentient or intelligent? Does He have an origin?
Peace,
Balder
P.S. Concerning the modus ponens, the fact that it works, that we take it to be "intuitive," is an argument for the truth of the Buddhist doctrines of pratitya-samutpada (dependent co-origination or interdependence), as well as karma.
So, when you speak of laws, what exactly are you thinking of? Are you talking about lawfulness and order in general, or about specific laws that are observable in the universe? Do you think gravity, entropy, and the speed of light are all specifically derive from similar laws that exist in the nature of God?
As I said in earlier posts, two Buddhist tenets -- the primordiality of experience or "mind" and the radical interdependence and co-determination of phenomena -- are quite capable of accounting for the order of cosmos. The primordiality of "mind" is not something many physicists readily accept, though some (like David Bohm) speak about the primordiality of meaning (soma-significance and signa-somatics), but the idea that the universe is holistically interrelated, somehow seamless or "entangled," in which the whole is implicate in every part, is more strongly supported by current evidence and is not viewed as far-fetched by many quantum physicists, as I'm sure you're aware. So, although Buddhism does not depend on nor look to science for support, its teachings on interdependence definitely find their reflections in many modern theories. The verity of these teachings may also be found in phenomenological exploration of direct experience in meditation, and they are quite philosophically sound as well (that's another discussion).
Since you just love translator Herbert Guenther's way with words, especially when he's trying to explicate a Dzogchen text and whippin' out the hyphens, I will quote some passages from him that are relevant:
"The quest for life’s meaning reaches its completion in the realization and enactment of meaningful existence, which implies, as inseparable from it, a sensitivity to and discovery of meanings in lived-through experience. However, behind this short and manageable term 'meaningful existence' lies a complex structure which can be circumscribed by the rather clumsy and yet more precise phrase of 'experience-as-a-thrust-towards-meaning-oriented-concreteness-in-lived-through-experience.' The hyphens serve to indicate the close bond that holds in an interlacing manner between 'existence' and 'meaning' and 'experience,' and also makes it possible to grasp these configurative constituents more specifically without sacrificing the contextual frame.
'Existence,' as used here, is neither a designation of that-ness nor a designation of finite existents in general. Rather it points to the open texture and dimension which in its very openness is already pregnant with possible meaning. 'Meaning' also is not something fixed once for all, but is an emerging, developing, and projective movement of the open dimension of existence, and acquires its full scope in lived-through experience. Since meaning is always meaning for someone, who yet never stands outside the configuration of lived experience, this circumstance points to the human being (or existent) who, in the search for ‘meaningful existence’ – for the meaning of (his) existence – cannot but start from the 'experience' of existence as the being he himself is. Such a starting point precludes any attempt to resort to such notions as 'substance' (which means different things to different persons, be they philosophers or lesser mortals), or 'particular existent,' which is always meant to be a particular ‘this’ in contrast with some other particular 'that,' and about which propositions are entertained as to the ‘what’ this particular existent is, be this 'what' then declared to be a substance or an essence.
The configuration 'existence-meaning-experience' is therefore not a category in the traditional sense. Its presentational and, at the same time, developing character directs attention to the 'how' rather than to the 'what,' and it is this 'how' that introduces the dynamic character into what otherwise might be conceived of as something static and lifeless. Moreover, this 'how' is presented in immediacy and is present as a kind of invitation to a response. The response is never mechanical, but always interpretive by virtue of lived-through experience. Presentational immediacy is already a situation open to interpretation. In its openness it is bound to the open texture of Being, and in its dynamic unfolding it is self-presenting, self-projective, and linked to interpretation which can take two different directions: the one, preserving cohesion, leads to 'meaningful existence'; the other, losing its anchorage, leads to 'fictitious being.' However, the important point to note is that 'existence-meaning-experience' is both configuration and process, and as such the constituents are throughout dialectically interpenetrating ontological features at work in every lived-through experience.
This configuration-process character of Being – an idea characteristic of Dzogchen thought and a distinct contribution to Buddhist philosophy – is in terms of facticity described as 'unchanging' and 'indestructible,' for which latter term the symbol of the diamond (vajra) is used. In terms of presentational presence it is described as a 'thrust towards and invitation by limpid clearness and consummate perspicacity'; and in terms of experience, as 'calmness,' which is meaning-orientedness and meaning-saturatedness in the experiencer’s concrete existence. Each of these three 'layers' acts as a 'founding stratum' and they all are related to each other by 'mutual foundedness.'
