Originally posted by HalitoseBut this, surely is one of the veils that zen practice attempts to strip away - "It's not the wind that moves, not the flag that moves, but the mind which moves.." ---Its not the Tao that permeates ...
[Permeational pantheism is the where the Unity or Force (aka Star Wars) referred to as the Tao, penetrates all things. This belief is found in Zen Buddhism.
I think the Tao aspect of this, may have something to do with the way that Buddhism came to China and Japan, which I have not really come across in Western forms...
Originally posted by Mister MeanerDaisetz Teitaro Suzuki, long-term professor at Columbia University in his book "Zen Buddhism", citing the Western mystic Meister Eckhart with approval, states:
But this, surely is one of the veils that zen practice attempts to strip away - "It's not the wind that moves, not the flag that moves, but the mind which moves.." ---Its not the Tao that permeates ...
I think the Tao aspect of this, may have something to do with the way that Buddhism came to China and Japan, which I have not really come across in Western forms...
“‘Simple people conceive that we are to see God as if he stood on that side and we on this. It is not so; God and I are one in the act of my perceiving Him.’ In this absolute oneness of things Zen establishes the foundations of its philosophy. Buddhas [i.e., enlightened Ones] and sentient beings [i.e., those still ignorant] both grow out of One Mind, and there is no other reality than this Mind”
This Zen concept of the “Mind” it very similar to the all-permeating Tao.
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseAh yes, the zens really like Ekhart! I am not sure that we should be surprised that a Zen Master, bringing Buddhism to the west, should choose to quote from a western theologian to help explain a point.
This Zen concept of the “Mind” it very similar to the all-permeating Tao.
Even if your argument that the Zen mind = Tao = pantheism is not a step too far, I am not yet convinced by the problem of evil aspect. This kind of dualistic thinking is something that the zen mind tries to avoid. I have Shunryo Suzuki's book, not DT Suzuki's, and many of the dharma talks reflect this, largely because he felt that westerners were very dualistic. I think Zen regards the universe as morally neutral in a way that theists do not, and therefore the problem of evil seems to me to melt away...
Compassionate action arises of itself...
Originally posted by HalitoseI see nothing contradictory about believing that the universe is in some sense a unity but that components of the Unity can do morally objectionable acts. It is only a problem if you subscribe to a Divine Puppetmaster theology, which pantheists don't.
I've said this before in the other thread: This is not an "Argument from Evil" -- a disproof of some deity; but rather a "Problem of Evil": the reconciliation of central religious tenets with reality -- but in this case with certain (uncomfortable) consequences.
Each worldview attempts to address the Problem of Evil, Christianity certainly not excluded. ...[text shortened]... , (which logically follows from option iv)) then my critique of option iv) comes into play.
Originally posted by KellyJayIf I understand you correctly, you are saying that God exists; else we must resort to moral relativism, or ethical subjectivism, or ethical egoism. I am not sure if you are saying that morals are relative if it is the case that God does not exist; or if you are saying one is committed to a stance of moral relativism if one lacks belief in God. The former would render false a large number of ethical theories that don’t rely on God or relativism, and I would sure like to see your support for that. The latter is clearly false, and in practice there are many atheists who are not moral relativists.
Well that presents the full issue doesn't it, with God there are
standards that have nothing to do with man's 'feelings' on any matter
we are subject to God; without God there isn't a standard to worry
about, there isn't anything to be worthy of. Like I said, only those that
believe in God need worry about the discussion of worth before God,
those that ...[text shortened]... since not acknowledging doesn't free
one from their responsibilities towards God.
Kelly
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeFor the most part, I find Christian doctrine to be a slap in the face. As you yourself pointed out ('simply in virtue of being human'😉, Christianity is speciesist. So part of my value supposedly comes merely from the accidental property of being human, which I think has absolutely no bearing on much of anything. And clearly, in the Christian view, whatever this groundless value is, it is not sufficient to keep me from being viewed as dispensable and good firewood. Beyond that, the value that Christianity assigns to me is merely conditional, and it depends on my standing in at least minimal endorsement toward claims that I find silly and irrational. Again, failing that, I am dispensable. All of that I find insulting.
This is hardly unequivocally true.
Christian doctrine teaches that an eternity of fulfilling bliss is the ultimate fate of the righteous.
Christian doctrine teaches that forgiveness is available to anyone who asks for it.
Christian doctrine teaches that, simply in virtue of being human, and regardless of physiological state, you have a sacred i ...[text shortened]... d stuff. But surely this is enough to show that your previous assertion is probably overstated.
There are exceptions scattered throughout that are useful. As brief examples, the beginning of Proverbs praises understanding and in at least some parts doesn’t erroneously convolute 'understanding' with God talk. Another example would be Matthew 25, in which Jesus praises good deeds and places them in a human context. But for Pete's sake, don't mention the latter to any Paulian.
3 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseGenerally, everything is perfectly compatible with an absurdist stance.
You lost me right off the bat.
My bad. I couldn't see how the abstract concept of a divine, transcendental, creator Being could be false, so I assumed to mean a natural manifestation of the same -- which is what I had categorically denied.
Also, many normative claims that are supposedly divinely inspired are false -- many of them in referenc ven suicide) not result in a better amalgamation of objective experience?
Since the absurdist stance claims that there is no ultimate meaning to our existence, any claims that entail an ultimate meaning to our existence are not compatible with an absurdist stance. Your eschatological beliefs, for example, I do not consider compatible with a stance of absurdism. I am a Camusian absurdist, and there are many things I would consider incompatible with my absurdism.
Christian doctrine consistently reinforces the special position maintained by humanity as being created in the image (be this merely as 'rational beings'😉 of God.
I think this may just be a form of anthropomorphism. There is a saying that if triangles had a God, He would have three sides. Regardless, I think this aspect of Christian doctrine contributes to speciesism.
What pray, causes existential anguish/despair?
According to Sartre, 'anguish' stems from a "sense of complete and profound responsibility" that in choosing what he is, he also chooses for all of mankind. 'Despair', according to Sartre, "merely means that we limit ourselves to a reliance upon that which is within our wills, or within the sum of the probabilities which render our action feasible." I personally do not agree with a lot of what Sartre wrote.
Unless this "personal reward" is merely a continuation of right action, not the inherent motivation.
Yes, very good point. I would like to see more Christians recognize this distinction, where the 'motivation' could be more in line with the secular maxims of Jesus, ie., love your neighbor, or some such.
If you claim that your "individual existence" is merely an illusion, would you not then be unafraid of dying, since this act would also be illusionary. Would death (or even suicide) not result in a better amalgamation of objective experience?
I do not deny the existence of individual, subjective experience -- I don't deny that there exist waves on the body of water. But it is incoherent to say that such a wave may exist independent of a body of water, and there is also nothing permanent about a wave. Death is scary for vague, uncertain reasons. But if the point of death represents a cessation to subjective conscious experience, then there are no further ramifications for the subject in question, whether better or worse. I think there may be something to the scattered ravings of Rosencrantz, in the movie version:
"Did you ever think of yourself as actually dead, lying in a box with a lid on it? Nor do I, really. It's silly to be depressed by it. I mean, one thinks of it like being alive in a box. One keeps forgetting to take into account the fact that one is dead, which should make all the difference, shouldn't it?”
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseSurprisingly to me, this website actually does convey a decent introduction (as far as extremely brief introductions go) to the absurdism of Camus.
http://www.answers.com/absurdism
It's an offshoot from existentialism.
I don't care to feed those practices that will confuse absurdism with existentialism. Absurdism is properly grounded in Camus, not existentialism, IMO.