Jhanon's Philosophical Writings

[Jhanon]

It causes me pain to read both of your logically sound responses. Moving on. Here is a relatively unrefined spewing forth from the depths I found joy in putting to paper while reading this week's assigned chapters in philosophy. I've actually found the content very enjoyable to read. I think it is still very much appealing for me to find intellectual means of inclining the minds of others toward considering logical inferences formed from experiences seemingly foreign to most modern philosophers. In other words, meditative absorption.

This bit I wrote doesn't seem sound, but it was strongly mused, and so here it is.

In ordinary daily life, we seem free. And yet true freedom cannot exist within the domination of cause and effect. While there is cause, there is no freedom--only effect. So the issue becomes, why does it appear we are free, and how do we free ourselves of causation?

Well, "we" don't actually free ourselves from causation, and yet in some ways "we" do. Causation, to be put narrowly, eventually does that. But, it could be said that we free ourselves from the causes of the illusion of freedom, and finally, the illusion itself, which is also a cause. That's confusing, try this story which is closely related to many spiritual texts about the "beginning."

Imagine you are everything and everyone, yet nothing and no one. Suddenly, an anomaly is both created and witnessed simultaneously. Nothing, including knowledge, can exist without something for it to be relative to, and thus knowledge is born into existence.

"You" were already free, although you didn't know it. In the moment knowledge was born into existence, the knowledge you acquired was that you are free. It was a "self"-defining moment. But without much yet in existence to compare "freedom" to, its significance was lost.

That one event/experience starts a chain of effect and cause that rapidly expands and multiplies, self-defining itself as it is simultaneously experienced as life.

You clung to your knowledge of freedom tightly, it being your first action and knowledge. Ages and ages pass that result as effects of it, and you're still clinging to the "knowing" that you have freedom.

So deeply seated was knowledge of your freedom, and so rapidly and complex had that chain of cause and effect multiplied and expanded into life, that you forgot the details of the original moment of acquiring that knowledge. You just had a sense of freedom.

As time went on, and you collected subsequent effect/knowledge, you began to deduce that, due to the slavery of cause and effect--which began when your first and last freedom simultaneously occurred and created causation/life--it seemed that, logically, you aren't free. Yet you had knowledge or a sense of freedom, which made unobserved daily life seem like you were free.

Then, one day, you stop clinging to your knowledge of freedom, and look inside. Amazed, you find nothing--emptiness. Empty of cause and yet full of freedom.

In other words, we don't personally have freedom, but the first action/cause of all existence was inherently "free" because no cause preceded it. Thus we are drawn to the idea of freedom or free will, because it is close to the source of all existence--or what some people might call "God."

Obviously, there are many details and explanations missing. And I honestly don't know if, even within the restrictive bounds of human language, this could be considered accurate. My inclination is to say "no, it isn't accurate." Oh well I was hit by a wave of mental energy to contemplate the philosophical perspective of free will and put my bare thoughts to paper. It was pleasant. I enjoy creating mental worlds on the fringe of my modest yet eager linguistic abilities.

[Jhanananda]

I find it an interesting challenge to present a cogent and logically true argument for the practice of meditation without resorting to ancient non-western premises.  There certainly is a rich contemplative tradition in western literature, which you could resort to, such as Francis of Assissi, Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross; however, their premises are deeply steeped in Catholic Christian devotional metaphors and premises, which you may not want to resort to.  So, I am enjoying reading through your journey here to see if you are successful.

[Jhanon]

I find it an interesting challenge to present a cogent and logically true argument for the practice of meditation without resorting to ancient non-western premises.  There certainly is a rich contemplative tradition in western literature, which you could resort to, such as Francis of Assissi, Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross; however, their premises are deeply steeped in Catholic Christian devotional metaphors and premises, which you may not want to resort to.  So, I am enjoying reading through your journey here to see if you are successful.

Yes, Jhananda, unfortunately your observations are corroborative of mine. I've mentioned the western mystics before, but I'm unsure its impact. Now I'm turning toward simpler means, and adding absorption near the end of discourse. My thought on this is similar to that of life. We think we're going one way in life, which is familiar and expected, but we end up somewhere else that--through the effects of the journey, we settle on and make peace with. "Whatever you think it is, it will always be different."

Here is what I ultimately published for school discussion. There were various questions aimed at stimulating contemplation of our decision to enroll at the school, with the intended effect leading us to show our critical thinking in regards to volition. I actually think this is pretty convincing.

[Jhanon]

Title: "Free Will Theater" - 3 feature films and a bonus short film!

