Ch’an Teaching as ‘Irrationalism’ and ‘Transcendental’ Illusion
Original Chinese Language By: Wu Wei (吴味)
(Translated by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)
(Translated by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)
Translator’s Note: This is a fascinating article that appears to be an attempt (in the Chinese language) to deconstruct the historical body of knowledge referred to as Chinese Ch’an Buddhism, and present it as a form of regressive ‘primitivism’. The author – who writes under the pseudonym ‘Wu Wei’ (No Taste) – is an art student who uses the approach of comparing Ch’an doctrine to the teachings of the Greek philosopher Plato. This leads to the established narrative that everything ‘Western’ is premised (in one form or another) upon the use of ‘logic’, whilst everything emanating from the Chinese Ch’an doctrine is ‘inferior’ and premised not only on ‘illogicality’, but also upon a mind functioning very much on the level of ‘animal instinct’. It is an interesting argument that should be read by every Ch’an practitioner (and secular philosopher) residing in either the East or the West. The author is obviously very intelligent and I suspect, a gifted artist. However, his developed argument here, is also wrong because it is based upon a false premise that is compounded by ‘category error’. Briefly stated, these are the reasons why the author is incorrect:
1) The Buddha’s system of philosophy is viewed (by both Western and Eastern academics) as one of the earliest systems of logic in the world, either pre-dating or contemporary with, the development of logical thinking in ancient Greece. Even Marx and Engels, although highly critical of bourgeois religion due to its inverted mind-set, often praised Buddhism as a system of advanced dialectics. In fact, in a letter to Engels dated to 1866, Marx states that he has been ‘stilling’ or ‘emptying’ his mind of late, along the lines of ‘Buddhist’ practice (although Marx remained scathing of the institute of the Dalai Lama, and Tibetan Buddhism in general).
2) Stilling the mind is an incomplete type of Buddhist enlightenment found in the Hinayana (Small Vehicle) School that seeks a form of individualistic ‘quietism’ away from involvement with the complexities of the world.
3) The Chinese Ch’an School is a branch of the Mahayana (Great Vehicle) School that firmly rejects the Hinayana interpretation of selfish enlightenment. Stilling the mind is only a middle step on the path of enlightenment that must be relinquished to attain full enlightenment.
4) The Ch’an method of seated meditation, or enlightened dialogue, does indeed serve the function of ‘stilling’ the mind, but the author mistakes this as the ‘end’ of the Ch’an training, and premises his entire argument around this incorrect assumption. Temporarily ‘stilling’ the mind of its function of discursive thought, is not the eradication of the ability for the mind to engage in discursive thought. In fact the Ch’an practitioner only temporarily ‘stills’ the activity of the surface mind so that the underlying essence of the mind can be properly perceived, and the experience permanently ‘integrated’ into the mind’s cognitive ability. Once this has been achieved, the functionality of the discursive function of the mind is reactivated and contrary to this author’s incorrect assertion, a sublime logic and wisdom is generated known in Sanskrit as ‘prajna’ or the state of ‘profound knowing’. Therefore, Ch’an training, far from ‘trapping’ practitioners in the mire of religiously inspired delusion, is in fact a vehicle for speeding-up the evolutionary process (on the individual level) so the mind and its functionality becomes ‘optimal’ and in a very real sense, profoundly ‘logical’ in every aspect.
This author is incorrect because his understanding of Chinese Ch’an Buddhism is either deliberately misrepresentative, or inadvertently deficient (through a lack of experience or good education). I must say that I find it very strange indeed, that a Chinese ‘art’ student (not writing under his own name) would advance a thesis that attacks his own indigenous culture, and presents it as ‘inferior’ to that existing in the West, when Western culture and thought is well-known for all its deficiencies, excesses, errors, and misrepresentations (and, of course, hundreds of years of ruthless colonial dominance in China). This is doubly true when the last 1500 years of Christian dominance in Europe is taken into account. However, as both Marx and Buddha called for no stone to remain unturned, this student’s efforts are to be acknowledged as an attempt of ‘progression’. If Ch’an practitioners read this article, be aware that if its content ‘bothers’ you in anyway, then your training is deficient, because what this art student has to say becomes relevant if the Ch’an practitioner is ‘attached’ to the freeing process, and mistakes ‘regression’ into ‘quietism’ as ‘enlightenment’.
ACW 24.8.2016
1) The Buddha’s system of philosophy is viewed (by both Western and Eastern academics) as one of the earliest systems of logic in the world, either pre-dating or contemporary with, the development of logical thinking in ancient Greece. Even Marx and Engels, although highly critical of bourgeois religion due to its inverted mind-set, often praised Buddhism as a system of advanced dialectics. In fact, in a letter to Engels dated to 1866, Marx states that he has been ‘stilling’ or ‘emptying’ his mind of late, along the lines of ‘Buddhist’ practice (although Marx remained scathing of the institute of the Dalai Lama, and Tibetan Buddhism in general).
2) Stilling the mind is an incomplete type of Buddhist enlightenment found in the Hinayana (Small Vehicle) School that seeks a form of individualistic ‘quietism’ away from involvement with the complexities of the world.
3) The Chinese Ch’an School is a branch of the Mahayana (Great Vehicle) School that firmly rejects the Hinayana interpretation of selfish enlightenment. Stilling the mind is only a middle step on the path of enlightenment that must be relinquished to attain full enlightenment.
4) The Ch’an method of seated meditation, or enlightened dialogue, does indeed serve the function of ‘stilling’ the mind, but the author mistakes this as the ‘end’ of the Ch’an training, and premises his entire argument around this incorrect assumption. Temporarily ‘stilling’ the mind of its function of discursive thought, is not the eradication of the ability for the mind to engage in discursive thought. In fact the Ch’an practitioner only temporarily ‘stills’ the activity of the surface mind so that the underlying essence of the mind can be properly perceived, and the experience permanently ‘integrated’ into the mind’s cognitive ability. Once this has been achieved, the functionality of the discursive function of the mind is reactivated and contrary to this author’s incorrect assertion, a sublime logic and wisdom is generated known in Sanskrit as ‘prajna’ or the state of ‘profound knowing’. Therefore, Ch’an training, far from ‘trapping’ practitioners in the mire of religiously inspired delusion, is in fact a vehicle for speeding-up the evolutionary process (on the individual level) so the mind and its functionality becomes ‘optimal’ and in a very real sense, profoundly ‘logical’ in every aspect.
