Jump to content

Having Answers?


romansh

Recommended Posts

Rom,

 

I think I lost you on the first sentence.

 

I do lean panentheistic but also recognize, as was said earlier in this thread, that in these kinds of discussions we 'strain words to their limits - and perhaps beyond.' Plus it is classical theism I have moved from, there is a 'theism' (can't remember the actual term right now) in the writings of some theologians that is intriguing.

 

To call God Abba, Love or even Person, is both an ontological 'statement' about being and an existential statement about man. In other words, to call God Abba or Love is to say something about man's stance before or response to Being/God. Paradoxes abound!

 

To be saved is to be made whole, so one could suggest that even if there were no need for salvation or forgiveness, man still stands in need of God to become whole or truly Human.

Edited by thormas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

:)

There I added the smiley.

 

Sort of ... I (and by inference we) are not what we seem. I would delete the definite article between the ARE and story. We are story. Ultimately there no separation between you, me, other, animate and inanimate.

 

On topic ... the general idea behind this thread is agnosticism and what we can say with certainty. The 'benefits' of doubt and certainty. cf my byline from Douglas Adams.

 

While I do find that topics do wander ... one outcome of keeping them "on topic" is a particular idea can be explored more coherently but on the other hand my might not go to interesting places.

 

Also ... Stephen Batchelor argues strongly that Buddhism is agnostic in nature.

 

Thanks for the smiley Rom. The facilities on my Kindle are limited, but I'm now on my Laptop so if the need arises..........

 

A knife cannot cut itself, just so, as we are an intrinsic part of Reality we can say nothing about it without creating some degree of paradox. So as I see it, in that sense, nothing can be said with certainty. Rather like the character in a Terry Pratchett novel, who either knew where he was OR where he was going, but never both at the same time....... :D Nevertheless, can we LIVE reality without paradox? Would such a life be that which is to be "saved"?

 

Thomas Merton captures the paradox. Speaking of a true communion with others, he said that we were already "one", yet did not know it, that what we must be is what we are. Again, in a poem, he wrote that we already possess God, yet "how far we have to go to find You in Whom we have already arrived."

 

And so it goes on. Recently I came across a comment somewhere that although zen is that which is a reality "outside of scriptures", there is yet a strand in it that insists that there is a very correct word, and one only, for each thing in the moment. This seems to be another way of saying what another said when asked "what are the teachings of a lifetime?" and answered;- "An appropriate statement".

 

This would seem to be some sort of resolution of the "objective"/"subjective" argument concerning morality/values. That is a sense it is BOTH! Each moment will have just one "appropriate statement" (of word or action) which cannot be known before, nor after. It is free, pure freedom. (Merton said somewhere that God is pure freedom)

 

So truth can be lived. I agree, in one sense there is no alternative. Now is now, we are undoubtedly just where we are...........is the resolution of the paradox just a trick of the mind?

 

To finish with a excerpt from the Buddhist Theravada texts:-

 

"Well now, good Gotama, is suffering caused by oneself?"

"No indeed, Kassapa," said the Blessed One.

"Well then, good Gotama, is one's suffering caused by another?"

"No indeed, Kassapa."

"Well then, good Gotama, is suffering caused by both oneself and another?"

"No indeed, Kassapa."

"Well then, good Gotama, this suffering which is caused neither by oneself nor by another, is it the result of chance?"

"No indeed, Kassapa."

"Well then, good Gotama, is suffering non-existent?"

"No Kassapa: suffering is not non-existent. Suffering exists."

"Then the good Gotama neither knows nor sees suffering."

"No, Kassapa, it is not that I neither know nor see suffering: I know suffering, I see suffering."

"Well now, good Gotama, when I asked you, 'Is suffering caused by oneself?' you answered 'No indeed' Would the Lord, the Blessed One expound suffering to me! Would the Lord, the Blessed One teach me about suffering!"

"'He who performs the act also experiences [the result]' — what you, Kassapa, first called 'suffering caused by oneself' — this amounts to the Eternalist theory. 'One person performs the act, another experiences,' — which to the person affected seems like "suffering caused by another" — this amounts to the Annihilationist theory. Avoiding both extremes, Kassapa, the Tathaagata teaches a doctrine of the middle.....

