Having Answers?

[romansh]

Steve

Explaining what I understand by a certain interpretation of Buddhism, I don't see as faith. Believing it true is another matter.

 

Having said that ... essentially I have only one sensible route to drive to work. I take it every work day. Do I have faith that the route (barring road works and the like) that route will lead me there? I have 30 years of evidence that it does ... is that faith? I have a good understanding of the map of the geography is that faith or is it [intellect] a terrible master?

 

While I agree in that it is all an illusion [not as it seems], but the illusion is a reflection, albeit an imperfect and incomplete relection. This is I suppose my faith.

 

My not-self faith that is.

[SteveS55]

I see what you are saying, Rom. I have (over the past few years) tried to draw a distinction between "faith" and "belief". Language may not allow it, but I continue to try. I will say that I "believe" Buddhism answers some of my questions, and I have "faith" that it may answer others. I have no evidence for it, merely an intuition. So, is that faith, belief, intellect, or other? And, does it matter? Are we only arguing semantics?

 

Steve

Edited December 23, 2016 by SteveS55

[SteveS55]

"Someone said, 'The intellect is a great servant, but a terrible master.'"

 

I'm not sure who said this either, Soma. But, as masters have slaves, he may have meant that we do not want to be a "slaves to the intellect", anymore than we want to be slaves to our feelings, belief systems, another human being, or any other thing.

 

My personal experience tells me this. Not so much anymore, but I used to work with a lot of "newcomers" in AA. I obviously used my intellect to decide on what method I would employ to try and reach a person, but I had to connect on a different level. I had to somehow participate in this person's suffering, not intellectually, but vicariously. That was easy because I had been there.

 

The same is true when dealing with children. It's very hard for a child to relate to an adult intellectually; impossible.

 

Not all people are equally "rational" under all circumstances. The trick is to have the wisdom to know when and how to use the intellect.

 

Steve

[tariki]

I actually had 24 more hours of freedom than I thought. I really must listen to She who must be obeyed more closely. But now we have the expensive china moved to places of safety, and my prized Seagull guitar replaced by a plywood version bought cheaply at the local Charity Shop - the little ones can now use THAT for their attacks upon Grandad.

 

Speaking of faith and paths, thinking back, I can sort things out a bit. I was a 20th century European, Christianity and everything else was THE ground I walked on, the "way the universe was", a window from which I looked out at other, exotic, ways of being that were not quite true in the same sense. Then, reading "The Vision of Dhamma" by Nyanaponika Thera, the ground shifted. The "exotic" became as real a possibility as anything I was then walking upon, another "ground", another "window".

 

Once the ground shifts like that there can be no going back even if one wanted to. One ground becomes as possible as another. It has nothing at all to do with truth being relative, subjective or objective.

 

So for me, looking back, no, it was not a faith decision for Buddhism, rather a recognition that trust/faith must needs be in Reality as such, and never in my own capacity to "work things out",or to decide by intellect the "true" version by which I "must" live. It is a letting go of such.

 

Yes, I identify as a Pure Land Buddhist, but in the context I have sought to explain above. There is no path that is mine. In fact I can wander at will, get lost, have absolutely no allegiance to anything at all, Reality-as-is takes the "burden". All is grace.

 

The "Gospel According to Zen" has been mentioned. Merton speaks in a letter to Suzuki of the similarities of grace within a non-theistic, non-dual tradition, with that of Christianity.......

......we are in paradise, and what fools would we be to think thoughts that would put us out of it (as if we could be out of it!). One thing I would add. To my mind, the Christian doctrine of grace (however understood - I mean here the gift of God's life to us) seems to me to fulfill a most important function in all this. The realization, the finding of ourselves in Christ and hence in paradise, has a special character from the fact that this is all a free gift from God. With us, this stress on freedom, God's freedom, the indeterminateness of salvation, is the thing that corresponds to Zen in Christianity. The breakthrough that comes with the realization of what the finger of a koan is pointing to is like the breakthrough of the realization that a sacrament, for instance, is a finger pointing to the completely spontaneous Gift of Himself to us on the part of God - beyond and above images, outside of every idea, every law, every right or wrong, everything high or low, everything spiritual or material. Whether we are good or bad, wise or foolish, there is always this sudden irruption, this breakthrough of God's freedom into our life, turning the whole thing upside down so that it comes out, contrary to all expectation, right side up. This is grace, this is salvation, this is Christianity. And, so far as I can see, it is also very much like Zen.........

For me, living by Grace is being free from any ultimate dependence on my own discriminations, and as the realisation grows that I can do absolutely nothing to help myself, or work anything out by my own calculations or even allegiances, rather than feeling more and more helpless.....well, yes, I must testify to some sort of sense of release, though intermittent at times.

