thank me for losing paradise (post for comment)

Two excesses: to exclude reason, to admit nothing but reason.- Pascal, Pensées.

The title of my post has a rebellious Adam saying those very words to his wife Eve after a long day or labor in the field, outside the Garden of Eden. He realizes that Paradise, at the price of ignorance, was not worth having. If the story is plausible, Adam is the first Yogi.

I get the impression that you think these ideas we're discussing are "utopic." Yet, there is no imperative here to bring back a paradise to earth. Why? Because reality is a duck-rabbit proposition. Tough, deceiving, at times sublime, inevitable, i.e., paradoxical? What Yoga seeks is a method for personal development and community enlightenment. A yogi understands that he cannot build a "world" of like-minded yogis, just as we cannot impose a paradise of like-minded proletarians. Paradise is another form of self-induced Alzheimer!

Thus, this closing of 3rd Section of the Sutras:

When the presiding-deities invite, there should be no attachment and no smile of satisfaction, contact with undesirable being again possible (III, 50).

Via ahimsa, Yoga is amenable to deep ecology and the plight for justice and equality, provided by asteya for all of sentient beings. of course we must include non-human animals. it makes perfect sense!

Let’s get into the enstasis part. We are trying to give the Sutras a different spin: Yama is now a techné aimed at perfecting the self. "Reincarnation" becomes a metaphor for the never ending process of identity renewal. Meditation means seeking worthwhile thoughts as a mean to achieve niyama, which depends of yama. Asana is comportment, a way of paying attention to my body (yes, the body IS important) while simultaneously being aware of other bodies, something not unlike the idea of an athlete in the West (a healthy body + a clean mind built through the discipline of the sport). I surmise that athletes have an x-tra sense of peoples’ bodies that neophytes simply lack (it'd be nice to have LeBron defending this point).

With dharana and dhyana we engage in a discussion about the form vs. content of meditation. When it comes to dharana, yoga practice exhibits a perplexing degree of fetishism. It seems that for the mind to get deeper into itself it needs to transcend itself (by purging itself). And so, dharana is an anteroom to dhyana.

Homelessness: Because of the very structure of pakriti and purusha, we are ontologically homeless. This idea resonates in Freudian psychoanalytic theory (Spaltung), where the Self is divided, and in Existentialism, where Being = Nothingness.

Why can one not be God? -asks the disciple.

You are, -says the master. -But you have to find out by yourself.-- Swami Vivekananda.

Coming back to Martin example of the moon being reflected on the lake. Some level of aesthetic abeyance can make one agree with the Romantic poet contemplating Nature's beauty and thinking “I could very well die now,” (which obviously doesn’t happen in all lakes at all times). This lucky teeny mini-samadhi is sudden, ephemeral, accidental and unregulated (Yoga aims at regulating these samadhis). Yet, it makes us aware that we’re capable of achieving high-quality awareness (the idea being that one can bring it forth through discipline and effort). Does it make sense to investigate this further?

Let's bring the point home. One may feel materially lucky for having and enjoying what lots of people in this world can only dream of having (i.e., driving a car, eating a nice meal, going to school and having these cool conversations about philosophy, etc), so that one may feel responsible for that demand of the invisible other(“invisible” in the sense that we avoid their gaze and pass them in silence). It makes me think of the French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas: In his book Totality and Infinity, he talks about “le rapport sans rapport,” (a demand that sometimes is quite heavy to bear and may go unanswered). Not unlike Jesus’s imperative on the Sermon of the Mount: “You shall love your enemy”. Now, what’s that?

Michaelangelo Pistoletto, Venus of the Rags, (1974).

Some of you may be thinking that all this Yoga stuff is a sham. And I could never prove to you it’s not. What I can do is plead with Pascal: you will lose nothing by trying it. 

(I'm closing this post next Wednesday at 11pm)

problematizing anthropocentrism

we are humans. we think like humans. but that doesn't mean we shouldn't problematize our thinking as. the problem is not thinking as humans, that's what we are. rather the problem is to be blind to subterranean ideologies. the "centric" in anthropocentric is the exclusiveness of the "human" species, being the top of the ladder, being the best evolved, etc, etc.

what is the negotiation between human & non-human?

