[FutureBuddha (Hunches XI)] Analogies to Shoot Down

[Jundo]

without knowing the total size of the universe (and I mean beyond the big Bang) or whether time is infinite... I can't claim with any certainty the probability of anything because it's directly in relationship to its improbability across the vastness of time and space, the chances of things lining up exactly as they did for me to be alive seem incredibly small. But without knowing the full size of the universe or whether time is infinite, I can’t say for sure how likely or unlikely anything really is. So yeah, improbable things happen, but we don’t know enough to say how often or why.

That is not quite so. According to our present experience and self conception of who we are as self-aware individuals, you are not some "Matt" (even if identical) who may have appeared somewhere across the cosmos or in some "other universe" of the multiverse. You are "this Matt" who appears to have appeared in this place as a result of nearly impossible odds. The other Matts across the cosmos would do nothing to explain your good fortune here (to believe so is the "reverse gambler fallacy.") The Matts in some "multiverse" might do so under some circumstances, but then we are left with many questions such as (1) why are you experiencing "this Matt" in this space and timeline, and not one of the alternatives, (2) why does the universe have any "Matt" at all, because it seems like it could have gotten along just fine without even one, no offense, (3) even if "everything that happens must happen" why is the "everything that happens" your experiencing you now, rather than the event happening somewhere or some time elsewhere?

In any case, any such question would involve a radical reappraisal of what it means to be us (what it means for Matt to be Matt).

To return to the King's Bed ...

You are finding yourself in the King's Bed, here and now. If there are other Matts in other King's Beds in far off places, it would not make this Matt's being so more or less unlikely. If there are multiple universes of Matt, some in a King's Bed and some not, then how does that go to explain your experience of this Matt in this King's Bed? If the universe is infinite and everything happens, why still is this Matt in this King's Bed now, and what aspect of reality would explain that even if it is the case.

So, for this Matt in this King's Bed now, we still need to explain the strange happening against almost impossible odds. The "loaded dice" explanation still seems a better explanation.

Gassho, J
stlah

[Hosai]

So I have been avoiding pushing your arguments using traditional Buddhist conclusions on account that the book that you were writing is not for other Zen Masters.

I have kind of assumed in the background that your surprise ending will be something akin to showing people how we don't understand the self very well.

Showing them this may allow them to come to grips with the fact that they don't really know or appreciate who they are or how they got here.

It will also show them that many of their notions about who they are are related to their narrow concept of time and the self

But I ask myself why are you doing it in this weird way?I suppose because these days you have to walk a line between being overly materialistic and mechanistic and being idealistic and non-dual. you'd want to show people that the story that they do currently believe in (that they find dissatisfactory and depressing if they were really honest with themselves), they don't fully understand. That likely the only reason they believe it is that's what they were taught in school (and upheld by the society/culture around them).

This is what I kind of mean about deception. I know what you and many other Zen teachers continue to say and yet you don't come out and say it. (I assume this is because clearly that didn't work and Buddhism has failed to this point and so you keep trying different ways of making the same point).

My personal take (as I don't want to put words in your mouth) is not one which seeks to blend the two and find balance as from my perspective we have already come through extreme imbalance because of the overly materialist tone of our current world. Therefore, in general things need to be rebalanced a bit towards the mind-only idealistic side.

This is done in a number of ways in Zen where we break people of the habit of logic and intellect... The traditional ways a zen master does this is by introducing meditation and the direct experience of what it is to be a self of what it is to be a subject and instead of being constantly outwardly focused to become more inwardly focused. It's also accomplished by setting up koans and other paradoxes to show the limitations of logical reasoning. we also contemplate impermanence, getting people to consider strange subjective phenomena like dreams, by having them realise emptiness... having them experience inconsistencies in their sense of self, in the boundaries of their self in the solitariness of their self....

