Heidegger and dharma

Heidegger's philosophy is extraordinary. I read half of Being and Time for a philosophy reading group we had (we had to do ten pages a month, so it took about a year and a half - sadly, we finished Being but didn't get to Time). There is some argument (and it makes sense to me) that he read and was influenced by D T Suzuki, though never referencing it in the work. I particularly appreciated his phenomenological stance, that philosophy cannot think in the abstract - we are all already here and we encounter things not as abstract categories but in the context of our interaction (interconnectedness) with them. Of course, like other Western philosophers, he had no praxis and as a meditator this is quite frustrating reading his work...

A Miracle Of Nature! Meet The Gorilla Who Keeps Declaring ‘I Am God!’ In Sign Language (n.b. satire )

every3rdthought wrote: Heidegger's philosophy is extraordinary. I read half of Being and Time for a philosophy reading group we had (we had to do ten pages a month, so it took about a year and a half - sadly, we finished Being but didn't get to Time). There is some argument (and it makes sense to me) that he read and was influenced by D T Suzuki, though never referencing it in the work. I particularly appreciated his phenomenological stance, that philosophy cannot think in the abstract - we are all already here and we encounter things not as abstract categories but in the context of our interaction (interconnectedness) with them. Of course, like other Western philosophers, he had no praxis and as a meditator this is quite frustrating reading his work...

Take a look at some of his later works.

He was apparently a truly dreadful human being. But he got closer to the truth than most western philosophers. Too bad he had no practice.

Chris Marti wrote: What truth?

Oops! My metaphysical roots are showing.

Heidegger's stuff is fascinating and, I think, important.

Apparently he spent some time in Japan in the '20's and there met members of the Kyoto School. These were Japanese academics who were interested in Western Philosophy but also had Eastern practices (they were mostly into Zen and Pure Land, I think). There is one interview I am aware of from the sixties in which Heidegger was asked about praxis and made a vague reference to 'breathing exercises' that he engaged in but wouldn't elaborate. He was always very reticent about discussing his encounter with Buddhism and Taoism but he also at one point worked on a translation of the Toa De Ching with a Chinese scholar/friend.

There's a cool book called 'Heidegger's HIdden Sources" I think which investigates his connections with Eastern thought (and praxis).

Unfortunately like the rest of us he was just a human being, and a fairly petty one at that by all accounts. 'Between Good and Evil' is a great biography for info on this. That said, he was complex, and though it's tempting to reduce him to a caricature of himself I think he was basically a mixed bag. He sure didn't like coming out and admitting he'd been wrong, that's for sure.

His later stuff is really amazing. Very poetic.

There is an American phenomenologist, David Michael Levin, who has studied Dzogchen (even completing a Dark Retreat under Namkhai Norbu's guidance). He does a really good job of weaving strands of Heidegger and other contemporary thinkers (in the history of philosophy, anything from the past hundred years or so is contemporary!) with Dzogchen-flavored buddhism/shamanism. I really recommend him to anyone who is into continental philosophy AND meditation.

Joan Stambaugh, who translated some of Heidegger's more poetic later stuff, wrote a neat little book called "The Formless Self" which critiques Heidegger and follows a more Kyoto School approach to Zen. It goes into some of the important thinkers in that School like Nishitani. I really enjoyed her book, but I wonder how it would hold up in the context of my present perspective.

every3rdthought wrote: I read half of Being and Time for a philosophy reading group we had ...

Just the 7th section of the intro to Being and Time alone is well worth reading. He breaks down what he means by 'phenomenology' and it's very insightful, applicable to life and meditation practice.

The book is unfinished so it is itself half a book. But he delivered some lectures and wrote some stuff that covers the territory he wanted to cover in that second half of B&T. It's such an interesting project. He wanted to peel back the layers of Western Metaphysics, working his way back to the pre-Socratics like Parmenides. He makes the case that at the roots of the Western tradition there is an existential revelation of the nature of experience/being. Basically we are caught up with seeing ourselves as beings amidst other beings, whereas in a sense, we are actually the openness in which beings appear and disappear. This openness itself is by nature hidden (in that it is never a thing, never a phenomenon, but the condition by which phenomena are revealed) yet it is implicit in every experience. When openness is appreciated then things reveal themselves differently-- they reveal themselves as (open impermanent) presencings rather than (solid separate) presences. Thinking defaults to a mode that identifies things as solid separate presences and defaults to seeing ourselves and other sentients as basically this kind of thing made of body and mind. However by returning to the root of thinking-- aware open presence-- we can have insight into the true nature of things which has deep significance for how we live and relate to others.

A friend of mine and I were discussing this stuff and the question of whether Heidegger 1) had a practice and 2) could have been awakened in some sense. I was arguing against both possibilities. My friend then pointed out (he was well practiced in Zen, Dzogchen, and Western Magick) that the key to every practice system he had been involved in-- the common thread-- was that the people who experienced baseline shifts or who developed facility with mastering states had developed concentration. It may have come about spontaneously as in Ekhart Tolle's case (sudden massive existential concentration) or it may have been specifically cultivated as part of that system's meditative path but my friend argued that the difference between those who dabble and those who transform is the latter develop concentration, one way or another.