This author is incorrect because his understanding of Chinese Ch’an Buddhism is either deliberately misrepresentative, or inadvertently deficient (through a lack of experience or good education). I must say that I find it very strange indeed, that a Chinese ‘art’ student (not writing under his own name) would advance a thesis that attacks his own indigenous culture, and presents it as ‘inferior’ to that existing in the West, when Western culture and thought is well-known for all its deficiencies, excesses, errors, and misrepresentations (and, of course, hundreds of years of ruthless colonial dominance in China). This is doubly true when the last 1500 years of Christian dominance in Europe is taken into account. However, as both Marx and Buddha called for no stone to remain unturned, this student’s efforts are to be acknowledged as an attempt of ‘progression’. If Ch’an practitioners read this article, be aware that if its content ‘bothers’ you in anyway, then your training is deficient, because what this art student has to say becomes relevant if the Ch’an practitioner is ‘attached’ to the freeing process, and mistakes ‘regression’ into ‘quietism’ as ‘enlightenment’.
ACW 24.8.2016
In my article entitled ‘Ch’an Teaching – the Cure-all for Chinese Culture’, I analysed the Ch’an teaching and made the case that as a distinct body of work, the Ch’an tradition represents a system of irrationality and anti-logic, which appears to be a system of metaphysics developed during earlier times to explain primordial chaos in illogical terms. Some assume that the irrational language of Ch’an represents a ‘higher’ perception of reality that transcends the limitations of logic, but I disagree with this interpretation. Why do I think this? It is because there is no higher system of thought than that of fully developed logical thinking. Ch’an teaching is not ‘post-logical’, but rather ‘pre-logical’, as it represents an earlier time within Chinese history, when logical thought had not yet developed. Ch’an parlance is illogical because it derived from a non-logical manner of interpreting the functionality of the psycho-physical individual in relation to the existing universe. Language is a tangible and external expression of the thought processes functioning within the intangible mind. Just as the mind processes information about its own functionality and the environment within which it exists, the language used to express this understanding is a direct representation of its functionality. When this is known, then the illogicality of Ch’an dialogue (as recorded between masters and students), is observed as existing on a ‘pre-logical’ basis. This means that Ch’an dialogue, far from being a ‘higher’ plane of existence, is in fact a preservation of an earlier and more primitive evolutionary level of human existence. As this is the case, Ch’an dialogue does not represent a ‘higher’ reality, and is not, in anyway an expression of a ‘transcendental’ reality. Ch’an dialogue does not transcend ‘logic’, because it is not ‘logical’. The language used within the Ch’an tradition represents an earlier stage in human thought, and although it hints at transcending ‘pre-logic’, it fails to actually establish ‘logic’. In fact, Ch’an dialogue may well be indicative of an early Chinese cultural attempt at establishing ‘logic’ that ultimately failed.
Ch’an teaching, as a system of anti-logic, attempts to intuitively (rather than intellectually) understand existence. However, even intuitive understanding implies the use of an underlying and organising logic. If this type of logic exists within the Ch’an dialogue technique, it is primarily coincidental and unconscious in origination – it is not the conscious and deliberate use of formal logic. Ch’an dialogue is fast whilst its root-effectiveness lies not in the activation of logic, but rather in its exact opposite – the lack of any use of formal logic. The development of a logical framework (which produces logical thinking), requires the accumulation of experience over-time, through a variety of sensory experiences, all ‘integrated’ through the analysis of results. This is a specific use of the conscious, rational mind to assess data as a means to generate formal logic (as a response to this process). On the other hand, Ch’an dialogue utilises a quick and shallow response to events that lacks depth, and is not premised upon the rational and logical assessment of data or events. There is no sense of ‘logical’ formulation in the entire practice of Ch’an teaching, even if the tradition itself can be said to have a certain ‘basic’ set of strictures loosely referred to as a ‘logic’ of sorts. This is the use of the primitive ‘intuition’, which is a more primitive form of making sense of data (a rudimentary logic that must be clearly distinguished from the formal logic associated with modernity). As Ch’an dialogue is automatic and fast, as a distinct process it represents only a limited ‘intuitive’ understanding, when compared with the considered depth and careful consideration associated with the use of logical thinking. Therefore, this ‘intuitive’ use of the mind (and language) is ‘instinctive’ in nature, and not logical. This invariably means that it lacks the logical and rational assessment of data common in modern science, and instead remains superficial and prone to making mistakes whilst generating factual errors in complex situations. It is assumed by some that animal instinct and human intuition are similar states in both essence and function, but in reality there are essential differences. Whereas humans are ‘directly’ aware of the intuitive state, animals are generally ‘unaware’ when instinctively reacting to external stimuli. It is this fundamental ‘awareness’ in evolved humans that is the basis of human intuition, and the premise from which modern logic has evolved. Intuitive awareness tends to be non-discriminative, and interprets all sensory stimuli as deriving from the same underlying and ‘unitary’ source, whereas modern logic clearly discerns the presence of multitudinous stimuli, and is able to view each set of data or events as ‘separate’ and ‘distinct’ from one another, and clearly the product of endless chains of ‘causes’ and ‘effects’. Ch’an dialogue denies the validity of ‘dualistic’ thought (as a deviation from the unitary basis of the intuition), whereby modern logic is entirely dependent upon the concrete existence and functionality of the very same ‘dualistic’ nature of material existence.
