romansh

The relevant exchange: Burl: People often say stupid or meaningless things to the grieving. There is nothing one can say that helps. rom: ...do these people believe these stupid and meaningless things they are saying? Burl: Who knows? It's a hypothetical situation. I've seen enough grief to give anybody a pass on however they react to death rom: While I agree we might not know, but I was wondering as to your opinion. Burl: I don't know these people and I wasn't there. So who are these people who say meaningless or stupid things? Are you claiming you have never heard someone you know say something like this? This conversation I am finding a little surreal. I am not talking about different communities. I am talking about the people who you are not judging, but you do think they say stupid and meaningless things.

Chapter 4 Living Buddha, Living Christ Like I said earlier, I am beginning to struggle with this book. When Hanh spoke the historical Christ being born in Bethlehem, I could not wonder which Christ Hanh is referring to? Just curious biblical historians actually promote this as a literal historical truth? There is scant evidence of Nazaret existing in Jesus's time ... it could have been a small hamlet. There is some archeological evidence of homes nearby today's Nazaret. ... Hanh thinks the requirement for belief in a literal resurrection will put some people off. He is quite right there ... we can also include a whole bunch of miracles too. To me Hanh conflates the myth and literal, which for me is a shame. Animated by the energy of the holy spirit? This is not in his glossary terms, so Hanh is leaving me behind here. Jesus's life is his most basic teaching. I don't think Hanh means we should all become itinerant teachers giving up our worldly goods, but he is not clear what the teaching does actually mean. Buddha ... who shows us the way in this life. Joseph Campbell would at this point interrupt and point out, yes but it hat to be our way. To be fair Hanh in the same passage does point this out. Dharma seems to have many meanings but I put them into two basic categories. The Buddhist one is like a set of rules or guidelines and the Hindu version is closer to karma (but not karma) where say a cat's dharma is to catch mice and for mice it is to try and evade being caught. I always thought the Hindu version was more appealing. Having said that Hanh does point out the rules/guidelines do change. true love and understanding? oh dear. Conditions have to be right/phenomena to see sunflowers? This I find confusing. Just because I don't see the pestilence that may decimate my sunflower crop, does not mean it does not exist either. Negative seed? For me they are all part of the interbeing. These negative seed are also a reflection of clouds, rain, sun and minerals. I am reminded of Joseph Campbell's quote which goes something like this. ...one of the greatest challenges in life is to say “yea” to that person or act or that condition which in your mind is most abominable. Traditional Christianity has problems with this. I hope Progressive Christianity is a little more understanding. Hanh frequently talks of God ... Campbell's take on the Buddhist perspective ... Buddha … God … It both is and is not; neither is nor is not. Now that all is clear. This is why I am quite happy not to worry to much about this god concept. Having said that when someone tries to existence in terms of this concept, I personally don't find it helpful. ... but it is important to do so [find time to pray or meditate] Why? What is the evidence ... is this the only way? I read the rest of the chapter ... I kept finding similar sort of questions. I will move onto chapter five. As I am getting bogged down.

I agree ... and our desires, wants, wishes etc are quite often unconscious choices. They may be choices that I have become aware of. Conscious and unconscious choices are a result of the same substrate. That the idea that all this is bafflegab to some, is in my mind, simply the recognition that some of us do not see the interconnectedness of it all. I am pretty sure without my bafflegab [matter] what passes as my consciousness will disappear. It disappears for the most part every night even with it. I do not recall experiencing it without matter. And as for undefined ... Any scientific description of the processes of brain function and how it correlates with what passes as consciousness will give you some insight. I won't argue with Aristotle, but I will argue with those that promulgate Aristotelian axioms without inspection of those axioms. Don't you think it is worthwhile to check our axioms once in a while? After all our understanding of how the world ticks has changed in the last 2.3 millennia.

It is a bit more than hypothetical ... we had a example of that it in Bill's initial post. While I agree we might not know, but I was wondering as to your opinion.

I am not sure how we got on to the topic ... I will have to back and read the new posts. But: When we look into the heart of hemorrhoids, we see clouds, sunshine, minerals, time, the earth, and everything else in the cosmos in it… There are ho hemorrhoidal parts ... Said partly in jest. I was away on business and I have been unfaithful. Started reading The Domesticated Brain by Bruce Hood. Basically describes the more [possible] proximate causes of flowering of humanity. I am beginning to find Hahn tough going. I found the chapter four starting to be repetitive, but I will create a bit of time to give my initial comments.

While it my be stupid or meaningless, do these people believe these stupid and meaningless things they are saying?