End of text.

So just what is the "middle"? Not a halfway point between two extremes, but a no-position that transcends ALL positions (as Merton mused on his Asian pilgrimage)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, so much for theories of epistemology! The Buddha, and later the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna, destroyed Aristotelian logic and opened up the “excluded middle”. And, that became the “middle path” in Buddhism. There doesn’t seem to be much maneuvering room in that “middle”, at least in terms of discursive thought. Actually, discursive thought becomes a hindrance.

 

Underlying that logic (or lack thereof) are the Buddhist axioms of impermanence and dependent origination, as well as the doctrine of the “two Truths” (conventional truth and absolute truth). Since these are “givens” in Buddhism, all knowledge of the conventional variety is provisional at best. This is because phenomena is not “real” in the sense that they are inherently existent, nor do they truly “exist”; they merely manifest and then cease manifesting.

 

Ultimately, this seems to lead us in a circle. If absolute truth is the “emptiness” of all phenomena, then doesn’t the “emptiness of emptiness” follow from that? If so, then ultimate truth is conventional truth, and the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth!

 

I think Merton just threw up his hands in frustration.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our mind can't percieve the rabit and bird at the same time, but our consciousness can in the middle way.

 

“You’re perfect. And there’s room for improvement.” ~ Suzuki Roshi

 

post-263-0-11478900-1481570716_thumb.jpg

Edited by soma
2 photos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what your point was here, Soma. I suppose by now a Zen master would simply tell me to shut up and wash my rice bowl!

 

If anyone is interested in Buddhist philosophy and logic, anything by Nagarjuna with commentary is good.

 

Steve

Edited by SteveS55
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our mind deals with duality the positive and negative, right and left. Beyond our mind our one consciousness, the middle way, no thing sees all things in unity as one whole not separated.

 

the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna, destroyed Aristotelian logic and opened up the “excluded middle”. And, that became the “middle path” in Buddhism.

 

If absolute truth is the “emptiness” of all phenomena, then doesn’t the “emptiness of emptiness” follow from that? If so, then ultimate truth is conventional truth, and the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth!

The mind sees all the angles to truth from truth and in truth and all are true, but beyond the mind there are no concepts, words, ideas or thought on truth, there just is..........................the middle way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say look at the picture what do you see? Some say I see the rabbit, some say I see the bird and both are correct. If you could talk, which you can't in the middle way you would say there is a picture. The picture contains the duality of bird and rabbit in its wholeness, but the picture would then be part of a greater wholeness so there would and wouldn't be a picture.

 

Slap me if I am wrong....................Och

Edited by soma
slap me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, so much for theories of epistemology! The Buddha, and later the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna, destroyed Aristotelian logic and opened up the “excluded middle”. And, that became the “middle path” in Buddhism. There doesn’t seem to be much maneuvering room in that “middle”, at least in terms of discursive thought. Actually, discursive thought becomes a hindrance.

 

Underlying that logic (or lack thereof) are the Buddhist axioms of impermanence and dependent origination, as well as the doctrine of the “two Truths” (conventional truth and absolute truth). Since these are “givens” in Buddhism, all knowledge of the conventional variety is provisional at best. This is because phenomena is not “real” in the sense that they are inherently existent, nor do they truly “exist”; they merely manifest and then cease manifesting.

 

Ultimately, this seems to lead us in a circle. If absolute truth is the “emptiness” of all phenomena, then doesn’t the “emptiness of emptiness” follow from that? If so, then ultimate truth is conventional truth, and the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth!

 

I think Merton just threw up his hands in frustration.

 

Steve

 

Well, when my own mind begins to turn to jelly I tend to head off to the Pure Land chanting the nembutsu, but Merton was made of sterner stuff. At the time of his musing he was dipping into the heavy going tome of T V Murti "The Central Philosophy of Buddhism". Rather then frustration, his musings seemed to bear fruit, as evidenced by his experience that he recorded in his journal on a later occasion, when viewing the statues of Polonnaruwa......