The Deceptive Coil
If an oven coil doesn't visually appear hot, it doesn't mean it isn't hot to the touch. What matters is observing the causes and effects which have acted on the coil. You place your hand near the coil, and feel warmth radiating off of it. You check the oven settings, and see it is turned on low. Eventually, it becomes clear that it is hot.  Our initial perception was that it was cool, because it wasn't red. Yet, checking the rest of the causes with our other senses and critical thinking revealed it to be otherwise.
 
Premise 1: Our faculty of perception is unreliable and bias.
 
The Last Stronghold
In the same way, we have one primary cause to rely on for believing we have free will; and that would be our perception, which we already know is inherently flawed--otherwise how could we accidentally touch a hot coil, or disagree on the most basic of experiences? We can either choose to rely on that flawed cause, or we can observe an ever-extending causal web leading up to, not only all of our thoughts, intentions, actions, and contemplation, but even perceiving our body and mind as "me."

Premise 2: Perception is the only faculty on which we can rely for evidence of selfhood and free will.
 
A Lifetime at the Theater
It is not uncommon for someone to cry at the movies. Why do they cry? For a moment, they mistake themselves for a character they identify with in the movie. Surely if movies with only sound and visuals can occasionally fool perception into thinking we are the featured characters, then experiencing continuing awareness of the many senses which make up a "life character" known as "Jhanon" would trick us, too—at least for quite a while.
 
Premise 3: We know films can trick our perception into believing we are a character in a movie.

Conclusion: In ordinary life we are merely a choiceless witness to life from the perspective of a human.
 

Supplemental: Critical Thinking Corroborated with Personal Experience

I think most will agree that it is significant when critical thinking and science are repeatedly reflected in personal experience. In meditative absorption, the first 4 levels are marked by a progressive falling away of all physical senses, and increasing awareness of finer ones. The first experiences of this I've found to be frightening, as we all have deep-seated beliefs that we are this physical body and its senses. It's like suddenly having the lights turned out in a room; many people panic because they've lost touch with one of the anchors to their perception of self. More importantly, while I only have had a handful experience with the latter stages of meditative absorption, I've found them to entail the falling away of the mind's various faculties. This includes volition (will.)

Supplemental Evidence: It's possible to have experience without volition.

Note: When I first heard the previous theories expressed in what I thought were merely philosophical writings, it didn't even make conceptual sense to me. Despite every sentence going right over my head, I couldn't stop reading it.

[Jhanon]

Writing that much information at once is tricky. Just forgetting to say "free" before "will" can lead to "holes" in the conclusion.

[Jhanananda]

This is certainly becoming a convincing argument; and inspiring people to think critically will help them, as well as questioning their cognitive processes.

There are now 2 alcoholics who live here.  One is well-educated with a masters in art history.  The other is a hillbilly.  They both fritter every day away in drinking and drugging.  To me this is a foolish life.  Just inspiring people to make wise choice, instead of foolish ones, will help many.

[Jhanon]

I agree, Jhananda. I was an alcoholic completely absorbed in unconscious ego-maniac behavior when I began to study philosophy and learn to embrace critical thinking. Which, ultimately led me here.

I want to post the draft/outline for my final paper. I had a terrible headache when I wrote it, but I think I've got the basic gist of it down. I would very much appreciate any GWV help I could get in being more accurate with resources/quotes and identifying any holes in logic:

[Jhanon]

The Problem of Perception

The problem I have chosen is the issue of perception and how it imposes restriction on our ability to ascertain universal facts or truths. Or in other words, to see things as they really are. Although how perception arises is a complex issue, we may simplify it for the requested brevity in the 5-2 Final Project Milestone guidelines. Perception arises from the interpretation our state of consciousness forms of our present experience. The issue this presents is an inability to thoroughly ascertain an experience due to the effect of each individual’s unique past conditioning. Our past conditioning, which is the causes and effects which shape us, are continually reforming our state of consciousness, and thus our perceptions. The majority of individuals with similarly conditioned perceptions then establish “facts.”

My position on the chosen topic is to provide evidence and reasoning which clearly elucidates the unreliability of perception, and how it poisons humanity and human experience so thoroughly as to reasonably suggest it to be the highest priority for humanity to pursue resolution of. Consider a legally blind man completely unaware he may need corrective lenses, nor that his vision isn’t commonly considered healthy. Instead he spends his time forming theories of what the world looks like based on his limited ability to see. So, too, humanity ignores the problem of perception before trying to see the world clearly.

An objection to my position is that I am relying on perception to form my argument. Thus, it could be said that I am a victim of my own argument, or “the blind leading the blind”, and my argument could then be considered self-destructed.

The objection that my argument, the problem of perception, is itself a perception, and thus self-destructs, is not as critical as it may seem. In the process of an individual objecting in this way, they inadvertently re-affirm the argument by utilizing their own perception to object.

