romansh

The whole point is not to be reincarnated ... Don't get me wrong there are philosophies within Buddhism that I find not reconcilable.

I approach this more from a scientific or philosophical point of view. When we say self what exactly do we mean? I am fairly convinced that the thing I consider self is made up of other reconstituted life forms which in turn are considered to be made up of bits and pieces that are generally non life. And these are made up stars that made up of stars that have gone supernova or whatever. We are stardust. Evolution has imbued us with a capacity to have emotions of which we have love on a pedestal. Which is fine. Yet there is a fair amount of evidence that this love is chemically based (not just one but an amazing blend). In my experience we don't decide to love certain people we generally just do. I suppose some of us decide to try and manage to do it, but then their decision in turn is formed by past events. I can't help thinking that I am an eddy in the cosmos which sucks in particles and spits them out again. Some see this in a fatalistic light, I find awe in this view.

Why does it have to be a church Burl? I would argue most secular service organizations do this as well? Theology? I think Dawkins was a little cruel when he described this as a non existent subject, but I do think he had a point. Many of us here describe God as love. which is fair enough. But I can't help thinking we are missing out on all our other emotions. That evolution would allow us to have love and other emotions is for me a far more interesting subject than the "God is Love". plus why just churches and not mosques and temples?

Personally I don't miss church at all. I have not attended "church" except for christenings, weddings and funerals for the last forty five years. Since my confirmation. It was never a place of fellowship, in that just about everyone at least twice my age. So for this "fellowship" has been friends, neighbours, work etc. After James died nine years ago I felt a need to "give back". Ended up joining Rotary. I suspect any service club would have worked. I wonder if Texas is different in that it is heavily Christianized? The UK where I spent my formative years was effectively secular on a day to day basis. And even here in Canada the subject of church rarely comes up.

Other I tried linking to this before it is a summary of what Rex Weyler thinks are the words we can reasonably ascribe to a historic Jesus. I have no skill in asserting the accuracy of his statement, but having said that it would be really unusual if everything in the New Testament is a verbatim record of Jesus's words (and actions). Read into that what you will. But I think the question we are asking is what do we make of the myth of Christ? And here I think the various scribes have added on their own perceptions or perhaps spin. If Jesus did actually say something that is equivalent to: Otherwise, avoid rules and follow the truth you discover yourself. Act from awareness, not habit or convention. This I think is sage advice. ps The summary talks about the divine kingdom

Hi Bill Basically I agree with your summary ... your three points. Sure we can divvy each these further, but as broad classes they work for me. An option mentioned by Joseph was essentially pantheism, which I tend to have a soft spot for ... or as Dawkins has it sexed up atheism. In this sense is where theism and atheism meet on our circle of the other theisms. Regarding your frustration of the driver having not come to trial: In my opinion the purpose of the justice/penal system is or at least should be in a perfect world: Deterrence (the weakest of the reasons). Rehabilitation (the strongest in my opinion) Protection (of society, ie if somebody is going to carry on habitually with their undesired behaviour) Quite often people cite they want justice, meaning either want something back that was taken away. Obviously this is not always possible. But I do think this often turns into retribution and revenge masquerading s justice. This I don't think ultimately is helpful.

Well this thread seems to have died a death. What were the overall views of the book ... mine would have been three star? Also the little bit of commentary on meditation seems to indicate it means different things to different people.

On the Christian Music thread Burl asked whether I meditated on the music? it reminded me of these two quotes: I can't find the original context for this quote despite all of ten minutes of googling. But I did come across this page focussing on the negative aspects of meditation. There is also a page on the positive in the same website. Anyway ... why not meditate on what is important for each of us, rather than some particular aspect that is important for someone else? Here I would have a similar observation of Campbell and of Hanh. Here Campbell recognizes life is a meditation but that the spiritual might need special attention. If Hanh is right and all is interconnected through interbeing ... then it really does not matter.

The little bit I heard sounded nice. Having said that the laptop has crappy speakers. Regarding meditation ... a couple of quotes: and one from Joseph Campbell again: I meditate on the myths of science and philosophy. Hope that's OK.