 

 

The vicar general, shying away from "paganism," hangs back and sits under a tree reading the guidebook. I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of Madhyamika, of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything - without refutation - without establishing some other argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well-established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening. I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures.................looking (at them) I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded.....The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem, and really no "mystery". All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life, is charged with dharmakaya.....everything is emptiness and everything is compassion.

 

 

Anyway, for me, that the "conventional truth is the absolute truth" tells me - and reassures me - that the Dharma does not betray THIS world for some imagined "other". THIS world is affirmed, the only one we know.

 

Anyway, Stephen Batchelor, in his latest book "After Buddhism: Rethinking the Dharma for a Secular Age" speaks of what the Tibetans taught him when he trained with them in his youth............that "ultimate truth was an emptiness of something that had never been there in the first place", which Batchelor - much like Merton - transforms into a positive agenda for living in this world, a disclosure of just what it is to be fully human. The book must be read, but Batchelor writes that "emptiness is not a truth to be understood correctly in order to dispel ignorance and thereby attain enlightenment". Rather the point is to dwell in emptiness. He speaks of the danger of duality, which does not so much lie in oppositional thinking, rather it lies in how we use such thinking to reinforce and justify our egoism, cravings, fears, and hatreds.

 

Well, enough. Namu Amida Butsu!

 

:)

Edited by tariki
Somehow my post appeared twice!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"emptiness is not a truth to be understood correctly in order to dispel ignorance and thereby attain enlightenment". Rather the point is to dwell in emptiness. He speaks of the danger of duality, which does not so much lie in oppositional thinking, rather it lies in how we use such thinking to reinforce and justify our egoism, cravings, fears, and hatreds.

 

Speaks volumes, Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't able to open the attachment, Soma, so I didn't know what I was "supposed" to see. As you explain it though, I would say it is an optical illusion, like reality!

 

Thanks for the book recommendation, Tariki. I'm familiar with Batchelor, but haven't read that one. My general impression of the Buddhist notion of "emptiness" is that it is understood and taught differently by different schools and among different teachers. It is a concept that I suspect is very difficult for the Western mind to comprehend. Given that, I think the probability of anyone really "getting it" is rather low. That's not to say it couldn't arise adventitiously!

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Batchelor is another Englishman, along with Christian authors Macquarie and Hick. What is in the water there?

 

Another book goes in the Amazon Cart, thanks Tariki. I hope they allow us to bring some books into the next phase of the journey as the list is too long to complete even if one lives long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Batchelor is another Englishman, along with Christian authors Macquarie and Hick. What is in the water there?

 

Another book goes in the Amazon Cart, thanks Tariki. I hope they allow us to bring some books into the next phase of the journey as the list is too long to complete even if one lives long.

 

One thing I like about Stephen Batchelor is his unpretentious style. Catch him on Utube and there are no robes or any indication of being a guru/master. And even the name.............no attempt to have a pretentious "eastern" sounding name like tariki or whatever. I once read a book "The Survey of Buddhism" by Sangarakshita and was bolstered somewhat by knowing I was dipping into the real mckoy, getting the Dharma straight from the horses mouth so to speak............eventually I found out that Sangarakshita was plain old Dennis Lingwood who hailed from Romford. Nothing wrong with Romford of course but it does not quite have the ring of Sri Lanka or Tibet. And as for Wei Wu Wei..........just where do aristocratic Irishmen pick up such names? Anyway, thinking about it (not always a good idea) just what is more "exotic" - a camel or a cow, an oak tree or a palm tree? Well, I'm waffling as usual.........maybe too much time on my hands.........where was I? Oh yes, Stephen Batchelor. Apparently he spent a lot of his youth, and certainly his twenties, in the hands of Tibetans and their monastic community, learning the ropes. He seems to have spent some time staring at walls and suchlike, but whatever his pedigree, for me he writes some good books.

 

The aim of them all, as he says himself, is just how to live the Dharma in our modern secular age. For me he hits the spot.

Edited by tariki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Thanks for the book recommendation, Tariki. I'm familiar with Batchelor, but haven't read that one. My general impression of the Buddhist notion of "emptiness" is that it is understood and taught differently by different schools and among different teachers. It is a concept that I suspect is very difficult for the Western mind to comprehend. Given that, I think the probability of anyone really "getting it" is rather low. That's not to say it couldn't arise adventitiously!