And just to add - and I have mentioned this before somewhere - but what I love within the Pure Land way is how there is such a wide spectrum of "grace" within it. There are those who see "Amida" as "him up there, out to the West", who indeed bestows His Compassion upon them, and they anticipate being taken to the Pure Land at death, there to enjoy the fruit of their devotions. At the other end of the spectrum, Amida merely represents/personifies Reality-as-is, which is "emptiness" itself (so empty it is free to contain everything), and the Pure Land is NOW, this moment, when we are released from our own grasping and desires and calculations.

And we are all friends together. They are only words. And the Dharma is for "crossing over, not for grasping".

 

[SteveS55]

"Once the ground shifts like that there can be no going back even if one wanted to. One ground becomes as possible as another. It has nothing at all to do with truth being relative, subjective or objective.

 

So for me, looking back, no, it was not a faith decision for Buddhism, rather a recognition that trust/faith must needs be in Reality as such, and never in my own capacity to "work things out",or to decide by intellect the "true" version by which I "must" live. It is a letting go of such."

 

This is probably as good a definition of "grace" as I have come across, Tariki. I can certainly relate to "no going back". The path is always known only in retrospect and what comes next is indeterminate but trustworthy.

 

Steve

[soma]

I'm not sure who said this either, Soma. But, as masters have slaves, he may have meant that we do not want to be a "slaves to the intellect", anymore than we want to be slaves to our feelings, belief systems, another human being, or any other thing.

 

.....we are in paradise, and what fools would we be to think thoughts that would put us out of it (as if we could be out of it!). One thing I would add. To my mind, the Christian doctrine of grace (however understood - I mean here the gift of God's life to us) seems to me to fulfill a most important function in all this. The realization, the finding of ourselves in Christ and hence in paradise, has a special character from the fact that this is all a free gift from God. With us, this stress on freedom, God's freedom, the indeterminateness of salvation, is the thing that corresponds to Zen in Christianity. The breakthrough that comes with the realization of what the finger of a koan is pointing to is like the breakthrough of the realization that a sacrament, for instance, is a finger pointing to the completely spontaneous Gift of Himself to us on the part of God - beyond and above images, outside of every idea, every law, every right or wrong, everything high or low, everything spiritual or material. Whether we are good or bad, wise or foolish, there is always this sudden irruption, this breakthrough of God's freedom into our life, turning the whole thing upside down so that it comes out, contrary to all expectation, right side up. This is grace, this is salvation, this is Christianity. And, so far as I can see, it is also very much like Zen........

 

So for me, looking back, no, it was not a faith decision for Buddhism, rather a recognition that trust/faith must needs be in Reality as such, and never in my own capacity to "work things out",or to decide by intellect the "true" version by which I "must" live. It is a letting go of such."

 

Steve I like your explanation not to be slaves of the intellect that is the gift Buddhism has given me, because like tariki's quote .....we are in paradise, and what fools would we be to think thoughts that would put us out of it.

[soma]

Thomas I am similar to you in I like to see similarities and different ways to say the same thing.

Edited December 23, 2016 by soma
better words

[romansh]

If I were more of a sociopath than I already might be, I would use "empathy, compassion, my listening skills and the like" to manipulate others. Evolution has endowed me with these tools too.

 

I think children like being treated like adults ... at least in my experience. Especially when they get to the "why?" stage.

 

And if we insist on using dualistic language to describe what is essentially a monistic concept ... I am neither a master nor a slave of the chemistry that comprises the constituents of my not-self. I am that chemistry. Both intellect and the non-intellect, aspects of my life, are that chemistry.

 

And it's Robin Sharma ...

Robin Sharma is in constant demand internationally as keynote speaker at the conferences of many of the most powerful companies on the planet including Microsoft, Nortel Networks, General Motors, FedEx and IBM.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/534889-the-mind-is-a-wonderful-servant-but-a-terrible-master

Edited December 23, 2016 by romansh

[SteveS55]

"If I were more of a sociopath than I already might be, I would use "empathy, compassion, my listening skills and the like" to manipulate others. Evolution has endowed me with these tools too." That sounds terribly cynical to me, but I suppose that's chemistry too!

[romansh]

It was not meant to be cynical at all Steve.

 

But it would seem evolution has endowed us with many emotions and shades thereof.

 

Have you never put on a smile in a difficult situation ... either to hide your own discomfort or to comfort another in a moment of pain?