1- from the outside: in jainism (or yoga) all is ONE. you don't see the ant as non-human but as ONE.
2- from the inside: anthropomorphic intentionality (an empathy business), whereby I see the ant as me-being-an-ant.

so, anthropomorphism can actually help de-centering. on the other hand it's naive to suppose we can actually become centered-less (this thought doesn't come from anthropocentrism), it comes from a critical stance to blind-spot values.

blind spots are actually closet "moments" where we pretend to ourselves be outside it.  

food for tongue (pertaining today's class)

art by urs fischer

a lot was discussed in class and it seemed more chaotic than usual. but chaos is brahman. let's see if i'm successful at explaining my points:

1- is taste a genetic disposition? i read this hypothesis @ the smithsonian:

Collecting genetic samples from 143 children and their mothers, the researchers showed moms and kids who had at least one bitter-sensitive region in the gene were generally able to detect even a hint of bitter flavor in a test drink.

that's not the whole story: "bitter" is one amongst a broader palette that includes "sweet," "umami," "sour" and "salty" (for a total of 5). the study goes on to make a more problematic conclusion:

The study also found children who had the bitter taste gene preferred higher levels of the sucrose solution they were given in the study. Researchers point out that as we age, life experience begins to override genetic disposition for taste. "Nature versus nurture" refers to an ongoing debate about how much genes are responsible for an individual's traits, compared to how much is due to the environment around the person. 

i'm of the latter persuasion, yet the institute of health makes it even more open-ended:

Recent advances in the understanding of taste at the molecular level have provided candidate genes that can be evaluated for contributions to phenotypic differences in taste abilities. However, many aspects of taste perception remain poorly characterized. Better understanding of the molecular components of salty and sour tastes is still needed, as is a more complete picture of second messenger and downstream signaling mechanisms for all taste modalities. More general studies of linkage and association between genetic markers and taste phenotypes may reveal genes encoding proteins

So, it seems that we cannot conclusively say that taste is genetic nor discount it, --as i seemed (too quickly to sort of imply in class). my problem is with the following argument:

since there's much we don't still don't understand about the influence of genetic traits in our dispositions, let's assume that genetics plays a bigger role in our dispositions.  

but this is at best misleading and at worst fallacious. our experience with food is that of constant negotiation. and this negotiation is cultural, psychological and part of our personal narratives. taste seems as arbitrary as our predilections for music (the comparison has been made time and again). if so, then taste seems to reveal something very unique about our personal dispositions. how about psychological factors? example: one can always reevaluate what one used to dislike (as veronica seemed to suggest with her pizza hut example). on the other hand, one can --inexplicably-- like something one used to dislike (my daughter hated broccoli until she tried it at the suggestion of her vegetarian boyfriend). taste is susceptible to hormonal causation. now, is hormonal activity causally determined by our genes? actually, the opposite seems to be the case.  so, does "nurture" win? this site presents four possible taste enhancers/inhibitors: 1- stress, 2- breathing through your mouth, 3- acid reflux, & 4- general sensitivity.

french sociologist pierre bordieu has written about taste in food & music as social indicators of "class" since "trends" in consumption seemingly correlate with an individual’s fit in society.  take for example our obsession with surgery as "cultural beauty," or our obsession with junk food (which really took off started in the 1970's). consumer interests based on differing social positions necessitates that each fraction "has its own artists and philosophers, newspapers and critics, just as it has its hairdresser, interior decorator, or tailor."

i suggest the following experiment: take a one-year-old child from argentina & japan and permutate their environments: the japanese to go to argentina and viceversa. do you see a problem for each child ending up eating the diet of the adoptive parents? after a few years you have a sushi-lover, meat-avoider argentinian & a steak-eater, raw-fish-avoider japanese.