 

Steve

 

 

As far as "getting it", ultimately does that have anything to do with "eastern" v "western" mindsets? I would relate any such thought to the old Chesterton Chestnut mentioned by Thomas - about Christianity not having failed, just never been tried.

 

It has certainly been "believed", we have had the great "ages of faith". And still the world keeps turning, as today's newscasts of Yemen and Syria testify.

 

Here is a cut and paste of a previous post I made, which perhaps is relevant here.....

 

One of my favorite Buddhist authors is Stephen Batchelor, who often comes into a lot of stick on Buddhist Forums forhis "agnostic" attitude towards such "truths" as rebirth. Being that way inclined myself, I see no problem. One of his books is "Buddhism Without Beliefs" which opens with a short passage concerning the dictinction between the "Four Noble Truths" as something to "believe in" as distinct from how they are actually spoken of in the Theravada Canon itself, as truths to be acted upon (Note, Stephen Batchelor uses the word "anguish" rather then "suffering" for the Buddhist "dukkha")

 

".....the crucial distinction that each truth requires being acted upon in its own particular way (understanding anguish, letting go of its origins, realizing its cessation, and cultivating the path) has been relegated to the margins of specialist doctrinal knowledge. Yet in failing to make this distinction, four enobling truths to be acted upon are neatly turned into four propositions of fact to be believed. The first truth becomes: "Life is Suffering", the second: "The Cause of Suffering is Craving" - and so on. At precisely this juncture, Buddhism becomes a religion. A Buddhist is someone who believes these four propositions.......and are thus distinguished from Christians, Muslims, and Hindus, who believe different sets of propositions."

 

To my mind this distinction exists within all faiths in various forms and ways. It also seems to me that if we people of faith acted upon such distinctions, seeking the true heart of our faith, we perhaps could all meet at the centre, instead of arguing on the perimeter of the circle! Well, easier said than done.........

 

So there is knowing and believing etc etc. As the zen master once said, the main man at a monastery housing about 5000 wannabees when asked:- "Just how many followers do you actually have?" "Oh" he replied "about two or three".

 

Basically I am one who does not get it, whatever "it" is. And the longer I live the less I care, which just might be a way of getting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So there is knowing and believing etc etc. As the zen master once said, the main man at a monastery housing about 5000 wannabees when asked:- "Just how many followers do you actually have?" "Oh" he replied "about two or three".

 

Basically I am one who does not get it, whatever "it" is. And the longer I live the less I care, which just might be a way of getting it.

 

So there is knowing, believing etc. etc. Well I have my doubts that they are actually there as 'perceived'. Each of these cases are a direct result of chemistry in the brain. Because this chemistry forms different patterns we see them as somehow different. Yet I am forced into this duality by using words ... or at least this is what my chemistry seems to be dictating.

 

Anyway if we are not getting it we can grok it instead. Or our chemistry can. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the little bit of Batchelor I have read too. I occasionally go to his website to see what is new. I have not read any of his books though..

 

I have read Buddhism for Dummies ... my general impression was so close but no cigar. It almost got it "right". And that is for Buddhism rather than the book. And it assumes the book is a reasonable reflection of the various flavours of Buddhism.

 

I think this enlightenment thingy should boil down to acceptance ... this emptiness business while in some sense might be true it is irrelevant at least for my brain chemistry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Each of these cases are a direct result of chemistry in the brain."

 

But it seems that some believe they there could be more to a human being - and neither side or any other side can definitively prove its case.

 

This is true Thomas ... but then again we can believe all sorts of things. But it is about evidence ... show me evidence of this "more" that is not dependent on chemistry or perhaps physics.

 

You cannot prove I don't have fairies under my garden shed, but of course that is not any reason for me to believe in said fairies under my garden shed.

 

Science does not deal in proof!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rom,

 

I would never look under another man's shed.

 

Did I mention science? I mentioned lack of proof.