Ah the Estonian paradox.

For me it is different - science sorts out the wheat from the chaff I imagine, Burl The example of Hanh's view of sexual misconduct is for me shows he does not quite understand his interbeing. Sexual misconduct is also the sun, clouds, rain and minerals except that he wears his dualistic hat on this one. Sun, clouds, rain and minerals are for him behaving badly.

You are welcome Soma ... it is that essay that allowed me to say yes to Burl's invite.

Incidentally here is the first time I came across the concept as described in terms of interbeing. The Edge series of books are, to my mind, atheistically minded; but not exclusively so. I always find a few essays that are of interest in them. To me Scott Sampson does a better job at explaining the concept/notion than Hanh. Note the paradox of ridding ourselves of notions.

Thanks Steve Well my addiction to this subject started in late 2007, when I lost my faith in free will. So we are of similar vintages with respect to doubt of this non-self thingy. There are Zen meditation practitioners who claim they can experience this non-self oneness etc. Personally, I am OK with the intellectual understanding and living (and I suppose ultimately dying) by this understanding and its ramifications. Having an experience of it might me nice but it is not a requirement at least not for me.

Living Buddha, Living Christ Here are some of the main themes I picked up or at least resonated with me. Interbeing (Intrabeing) As I expected this was the very best part of the book. It is the consistent with the concept of the universe unfolding. This is central to the argument against free will, yet strangely Buddhists as a whole believe in it, Stephen Batchelor is one notable exception. One of the major ramifications is that we don’t have an intrinsic self. I don’t get the sense that Hanh has fully explored the ramifications of interbeing, and if he has it does not come across in the book. For example emotions like hate, fear and disgust are as much a result of sun, clouds, rain and minerals as are flowers and future crops. Hanh certainly does not address this. Being Mindful A lot of the book is about being mindful, this is fine if you into this kind of things. Being aware of oneself, especially in moments of stress can I think be useful. And if we are inclined to negative self-chatter then this to I think can be useful. Having said that I wonder how much of this mindfulness is related to consciousness. I am surprised no one commented on Susan Blackmore’s Am I conscious now? Being Nice to One Another I have no problem with this. But it is not clear what to do if someone else is not being nice. Game theory suggests some sort of tit for tat strategy works but perhaps going easy on the “tat”, at least the negative “tats”. Hanh seems to point at some sort of pacifism, at least with the example of the monk self-emolliating. Now doing violence to oneself or another does not seem to do accord with Hanh’s interbeing. But I would suggest that the point is, or could be, that if we do violence to one another we don’t do it in anger or retribution and understand that the person is a result of the sun, minerals etc as well. Things Are Not What They seem This is fine, I generally agree. But one caution, Hanh talked of noumenon. This word was coined by Kant and it is was defined in the glossary as something as it really is (and can be accessed meditation or similar). Hanh did not specifically speak to this, but we use the same substrate to get our experience of the noumenon as we do of the phenomenon. So I think reality is out there and whatever we experience or think is simply a reflection of that reality … regardless of how we obtain it. General Who is this book written for? Certainly not for those without belief? I can’t see the Buddhistically minded being swayed, primarily because they are on yonder/this shore anyway. Evangelically minded I can’t see them being swayed by this. Just reading the reviews of this book points out the ‘mistakes’ Hanh makes in interpretation in Christian interpretation. I wonder if it will appeal to those who are looking are ready for a change from some of the more liberal traditional Christian traditions? Parallels between Christianity and Buddhism? Personally this was of little interest to me, and I will leave serious comment to those who care and are more in tune with serious Christian theology. But as a casual disinterested observer I found it a little tenuous. Having said that I believe there are many more knowledgeable observers who have noted similarities between Buddhism and Christianity.