The so-called ‘Ch’an-mind’ is thought by many to be ‘intuitive’ in nature, but it also shares many of the characteristics of animal instinct. As a distinct teaching, Ch’an dialogue excludes the possibility of the process of accumulating objective knowledge and of developing and using a modern logical framework. As the mind is ‘emptied’ of all logical (and proto-logical content), there is a type of intuition at work, but one which ignores the direct comprehension of the essence of things, and which instead is more related to a primordial ‘feeling’, or kind of emotional ‘pre-awareness’ very similar to animal instinct. This is a primitive means of perception used by the human mind in an earlier evolutionary stage, which reduced the sensory complexity of the external environment to a simplistic inner comprehension. This instinctive sensing was all the human mind was capable of at this time, and Ch’an in modern times, offers a regressive form of meditative practice that abandons the use of modern logic, and returns the mind’s functionality to this primitive state. The success of this endeavour (which is the essence of all mysticism) is then referred to as ‘enlightenment’. Mysticism is the use of the human mind in a primitive state that reduces the complexity of the physical environment to that of raw, intense (but also ‘non-specific’) internal feeling, or to a set of illogical or superstitious beliefs. This historical (evolutionary) process can be observed the world over, in both the West and the East, with the ancient Greeks developing the concept of ‘logos’ as the next stage of human thought development. This vital phase in evolutionary development saw the emergence of rationality and logic as the primary inner means of the human analysis of the complex outer environment.
Many people in China prefer the Ch’an teaching, which is in reality a form of ‘Eastern Mysticism’, to that of Western philosophy, even in its ‘irrational’ forms (such as ‘Existentialism’). What is not understood is that Western thinking is premised entirely upon ‘logic’ and nothing else (which is a process inherently linked to Western irrational thought from which it historically developed). Logic represents the highest mode of human thought to date, which possesses the potential to scientifically understand the world in its complete and entire form, free of the irrationality of mysticism and superstition. From rational and logical thinking, the ultimate truth of the universe can eventually be worked out through the correct analysis of all phenomena. Plato states that by using the mind correctly, there is developed a state of ‘rational ecstasy’. Although the undeveloped state of irrationality lacks logic, nevertheless, through the application of analysis of data performed in a careful step by step manner, logic and reason can be developed. This process of logical development potentially has no limit, and by pursuing a scientific method, knowledge can grow and increase without limit. This is the manifesting of logic and reason as the highest mode of human thought. This is the development of the dialectical technique, which is also referred to as the use of ‘rational purpose’, and ‘ultimate reason’. This is the manifestation of the ‘rational logos’, and signifies the mind developing the rational process (whilst simultaneously moving away from irrational modes of thinking). When this logical process is fully established, it is known as the development of the rational process, gained from rational necessity. Therefore, once Western philosophy had grasped the dialectical technique, the only direction of development has been that of progressing forward and never retreating backwards. Therefore, the process of building Western rationalism cannot regress backward into the pre-modern thinking processes associated with irrationality. Higher thinking in the Western sense is premised entirely upon the development of logic to an ever greater degree. Husserl stated that Western irrationality developed into Western rationality. This is to say that the irrationality of the West implicitly contained the ability to develop into formal logic over-time. This is where the Ch’an teaching differs dramatically, as its irrational theoretical base does not, (and has never contained) the potential ability to transform itself into ‘rationality’. Of course, systems of Western irrationality still exist (such as ‘Existentialism’), but unlike the Ch’an teaching, they possess the ability to potentially develop the use of logic and reason. Ch’an, as a form of Eastern Mysticism, interprets events through primitive intuitive feeling, and not logical thought, whilst Western Mysticism (and certain contemporary strands of Western irrational thought), are always moving in the direction of the dialectical development of logic and reason. This is why the two forms of mysticism are essentially different. Ch’an masters continuously utter nonsense and make all kinds of irrational statements falsely presented as ‘freedom’ or ‘enlightenment’. As these statements possess no logical base, the Ch’an mode of thinking cannot progress in a dialectical or logical manner, and so it remains at the level of irrationality, imagining all kinds of transcended events to justify its own methodology. The difference between East and West here, is that even Western irrationality has within its framework, the seeds of logicality. The Ch’an masters of China are always attempting to ‘empty’ the mind of the very thought (and thought processes) that the Westerners have used to develop rational and logical thinking. This is the fundamental difference between our Chinese Ch’an and Western thought – where even their ‘irrationality’ possesses the potential to develop ‘rationality’. Chinese Ch’an, by way of comparison, is a complete system in and of itself that cannot evolve because it eradicates the thought processes that are the basis of how the usage of the mind is developed.
Plato recognises that the activity of the human mind can be separated into ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ categories. Plato’s list of irrational ‘ecstasies’ (or ‘loves’) include ‘love ecstasy’ (including relationships and sexual ecstasy), ‘religion (theistic) ecstasy’, ‘prophetic ecstasy’, and ‘poetical ecstasy’ etc. Although poetical ecstasy might be a little more developed than the others, Plato still considered these ‘ecstasies’ to be of a relatively low level of development because they lacked a base in ‘logos’, or logic. For Plato, even the comparatively sophisticated ‘ecstasy of poetry’ was deficient because poets only ‘imitated’ reality, without truly understanding it. Poems were not a logical representation of the world, because they instead relied upon ‘feeling’ to interpret events. As the poet followed only his feelings, and had no ‘reasoned’ understanding of the events he was conveying, the resultant poems lacked reason and logic. (Of course, Plato did acknowledge that a great poet did possess the possibility of reaching a ‘rational’ ecstasy through the writing of poems, providing his thought processes underwent a ‘logos’ modification during the creative process). For Plato, the greatest ‘ecstasy’ of them all was the ‘love’ of rationally derived logic. This maybe also termed ‘rational ecstasy’, which is the consequence of the human mind and its thought processes achieving a special alignment of purpose that generates the function of rational thought. This is the highest state of functionality of the human mind that has so far been achieved by the species. The process begins from a naturally chaotic and relatively ‘unaware’ perspective (found in the ‘irrational’ ecstasies), and gradually develops into a uniform and pristine process that perceives (and can predict) patterns, whilst being able to assess and understand the unfolding process of cause and effect. The attainment of logic allows a certain predictability to enter the equation, which uproots all thought systems, religions or superstitious habits premised upon the earlier use of irrationality (and non-scientific predictability).