2- as per hitler. are you familiar with godwin's law? let's try to avoid the guy for the time being. my contention is that there have been many hitlers in history --only we did not record their atrocities.

3- i passed over jose's last argument. i didn't really get it. but there was this other argument about why preferring a certain individual over another based on his/her intentional-volitional dispositions. and i wonder is it her ratnatraya dispositions that makes her special? i think of aristotle, for whom "character" (from the greek kharakter = engraved mark) is an expression of the volitional states of the human subject.

a good character a expresses (arete = "that which is good") his/her internal dispositions. so, via aristotle, all of a sudden ratnatraya makes sense! why is it good to cultivate rview, rknowledge, rfaith? because it makes the subject stand out spiritually. it's like asking: why would you prefer a friend that is forward, aware, honest & generous over one that is selfish, ignorant & dishonest?

is your preference a matter of preference or is it rather an attribute of his character?

karma, our class, free will & duck rabbit (post for comment)

art by scott greenwalt

1- my slip of tongue on the issue of reincarnation. i said: "i don't believe in reincarnation." of course what i meant was "reincarnation" as a soul (after biological death) beginning a new life in a new body (whether animal or human or spiritual) depending on the moral quality of the previous life's actions. but that doesn't take away the viability of the metaphor (we've talked about the importance of metaphors already).

2- many of the rough edges in reasoning have to do with what kind of suit do you wear to a philosophy class.

3- the problem of free will & determinism keeps surfacing. good. you have to come to terms with this trifecta:

determinism
compatibilism
libertarianism (not political, but volitional)

once you do, your analysis gets more focused. by the way, it's also ok. to suspend the issue until you feel better about it. there are no easy --or quick-- answers here.

4- there was a question at the end of the class regarding what am i learning here? look, when we tackle a system (hinduism, now), we present it within a historic frame, then we discuss the metaphysics (after all this is a philosophy class) and finally we read the main texts in class. i prefer to touch the issues and problematize them (it makes for richer deeper discussions). which brings me to this point: our discussions are not mere rantings. they touch important points and offer provisional solutions. we must be open minded and understand that the to-and-fro of philosophical discussion is quite productive. do you feel a bit lost? after two or three class lectures and discussions i bet you'll feel better.  there is no single view of hinduism. that doesn't mean that in the end one can come up with some generalities. there are many different schools with contrasting metaphysics, texts, avatars, narratives, etc. and what happens is that the more you try to simplify (and i'd argue that simplicity for its own sake is not necessarily a virtue), the more you end up with fallacious reductionisms. just be a little patient. if you're a little bewildered, think of duck/rabbit! (more of this in the weeks ahead).

coming back to 1- is there a conclusive way to establish that bad actions lead to bad karma? what does it mean that one ends up badly? if there is a difference between being good and being evil? well, the psychological states of an evil person (even character) cannot be the same as that of a good person.why? the difference between the two lies in what aristotle calls eudaimonia.  if aristotle had known the jaina idea of karma, he would have agreed that a virtuous person has better karma than that of an evil person (aristotle did not believe in reincarnation either).

5- i want to invite you to become a friend of m.bourbaki.  

6- anything else that i forgot?

(i close this post next wednesday at 11pm, but prefer you to make comments by tuesday)