Well it is: Chapter Ten Faith and Practice Penetrating the Heart of Reality Our faith must be alive. I recently read some atheistically inclined wag, writing Faith is never having to say you are wrong. Now while I think this is not necessarily true of PCs, but I have come across those of faith who claim that the world is six thousand years old and that the isotopic evidence to the contrary was simply put there to test our faith. I failed my faith test apparently. Why not Our understanding of how the universe ticks must be open to new evidence? Why faith and not understanding or knowledge? Hahn then seems to go on to say ... things are not as they seem, which for me is fair enough. Only the Son and the Holy Spirit Know Him The opening line: Letting go of notions and concepts ... and yet this book is full of them. I think I understand what Hanh is driving at but he could have worded it differently. Abyss of Doubt Really? Speaking as an agnostic I can't help thinking of doubt as my friend and ally. Stephen Batchelor describes Buddhism having agnostic tendencies. He who think he knows, doesn't know: He who knows he doesn't know, knows. Ancient Sanskrit proverb also apparently found in the Chinese Tao-te Ching, whatever that is. Empty of What? This section tries to answer Joseph's and Steve's disquiet about the non-self. I don't think contains is the right word on page 184, third line. Everything certainly is interconnected at the quantum and Newtonian levels, but I would say everything is of the same fundamental material and everything is a result of the interdependence. We focus on just a small part of a pattern of action and give it a name and somehow ignore the observation that the pattern of action is impermanent just like my eddy in the pond. Two Types of Causation Personally I would not distinguish between these two. He even seems to talk down the distinction later. Again I am reminded of the Campbell quote: But the ultimate mystical goal is to be united with one’s god. With that the duality is transcended and forms disappear. There is nobody there, no god, no you. Your mind, going past all concepts, has dissolved in identification with the ground of your being. Who is Not Unique? Generally I agree with the intent Intolerance does not help ... but there are a couple of questions. Should we tolerate parents who deny their children (and Hanh here explicitly suggests belonging) essential life saving medicines? And on a more benign note, what about parents who intentionally exclude and intentionally misinform their children as to say age of the Earth and Evolution? And perpetuate intolerant attitudes to say the gay community and their (for me strange) view of sin. Should apathetically tolerate or mindfully steer the ship? (So to speak). Bearing in mind that (almost) intentionally we indoctrinate children at an early age. Real Dialogue Brings Tolerance. I would argue being open to change based on the most accurate evidence available is tolerance. I would also be careful of the word true in phrases like true love and truly happy. Mindful Living Journal If this what somebody wants to do ... fine. But personally I am sceptical of the slightly apocryphal Socrates statement of The unexamined life is not worth living At times I am a little envious of people who go about their lives without worrying about these eternal vagaries. Anyway, I have no interest in this particular aspect of non-self programming. I don't who said it ... Life is a meditation. This is good enough for me. I will write a summary of my overall thoughts of the book when I get my breath back.

I don't recall Hanh's exact phrasing, but my understanding of the Buddhist phrase it is actually not self rather than no self. The whole point of this is that any thinking that you or I do is a result of the 'universe unfolding' rather than some automaton that exists independent of the universe. I don't particularly care for the rhetoric around "belonging" though.

I agree ... not only is it fun to share but it is an opportunity to test our beliefs (or the lack thereof) by discussing and critiquing them.

Well back then it was not uncommon for miracles (and supernatural stuff in general) to occur. If I remember correctly in some Buddhist traditions Buddha also performed miracles. Even today in modern times people feel a need for miracles. ... Mother Teresa comes to mind. Of course not everyone is convinced that praying to Mother Teresa resulted in miracles.

It is not things are not always that logical ... our models are incomplete (perhaps worse completely wrong), our information that we feed into the models and our application of logic can be woeful.

Seeker Being agnostically minded the short answer would be no. We can't even be sure how much of the non supernatural "history" can be attributed Jesus, how many of the Jesus narratives are actual history. But what we can think about is after later scribes redacted oral narratives, modified them and added their own what is the meaning of the scriptures we should take today,. There is a whole continuum here. Three steps on the way would be atheistically we dump the whole lot, we could take a Joseph Campbell or a JS Spong view or we could we could take the whole lot hook, line and sinker. edit just noticed this is in Progressive Christianity .... my apologies.

I point to my truth better than he points to mine. But yes hyperbole works too.