With regard to an assessment of our own Chinese Ch’an tradition (and its odd dialogue), we find that it resembles Plato’s irrational ecstasies, particularly with regard to the ‘ecstasy of love’ and the ‘ecstasy of religion’, etc. However, whereas in ancient Greece, the Greek irrationalities possessed the potential to develop in rational ways (through the development of associative thought), the Chinese Ch’an tradition is deliberately designed to ‘prevent’ the capacity that would lead to rational thought. Why is this the case? It is the case because the Ch’an method requires that the mind is ‘stilled’ and that a mind ‘empty’ of all thought processes is reached. If the thought processes are eradicated through Ch’an practice, then there remains no functional capacity in the mind to ‘evolve’ toward the attainment of ‘logic’. Becoming ‘aware’, or becoming ‘enlightened’ is the irrational notion that a practitioner simply clearly ‘perceives’ this ‘lack of thought process’, and then imports all kinds of mystical nonsense into its ‘emptiness’. For the Ch’an tradition, enlightenment is the realised state of ‘awareness’ of a lack of logic. This situation is compounded because of an inverted mind-set within China where we think the ‘emptiness of logic’ within Ch’an enlightenment, (as expressed through Ch’an art), is ‘advanced’, when in fact it is the exact opposite. The Ch’an method is entirely regressive and represents a state of arrested development. It is a backward step to a more primitive time, that has become mistakenly presented as ‘superior’ to modern logic. Ch’an is often mystified as ‘unfathomable’ but this is not true. As expressed in this article, the historical development of Ch’an is entirely fathomable. It is only if there is a fall into ‘mysticism’ and philosophical idealism and obscurity that Ch’an becomes ‘opaque’ and unreadable, but as this is an illogical position, it follows that a logical assessment of Ch’an history and philosophy undoubtedly ‘reveals’ the illogical basis of Ch’an theory. Real art – especially in its contemporary form, should develop as a ‘rational ecstasy’. In the West, for instance, rational art should develop out of an expansive and irrational base, and so develop a ‘logic’ of art that unifies irrationality with rationality (and thus transforming the former into the latter). Art, regardless of how abstract it can be, particularly in its realist expression, should be logically based and convey various forms of reality, which might even include a scientific interpretation of events. In reality, contemporary art has the potential to continuously develop beyond all boundaries, as its logic becomes ever more accommodating of external phenomena, and creative in its own right. Art has the ability to take irrationality and transform it into rationality. As the Ch’an art – it is the art of the primitive state. Ch’an art always diverts the mind away from its eternal (and logical) development and back toward a more primordial reality that encompasses a vague grasping of a unified (or ‘divine’) base to an apparently chaotic world. The development of logic, however, is progressive and contains the ability to bring order to chaos, and fully manipulate the outer world through human ingenuity. Given enough time, and the appropriate political and economic conditions, all of humanity’s suffering could be eradicated through the development and use of science. Whereas Ch’an attempts to return the mind to a more primitive state (and assume that this retrogressive step represents a ‘higher’ order), the development of logic is progressive and represents a truly great human power to change the world for the better and eradicate suffering in a far more evolved (and realistic) manner.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2016.
Original Chinese Language Source Text: http://blog.artintern.net/article/918558
禅学的“原始非理性主义”及其“超越”幻觉
吴味
拙文《禅学——中国文化的“狗皮膏药”》分析、批判了禅的反逻辑、反概念界定的原始混沌的玄学,有人认为禅是因为看到语言逻辑理性的局限性才反逻辑、反概念界定。但其实禅的反逻辑、反概念界定与语言逻辑理性的局限性没有关系,它的问题根本在于其原始混沌思维本身的无逻辑——即思维还没有发育到逻辑层次。所有的语言表达都反映思维方式,思维方式有从低级向高级发展的过程,逻辑思维方式就是克服原始无逻辑的混沌思维方式而发展起来的。实际上中国传统文化一直没有建立起语言逻辑理性——即逻各斯理性,从根本思维方式上说,一直都处在前逻辑理性的混沌阶段。逻辑思维方式在认识超越性上是有局限性,但禅学这种低级的原始无逻辑的混沌思维方式是无法克服更高级的逻辑思维方式的局限性的,克服逻辑思维方式的局限性需要下文阐述的“努斯理性”。
有人又认为禅不是通过语言逻辑思维、而是通过直观思维把握世界。但直观认识(判断)同样隐含着逻辑思维,只不过这种逻辑思维过程非常自动、快速和不自觉,它实际上是人的逻辑思维框架结构(需要长期逻辑思维经验的积累建构)对各种感觉经验的综合分析自动快速运转的结果,它的过程的自动快速性给人一种没有逻辑思维过程的感觉,好像一眼望穿的“直观”,其实还是有逻辑思维过程的。而正因为直观认识中逻辑思维的自动快速性,所以直观认识针对复杂的事物也常常出错。如果没有逻辑思维过程,所谓的“直观”实际上是本能。动物的本能活动只是与人的直观认识活动在形式上相似,实际上有本质区别,所以“(本质)直观”一词并不能用于动物,“直观”并不是“直接观看”的意思,本质不是直接观看出来的,它总是与抽象逻辑思维的过程有关,它的最高境界是下文所讲的逻辑思维的“理性迷狂”。
禅思维与其说是人的直观思维,还不如说是动物性的本能感觉。禅特别排斥逻辑、概念,排斥知识的积累,这样就无法形成逻辑思维结构框架,直观认识失去了基础前提,所以禅特别强调感觉、直觉,强调相由心生,实际上这不是对事物的本质直观认识,而是近似于动物性的本能感觉,它是原始本能感觉性的混沌思维的表现。