The real mystery isn't why the self finds itself in the King's bed—the self can manifest in any form or place without it being surprising. The real question is how it shifts from one experience to another while maintaining the illusion of continuity. The interesting part is not simply waking up somewhere, but how the self re-identifies with each new form, while recalling past experiences. Like in a dream, the self moves fluidly, and the real puzzle is how it creates the illusion of a continuous, fixed self.

But for some reason I feel like I'm cheating by saying that.... The spirit of the book you are writing is like you're trying a new way of saying the same thing. I feel like you're trying an original method that will work better with the extreme materialist perspective we find dominant right now.

If that's the case I kind of agree. The first step is to show people how improbable it is to be conscious at all. and then how improbable it is to be conscious of an individual life and personality among all other lives and personalities (to say nothing of the insentient)....

I'm not used to this way of trying to say it by not saying it.... but I suppose that's because if you just say it, people can just not believe it. But if they reason their way towards it and come to their own conclusion, there's a chance they might free themselves of their fixed perspective.....

_/\_
sat/ah
matt

[Jundo]

Hi Matt.

Recall that we are always dealing with "Two Truths" (Not Two) in Zen Buddhism, so as the "absolute" there is "no self," yet in the "relative" there is the Truth of this ordinary world and the system of "Karma." The system of Karma (that we all have a personal stream of specific cause-effect from the past) is close to what I am writing about. In Soto Zen, we tend to say that both views are True from different perspectives. So long as we are alive in this world, there is a personal "self" (although rather provisional) and Karma.

So, I disagree with this ...

The real mystery isn't why the self finds itself in the King's bed—the self can manifest in any form or place without it being surprising. The real question is how it shifts from one experience to another while maintaining the illusion of continuity.

No, why you find yourself alive in this life (this Matt) is a mystery, given all that it took for that to be true, not one "misstep" in your personal chain of Cause-Effect.

How it moves from one experience to another is a matter of the brain's construction of the illusion of a "separate self" that has time continuity. However, though something of an illusion, we also hold sacred that this "illusion" is also really "this Matt." As Dogen taught, "Matt" is something of a dream, but a real dream ... and I am curious as to why all cause-effect perfectly lined up to allow this specific dream.

Gassho, J
stlah

[Hosai]

You are "this Matt" who appears to have appeared in this place as a result of nearly impossible odds.

Actually no, I am a collection of sensations, perceptions, and consciousness who most of the time in daily life does not reflect on who I am. Although the most powerful reminder tends to be my body.

I do not run through my life saying I am Matt. I am Matt. I am Matt....

And in the case of the king's bed, I do not say I am "Matt" in the king's bed. I go, "oh another night in the king's bed". At which point I might sleep. I may wake up, I may not. There's a good amount of continuity in terms of my experience and my relationship to time. And yet, just as there is no time without space, there is no space-time without me. Thus it is for everyone else. Which is another way of saying that outside of space and time we are all the same. Space and time is the illusion that keeps us separate.

Your arguments seem designed to elicit my understanding of what a self is. I've been trying to avoid it to humour you but I have a feeling we're going to keep coming back to this.

_/\_
sat/ah
matt

[Hosai]

Hi Matt.

Recall that we are always dealing with "Two Truths" (Not Two) in Zen Buddhism, so as the "absolute" there is "no self," yet in the "relative" there is the Truth of this ordinary world and the system of "Karma." The system of Karma (that we all have a personal stream of specific cause-effect from the past) is close to what I am writing about. In Soto Zen, we tend to say that both views are True from different perspectives. So long as we are alive in this world, there is a personal "self" (although rather provisional) and Karma.

I would say it depends on how much you identify with your life. As I have already said, the most powerful connection I have to this life is my body. It reminds me of who I am at this moment. There is also an unseen storehouse of memories which condition many of my unconscious reactions. But the degree to which one identifies with this varies person to person.

No, why you find yourself alive in this life (this Matt) is a mystery, given all that it took for that to be true, not one "misstep" in your personal chain of Cause-Effect.

No, why I find myself alive in any life is a mystery regardless of what it took to be true. It is the case and is self-evident requiring no further explanation (though no problem being curious).