[soma]

Thanks for the source of the quote and link. My mind likes to examine the answers to why too, but like young children I can say why to people all day to everything they say until I am just quiet. The dualistic nature of words makes it difficult to explain an experience that we have beyond them. Poetry does a good job when after a reading people are quiet in deep reflection having united with the experience explained. Zen uses Koan to shock people beyond the intellect with paradox so they say to sit like Buddha, one must kill the Buddha. In the Quantum Age we can benefit from trying to reunite things with words when we have learned to separate things using words to study the parts. It is all about knowing the separate self and unity, what a person wants in the moment unity or individual expression, it is all good it is not an either or situation. People drink, use drugs, watch movies, read books, meditate, sleep, fall in love, even study to get a vacation from the mind by altering our consciousness with different chemicals. The non-dual knowing to communicate the experience moves in dualism through concepts, words, chemicals, art, philosophy, sub-atomic energy or just playing in the sand with children to express unity. We can choose our chemicals or experiences depending on our not knowing.

[SteveS55]

I am not doubting that we are products of evolution and our conditioning, Rom. But, I'm not ready to accept the proposition that one's individual "chemistry" cannot be adjusted.

[romansh]

"If I were more of a sociopath than I already might be, I would use "empathy, compassion, my listening skills and the like" to manipulate others. Evolution has endowed me with these tools too." That sounds terribly cynical to me, but I suppose that's chemistry too!

 

Just to add Steve ... we talk about intellect and these non-intellect things as though they are some disembodied artefacts. They are not ... they are rooted in what passes as the physical.

 

Soma ... I hope when you asked why? of people, I hope they had the intellect to describe the underlying causes rather than some nebulous purpose.

Edited December 23, 2016 by romansh

[romansh]

I am not doubting that we are products of evolution and our conditioning, Rom. But, I'm not ready to accept the proposition that one's individual "chemistry" cannot be adjusted.

 

:lol:

 

Our underlying individual chemistry is being adjusted all the time. What would cause you to say that other than Joseph's posts?

[SteveS55]

Okay....I get it already, Rom. Have a wonderful holiday, and I will certainly ponder your contributions. You seem to keep us all from flying off into la la land (not the movie).

 

Steve

[soma]

I agree we are a bag of chemicals, but we are not just a bag of chemicals, we are a bag of chemicals in an arrangement that reacts to the environment and other people. These interactions change the chemistry in the brain. If we like that one lens just a bag of chemicals it is Okay many people think this way and are happy to live a materialistic existence acting and reacting, but some people after a 4 billion year chain of evolution of chemical reactions, selection, diversification, sadness, joy and other experiences that would be hard to design with just the mind or another molecular machine. Some simple machines or system do unite and display an evolved, new, emergent behavior that could not have been predicted by looking at the simple system alone. For example, we have bags of chemicals analyzing another bag of chemicals answer to give an adequate response to a question posed by a bag of chemicals right here? Not everything should be reduced because it is only a perspective not the ultimate picture. There are many frames of reference and they all have advantages and disadvantages. Not everything should be reduced because it is only one perspective not the ultimate perspective and neglects the big picture, which is more gestalt in assimilation.

 

 

If we are just chemicals, we are just objects and this can lead to dehumanization and domination because now we can treat humans like animals or objects. This has played out far too many times in history so we know how it ends. Science is built to detect mechanism, but not all aspects of reality so it is a mistake to assume that science will give us philosophy or meaning to live because that’s not how it works. People don't experience consciousness in a way that is a "just chemical one." It seems we need to approach this issue from multiple disciplines and to approach it from multiple angles. The Mona Lisa is not just paint; a Bach suite is a bunch of notes, but much more in a stream of sound. Imagine standing in an Art Museum with your nose inches from a painting. In your vision you will see dots of color, but nothing more, step back and you see a hand or leg, better than dots, step back again and you see a master piece and when put together mean something even more about reality.

 

 

Many people live for what they know the same way many scientists and other people live for what they don’t know. Buddha who swore he would not give up until he achieved enlightenment; he persisted and attained to a state of wisdom and power unparalleled in human history. Jesus single-minded demonstrated the high point of service to others that is pointed to by believers and atheists as an example of pure devotion. Confucius had a vision of human integrity and Lao Tzu had insight into the way of things. Steven Hawking believes that Einstein's theory was just another switch to open our minds to a greater representation. These individuals stepped back from the painting and saw more than just the parts; they put and are putting the puzzle together. We are much more than a bag of chemicals, we are a universe of chemicals.

Edited December 23, 2016 by soma
paragraphs

[romansh]

Straw man Soma, straw man.

 

You raise it high and pummel it with your stick ... like a piñata.

 

Just chemicals ... the number of times I come across this type of intellectual rhetoric is interesting.

 

I will repeat ...

When I look deep inside of myself

the universe stares quietly back at me

[soma]

Yes, that is why we are a universe of chemicals in unity.

[romansh]

Yes, that is why we are a universe of chemicals in unity.

 

While I might not phrase it quite that way but I think we are sort of in agreement.

 

Think of it as an intellectual koan ... we are our chemicals ...

