romansh

What I mean by Nature is just that they are not what we would call supernatural i.e. things which are generally in opposition to Nature, things which, at their core, violate the laws of Nature.

Here I extremely skeptical of your position Bill.

First what exactly are these non material things? (in opposition to nature or otherwise).

An exactly which laws are violated? bearing in mind these laws are descriptions of what we observe.

Bill

I was going to give a long reply ... point by point. But I think this will be more effective.

You are right science won't give us an answer as to whether we "should". It will though point to the underlying mechanisms and influences as to how we come to the "should" or not.

And depending on our dispositions this will be very scary or incredibly amazing.

I can remember walking back from James' grave and thinking that evolution has imbued me (and most other people) for the capacity to feel grief. It was at that point I 'understood' it was pointless to fight the feeling of grief. I decided to experience it to the best of my ability.

I also understand that the vast majority of people who mourned with me were not experiencing grief. That is OK too. Evolution gives us the capacity to feel grief, our immediate environment directs us what to grieve about should we lose that person.

I learned very quickly what is the difference between grieving and mourning.

Bill and Joseph

I generally agree with what you guys are saying, my emphases might be in different places, but that is fine.

I certainly take a Campbellian view on these things. in that religion, and certainly much that surrounds Jesus and the Bible in general can be described by the word religion, describes four aspects of our lives. And these are (my paraphrase) awe, society, science and psyche. ... assp for short.

Religion can give some of us:

• a sense of awe; for me I might get it when I visit a great cathedral or listen to a piece of Bach.
• science - an explanation of how the universe came into being and how it ticks. Plainly this aspect of religion has been superseded by the less dogmatic science of the last few hundred years. (note, I think people might be dogmatic but the process of science itself is quite agnostic).
• society, religion has been historically guidelines and to some degree how society works. Again with a nod to Norm's oath, we have had many hard-won gains (at least in my opinion) from our traditional views.
• and psyche ... a guideline how as individuals we may pass through life from babyhood to old age.

What I do have a general lack of understanding of is why as individuals some of us are tied (to some degree) to our ancient religions and have a need to interpret these texts in a modern light. While I think it is intellectually challenging and perhaps fun to see how we need to interpret ancient texts with a modern understanding, why not go to our modern scientific understanding in the first place?

Soma

The other thing the first law of thermodynamics tells us is we don't get something for nothing.

So all our thoughts and stuff are a result of something ... and for us this proximate energy is the sun and these thoughts etc are written in stardust. A sort of scary thought is fundamentally quantum phenomena point to a probabilistic existence.

The nature/nurture controversy was decided in the favor of nature back in the 80's.

Burl I can't tell if this is meant to be tongue in cheek, but taking it at face value, science of this century would beg to differ.

Also genetics (nature) is just a historical aspect of the environment (nurture).

They are one.

Personally, I am confident that I am my physical self. Cogito ergo zoom.

The question is not whether a physical self exists or not. The question is it what it seems to be?

Physically you do not hang on to the various parts that make up you. Your pattern of behaviour changes with time. There is nothing that is essentially Burl. Burl is simply a reflection of the environment that Burl finds himself in. This I think is what the metaphor of Indra's net points to.

So no karma, reincarnation, etc.? Buddhism leaves all that behind with its Hindu roots?

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.

>>It was never a place of fellowship, in that just about everyone at least twice my age<<

 

After 45 years, I'm guessing this is not an issue anymore

 

Seriously, it is hard to find a good church but there are things to look for. One is to find a church with a strong social justice ministry. Get involved in what the church does outside the walls.

 

A second is to look for a church with a lot of retired clergy. They will be able to discuss theology on an intelligent level.

 

Third is to look for a church with an eye for what you can bring to it rather than what it can bring to you.

 

Disciples of Christ or the Wesleyan Church are often good liberal choices. Free-thinking, but still based on Christ and not pop psychology.

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:

We tend to think of meditation in only one way. But life itself is a meditation
Raul Julio

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.

How do we elevate our consciousness? Meditation. All of life is a meditation, most of it unintentional. A lot of people spend most of their meditating on where their money’s coming from and where it’s going to go, but that’s a level of meditation. Or if you have a family to bring up, you’re concerned for the family. These are all certainly very important concerns, but they have to do with physical conditions mostly. How are you going to communicate spiritual consciousness to the children if you don’t have it yourself, so how do you get that? The myths. What the myths are for is to bring us into a level of consciousness which is spiritual.

Joseph Campbell

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.

Romansh, what is your impression of Pärt's beatitudes? Did you play this through your stereo and meditate upon it, or just sample through tinny electronic transducers?

The little bit I heard sounded nice. Having said that the laptop has crappy speakers.

Regarding meditation ... a couple of quotes:

We tend to think of meditation in only one way. But life itself is a meditation

Raul Julio

and one from Joseph Campbell again:

How do we elevate our consciousness? Meditation. All of life is a meditation, most of it unintentional. A lot of people spend most of their meditating on where their money’s coming from and where it’s going to go, but that’s a level of meditation. Or if you have a family to bring up, you’re concerned for the family. These are all certainly very important concerns, but they have to do with physical conditions mostly. How are you going to communicate spiritual consciousness to the children if you don’t have it yourself, so how do you get that? The myths. What the myths are for is to bring us into a level of consciousness which is spiritual.

I meditate on the myths of science and philosophy. Hope that's OK.

Ah the Estonian paradox.

Science explains the abstract concepts in a clear and precise manner that satisfies and relaxes my intellect so I can explore beyond its limits.

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.

romansh, Thanks for the article. Interbeing is a term we can relate to and need to use more often even if it is not in the dictionary.

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.

Nice summary of chapter 10, Rom. I don't have much to add. I agree about the "doubt" thing. On the one hand we are supposed to rid ourselves of notions and concepts (good luck with that), but we are to eliminate doubt? If doubt is the same as questioning everything, then I am full of doubt.

 

The whole "emptiness", "non-self", "no-self" thing is a mystery to me. Intellectually, I get it, but the foundation of Buddhism is this notion, so there has to be something more to it than intellectual assent. I have to confess an obsession with this topic since about 2008, and I keep plugging away with it. Maybe someday I'll get it the way it is meant to be gotten.

 

Steve

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.

Yes, The conundrum to me is that if there is no self and Nhat Hahn says "people think that their body belongs to them and they can do anything they want to it" then WHO IS IT that is thinking that and doing whatever they want to it ?

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.

Yes, but is fun to share it with others.

Lex

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.