Subsequently, one might then form an objection and state it is based on “fact.” A fact, at one point, was a perception, experimented and applied with critical thinking, followed by a perception of the results. As often as I’ve used this example, it is like the one-time held fact that the world is flat. Individuals walked the earth, and it seemed flat, save some mountains and canyons. They walked as far as they could, and it continued to seem flat. Critical thinking of these results was then perceived as fact.

So, it is still an attempt to object through perception, even if a fact is utilized. If one were to experience without perception, an objection based on that raw experience would be a reasonable objection. Yet, an objection devoid of perception would again prove the problem of perception, as perception was removed from the process of forming an objection. Siddhartha Gautama re-affirms this by explaining conditioned experience (perception) to be a hindrance in seeing the world as it actually is. What he taught was a gradual and comprehensive process of unlearning and eventually eliminating the conditions and conditioning which cause the ignorance which skews our perception.
 

 

 

The Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama, estimated to have lived within 600bc-400bc) He taught that the causes and effects of our past experiences incur ignorance and inability to see things as they really are.

A.D. Smith 1723-1790, as “any perceptual situation in which a physical object is actually perceived, but in which that object perceptually appears other than it really is” (Smith 2002: 23). For example, a white wall in yellow light can look yellow; a sweet drink can taste sour if one has just eaten something sweeter; a quiet sound can seem loud if it is very close to you; and so on. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-problem/)
 
Resource 3: Having difficulty finding an adequate one.

[Jhanon]

(This is a less-precise and narrowed version)

The Problem of Perception

The problem I have chosen is the issue of perception and how it imposes restriction on our ability to ascertain universal facts or truths. Or in other words, to see things as they really are.

Although how perception arises is a complex issue, we may simplify it for the requested brevity of this assignment. Perception arises from our unconscious mind. Let's say we have many bad and painful experiences with religion and spirituality when we are young; these experiences are deposited in our unconscious memory for the rest of our life. Perception utilizes our unconscious, which includes those bad experiences, like a pair of bad prescription glasses which just makes everything blurry.

The issue this presents is an inability to see clearly due to the effect of each individual’s uniquely conditioned unconscious mind. This conditioning comes from our experiences, like of religion when we were young. It's the prescription to our glasses.

From our conditioned unconscious mind (the prescription) comes perception (the glasses.)So in our simplified example, we see someone religious, and our perception is to feel aversion to them. Our glasses make us see them negatively.

The majority of individuals with similarly conditioned perceptions, which we have called "prescription glasses," then establish “facts.” It's like if 8 people had similar negative memories of religion conditioning their perception, then they will conclude it to be fact that all religion is bad or evil.

My position on this is to provide evidence and reasoning which clearly shows the unreliability of perception. How it poisons humanity and human experience so thoroughly as to reasonably suggest it to be the highest priority for humanity to resolve.

Earlier we talked about how perception is like a pair of prescription glasses we see life through. And since we are continually experiencing new things, our prescription is continually changing our glasses. As you can see, one person with one kind of glasses (perception) can experience the same thing as someone else with a different prescription on their glasses, and they can't agree on it.

Instead of making it our priority to resolve this relative blindness, we spend our time forming theories of what the world looks like based on this limited ability to see. And then when the majority of similar prescription glasses agrees on something, it becomes a "fact".

We waste our time trying to "figure things out," when we can only figure out what our perception, our prescription glasses, will allow. We need to get rid of the glasses, and the need for them, if we want to see how things truly are.

An objection to my position is that I am relying on perception (my own prescription glasses) to form my argument. Thus, it could be said that I am a victim of my own argument. My argument could then be considered self-destructed.

This objection is not as critical as it may seem. In the process of an individual objecting in this way, they inadvertently re-affirm the argument by utilizing their own perception (prescription glasses) to form their objection. In other words, looking through their own prescription glasses, they are saying mine are faulty. It still shows the problem of perception, by creating a disagreement based on perceptions.

One might then form an objection and state it is based on “fact", rather than on the view they form through their own prescription glasses. Except a "fact," as we've discussed, IS a perception that is simply shared by many with the same prescription.

As often as I’ve used this example, it is like the one-time held fact that the world is flat. Individuals walked the earth, and it seemed flat, save some mountains and canyons. They walked as far as they could, and it continued to seem flat. Almost everyone on the planet had unconscious memories of the planet being flat. So it became "fact" since their perceptions coincided with the majority. So, basing an objection to my argument on "fact" is still an attempt to object through perception. The only difference is it is a commonly held perception, but as we saw in the "earth is flat" example; that doesn't mean it is an accurate fact.

However, if a person discovered how to see without the glasses, how to experience without perception, by completely bypassing it, and then made an objection based on their raw experience; this would clearly be a reasonable objection. In our "glasses" metaphor, most everyone on the planet is wearing their own prescription glasses that uniquely skew their view. But what if one healed their eyes completely, and got rid of the prescription glasses?