How it moves from one experience to another is a matter of the brain's construction of the illusion of a "separate self" that has time continuity. However, though something of an illusion, we also hold sacred that this "illusion" is also really "this Matt." As Dogen taught, "Matt" is something of a dream, but a real dream ... and I am curious as to why all cause-effect perfectly lined up to allow this specific dream.

Yes, and that's what scientists do... spend all their time being curious about why all cause and effect lined up perfectly to allow this specific dream.

However, they tend to be focused on the physical aspects and less interested in the phenomena of subjectivity/consciousness though that is changing...

I am much more curious as to why all the cause and effect lined up to produce this particular type of subjectivity at this moment when it appears it could have been experiencing itself as any other person (maybe it wasn't even a human) at any other time. Moreover, I openly wonder whether it is possible to experience multiple subjective viewpoints at once (or perhaps in quick succession such that we can remember).

but I believe this discussion pulls us away from your book focus. Perhaps this is just my pet project.

_/\_
sat/ah
matt

[Jundo]

Yes, thank you, Matt. I feel like you are overthinking this now.

But thank you, your comments were helpful.

Gassho, Jundo
stlah

[Kaitan]

Your example of in the Buckingham palace reminds a bit the tv show 'Severance', where the premise of the show is having a memory gap that splits their lives so radically that two different people 'come' to be, though it is the same person that doesn't remember how they got there.

I also wonder if you discuss the idea of the ancestors ending in the same situation and ask themselves about their place in the universe or they just don't give a damn.

Gasshō

stlah, Kaitan

[Guest]

I hope this is relevant, if not I apologize.

I watched this talk and it reminded me of the discussion between Jundo and Hosai on this thread, which is fascinating. I have a more open mind after reading through all of this and watching this discussion below. Some assumptions I held have fallen away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLbSlC0Pucw

Gassho,
Paco
sat and lent a hand today

[Hosai]

Very interesting Paco.

Some thoughts...

1. The traditional scientific view of the world is a story amoung many others.

3.. Science is subject to contexual influences like politics

4. Science does not progress linearly instead there are some sudden shifts (see Thomas Kuhn)

5. Science is not value neutral similar to any religion

I escaped the totalism of the scientific view as it traditionally seemed not as interested in subjective phenomena. And for me any explanation that left out subjective phenomena was clearly missing a huge chunck of life which mattered to people.

However that is changing... I have a hunch that as we gain the ability to start seeing into whats going on in peoples brains we will start to be able to see/decode their thoughts perhaps even dreams.

When that happens I fully expect a paradigm shift as we discover the other half of the reality that we have been ignoring simply because our measument tools were not good enough.... I fully expect things to be observed and repeatable for which we have no ready explanation.

I was drawn to Zen because of its constant negation of all the stories... the moment we try to come up with an explanation or story it is negated... it deals with science and reductive, mechanistic, views the same way it deals with religious, magical, and superstitious views.... So whats left after that?... reality... obviously....

_/\_
sat/ah
matt

[Jundo]

I was drawn to Zen because of its constant negation of all the stories... the moment we try to come up with an explanation or story it is negated... it deals with science and reductive, mechanistic, views the same way it deals with religious, magical, and superstitious views.... So whats left after that?... reality... obviously....

If you reject science as "just a story among many others" or "just politics," you risk falling back into superstitious and magical, foolish thinking, old wives tales, conspiracies and quack cures that plagued the human race for millennia. That is so even though, yes, science only presents a narrow view on reality, and politics does come into play as in any institutions. Science is not a religion ... but "scientism" (an excess reliance and faith in scientific explanation) is. Do not confuse the two.

Do not toss out the baby with the bath water. In fact, it is because of such extreme views that we find anti-vaxxers who let the baby get polio, folks who deny experts in favor of wacky explanations on social media, belief that we never landed on the moon, that all opinions are equal on every topic and nothing is to be believed.

Tread carefully.

Gassho, J
stlah