原始本能感觉性混沌思维面对社会复杂的事物,导致的认识就是原始神秘主义。原始神秘主义在人类思维的早期各个民族都是一样的,西方也有,但西方在希腊哲学逻各斯理性形成以后就跨过了这个思维混沌阶段。很多中国人把禅之类的这种原始性“东方神秘主义”误以为是西方哲学的非理性主义,却不明白西方哲学的非理性主义是建立在逻各斯理性主义基础之上的,它实际上是理性主义的一个环节,是理性主义认识走向到极致、走向极限后向最高的善(大全、完备、完善)的终极理念世界的超越性认识的跳跃,它让人仿佛窥见终极真理的灵光。这种跳跃在柏拉图那里就是一种“理性迷狂”的境界,这种“理性迷狂”虽然是非理性的,无法“直接”用形式逻辑严格、精确地一步一步推导出来,但却是理性认识逻辑发展到极致的自然而然的结果,所以它自然符合逻辑,用辩证思维可以综合分析,可以说它是理性认识的最高境界的表现形式,是理性认识的最高阶段,灵感就是这个环节的思维表现。这种非理性的理性就是“努斯理性”,也可以称作“目的理性”、“超越理性”、“辩证理性”、“灵魂理性”、“终极理性”,这种更高层次的“努斯理性”才能克服逻辑思维方式(逻各斯理性)的局限性。这个环节之前阶段的理性就是所谓的“逻各斯理性”,也可以称作“逻辑理性”、“规范理性”、“必然理性”、“过程理性”。没有“逻各斯理性”,就没有“努斯理性”。由此可见,西方哲学的非理性主义不是真的要反理性而退回到原始非理性,而是追求更高的理性,只不过一般的逻辑思维把握不了这种理性才认为是非理性(需要辩证思维才能把握)。这种非理性主义实际上是“理性超越主义”,尤其是西方现代非理性主义(如生命哲学、存在主义等)更是如此。所以胡塞尔说西方的一切非理性哲学其实都是理性的。而禅之类的东方神秘主义完全没有逻辑理性(逻各斯理性)认识的过程,它是原始混沌思维对事物的带有本能性的感觉、想象、猜测,它不是逻辑理性的非理性超越的“努斯理性”,只是混沌未开的天人合一的原始非理性。这种东方神秘主义的“原始非理性主义”和西方非理性主义(尤其是西方现代非理性主义)有本质区别。西方哲学史中,单纯的或纯粹的理性主义者很多,但完全不讲理性、不讲逻辑的像我们的禅学大师那样的原始非理性主义者绝对没有,所以,西方非理性主义本质上并不排斥逻辑、概念,它总是力求概念明确、逻辑严谨,而我们的禅学恰恰相反。
柏拉图对非理性的“迷狂”还做了许多区分,有“爱情的迷狂(生殖力的迷狂)”、“宗教(神)的迷狂”、“预言的迷狂”、“诗的迷狂”等,柏拉图认为,这些非理性的“迷狂”,除了“诗的迷狂”比较高级一点以外,其它的都是比较低级的,因为他们缺乏真正的理性(逻辑),只有近乎本能的原始“非理性”(所以柏拉图要追求“精神恋爱”,而鄙视低级的非理性世俗恋爱);即使是“诗的迷狂”柏拉图也并不很看好,因为柏拉图认为诗同样缺乏理性,那些好诗不过是诗人在诗神附体情况下不自觉地、无法自控地写出来的,缺乏理性认识的过程(当然柏拉图对诗的认识有局限性,伟大诗作的灵感的获得也是要有逻辑理性认识的过程铺垫的,它接近上述的“理性迷狂”)。柏拉图最推崇的是“理性迷狂”(也称“哲学迷狂”),原因就在于“理性迷狂”的非理性是理性基础上的非理性,是非理性的理性超越,它是人的认识的最高境界。这种思维方式的超越过程对于根本上都属于人类认识世界的方式的科学和艺术来说都是一样的,以为艺术创作不需要逻辑思维那是我们的“原始非理性主义”的混沌思维错觉。
我们的禅之类的东方神秘主义实际上也是一种迷狂,但都是与“爱情的迷狂”、“宗教的迷狂”、“预言的迷狂”等类似的近乎本能性的迷狂,因为禅是反逻辑、反文字、无积累的,所以禅的迷狂是没有逻辑理性认识的基础和过程的,是靠自身的所谓“悟”,但这种“悟”由于缺乏逻辑理性认识的积累而成为无源之水、无本之木,是不靠谱的,所以禅的所谓“悟”其实是近乎本能的感觉。也所以,将禅思维用于艺术(诗),那是艺术思维的倒退。不过我们的艺术一直没有走出禅之类的原始混沌思维,却浑然不知,还以为其思维多么高级、多么超越,以至到现在还如此推崇禅。
真正的艺术——尤其是走向观念的当代艺术,其最高境界应该追求的是西方那样的“理性迷狂”的非理性主义,因为这种非理性主义才能真正为艺术带来合目的的、合终极目的的超越——这正是我的“问题主义”当代艺术理论强调的艺术逻辑理性超越方式,也是我为什么提出“艺术是一种社会科学”当代艺术命题的原因(另一命题是“艺术是有意义的生活”。其实从终极意义上说,所有旨在揭示世界真理的认识活动,包括艺术,都应该是科学的);而不是我们的禅之类的“原始非理性主义”——它总是在天人合一的原始混沌的“无”的陷阱中做着自以为是的超越梦,却又总是与超越貌合神离,它不过是白日做梦、异想天开的超越幻觉。而令人遗憾的是,我们的艺术似乎永远也走不出“原始非理性主义”的禅学陷阱。
Ch’an teaching, as a system of anti-logic, attempts to intuitively (rather than intellectually) understand existence. However, even intuitive understanding implies the use of an underlying and organising logic. If this type of logic exists within the Ch’an dialogue technique, it is primarily coincidental and unconscious in origination – it is not the conscious and deliberate use of formal logic. Ch’an dialogue is fast whilst its root-effectiveness lies not in the activation of logic, but rather in its exact opposite – the lack of any use of formal logic. The development of a logical framework (which produces logical thinking), requires the accumulation of experience over-time, through a variety of sensory experiences, all ‘integrated’ through the analysis of results. This is a specific use of the conscious, rational mind to assess data as a means to generate formal logic (as a response to this process). On the other hand, Ch’an dialogue utilises a quick and shallow response to events that lacks depth, and is not premised upon the rational and logical assessment of data or events. There is no sense of ‘logical’ formulation in the entire practice of Ch’an teaching, even if the tradition itself can be said to have a certain ‘basic’ set of strictures loosely referred to as a ‘logic’ of sorts. This is the use of the primitive ‘intuition’, which is a more primitive form of making sense of data (a rudimentary logic that must be clearly distinguished from the formal logic associated with modernity). As Ch’an dialogue is automatic and fast, as a distinct process it represents only a limited ‘intuitive’ understanding, when compared with the considered depth and careful consideration associated with the use of logical thinking. Therefore, this ‘intuitive’ use of the mind (and language) is ‘instinctive’ in nature, and not logical. This invariably means that it lacks the logical and rational assessment of data common in modern science, and instead remains superficial and prone to making mistakes whilst generating factual errors in complex situations. It is assumed by some that animal instinct and human intuition are similar states in both essence and function, but in reality there are essential differences. Whereas humans are ‘directly’ aware of the intuitive state, animals are generally ‘unaware’ when instinctively reacting to external stimuli. It is this fundamental ‘awareness’ in evolved humans that is the basis of human intuition, and the premise from which modern logic has evolved. Intuitive awareness tends to be non-discriminative, and interprets all sensory stimuli as deriving from the same underlying and ‘unitary’ source, whereas modern logic clearly discerns the presence of multitudinous stimuli, and is able to view each set of data or events as ‘separate’ and ‘distinct’ from one another, and clearly the product of endless chains of ‘causes’ and ‘effects’. Ch’an dialogue denies the validity of ‘dualistic’ thought (as a deviation from the unitary basis of the intuition), whereby modern logic is entirely dependent upon the concrete existence and functionality of the very same ‘dualistic’ nature of material existence.