He then pointed out that Heidegger obviously had deep concentration abilities, and argued that his work of thought may well have constituted a practice with the important elements of concentration and insight.

This is of course hard to swallow in our Western Dharma scene, which is often really critical of thinking. I think this criticality is a mixed bag-- I know lots of folks who meditate regularly but have not really gotten anywhere because they always turn away from thinking towards another object and so don't develop much insight into the empty impermanence of thinking. But it is similar to Jnana Yoga in some ways.

Pierre Hadot writes about this re-understanding of ancient Western philosophy as practice. He's very interesting to read. Recommended.

jake wrote: ...
This is of course hard to swallow in our Western Dharma scene, which is often really critical of thinking. I think this criticality is a mixed bag-- I know lots of folks who meditate regularly but have not really gotten anywhere because they always turn away from thinking towards another object and so don't develop much insight into the empty impermanence of thinking. But it is similar to Jnana Yoga in some ways.

I think there's a difference between what many dharma practitioners or regular people might call thinking (as in "oh my God I can't concentrate because my mind is spinning endless anxiety narratives about my stupid life") and thinking in a contemplative, considered way, as in chewing on philosophy or studying a useful text (scripture, philosophy, poem, etc). The latter can be interesting and fruitful. The former is just sort of neurotic. That said, in my own experience it is much easier now to deeply consider and ponder a text, whereas, say, in college, when I was given tons of fascinating books to read, I had little ability to pay close attention and thus skimmed through them trying to find the parts that would be on the test, or just to finish in time for a deadline. Close, considered reading is a skill, and one that requires... concentration, quiet, focus, etc. Do others find this the case?

Definitely. I spent my 20's reading through Heidegger's work-- anything I could get my hands on. It changed my brain as much in some ways as meditation did. I can think in paragraphs or even short essays (like, they pop fully formed into my head to articulate something) and I can read long passages carefully while I could not before. I noticed that in order to even be able to read Heidegger, I needed to grow my attention span significantly, to be able to read several paragraphs without understanding yet what was written (because it was a single thought being developed over those paragraphs).

Being able to suspend the need to understand things intellectually yet having the intellect engaged leads me to a state of empty clarity. It's like the conceptual part of mind is not-knowing and a nonconceptual knowingness shines through that. Then when what is being pointed to is seen (clicks), rather than grasping a concept, the result is more a dropping of a false assumption about the nature of things that wasn't seen clearly before, which thus reveals the nature of things more vividly for a moment.

But yeah, I had to develop massive skills at stilling and opening my mind, suspending belief/disbelief, extending and deepening my attention span in order to even be able to read him. This permanently altered my mind in a way comparable to awakening (but very different).

I have often felt that the aversion to the intellectual/thinking in Western dharma practice is a big issue - it comes, IMHO, roaring straight out of Western Romanticism (cf David McMahon and Thanissaro) rather than from anything actually in Eastern religions. Some of the Indian traditions, some Advaita Vedanta and I think Samkhya in particular, particularly give jnana yoga (as you mentioned above), an intellectual understanding of how things are based on learning and reflecting on the knowledge learnt, as the path in itself. Heidegger lays the foundations for Continental deconstruction and again I tend to think that deconstruction (and also the French school's language games) has a close relationship or resemblance to a lot of Eastern/mystical philosophy. The other person I'd like to read in the original in relation to all of this is Schopenhauer, heavily influenced by the Upanishads and Vedanta.

What's a good piece to start with?

Yeah, Derrida's "Of Grammatology" also seemed to me to point very very clearly at emptiness, groundlessness.

Femto, I think there are a couple collections that have some great stuff in them which could be approachable from a cold start.

"Basic Writings" I believe includes that section of the Intro of Being and Time that I mentioned above which goes into what is 'phenomenology' according to Heidegger. That's a great jumping off point. If I recall there are some other good ones in there about science and philosophy, their relationship and differences (H. was a pretty good mathematician apparently and acquainted with some of the 20th century's great physicists.) Then "Poetry, Language, Thought" is an awesome collection of some of his later essays. A lot of these deal with Art in a fascinating way. "The Question concerning Technology" is another excellent collection; the title essay is pretty incredible.

The Question Concerning Technology is I think the only piece of Heidegger's later writings that I know. Amazing. I always like the Oxford Very Short Introduction series and if I'm going into a philosopher's work relatively 'cold' tend to start with one of those.

Thanks to Tom for moving this. I will re-read and rethink and then comment.

Was just reading this piece on depression and phenomenology and came across this, which seemed particularly relevant for dharma/Heidegger (and also personally relevant to a current exploration of importance/meaning of particular phenomena in my practice):

‘For Heidegger, moods reflect the fact that we are always in the world, immersed—always thrown into the world. What things show up as meaningful and meaningless, what possibilities and projects seem enticing or frightening, that is all determined by how we are disposed through moods. For Heidegger, moods reflect our thrownness; they come before any conceptual reflection or thinking. They are our fundamental way of being.’