"Will" is a description of a behaviour, a set of electrochemical/biochemical reactions a pattern of fundamental "particles". "Will" and other so called non material concepts are written in the physical ... brain function, air molecules vibrating, symbols on a piece of paper, light emanating from a monitor. Touch of a braille surface, purr of a cat. I am reminded of a Douglas Adams quote: Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? I can't help thinking that this non material is an unnecessary division of the universe. The fairies being the non material. There is also a paradox in your claim that logic cannot be used for the non material [concepts] in that logic itself is a concept. And that you are using logic to claim that it can't be used.

But to get back to the original purpose of this thread ... for those of us who believe in a God that has a direct and active involvement in our lives as exemplified by those who claim that God had a reason for wanting Bill's grand daughter at his side, to me seems simply a soporific designed to distract our grief. I can't help thinking evolution has given us a capacity for this emotion, so I would no more advise someone to drink their way out of grief than imbibe in literal faerie stories to fool ourselves.

Here is a good place as any to start ... a ten minute read and years of digestion.

ps just googling Victor Frankl's quote came across this site http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/viktor-frankl/ here he says Human freedom is not a freedom from but freedom to. In philosophical terms, he in this quote is specifically referring to freedom of action and not freedom of will. These two concepts are often confounded in philosophical discussions. Note I am not saying Frankl made this error.

Is that complaining or making mostly monotonous sound?

Personally, if I were invited to ogle I would go for a monistic or better still nihilistic bikini.

to keep the other free will and god thread vaguely on track I reply on the more directly relevant thread. While I agree if we have the feedback (awareness) of any emotions we might be experiencing there is an opportunity to modify the emotion and the resultant behaviour. eg controlling our breathing, breathing into a paper back, thinking to ourselves we love someone even when we full know we don't. Eventually we can self-regulate our patterns of behaviour/thought. But ultimately where did our desire [will] to do this come from? We can regressively ask the question about our desires, wants and wishes [wills]

Fractals I would consider a subset of chaos. While not explicitly, I suspect you are confounding random and chaotic. Chaotic to some degree is predictable while random by definition is not. As to Hoyle's argument it has several errors in its assumptions. Any one who happens to be interested a summary of the errors can be found here. Here is nice video summarizing how life might have started. Please ignore the first 2:45 minute, as that is mainly a diatribe. Plus the music in nice Christian music. Firstly the apparent reversal of the free energy is a really horrible misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. Even most reasonable Christian apologetic arguments have abandoned this nonsense. If you truly want to understand where you might be wrong can I suggest you read this Socratic discussion by Professor Lambert. Here again I surprised by the arguments you present. The problem is not whether we make choices or not. We plainly do, but it is the nature of the choice that is at issue. Can we make choices independently of the causal universe we live in. the result is predetermined ...? I can't say that, I don't know the universe well enough. But I suspect this is false. If you truly believe the results of your actions are predetermined and you disbelieve in free will then you must have an unusual definition of free will. Of course our actions alter the future, so do tsunamis, and dirty great big meteors crashing into the Earth. Again changing the future is no basis to define free will. ... free will makes the experience spiritual ? This is a new one on me.

Here is my take ... the universe is chaotic; we are also chaotic. Sure we can find patterns within that chaos. Some of those patterns we anthropomorphize and call moral or immoral. But the vast majority we call amoral. And those patterns we think capable of morality arose out of the milieu we think of amoral and ultimately will return there. But to talk to the title of this thread ... does God have free will? Does god have free will? Does any specific pattern within the chaos we call the universe have free will?

You completely misunderstand Burl. I never claimed it was what you said what I said was. So please stop debating and lets have a conversation. Hillel's Golden Rule ... "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

How about its negative form ... Do not do unto others what you would not want to be done to you or Do unto others what they would like. Of course each of these forms has a problems associated with them. At best these are guidelines ...

Chapter 3 The First Supper To Be Grateful I have no problem with this. I am reminded of Meister Eckhart's If the only prayer you ever say in your entire life is thank you, it will be enough. But the agnostic in me can't help asking to what am I doing this thanking. A universe that is ultimately chaotic? To be thankful for an arrangement of "energy" that can be seen in a dualistically positive light? Well this little bit of interbeing is appreciative. Looking Into Our Food Again this food eating thing ... this is not making much sense to me. Either I am concentrating on the food or the dispossessed. Apparently I don't need to be in a monastery to practice this. But I asked do I need to practice it at all? Steve suggested earlier because it is difficult to practice he does not; which of course is fair enough. Living in the Presence of God The entire world, all the good things in life,belong to God. ...Well I can't help thinking this is a bit selective here. Interbeing; all is connected, I think "God" [whatever we might have in mind here] is also responsible here for what might be considered the crappy parts of life. Hahn in the same paragraph goes on to say ... Piety is the recognition that everything is linked to the presence of God in every moment. The Bread We Eat is the Whole Cosmos As a metaphor I get it. Indra's net says the same thing. pretty much. I sure I have posted this camp video before ... but essentially science also points to the same thing. Except, like Laplace I have no apocryphal need of the God hypothesis. The Body of Reality Again talks of mindfulness ... I think it would be a mistake to censor meditation from the discussion, at least for those who find that aspect relevant to Hanh's writing. Later he seem to skirt the subject of transubstantiation ... for which I am thankful. Everything is Fresh and New I found this was getting a little repetitive ... time to move on to the next chapter.