This is where it get's really fun. If someone were to make an objection devoid of perception like that, they would again prove the problem of perception as true. They had to remove perception from the process of forming their objection!

Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha) re-affirms this by explaining conditioned experience (perception) to be a hindrance in seeing the world as it actually is. What he taught was a gradual and comprehensive process of unlearning and eventually eliminating the conditions and conditioning which cause the ignorance which skews our perception.

[Jhanananda]

Your thesis here is reminding me of the thread that is evolving around Natalie Sudman's NDE.  Her goal of describing the experience in common language reminds me of the thesis behind Eckhart Tolle's books.  There are a number of problems, as I see it, with dumping religious language for common language.

Using common language as a means of describing the religious experience, which is universal, as Natalie Sudman suggested, but using common language suggests that the universal religious experience is not universal, but unique to one person, then we start a whole new religion, without ever showing that the religious experience is universal.

[Jhanon]

You make an excellent point, Jhananda. As always, very illuminating. I hasn't considered that, but it is very clearly true.

Well, we can't use religious terms because the conditioning of most of those who are most ready for a spirituality based on critical thinking, are averse to those religious terms. I've even watched happen with people I've taught. The second I start dropping commonly associated religious terms, they go silent.

I your perception, did the Buddha use only common terms, existing religious terms, or a mixture of both? When considering how to make the greatest impact closest to the Buddha's, I think it's reasonable to look at what he did in regards to language. You hav a deeper knowledge of Pali and Indic terms than I.

I've never heard of this NDE individual.

[Jhanon]

To my mind, it would probably be best to use common language, and instantly define it as synonymous with other religions. Like Nimitta/charism/non-physical sensation. Or like non-physical/subtle/immaterial/energy-body.

[Jhanon]

I think, believe it or not, school has helped me learn to write much better. I still want to write an all-inclusive, greatest depth, unifying book. A tiny bit like Eckhart; but obviously with greater depth. The one book necessary, so-to-speak. I think the problem with Eckhart's book is that he never really explain how to access the religious experience. He covertly slipped in a little bit of it overtly. Most of his books are about unification or religion, history, and self-growth.

In other words, we need something that covers it all. Something with the aim of encourages jhana, awareness of it's universality, and in relation to past teachers of renown.

I'm afraid if I start now, which I really want to, I won't be able to stop until it's done. And that could take a year or two of writing mostly non-stop.

[Jhanon]

I think I should wait until my writing style becomes more accessible. I'm learning I can't just blow through information and reasoning. I have explain every two sentences with metaphor or analogy. Otherwise most people don't get it; or want to get it.

[Jhanananda]

You make an excellent point, Jhananda. As always, very illuminating. I hasn't considered that, but it is very clearly true.

Well, we can't use religious terms because the conditioning of most of those who are most ready for a spirituality based on critical thinking, are averse to those religious terms. I've even watched happen with people I've taught. The second I start dropping commonly associated religious terms, they go silent.

Yes, I understand the difficulties of presenting the dhamma/tao to the western mind who has shrugged off mainstream religion as nothing more than marketing hype.  Perhaps you could start there.

I your perception, did the Buddha use only common terms, existing religious terms, or a mixture of both? When considering how to make the greatest impact closest to the Buddha's, I think it's reasonable to look at what he did in regards to language. You hav a deeper knowledge of Pali and Indic terms than I.

From a close examination of the Pali Canon it is clear that Siddhartha Gautama used both common language and accepted liturgical language to express himself.  It is my opinion that part of his work was to serve as a bridge to Pali from Sanskrit.

I've never heard of this NDE individual.

You will hear more about NDE.  Just know that it authentic NDE is the same as authentic OOBE.

To my mind, it would probably be best to use common language, and instantly define it as synonymous with other religions. Like Nimitta/charism/non-physical sensation. Or like non-physical/subtle/immaterial/energy-body.

I agree; however, doing so makes you a participant in the Jhananda school

I think, believe it or not, school has helped me learn to write much better. I still want to write an all-inclusive, greatest depth, unifying book. A tiny bit like Eckhart; but obviously with greater depth. The one book necessary, so-to-speak. I think the problem with Eckhart's book is that he never really explain how to access the religious experience. He covertly slipped in a little bit of it overtly. Most of his books are about unification or religion, history, and self-growth.

In other words, we need something that covers it all. Something with the aim of encourages jhana, awareness of it's universality, and in relation to past teachers of renown.

I'm afraid if I start now, which I really want to, I won't be able to stop until it's done. And that could take a year or two of writing mostly non-stop.

Well, I am all for others working on an all-inclusive, greatest depth, unifying book; however, to do so, then you would have to be way beyond Eckhart Tolle, as he is just introductory.