"Chemicals" is a vehicle to get my point across.

For those of us who want or believe in more and the universe is not enough more, well I wish them well.

 

I also wish them, you and everyone else [no matter how illusionary they may be] a very Merry Christmas.

[thormas]

 

When I look deep inside of myself

the universe stares quietly back at me

 

That is exactly what a person of faith would say, just substituting God for the universe, but at least in both examples, there is a me. Or is there?

 

And then there is this story:

Physicist Lisa Randall said the odds that the universe isn't "real" are so low as to be "effectively zero." So this is not an illusion ........but before the realists celebrate, there is the other side:

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson said that he thinks the likelihood of the universe being a simulation "may be very high."

 

I had not heard the simulation theory before but it is entertaining.

[tariki]

A quote from Nagarjuna is the heading of the next chapter of Stephen Batchelor's book.

 

Were mind and matter me

I would come and go like them

If I were something else

They would say nothing about me

 

Please don't get indigestion over the festive season.

[soma]

Happy Holidays and may the universe be smiling on us all.

[SteveS55]

Gotta love Nagarjuna, Tariki!

 

A wonderful Christmas to you also, Soma.

 

“Physicist Lisa Randall said the odds that the universe isn't "real" are so low as to be "effectively zero." So, this is not an illusion ........but before the realists celebrate, there is the other side:

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson said that he thinks the likelihood of the universe being a simulation "may be very high."

 

If we attach a label, like “real” to everything apparent, then of course it is “real”, and everything that is not apparent is “not real”, or rather, not labeled.

Even if existence is a simulation it is apparent and therefore “real”. “Real” doesn’t mean anything except as a designation.

 

Whether you call existence “real” or “simulation” it doesn’t say anything about the nature/essence of existence.

[romansh]

 

That is exactly what a person of faith would say, just substituting God for the universe, but at least in both examples, there is a me. Or is there?

 

 

So this is not an illusion

 

Firstly ... the majority of those with faith that I have come across would certainly not say this. They (to me) see existence in dualistic terms. Sins need forgiving. God is somehow separate from us (in the sky, in us, all around us) but we are not god. It took the whole universe to make me and in my infinitesimal way I am making the universe, I am one. They strung up Jesus saying he was one with God ... and frankly mainstream religions have followed suit.

 

Regarding illusion versus delusion ... I think you confound the two ... I have tried to be very clear ... I am using illusion in the sense of not as it seems. When we go to a magic show ... seeing a tiger being substituted for an attractive assistant is an illusion. Believing it, could actually be considered a delusion (at least under certain circumstances).

[thormas]

Rom,

 

This is the Progressive Christianity site - so I am referring to a more 'progressive' understanding of that faith. Such a view mirrors the 'reformation' of Christianity so popular with Spong (his followers and their progressive communities) and the insights of many 20th and 21st C Christian theologians (and believers). In addition, it is found in the mystic expressions of Christianity down through the ages, 1st / 2nd C CE to Present.

 

Also, it was not all persons of faith, it was not a majority of persons of faith, it was 'a' person of faith - the phrase fits. And, just one minor point, if the majority believe God is somehow separate from us - separate and in the sky, separate and in us, or separate and all around us - one could make the case that 'in us' and perhaps even 'all around us' are not necessarily or completely dualistic understandings.

 

Finally, there is no confounding in my last post. I merely repeated Randall's comment that the universe is real: from this, 'a person' would be on solid ground to suggest, therefore, that Lisa doesn't consider the universe to be an illusion. However, could 'a person' suggest that: if deGrasse says the universe is a simulation; and, if it followed that the universe, as we experience it, is an illusion (certainly not as it seems - i.e. not real); and, if he actually believed it - then might he is delusional by definition? I, of course am not saying this, he seems like a nice guy and this is his belief system I guess.

 

Regardless, this 2nd part of the post was done for a bit of fun because it played into some of our discussions:}

 

Steve,

 

It didn't seem that the scientists were dealing with the apparent (i.e. that which is clear and/or obvious). Rather, it seems the status of the universe is not 'obvious:' one thought one thing and the other thought something completely different. Or, although the article didn't get into it, maybe the status of the universe was apparent or obvious and each thought the other an idiot for not seeing the obvious:}

 

It seems that deGrasse's position is that if existence is a simulation, it is not real. A person could say that something (the game we are placed in by a higher intelligence) is apparent but deGrasse's point seems to be that, regardless, it is a sham, i.e. not real! It seems for these two scientists that the designation is real, it is a 'statement of fact' with Randall, stating in no uncertain terms, that the universe is real and it is 'effectively zero' that it is not real. Seems she thinks it can't get more real than that.

Finally, to whom it may concern: Don't shoot the messenger, I just read an article and was reporting the news

Edited December 24, 2016 by thormas