A bird knows what to do, an ant knows what to do, a cat knows what to do, a human being knows what to do…
Is the knowledge of the bird and ant and cat intellectual or non-intellectual? Is their knowledge delusion? If the answer to the latter is yes and the answer to the former is non-intellectual then the intellect cannot be the source of delusion.
I am not saying that the intellect does not provide, just that it has serious limitations.
And no one is disputing that. The problem is that you call knowledge delusion. The question then is how delusion does not simply provide but can provide correctly and accurately.
I am. You are not understanding.
Or perhaps in your delusion you mistakenly think you are providing something understandable.
All Zen talk is very confusing. How could it be any other way? You desire to know something that is unknowable. How's that going to happen?
Well, you have certainly demonstrated not only that it is very confusing but that you are confused by it. I do not desire to know something that is unknowable, I simply asked a question you have avoided answering.
Yes, we use our intelligence in a rudimentary way, but there is very little [actually zero] real understanding.
The problem here is that you ignore the ordinary meaning of the term understanding and impose an impossible standard. Understanding how an engine works is "real" understanding. The proof is in the ability to fix it. There is no point at which our understanding of engines reaches a limit where the engine cannot be fixed or made to run.
Let’s not forget the title claim that science is “non-sense”. Now if you said that our scientific understanding is limited no one would disagree, but some of us might wonder why you are bothering stating the obvious. The fact of the matter is that science is able to make sense of a great many things even if it does not meet the impossible non-human standard you impose.
Does the squirrel understand storing up food for the winter?
Good question. Wittgenstein uses this same example to show that thinking is an extension or mode of acting. There is an ambiguity to the term understand. If you mean the squirrel stores nuts as the result of a process of ratiocination, then no, the squirrel does not understand. But the squirrel’s actions, not some process of reason, is what is primary. Our being in the world is not completely removed from this. As Goethe said, and Wittgenstein quotes:
In the beginning was the deed.
Does the squirrel store up food because it is delusional?
Your understanding is base. You think you understand because you follow cause and effect, but when you break it down, there is no real understanding.
I would say it is basic. Simple machines are the rudiments. The ability to make and fix engines rests on this base. The base stands under it. It is the basis of our understanding of the engine. Once again, you may impose an impossible standard you call “real understanding”, but that itself is delusion. It is an imaginary standard, completely removed from what we human beings are capable of, completely removed from your own experience. Or, are you claiming that "real understanding" is possible and you know this because you have achieved it?
You turn around and see that there is someone standing behind you and she was smiling at him. Delusion.
So, your example of realization is an example of delusion. Realization too is delusion? If all is delusion, the distinction between delusion and something else is non-existent. The distinction is meaningless.
At the moment you saw your first child born, were you not completely present?
The term completely present is too nebulous. As I said I experienced many different emotions and thoughts. There was no “moment” I saw my first child born. It was a process. It did not occur instantaneously. Surely as a physician you know this. Was worrying that my wife and child would be okay, that there would be no complications, that the child would be healthy, being completely present? These concerns after all, included things that were not present "in the moment" but what will be.
This is like saying that you have to have an advanced degree to read and understand [fill in the blank]. Remember, the brightest people in the world have always been self-taught. People reaching "higher states" had been going on long before the Buddha discovered his path.
Well, I did not need an advanced degree to understand that I have no idea of what enlightenment is. If, however, you are, as you claim to be, of the Soto lineage then as part of that lineage there is certification. If you are one of the brightest people in the world and self-taught then you are not part of the Soto lineage. I have asked whether you have reached or experienced “higher states” but you deflect and claim that I am asking for a description of higher states.
You seem to be very concerned about certification.
It is simply a way of getting at the distinction between the conception and experience of enlightenment. If I am correct, then according to your school the experience of enlightenment is confirmed by one who is enlightened. Time and again I have come across people who talk a great deal about such things as “Real understanding” but who have not attained it. People who either imagine that they are enlightened or imagine what it is like, when all they have really done is hear or read something and created their own conceptual constructs.
There are many people who are simple lay students who live their lives moment to moment, without the need for anything else.
That’s fine, but this is quite different than making claims about what is “real” beyond the moment to moment which you said is unreal.