All I can say is Islam is interpreted differently in the business class section of a British Airways jet landing in Tehran and when it is departing.

Making Peace When I first came to Canada, living in a relatively rural part, I would leave for work in the morning, I could not help but feel like I was on holiday. Eventually this feeling wore off, maybe it lasted seven years or so. I get it every so often ... now and again. Here's a view from the deck I know I am incredibly lucky ... that is the bit I consider "I" and how it fits into Hahn's interbeing. Quite often I find myself staring out of the window at the mountains without "words", just like the dead roses. Again Hahn talks of energy ... and again I question what exactly he means is difficult for me to imagine. I reminded of new age proponents talking of crystal power. I was watching an old episode of Vera (a British cop show) and there was a actor/gentleman was talking about the murder of his daughter; the supposed murderer had recently had killed herself and it was found that the suicide victim was actually innocent of the murder. The father said ... All that hate sent to the wrong address. I could not help but think of that line when reading the last paragraph in this section. I am There for You Questions that come to mind as I read this are: Do I have need to be mindful 100% of the time? I think not? What do I do when there are competing inputs for my mindfulness? For example if I am eating with my family should I concentrate on counting the number of chews or listen to my wife ... plainly this is a no brainer? The Light that Reveals Children have little problem of understanding the Holy Spirit? Here is Dave Allen on the Trinity Our True Home Here I am reminded of Susan Blackmore and her Zen meditation practices. This one is far more serious than Dave Allen's take on the Trinity. Am I conscious Now? I find her personal observation of consciousness and now quite accurate. Interestingly what neuroscientists and psychologists find is that our perceived now is an agglomeration of the past two or three seconds. Specific high fidelity actions (like catching a ball) go back 50 µs.

Suffering might not have been the best word ... experiencing might be better. "He" can give what we perceive as moral absolutes. It is our perception that will make them absolute or not. If a wolf (dingo whatever) eats a baby is that a moral issue? If some yappy dog "humps" my leg is that moral. They are generally undesirable, at least for me. Lastly I said illusion and not delusion. While I concede that some dictionaries give definitions of illusion as synonymous with delusion, the definition I always use is not as it seems. Just clear up any future misunderstandings.

Chapter Two Mindfulness and the Holy Spirit Energy sent by God? Again I have technical problems here ... By some accounts if we add all the energy in the universe it comes close to zero. When we write a balanced equation it implies a zero balance. What we experience is differences in energy balancing out at different rates ... effectively this is life. Now to some it might seem this viewpoint is cold and detached, to me it is amazing ... but I have no need to guild this lily with vitalism ... secular or theological. Hahn speaks of mindfulness as away of being aware and use meditations etc. Something bothers me about all this. I reminded of a few minutes I had I was looking at some roses for a minute or so; just following the intimate swirls, shapes and colours. I was there no thoughts, no names. Then our alternative reality entered my mind the petals were brown, the roses were dead, the roses should be thrown out. It is like question where are we between thoughts? Present Moment ... mind and body come into alignment. I have a problem with this again. My mind is my body; I find Hahn's interbeing at odds with this separation ... when we look at our minds we are looking at the universe, either that or his interbeing means something different to what I interpreted it as. When we enter deeply into this moment ... Is this the only way to gain insights? Is this the only way to be compassionate and loose suffering? Wait until I finish school and get my PhD degree ... Well speaking personally I did finish school and I did get my PhD, and I have had a wonderful career for the last 36 y. I never thought the next step would be better. It was always a little bit scary and a wonderful opportunity. Next week I will officially give my six month notice of retirement. And that too is scary (especially for my wife [twice the husband and half the pay]... but a good scary). Well I suppose there are people who live in some future moment anticipating some utopia, perhaps mindfulness might help them. I am also reminded of Joseph Campbell when talking of the present moment. Some Christians quite often fixate on the eternal, I find. And one final point ... even if I disagree with just about everything else that comes in the following pages ... reading about the concept of interbeing in its context will make this exercise worthwhile, at least for me. Enough for now.

Then that God or god is suffering from the same illusion as we are.

Not at all Russ. Morality is not even relative. We might think it is.

It boils down to whether you accept another person's definition. Some people want to maintain the definition of Christianity as some minimal literal belief ... usually that Jesus is literally the son of God and the rest of us are sinners so to speak; and that he died on the cross for our supposed sins and was resurrected. Personally I am not married to any definition and so long as the definition is clear, then communication is possible. But of course switching between definitions can cause confusion.