 

Be that as it may, the study of things (or entities) is the model of knowing appropriate to the empirical sciences. If man is more than another mere object or thing in the universe, then the scientific model of knowing is not adequate to the subject of man or knowing man. But, as indicated above, there is no here either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be that as it may, the study of things (or entities) is the model of knowing appropriate to the empirical sciences. If man is more than another mere object or thing in the universe, then the scientific model of knowing is not adequate to the subject of man or knowing man. But, as indicated above, there is no here either.

 

In that case there is no way of knowing whether I have fairies or not under my garden shed. Any method will be inadequate if my fairies are "more". But it is easier to believe in them if you don't look.

 

And this to a large degree is the point of this thread.

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the little bit of Batchelor I have read too. I occasionally go to his website to see what is new. I have not read any of his books though..

 

I have read Buddhism for Dummies ... my general impression was so close but no cigar. It almost got it "right". And that is for Buddhism rather than the book. And it assumes the book is a reasonable reflection of the various flavours of Buddhism.

 

I think this enlightenment thingy should boil down to acceptance ... this emptiness business while in some sense might be true it is irrelevant at least for my brain chemistry.

 

Cigars and flavours....... :) Merton speaks of built in ejector seats that fling us "out of our conceptual understanding into the void" and says that perhaps Buddhism is more able/likely to do this than Christianity (ref his essay "A Christian looks at Zen")

 

Anyway, it always comes back to paradox, but straight forwardly, without "emptiness" or any other "thingy", after all our exploration we shall return to the place where we started and know it for the first time (T S Eliot)

 

Acceptace/trust, some say "faith".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tariki

Here's a nice quote ...

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."

 

This, I think. is true of dead authors and poets regardless of expiration date. So with your TS Elliot quote I wonder if it means the same to you as it does to me?

 

I describe myself neither as Buddhist nor Christian and yet I recognize the their effects on our societies and societal effects on me. Nor am I a deist or panentheist ... I am sure these concepts have affected me too. As for pantheism ... It can't rule it out.

 

So what is your take on Batchelor's position that Buddhism if fundamentally agnostic?

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man is known (and treated) as an object or 'thing' in certain ways: medical sciences make man the 'object' of their study and we are better for it. And, there are others ways in which man has been known and treated as a mere thing (Nazism, terrorism, murder, rape, etc.) and we are worse for it. So, it seems evident that we can 'know (things) about' man, however, since man is 'more' than a thing, he can never be fully or truly known by the sciences.

 

However, most of us would say, we do 'know' others. This is a participative knowing: we know another because we are 'taking part' or 'engaging' or 'in' their life. This is not the study of an object, it is knowing a subject: it is experiencing/knowing another. This knowing is most evident in one's engagement with his/her spouse/lover, child and friend.

 

I don't know much about fairies. I would first look, thinking they are either objects (like a rock) or allowing that they could, like human beings, be 'more' but still have some thing like properties that could be seen, I think, therefore, I would know in short order if they were under my shed. However, if they did exist and were 'more' than mere things, the only way (method) to know them would be to participate in their lives, which in this case, would begin, I guess, by getting under the shed.

 

Having answers? The empirical sciences employ one model of knowing (of things) that is secondary to the participative knowing of (human) being. Just ask your spouse or lover how he/she wants to be known. And you already know the only way to 'have answers,' real answers about your wife (or husband) is to be in the trenches with them, to 'know' them. And that relationship started because there was a self-revelation of/by each person which called for or elicited faith: a response and commitment to the self-giving of the other. And it is in the self-giving and receiving that we know.

Edited by thormas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So, it seems evident that we can 'know (things) about' man, however, since man is 'more' than a thing, he can never be fully or truly known by the sciences."

 

I'm not at all sure what you mean by the "more", Thomas. If there is no evidence for the"more" then it can't be investigated, and can't be "known" by the investigator. But to be investigated, you must have a hypothesis to begin with. So, what is the hypothesis?

 

As far as "knowing others", we apparently have a brain that is capable of a sort of participative sharing of emotions with others; an ability to empathize with another person's suffering or joy. We sense when something is not quite right with a spouse, friend, and so on. But, even my dog can sense when things aren't quite right with me. She also seems to exhibit guilt feelings from time to time!

 

I think it is exactly the "more" that we believe in that keeps us imprisoned by self.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service