romansh

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.

OK Paul

Here is an essay I wrote back in 2009 with the odd update ...

Free Will

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.

You are definitely invited but no moaning, please.

Is that complaining or making mostly monotonous sound?

We should go together and invite JosephM so he can reflect on dualism.

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.

>> ... free will makes the experience spiritual ? This is a new one on me.<<

Burl replied

Ref: Viktor Frankl. We always retain control of our attitude and intention even in extremis. The crucifixion is a most excellent example of the transformation of suffering into praise through intention and free will as Jesus recited Psalm 22 in death.

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]

Chaos? Fractals maybe, but science has eliminated chaos as an explanation for creation. The chance of a single amino acid forming by chance was calculated by Hoyle (the astronomer, not the card sharp) and Wingrimshe (sp?) at over 10^e40. That is far beyond impossible in scientific terms.

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.

Life is not the result of chaos. To invert the second law of thermodynamics and have materiality which not only defies entropy but reverses it? Certainly chaos could not produce life.

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.

Free will? Absolutely. Some fatalists/predestinationalists feel it's is only an illusion but the Calvinist argument is lame. Yes, we can change the future. The skiier chooses how to tackle the mountan, and the surfer chooses how to ride the wave. The end result is predetermined, but free will is what makes the experience spiritual.

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."

What about the 'Golden Rule"? This is pretty close to being an objective morality.

 

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12

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.

In what way if He suffering...If He gives us objective absolutes such as do not rape babies - how is that delusional. Because He is not applying it to an individual or an individual people-group but to everyone on the planet. And so that is an objective moral and not a subjective relative moral made up by an individual or a people-group.

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.

Eternity isn't some later time. Eternity isn't a long time. Eternity has nothing to do with time. Eternity is that dimension of here and now which thinking and time cuts out. This is it. And if you don't get it here, you won't get it anywhere. And the experience of eternity right here and now is the function of life.

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.

Only if someone outside of humanity (such as God or a god) is deciding what is right and what is objectively wrong and what is objectively wrong; otherwise it is simply one human deciding such and another deciding differently. They are both right in their own eyes and no one can say they are

wrong because that individual is only adding in their morality to make such a decision.

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

G'day Again

 

So going by your response, morality as I have stated previously is relative to each individual or people -group.

 

Russ

Not at all Russ.

Morality is not even relative. We might think it is.

Hi Joseph

 

I understand where you are coming from but then I disagree with you. But then, what makes me wrong and you right/correct in both our definitions or choices?

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.

I think this idea of seeking out the good, beautiful and meaningful is essential, as is realizing much of other traditions will not seem good, beautiful or meaningful until after that transformation occurs (if then). It is also significant that the words 'truth' and 'belief' do not occur.

Can inaccurate statements be good, beautiful and meaningful? Give me an accurate statement and truthful statement. While not a fan of Oliver Cromwell I did agree with his statement when being painted for a portrait Warts 'n all.

Real Communication

Again the use of the word spiritual, I know what it means to me but I have no idea what it means to Hahn. In the same opening passage he talks of real Christians ... I can't help thinking of the No true Scotsman fallacy. Also I was under the impression in the Buddhist tradition we are all Buddhas, just some of us don't realize this "truth".

Be aware of the positive and negative (in our traditions). While I agree with the sentiment, I would not phrase it as dualistically. Perhaps just be aware of the potential outcomes of the actions from our beliefs in our traditions, would be me being in a philosophical mind.

Living organisms ... here I reminded of Richard Dawkins' memes ... So it's not surprising that our various traditions split, evolve and die off.

Hahn talks of the "truth". And while I agree none of us hold "The Truth^®" There are thing I hold more certain than others. And by his definition I might not be having an "authentic dialogue".

Meditation is so important ... Is it. Yes meditating will alter the structure of your brain, but then will playing squash etc. I seems to imply people who don't meditate are missing out on things. In my book, they are walking a different path.

Interbeing

Be still and know that I am God Again this undefined god? But a more interesting question who is this I? I could devolve into the free will thread here, but I will try and resist.