Chapter 9 The Other Shore Here, although I can't say I am on the same page as Hanh, I could well be in the same book if not chapter. Continuation We seem to feel there must be a next life ... A quarter of North Americans and Europeans believe in some form of reincarnation. While I am aware reincarnation and afterlife are not necessarily the same thing ... but I am wondering who this we are? Hanh does not appear to be one of them. I have absolutely no fear of being dead or being reduced to so called nothingness. I might not look forward some of the patterns that are involved in getting to death, but then that is OK too. Manifestation and Remanifestation While we are definitely not the same moment from moment , but barring extraordinary events we are similar. When Hanh points to our impermanent bodies and our soul like attributes he skirts awfully closely with a dualistic outlook. All this manifestation type stuff, is fine ... it is like an eddy in a pond ... it sucks in water from the immediate pond and throws it back out. it is just a pattern of material movement. True Faith is Alive. if by this Hahn means our beliefs are subject to change as new evidence and more accurate interpretations of that evidence, then I am all in favour of that. Each Moment is a Moment of Renewal energy of mindfulness and energy of holy spirit. These energies are movement of the material in the material world. At least in my book. Nirvana is Available Now This whole chapter is about birth and death, non birth and non death etc. I am reminded xenobiologists when looking for life have trouble defining it from an astronomical exploration point of view. In fact they end up defining in thermodynamic terms. For me life is an arbitrary phenomena where life gains energy from an outside source and expends it in a sufficiently complex and hindered way. Extinction of Notions Experience of apple juice ... while true , but only up to a point, there is a deeper philosophical issue here. Lets take the experience of colour ... the science is simpler. lets say we look at the same red chair. Do we have the same experience of redness and even is the chair red? And does the chair go together with the non-table? Everything can be Spiritual Especially if we define spiritual broadly enough. to me this seems like the most liberal end of Progressive Christianity. Hanh goes on to say he would not call it secular or atheistic. Why not? What is the problem with this? Touching the Living Buddha ... being and non-being are extremes that the Buddha transcended. I sort of get it. but is this what Hanh means as interbeing. To me it is sexed up atheism ... to quote Richard Dawkins. And of course this is fine. Rinsing the Mouth and Washing the Ears The concept of "rabbit's horn" is a concept. Well it is a concept so in this sense it is true that it is a concept. But just remember we read a section on extinction of notions. The Holy Spirit can be Identified I must admit, I like the prefer the concept of negative theology, though not keen on the theology bit. This parallels science ... in that we have a hypothesis and then knock it down as we find evidence to disqualify that hypothesis. Science works in similar ways. So when we find some saying God is ... then we should be really circumspect as th the author of God is. I don't know why I was reminded of Jung quote when I read the opening paragraph. Religion is a defence against the experience of God. Touching the Ultimate Dimension I must admit coolness is what I "strive" for ... don't always get there. The bit about farms and weather and soil ... in a way Hanh is describing determinism while avoiding the term and sexing up the concept. in my opinion, it does not need sexing up. You are born into your tradition ... OK Hanh is talking to Buddhist and Christians here primarily, Fair enough, but my "tradition" did not stick and I have entered another one. Would Hanh want me to promote that into the future? I am away this week ... so the grand finale next week end.

Personally I think he is over the top. Basically ... science, our logical intuition, even some of religious texts point to this determinism. For Hahn ... our actions affect those around us and future generations. And not just "those and generations" the world in general. So in this sense they might have a say in our behaviours. So at least in this sense we belong to others. I presume Hahn means the same when for our ancestors as well in that we have some responsibility to them. The last bit I would argue about that. I have no problem discarding an ancestral tradition if I find it to be nonsense. I don't have a good sense of what Hanh means by spiritual values. But being the change you want to see in the world only works for so long.

After my previous reply I had to go look up what exactly does the word bless mean ... I sensed a circular regress developing. While I am very familiar with it when it is used. What; I need more blessing than I already have? ... I think God should save those for the starving in war torn Syria and the famine stricken parts of Africa. Sorry the chemist in me in me got in the way of interpreting positive valence. Though I did not get a sense that Hanh would not be worried about the use of concrete or minerals in some negative fashion.