The so-called ‘Ch’an-mind’ is thought by many to be ‘intuitive’ in nature, but it also shares many of the characteristics of animal instinct. As a distinct teaching, Ch’an dialogue excludes the possibility of the process of accumulating objective knowledge and of developing and using a modern logical framework. As the mind is ‘emptied’ of all logical (and proto-logical content), there is a type of intuition at work, but one which ignores the direct comprehension of the essence of things, and which instead is more related to a primordial ‘feeling’, or kind of emotional ‘pre-awareness’ very similar to animal instinct. This is a primitive means of perception used by the human mind in an earlier evolutionary stage, which reduced the sensory complexity of the external environment to a simplistic inner comprehension. This instinctive sensing was all the human mind was capable of at this time, and Ch’an in modern times, offers a regressive form of meditative practice that abandons the use of modern logic, and returns the mind’s functionality to this primitive state. The success of this endeavour (which is the essence of all mysticism) is then referred to as ‘enlightenment’. Mysticism is the use of the human mind in a primitive state that reduces the complexity of the physical environment to that of raw, intense (but also ‘non-specific’) internal feeling, or to a set of illogical or superstitious beliefs. This historical (evolutionary) process can be observed the world over, in both the West and the East, with the ancient Greeks developing the concept of ‘logos’ as the next stage of human thought development. This vital phase in evolutionary development saw the emergence of rationality and logic as the primary inner means of the human analysis of the complex outer environment.
Many people in China prefer the Ch’an teaching, which is in reality a form of ‘Eastern Mysticism’, to that of Western philosophy, even in its ‘irrational’ forms (such as ‘Existentialism’). What is not understood is that Western thinking is premised entirely upon ‘logic’ and nothing else (which is a process inherently linked to Western irrational thought from which it historically developed). Logic represents the highest mode of human thought to date, which possesses the potential to scientifically understand the world in its complete and entire form, free of the irrationality of mysticism and superstition. From rational and logical thinking, the ultimate truth of the universe can eventually be worked out through the correct analysis of all phenomena. Plato states that by using the mind correctly, there is developed a state of ‘rational ecstasy’. Although the undeveloped state of irrationality lacks logic, nevertheless, through the application of analysis of data performed in a careful step by step manner, logic and reason can be developed. This process of logical development potentially has no limit, and by pursuing a scientific method, knowledge can grow and increase without limit. This is the manifesting of logic and reason as the highest mode of human thought. This is the development of the dialectical technique, which is also referred to as the use of ‘rational purpose’, and ‘ultimate reason’. This is the manifestation of the ‘rational logos’, and signifies the mind developing the rational process (whilst simultaneously moving away from irrational modes of thinking). When this logical process is fully established, it is known as the development of the rational process, gained from rational necessity. Therefore, once Western philosophy had grasped the dialectical technique, the only direction of development has been that of progressing forward and never retreating backwards. Therefore, the process of building Western rationalism cannot regress backward into the pre-modern thinking processes associated with irrationality. Higher thinking in the Western sense is premised entirely upon the development of logic to an ever greater degree. Husserl stated that Western irrationality developed into Western rationality. This is to say that the irrationality of the West implicitly contained the ability to develop into formal logic over-time. This is where the Ch’an teaching differs dramatically, as its irrational theoretical base does not, (and has never contained) the potential ability to transform itself into ‘rationality’. Of course, systems of Western irrationality still exist (such as ‘Existentialism’), but unlike the Ch’an teaching, they possess the ability to potentially develop the use of logic and reason. Ch’an, as a form of Eastern Mysticism, interprets events through primitive intuitive feeling, and not logical thought, whilst Western Mysticism (and certain contemporary strands of Western irrational thought), are always moving in the direction of the dialectical development of logic and reason. This is why the two forms of mysticism are essentially different. Ch’an masters continuously utter nonsense and make all kinds of irrational statements falsely presented as ‘freedom’ or ‘enlightenment’. As these statements possess no logical base, the Ch’an mode of thinking cannot progress in a dialectical or logical manner, and so it remains at the level of irrationality, imagining all kinds of transcended events to justify its own methodology. The difference between East and West here, is that even Western irrationality has within its framework, the seeds of logicality. The Ch’an masters of China are always attempting to ‘empty’ the mind of the very thought (and thought processes) that the Westerners have used to develop rational and logical thinking. This is the fundamental difference between our Chinese Ch’an and Western thought – where even their ‘irrationality’ possesses the potential to develop ‘rationality’. Chinese Ch’an, by way of comparison, is a complete system in and of itself that cannot evolve because it eradicates the thought processes that are the basis of how the usage of the mind is developed.