But the following passage on the next page nails it for me ... I have quoted it on other fora.

When we look into the heart of a flower, we see clouds, sunshine, minerals, time, the earth, and everything else in the cosmos in it… the flower is made entirely of non-flower elements; it has no independent, individual existence. It ‘inter-is’ with everything else in the universe.

Being monistically inclined I would have use intra as the prefix, but no big deal.

I always have this cognitive dissonance when we speak this God of love etc. And having faith in it. I find I either have love or compassion for a person, animal or groups thereof. I suppose if I wished to do so I could cultivate it. Somewhere Hahn said about respect for other beliefs. I certainly have an acceptance and a general understanding of the causes of our beliefs, but I find it difficult to be respectful say of the concept that the Earth is six thousand years old. But I also realize I must be careful as I understand someone's belief and that person are not independent of one another. ... they are 'intraconnected' . so to speak.

Two of the worlds most beautiful flowers? We must remember these are intraflowers. Modern Christianity (or at least its liberal varieties) is informed to a great deal by atheism and secularism. And I suppose most weeds have flowers too.

Chapter 1 - Be Still and Know

Being a fairly devout agnostic I am always curious about people's use of the word know

Based on the definition of noumenon in the glossary I think we will have more on this subject.

Religious life is Life

Be nourished by many traditions? ... I wonder if Nhat includes atheism, agnosticism and general rational secularism?

Professor Kung suggests there needs to be peace between religions ... suggesting that religions can be a cause of violence. Many atheists have suggested tis but many apologists of various flavours have suggested otherwise.

I thought Interbeing was an interesting concept, I am wondering if it is different from the non-self and related to dependent origination?

Avoid being narrow minded? Fair enough but do I have to seriously consider literal interpretations of a six thousand year old Earth and a global flood, Angels foretelling of a parthenogenic birth?

Dialogue the Key to Peace

Spiritual energy? I am always curious when people use scientific terms ... I can't help wondering how many Joules we use when exhibiting the spiritual .... or is this simply an undefined metaphor that is totally in the eye of the beholder?

The story of Tri reminds me of Galen Strawson's quote ... Luck swallows everything.

Touching Jesus

The compassion of Jesus? In some ways it does not matter, but I am curious, when Hahn talks of Jesus ... does he have the myth in mind or some historical character?

Holy? was not in his glossary of terms?

Lord ... I wonder if we all require such honorifics?

40th? May God continue to bless you both!

Just as an aside Burl:

My wife and I could not have children.

We ended up adopting twenty five years ago. Our child developed an intractable, nasty form of epilepsy which took him sixteen years later.

^{Goodish news}

^{My book arrived early ... I will be able to start reading it more carefully on Monday evening.}

^{Tomorrow is our fortieth wedding anniversary ... so I won't be able to bury my head in the book in the next couple of days.}

^rom

_{I disagree. Panentheism is not dualistic thought. Panentheism eschews all forms of dualistic thinking. God and the universe are understood as one reality, not two separate ones. Mind and matter are understood as one reality, not two separate, independent realms. The subject-object dichotomy is transcended by the principle of relativity or essential relatedness.}

_{I understand why you might think this ... in fact Wikipedia lists panentheism under monism.}

_{But at end of the day panentheism has god in everything rather than god being everything. pantheism}

_{You will have to explain what principle of relativity or essential relatedness mean as a quick google search points to physics for the former and not much for the latter.}

I guess Amazon Prime has me spoiled. I'm sure your dog sled will get there eventually.

 

Do you mind if we move on to the introduction next week? We can always back up, but participation on this board is slim at best. I think having a concrete focus will help. It would put us into the text in two weeks. This preambling is really not the point, but it sure beats dead air.

no problem ... I can be the peanut gallery until I get the book.

The 20th anniversary edition is unavailable in Canada ... ordered the 10th anniversary edition.

This will be what it will be.

Expected to arrive early next week ... will be out of town that week. So I will be able to start reading in two weeks.