Some theological and philosophical implications of Jainism

*Every living being has a soul: divine, with innate, though typically unrealized, potentially immense knowledge, perception, power, and bliss.
*Therefore, regard every living being as yourself, harm no one, and manifest benevolence for all living beings.
*Every soul is born as a sort of celestial, human or sub-human or hellish being according to its own karmas.
*Every soul is the architect of its own life, here or hereafter. (Yes, freedom exists!)
*When a soul is freed from karmas,² it becomes free and god-conscious, experiencing infinite knowledge, perception, power, and bliss.
*Right View, Right Knowledge and Right Conduct (triple gems of Jainism) provide the way to this realization.
*There is no supreme divine creator, owner, preserver or destroyer: The universe is self-regulated and every soul has the potential to achieve the status of god-consciousness (siddha) through one's own efforts.
*Non-violence (Ahimsa) is the foundation of right View, the existence of right Knowledge and the kernel of right Conduct. Non-violence is compassion and forgiveness in thoughts, words and actions toward all living beings. It includes respecting views of others (Non-absolutism). Is Ahimsa not a better face-to-face?
*Limit possessions and lead a pure life that is useful to yourself and others. Owning an object by itself is not possessiveness; however attachment to an object is. Non-possessiveness is the balancing of needs and desires while staying detached from our possessions.
*Enjoy the company of the holy and better qualified, be merciful to those afflicted and tolerate the perversely inclined.
*Four things are difficult for a soul to attain: 1. human birth (the one you own), 2. true knowledge, 3. good faith, and 4. practicing the right path.
*It is important not to waste human life in evil ways. Rather, strive to rise on the ladder of spiritual evolution.
*The goal of Jainism is liberation of the soul from the negative effects of unenlightened thoughts, speech and action. This goal is achieved through clearance of karmic obstructions.

karma, god, karma-bandha

karma: skt "deed." 1- a mental or physical action, 2- the consequence of a mental or physical action, 3- the sum of all consequences of the actions of an individual in this or a previous life, 4- the chain of cause and effect in the realm of morality. in buddhism, is known as pali kamma. the deed falls upon the one responsible. the deed leaves a physical/volitional trace in the mind of the doer, and informs his/her future actions (positively or negatively). what matters here is the intention of the action. generally deeds that contain "himsa" are bound to a negative karmic effect.
_____________   

GOD/karma: in jainism, karma operates as a self-sustaining mechanism, a sort of physical universal law. there's no need of external causation to keep it going (thus the absence of an exogenous GOD in jainism).

jain theology advocates the idea that a soul's karma changes even with the thoughts, and not just the actions. thinking evil endures a karma-bandha, i.e., increment in "bad" karma ("bad" here is a debit, seen from the universal law... which? the regulating principle of ahimsa = no-harming).

this is why the ratnatraya (right c, right f, right k)  gives a very strong emphasis to samyak dhyan (rationality in thoughts) and samyak darshan (rationality in perception) and not just samyak charitra (rationality in conduct).

in jain theology, a soul is released of worldly affairs as soon as it is able to emancipate from the karm-bandha. the idea being that there's an "ascetism" of the mind (not just the body) it consists in fighting mind-violence. letting the mind inhabit ahimsa. fighting himsa in the mind is of great importance.

a question was asked in class related to free will, is moksha possible as a result of free will? YES.

the karmic theory in jainism operates endogenously. even tirthankaras (such as mahavira) are not attributed "godhood". tirthankaras themselves have to go through the stages of emancipation, for attaining that state. jainism treats all souls equally. all souls have the same potential of attaining nirvana. only those who make effort, really attain it (of course, here comes the accumulated karma, i.e., karma-bandha (or papa)  liabilities that have to be paid back. no more credit once one moves on! but nonetheless, each soul is capable on its own to do attain perfection by gradually reducing its karma.

NIYAMSARA (the sacred book of Jainism)

NIYAMSARA is the sacred book of the Jainas

CHAPTER ONE: JIVA

1. Bowing to Vira Jina, who, by nature is the possessor of infinite and supreme knowledge and conation; I shall compose Niyama-Sara, preached by Kevalis and the Shruta- Kevalis. Shri Kunda-Kunda Acharya renders homage to the last of the twenty-four Thirthankaras, Lord Mahavira, who also called Vira, and enshrines Hi to his heart for the purification of his thoughts; so that he may be able to fulfil his undertaking successfully. Further, the Acharya express it emphatically that whatever he will write will not be his own independet teching, but will be fully based upon the authoritative pronouncement of Kevalis and Shruta-Kevali.
2. In the Jaina Scriptures, the Path and the Fruit of the Path are described as the two parts. The means of liberation constitute the Path, and liberation is the Fruit.
3. What is in reality worth doing (is) Niyama, and that is belief, knowledge, and conduct. In order to avoid deflection the word Sara has been particularly affixed to it.
4. Niyama (is) the way to liberation; its fruit is supreme Nirvana. Each of these, is again described. 5. Belief in the Perfect Souls, the Scriptures and the Principles is Right Belief. He who is free from all defects and is possessed of all (pure) attributes is the supreme source.
 6. (The defect are) hunger, fear, anger, attachment, delusion, anxiety, old age, disease, death, perspiration, fatigue, pride, indulgence, surprise, sleep, birth, and restlessness.
 7. One free from all defects and possessed of sublime grandeur such as Omniscience is called Parmâtmâ (the Highest Soul) or the Perfect One. One who is not such, (is) not Parmatma .
 8. Words proceeding from his mouth, pure and free from the flaw of inconsistency are called Âgama (Scripture.) In that Âgama the principles (Tattvartha) are enunciated.

(continues here)

Jainism

Jainism was founded in the 6th century BC by Vardhamana, known as Mahavira or “Great Hero” (the 24th of the Tirthankaras) Jainas or “Conquerors” (whence the name Jainism), in protest against the orthodox Vedic ritualistic cult of the period.

The evolution of Hinduism is heavily dependent upon Jainism and Yoga (the non-Aryan tradition). Jainism and Yoga represent the primordial traditions of India. In fact, we could see Hinduism as the Indianization of these traditions (Hegel's Master/Salve, i.e. non-Aryans gradually modified the Aryan elements). 

World-negative or life-politik? There is in Hinduism a world-negative aspect that seems opposed to the influence of the Aryan conqueror. This attitude is so opposed to the delight in life, which is found in the Vedic Hymns that it would be difficult to understand how this pessimistic attitude could derive from that source. A devaluation of the world as non-being, as confinement, as meaningless, as a source of confusion, even duhkha (suffering) which represents the most significant aspect of the entire spiritual development of India. Is this a form of Nihilism?

We don't have an account of the objective world presented in such oppressive and alienating terms as we do in Jainism and Yoga. Schopenhauer (another pesimist) sees something positive about all this. He points out the  exceptional awareness of the human condition in Jainism and Hinduism in general. To wrap it up, we are affected not only by the afflictions of the external world, but even more by the inner limitations of our own being (a world-view ultimately accepted by the Aryans).

Some elements:

Ascetism: Hindu wanderers were known as Munis ("silent ones"). These are men who choose the homeless life, without wife, children or possessions of any sort, except robe, staff, begging bowl and drinking cup.

What's the meaning of ascetism? It brings human nature closer to the "spiritual" a performance of onself at "disengagement" from life. Perhaps it's a way to understand the limits of the "body-experience" before the physical phase of the "death experience" is upon oneself. We could see asceticism as a strengthening of spiritual faculties leading to contentment, something not entirely ignored by Greek philosophers. As a matter of fact, asceticism (from the Greek áskēsis: "exercise" or "training" in the sense of athletic training) describes a lifestyle characterized by abstinence from various sorts of worldly pleasures, often with the aim of pursuing religious and spiritual goals. One way to look at it is the rejection of some pleasures just in order to excercise one's will power. Willing "no" is a form of tweak one's self-control = self-power. Autarchy.

Atheism: There is a strong current of atheism in early Hindu thought, a current that can be traced to the early non-Aryan elements of Hinduism. This comes as a result of the Shankya. It is also found in Jainism and Buddhism.

Jainism asserts that every soul is divine and capable of attaining perfection. The universe can be divided into:

Jiva (soul) and Ajiva (non-soul). The living and the non-living, by coming into contact with each other, forge certain energies which bring about birth, death and various experiences of life. The process could be stopped, and the energies already forged destroyed, by a course of discipline leading to moksha. ahimsa: (skt non-harming) the Jaina doctrine of non-violence.

Jaina is based on the practice of Ratnatraya, comprising:

(a) the right knowledge, (b) right faith and (c) right conduct. They must be cultivated at once. Right faith leads to calmness and tranquility, but right faith leads to perfection only when followed by right conduct (so, this idea Lutheran of sola fide is not enough). Knowledge without faith and conduct is futile. Right conduct is spontaneous, not a forced mechanical quality. Attainment of right conduct is a gradual process.

Jīva: The essence of living entities is called jiva, a substance which is different from the body that houses it. Consciousness, knowledge and perception are its fundamental attributes.
Ajīva: Non-living entities that consist of matter, space and time fall into the category of ajiva.
Asrava: The interaction between jīva and ajīva causes the influx of karma (a particular form of ajiva) into the soul, to which it then adheres. (More on karma in a forthcoming post).

Karma-related:
Bandha: Karma masks the jiva and restricts it from having its true potential of perfect knowledge and perception.
Saṃvara: Stopping the influx of additional karma through right conduct.
Nirjarā: Shredding or burning up karma by performing asceticism.
Mokṣha: The jiva which has removed its karma is said to be liberated and to have its pure, intrinsic quality of perfect knowledge in its true form.

________________
Other terms in Jaina Philosophy:

Karman: Bits of material, generated by the person’s actions, that bind themselves to the life-monad or soul through many births. This has the effect of thwarting the full realization and freedom of the soul.

Kalpa: A world cycle. A period of time comprising 4,320,000 yrs. Pali-kappa is an endlessly long period of time. The metaphor is that of a piece of silk rubbed one on a solid piece of rock one cubic mile in size every 1000 yrs. When this wears the rock away, a kalpa has passed.

Kevala: state of omniscience. Kevala is necessarily accompanied by freedom from karmic obstruction by direct experience of the soul’s pure form, unblemished by its attachment of matter.

a thought about a self-conscious Godverse

for the Godverse to be self-conscious you would need the Godverse + 1!

shu, li, zhong yong and the battle now!

early, late earth?

i'd like to stress the importance of li in relation with shu & try to problematize the quadrant of prudence (yan ren) with decisiveness (ming). the answer is zhong-yong. the right balance that best reflects t'ien. as it turns, the only way to achieve zhong-yong is practicing it.

this reflects the chun-tzu. one can read zhong-yong with aristotle glasses:

in everything that is continuous and divisible it is possible to take more, less, or an equal amount, and that either in terms of the thing itself or relatively to us; and the equal is an intermediate between excess and defect (ethica eudemia, 1106, a 2629)

intermediate between excess and defect, which is why zhu xi, the neo-confucianist master would advise,

"a friend should neither be too close or too remote." (a deep thought)

this middle is zhong-yong. one more thing. zhong-yong has two sides: xing is the internal (thought-driven), while li is external, (behavior-oriented). the problem of unifying the li and xing is exactly the problem of combining and unifying the internal and the external. zhong-yong can be seen as a balance between internal(self)/external(others)-axis intersecting a consensus/community axis. according to confucius, this is how we become political & social individuals. there is no possibility of jen (virtue) without a community.    
what we learn from confucianism concerning li is that as society, we face a disorientation. rituals have become fetishized. there's a fresh, redeeming possibility for genuine exchange, but it takes to turn the present value of the ritual upside down. 

perhaps in the face of fetishized and stereotyped rituals we have the imperative to create our own li from scratch. decisiveness is critical to find transcultural lost symbols, reinscribing them into new contexts. there is always room for transformation and novelty. our generation is in need of material and spiritual actions-and-reactions. we could help replenish our community with a renewed sense of purpose. in the end this yajna, only a bit different. an offering to our possible best selves. 

we have speculated in class whether we still have time to change things in the world. what if that vision needs to be revised? look at the astronomy and geology of things. the process at work, the flow that moves through things. the history of the world is a history of ghosts: people, traces, remnants scattered, dispersed into geological & historical time. the world is in constant flow. why fighting that? is a doomed planet in the distant future that unpalatable?

oh, but that's far away.

our task is the present. our deeds belong in this instantg, our future is NOW, this dharma. this defective, but always perfectible world.

our battle is in this generation!

i am closing this post next wednesday 11pm.