Plato recognises that the activity of the human mind can be separated into ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ categories. Plato’s list of irrational ‘ecstasies’ (or ‘loves’) include ‘love ecstasy’ (including relationships and sexual ecstasy), ‘religion (theistic) ecstasy’, ‘prophetic ecstasy’, and ‘poetical ecstasy’ etc. Although poetical ecstasy might be a little more developed than the others, Plato still considered these ‘ecstasies’ to be of a relatively low level of development because they lacked a base in ‘logos’, or logic. For Plato, even the comparatively sophisticated ‘ecstasy of poetry’ was deficient because poets only ‘imitated’ reality, without truly understanding it. Poems were not a logical representation of the world, because they instead relied upon ‘feeling’ to interpret events. As the poet followed only his feelings, and had no ‘reasoned’ understanding of the events he was conveying, the resultant poems lacked reason and logic. (Of course, Plato did acknowledge that a great poet did possess the possibility of reaching a ‘rational’ ecstasy through the writing of poems, providing his thought processes underwent a ‘logos’ modification during the creative process). For Plato, the greatest ‘ecstasy’ of them all was the ‘love’ of rationally derived logic. This maybe also termed ‘rational ecstasy’, which is the consequence of the human mind and its thought processes achieving a special alignment of purpose that generates the function of rational thought. This is the highest state of functionality of the human mind that has so far been achieved by the species. The process begins from a naturally chaotic and relatively ‘unaware’ perspective (found in the ‘irrational’ ecstasies), and gradually develops into a uniform and pristine process that perceives (and can predict) patterns, whilst being able to assess and understand the unfolding process of cause and effect. The attainment of logic allows a certain predictability to enter the equation, which uproots all thought systems, religions or superstitious habits premised upon the earlier use of irrationality (and non-scientific predictability).
With regard to an assessment of our own Chinese Ch’an tradition (and its odd dialogue), we find that it resembles Plato’s irrational ecstasies, particularly with regard to the ‘ecstasy of love’ and the ‘ecstasy of religion’, etc. However, whereas in ancient Greece, the Greek irrationalities possessed the potential to develop in rational ways (through the development of associative thought), the Chinese Ch’an tradition is deliberately designed to ‘prevent’ the capacity that would lead to rational thought. Why is this the case? It is the case because the Ch’an method requires that the mind is ‘stilled’ and that a mind ‘empty’ of all thought processes is reached. If the thought processes are eradicated through Ch’an practice, then there remains no functional capacity in the mind to ‘evolve’ toward the attainment of ‘logic’. Becoming ‘aware’, or becoming ‘enlightened’ is the irrational notion that a practitioner simply clearly ‘perceives’ this ‘lack of thought process’, and then imports all kinds of mystical nonsense into its ‘emptiness’. For the Ch’an tradition, enlightenment is the realised state of ‘awareness’ of a lack of logic. This situation is compounded because of an inverted mind-set within China where we think the ‘emptiness of logic’ within Ch’an enlightenment, (as expressed through Ch’an art), is ‘advanced’, when in fact it is the exact opposite. The Ch’an method is entirely regressive and represents a state of arrested development. It is a backward step to a more primitive time, that has become mistakenly presented as ‘superior’ to modern logic. Ch’an is often mystified as ‘unfathomable’ but this is not true. As expressed in this article, the historical development of Ch’an is entirely fathomable. It is only if there is a fall into ‘mysticism’ and philosophical idealism and obscurity that Ch’an becomes ‘opaque’ and unreadable, but as this is an illogical position, it follows that a logical assessment of Ch’an history and philosophy undoubtedly ‘reveals’ the illogical basis of Ch’an theory. Real art – especially in its contemporary form, should develop as a ‘rational ecstasy’. In the West, for instance, rational art should develop out of an expansive and irrational base, and so develop a ‘logic’ of art that unifies irrationality with rationality (and thus transforming the former into the latter). Art, regardless of how abstract it can be, particularly in its realist expression, should be logically based and convey various forms of reality, which might even include a scientific interpretation of events. In reality, contemporary art has the potential to continuously develop beyond all boundaries, as its logic becomes ever more accommodating of external phenomena, and creative in its own right. Art has the ability to take irrationality and transform it into rationality. As the Ch’an art – it is the art of the primitive state. Ch’an art always diverts the mind away from its eternal (and logical) development and back toward a more primordial reality that encompasses a vague grasping of a unified (or ‘divine’) base to an apparently chaotic world. The development of logic, however, is progressive and contains the ability to bring order to chaos, and fully manipulate the outer world through human ingenuity. Given enough time, and the appropriate political and economic conditions, all of humanity’s suffering could be eradicated through the development and use of science. Whereas Ch’an attempts to return the mind to a more primitive state (and assume that this retrogressive step represents a ‘higher’ order), the development of logic is progressive and represents a truly great human power to change the world for the better and eradicate suffering in a far more evolved (and realistic) manner.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2016.
Original Chinese Language Source Text: http://blog.artintern.net/article/918558
禅学的“原始非理性主义”及其“超越”幻觉
吴味
拙文《禅学——中国文化的“狗皮膏药”》分析、批判了禅的反逻辑、反概念界定的原始混沌的玄学,有人认为禅是因为看到语言逻辑理性的局限性才反逻辑、反概念界定。但其实禅的反逻辑、反概念界定与语言逻辑理性的局限性没有关系,它的问题根本在于其原始混沌思维本身的无逻辑——即思维还没有发育到逻辑层次。所有的语言表达都反映思维方式,思维方式有从低级向高级发展的过程,逻辑思维方式就是克服原始无逻辑的混沌思维方式而发展起来的。实际上中国传统文化一直没有建立起语言逻辑理性——即逻各斯理性,从根本思维方式上说,一直都处在前逻辑理性的混沌阶段。逻辑思维方式在认识超越性上是有局限性,但禅学这种低级的原始无逻辑的混沌思维方式是无法克服更高级的逻辑思维方式的局限性的,克服逻辑思维方式的局限性需要下文阐述的“努斯理性”。
有人又认为禅不是通过语言逻辑思维、而是通过直观思维把握世界。但直观认识(判断)同样隐含着逻辑思维,只不过这种逻辑思维过程非常自动、快速和不自觉,它实际上是人的逻辑思维框架结构(需要长期逻辑思维经验的积累建构)对各种感觉经验的综合分析自动快速运转的结果,它的过程的自动快速性给人一种没有逻辑思维过程的感觉,好像一眼望穿的“直观”,其实还是有逻辑思维过程的。而正因为直观认识中逻辑思维的自动快速性,所以直观认识针对复杂的事物也常常出错。如果没有逻辑思维过程,所谓的“直观”实际上是本能。动物的本能活动只是与人的直观认识活动在形式上相似,实际上有本质区别,所以“(本质)直观”一词并不能用于动物,“直观”并不是“直接观看”的意思,本质不是直接观看出来的,它总是与抽象逻辑思维的过程有关,它的最高境界是下文所讲的逻辑思维的“理性迷狂”。
禅思维与其说是人的直观思维,还不如说是动物性的本能感觉。禅特别排斥逻辑、概念,排斥知识的积累,这样就无法形成逻辑思维结构框架,直观认识失去了基础前提,所以禅特别强调感觉、直觉,强调相由心生,实际上这不是对事物的本质直观认识,而是近似于动物性的本能感觉,它是原始本能感觉性的混沌思维的表现。
原始本能感觉性混沌思维面对社会复杂的事物,导致的认识就是原始神秘主义。原始神秘主义在人类思维的早期各个民族都是一样的,西方也有,但西方在希腊哲学逻各斯理性形成以后就跨过了这个思维混沌阶段。很多中国人把禅之类的这种原始性“东方神秘主义”误以为是西方哲学的非理性主义,却不明白西方哲学的非理性主义是建立在逻各斯理性主义基础之上的,它实际上是理性主义的一个环节,是理性主义认识走向到极致、走向极限后向最高的善(大全、完备、完善)的终极理念世界的超越性认识的跳跃,它让人仿佛窥见终极真理的灵光。这种跳跃在柏拉图那里就是一种“理性迷狂”的境界,这种“理性迷狂”虽然是非理性的,无法“直接”用形式逻辑严格、精确地一步一步推导出来,但却是理性认识逻辑发展到极致的自然而然的结果,所以它自然符合逻辑,用辩证思维可以综合分析,可以说它是理性认识的最高境界的表现形式,是理性认识的最高阶段,灵感就是这个环节的思维表现。这种非理性的理性就是“努斯理性”,也可以称作“目的理性”、“超越理性”、“辩证理性”、“灵魂理性”、“终极理性”,这种更高层次的“努斯理性”才能克服逻辑思维方式(逻各斯理性)的局限性。这个环节之前阶段的理性就是所谓的“逻各斯理性”,也可以称作“逻辑理性”、“规范理性”、“必然理性”、“过程理性”。没有“逻各斯理性”,就没有“努斯理性”。由此可见,西方哲学的非理性主义不是真的要反理性而退回到原始非理性,而是追求更高的理性,只不过一般的逻辑思维把握不了这种理性才认为是非理性(需要辩证思维才能把握)。这种非理性主义实际上是“理性超越主义”,尤其是西方现代非理性主义(如生命哲学、存在主义等)更是如此。所以胡塞尔说西方的一切非理性哲学其实都是理性的。而禅之类的东方神秘主义完全没有逻辑理性(逻各斯理性)认识的过程,它是原始混沌思维对事物的带有本能性的感觉、想象、猜测,它不是逻辑理性的非理性超越的“努斯理性”,只是混沌未开的天人合一的原始非理性。这种东方神秘主义的“原始非理性主义”和西方非理性主义(尤其是西方现代非理性主义)有本质区别。西方哲学史中,单纯的或纯粹的理性主义者很多,但完全不讲理性、不讲逻辑的像我们的禅学大师那样的原始非理性主义者绝对没有,所以,西方非理性主义本质上并不排斥逻辑、概念,它总是力求概念明确、逻辑严谨,而我们的禅学恰恰相反。
柏拉图对非理性的“迷狂”还做了许多区分,有“爱情的迷狂(生殖力的迷狂)”、“宗教(神)的迷狂”、“预言的迷狂”、“诗的迷狂”等,柏拉图认为,这些非理性的“迷狂”,除了“诗的迷狂”比较高级一点以外,其它的都是比较低级的,因为他们缺乏真正的理性(逻辑),只有近乎本能的原始“非理性”(所以柏拉图要追求“精神恋爱”,而鄙视低级的非理性世俗恋爱);即使是“诗的迷狂”柏拉图也并不很看好,因为柏拉图认为诗同样缺乏理性,那些好诗不过是诗人在诗神附体情况下不自觉地、无法自控地写出来的,缺乏理性认识的过程(当然柏拉图对诗的认识有局限性,伟大诗作的灵感的获得也是要有逻辑理性认识的过程铺垫的,它接近上述的“理性迷狂”)。柏拉图最推崇的是“理性迷狂”(也称“哲学迷狂”),原因就在于“理性迷狂”的非理性是理性基础上的非理性,是非理性的理性超越,它是人的认识的最高境界。这种思维方式的超越过程对于根本上都属于人类认识世界的方式的科学和艺术来说都是一样的,以为艺术创作不需要逻辑思维那是我们的“原始非理性主义”的混沌思维错觉。
我们的禅之类的东方神秘主义实际上也是一种迷狂,但都是与“爱情的迷狂”、“宗教的迷狂”、“预言的迷狂”等类似的近乎本能性的迷狂,因为禅是反逻辑、反文字、无积累的,所以禅的迷狂是没有逻辑理性认识的基础和过程的,是靠自身的所谓“悟”,但这种“悟”由于缺乏逻辑理性认识的积累而成为无源之水、无本之木,是不靠谱的,所以禅的所谓“悟”其实是近乎本能的感觉。也所以,将禅思维用于艺术(诗),那是艺术思维的倒退。不过我们的艺术一直没有走出禅之类的原始混沌思维,却浑然不知,还以为其思维多么高级、多么超越,以至到现在还如此推崇禅。
真正的艺术——尤其是走向观念的当代艺术,其最高境界应该追求的是西方那样的“理性迷狂”的非理性主义,因为这种非理性主义才能真正为艺术带来合目的的、合终极目的的超越——这正是我的“问题主义”当代艺术理论强调的艺术逻辑理性超越方式,也是我为什么提出“艺术是一种社会科学”当代艺术命题的原因(另一命题是“艺术是有意义的生活”。其实从终极意义上说,所有旨在揭示世界真理的认识活动,包括艺术,都应该是科学的);而不是我们的禅之类的“原始非理性主义”——它总是在天人合一的原始混沌的“无”的陷阱中做着自以为是的超越梦,却又总是与超越貌合神离,它不过是白日做梦、异想天开的超越幻觉。而令人遗憾的是,我们的艺术似乎永远也走不出“原始非理性主义”的禅学陷阱。