The first set of terms is used to make it clear that throughout experience an element of facticity is already in force which, negatively stated, implies that existence as existence can do nothing about its ‘existing’ and hence can neither be subject to change (qualitatively) nor destroyed (substantially). As facticity the open texture and open dimension of Being is in no way prejudged, contradicted, or restricted. 'Thrust towards and invitation by limpid clearness and consummate perspicacity’ points to the projective character which is inseparable from open texture in facticity, and in its presentational immediacy it preserves elements of this open dimension and facticity and solicits a response to its presence. 'Calmness' illustrates the response to the presentational immediacy of existence in experience which gives it its specific 'meaning,' that is 'calmness.' In the same way as the projective feature of existence retains its open-dimensional character, so also 'meaning' is not merely a passive resultant of the stimulus-response interaction. It, too, retains the projective texture by opening up ways towards understanding. It is therefore obvious that this configuration-process complex, first of all, is not an object alongside other objects (which in order to gain meaning would necessitate a subject). Objectification is made possible by virtue of the projective character of this configuration-process complex. Second, it follows that this configuration-process complex also is not a subject in the manner of transcendental ego, be this of the Kantian or Husserlian variety, the one synthesizing the operation of perception, imagination, and conception, the other functioning as the ultimate source of intentional consciousness. The constitution of a subject emerges late and in conjunction with the process of objectification. Moreover, the subject-object structure which belongs to and underlies all representational thinking, as one possible direction, but certainly not the only possible one, into which interpretation can move, simply does not apply here.
‘Buddha’ cannot and must not be equated with an ‘object’ or a ‘subject.’ Rather as this configuration-process complex, ‘Buddha’ points to experience which makes the emergence and constitution of a subject-object determined world-horizon possible. In this primary sense ‘Buddha’ is a term that sums up what we would call the ontology and ontogenesis of experience, which from the outset is configurative, open-dimensional, dynamical, meaning-oriented and meaning-saturated, and includes the experiencer in whom it is concretely present and who in this phrase is ‘Buddha.’ When in the interpretive analysis of experience the latter’s existentially significant, embodying and embodied character is singled out and referred to as ‘founding stratum of meaning’ (chos-sku) where founding stratum is understood as the absoluteness of Being concretely experienced, knowing as a process of disclosure (ye-shes, wisdom or knowledge of Truth) is already at work…”
Just as the heart of a lotus flower
Does not shine outward, since it is shut in by petals,
So also the capacity for Buddhahood, shining in its own light, cannot be seen
Since it is concealed by the thousand petals of subject-object constructs.
But just as the flower is there in its brightness once the petals open,
So also when we are free from the foliage of mistaken identifications that
Come due to the subject-object division,
The triple structure of our existentiality in limpid clearness and consummate
perspicacity shines by itself.
Therefore be sensitive to the presence in yourself
Of the continuum that is the internal logic of Being, the ultimately real, a
Sheer lucency…
In the above lengthy quotation [of which I have only posted two verses, to spare your eyes and your mind!], which epitomizes the multifaceted nature of experience, two themes stand out. One is that of indivisibility (dbyer-med, nonduality), the other that of configuration (dkyil-‘khor, mandala or world-horizon). Both, however are intimately related.
As we have seen in a previous chapter, indivisibility, also referred to as nonduality, names the functional operation of complementarity. It does not indicate the obliteration of differentiations, nor does it imply a fusion of disparate entities. Rather, it emphasizes the presence of a continuum from which, negatively speaking, dichotomies such as exterior and interior, subject and object, are suspended. More positively stated, these dichotomies are seen and felt to interpenetrate 'like the reflection of the moon in water.'
The indivisibility of Being and Existenz can be illustrated by analogies taken from the realm of science, which speaks of the indivisibility of energy and its radiation and of the vacuum and its fluctuations. But in Dzogchen thought there is the additional factor of intelligence which inheres in the very dynamics of the unfolding universe itself, and which makes primordiality of experience of paramount importance. The atemporal onset of this unfoldment occasions the emergence of various intentional structures, thereby allowing felt meanings to occur. Since this onset is structurally 'prior' to any functional splitting, one speaks of the indivisibility of openness (emptiness) and its presencing (form), which involves the gauging of what will become the 'world' (as the specific horizon-form of lived-through experience)…"
If you survived the above read (only a German could do that to the English language), I'll tie it in closer to this discussion with a few questions:
Do you believe existence has an origin? How about sentience or intelligence? Does it have an origin? Must these things neccessarily have an origin? Is there a relationship between them? Does God exist? Is He sentient or intelligent? Does He have an origin?
Peace,
Balder
P.S. Concerning the modus ponens, the fact that it works, that we take it to be "intuitive," is an argument for the truth of the Buddhist doctrines of pratitya-samutpada (dependent co-origination or interdependence), as well as karma.
Last edited:
