towards a 無-calculus

Phasis thero

As you have said, there is no essence of seeing with an independent nature apart from phenomena. -- Surangama sutra

This relates to our discussion of a phatic turn.  The Surangama sutra talks about how perception arises: seeing is not in the eyes, nor the brain, nor the lamp, but in the total situation.  On the face of it, this is a sort of "macro-reductionism".  But it's a start, and I think we can back up the claim by referring to the quantum mechanical ideas from the previous post.  Perception really does arise in relationship.  Actually, not just in relationship -- but in the development of further inter-relatedness.

From this idea we will move quickly on to the idea that "practice" and "enlightenment" -- hopefully ideas that will become clearer as we go -- also arise together:

Inasmuch as practice now is based on enlightenment, the practice of a beginner is itself the whole of original enlightenment.  Therefore, in giving the instruction for practice, a Zen teacher advises his/her disciples not to seek enlightenment apart from practice, for practice points directly to original enlightenment.   -- Eihei Dogen: Mystical Realist, p. 64

I like the idea that meditation and wisdom or practice and enlightenment are words that describe a pair approximately like eval and apply from the previous post.  That is, they are defined in terms of one another and constitute an overall approach.  They seem to offer us some further examples of Deleuzian multiplicities.

Indeed, portions of the Surangama sutra almost read like something from Difference and Repetition, or vice versa:

Thus from that which was beyond both identity and diversity arose all differences.  When the differentiating subject confronted its differentiated objects, the resultant diversity led to identification. Identity and diversity further led to that which was neither the same nor different.  These conflicting disturbances resulted in troubled perception which in time gave rise to objective form.  -- Surangama sutra

Phasis deals with perception, and isn't that all about how differences can arise in that which is beyond identity and diversity?

Which brings me to this quote --

"狗子還有佛性也無?" - There is no Buddha-natured dog child?
"無" - No.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)

The typical and perhaps somewhat over-clever interpretation of this passage is to read 無 as "N/A", in other words, to carry the teacherly suggestion "such categorical thinking is a delusion."   But from what we've traced above I think we can go a bit deeper.  Categorical thinking, in itself, is certainly not a delusion: the key step would be to figure out how the categories relate.

The en-mindment of sentient beings is just part of the universe as a whole -- a very Monist-ical thing to consider, I should say.  The idea that the universe does not arise apart from thought is the Buddhistic way of putting it.  The assertion could be that the dog is not going to go about creating entire universes with its thinking the way a Buddha does, even if it exists in the mind of a Buddha.

Can we make any sense out of any of that?  The dog is subject to the same quantum-mechanical forces as the rest of the world.  But apparently there is something special about humans, or at least, about enlightened humans -- which are said to exist, and which, in fact, are not different from humans who practice.  It could be as simple as saying that dogs do not practice doggie zazen, or, much better because intersubjectively verifiable, that they do not teach doggie zazen.

They may very well practice phatic communication -- biting on the scruff of the neck etc. -- but to what extent do they relate to relationship itself?