Grizzly

Hi boneyard bill,

I agree that it was a borderline case. My fear was that the thread was going to change into a "do all nonbelievers in Christ go to hell" discussion, which would be more appropriate in MRD. I have really enjoyed this thread and all of the contributions. I certainly hope I didn't stifle the discussion.

Sincerely

Grizzly

victorialis

I'm not sure about this.

Agreed. Zen seeks to avoid multiplying concepts and mental imagery for this reason.

That's not a fair test of communication or of language. Common experience makes irrelevant the language used in, say, different accounts of personal salvation being related among Christians. There is already a consensus in place; any unexpected variations from the existing consensus are either ignored or corrected.

That's not something we're going to argue about, for sure. But there are artists of my acquaintance who certainly would argue about red, what it means, and what it does -- even to the extent of having a falling-out over it. The investment in the discussion of red is different there.

Agreed! "A finger pointing at the moon is not the moon."

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: victorialis ]</p>

AdamWho

*rant*
When I complained about what I see as the poverty of philosophy and religion. It is reference to their seeming inability to create new ideas unless you count metaphysical speculation. If understanding complex and important questions are the aim of philosophy then it at a loss to the sciences in the last few centuries, just pondering the problems is insufficient for solution.
I know that nearly every science was once the domain of philosophy but as soon as it had a testable hypothesis then it became a science and the wanderings of the philosopher became historical. Would you really ever read Berkeley's book on optics for other than historic reasons?

The way I see Buddhism: it is a great start based upon, what I think, are astute observations of human behavior. In so far as Buddhist principles are testable and hold to scrutiny, then they should be accepted, and folded into a psychological theory. One day I hope that we see Buddha's wanderings in the same light that we see Berkeley’s optics.
*unrant*

But I my change my opinion tommorrow, if I feel better...

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: AdamWho ]</p>

victorialis

boneyard bill writes:

Exactly. Science was never intended to deal with morality; that's the remit of other disciplines. The hope/expectation that science can and should eventually eliminate or "solve" metaphysics is doomed to disappointment, unless we lower other expectations (which perhaps we should not lower under any circumstances).

In the last century a number of disciplines have worked very hard to achieve a parity of prestige and "respectability" with science -- with varying degrees of success. To decide whether this was a good idea or not, look at the results achieved by those disciplines. In particular, I have in mind the application of statistical analysis to human behavior.

victorialis

The strength of the Buddhist's rarefied self-understanding is also its weakness for Westerners: it lacks a "master narrative," the sort of thing Christianity attempts to provide through a superabundance of prophecy, doctrine and ministry.

And no wonder. How much guidance for living our threescore-and-ten are we actually getting from the imagery of the dying God? Is that any more detailed an exemplar than what Buddhism offers? More passionate, it surely is; but the crucifixion is a highly concentrated image that demands interpretation -- and gets it. Lots of it.

Buddhism's avoidance of millenarianism leaves all the possibilities just as open as they were before the individual's encounter with Buddhism. Maybe its appeal lies here. What it doesn't spell out for us, is left to us to determine personally.

I think therein lies our freedom as human beings: the acceptance of nothing as final, and the use of approximate language. That's how we keep it all open for improvement.

victorialis

AdamWho -- I take your point about Berkeley's optics. I've no use for him. The empiricists did what they could within the conventions of their time.

But that's a fact I find illuminating all by itself.

St. Robert

For me, suffering will likely increase in my life. Friends and family will pass away. My body will age and so forth. In spite of having to face this rather unpleasant future, I'm strangely comforted by the suffering and death of Jesus. I am comforted, because I believe that somehow the supernatural creator of all became a man and endured rejection, mockery, beatings, cursings, and finally one of the most horrific executions man has devised. All so that I might have an abundant spiritual life with him. Compared to the sufferings of Christ, my physical pain and grief will be mildly significant. In fact, I hope to rejoice in my suffering because I know that when I take my final breath I will be with the one who suffered for me.

boneyard bill

Victorialis writes:

I don't know that it's more. I wouldn't want to quantify such a thing. It's a difference that is significant. It's as significant as the difference between prose and poetry. Where Buddhism gives us "emptiness" as the ultimate reality, Christianity gives us a God who "emptied himself" on the cross for the salvation of mankind. Well, I have some vague notion of what this concept of emptiness means but the Christian image much more concrete. Now if you combine the Buddhist concept with the Christian image, I get a better idea of what "emptiness" can really mean. And I get a better idea of what "no self" can mean because the "true self" exists in this process of emptying rather than any fixed "thingness" of existence. This is how it seems to me that the two can complement each other. Of course, when you're done, I don't know that you would really be left with either Buddhism or Christianity. Maybe it wouldn't be too far from gnostic Christianity.

boneyard bill

Adam Who's rant:

But then, what has science done to solve these same philosophical questions? It really hasn't. Many people tend to think that science has answered a lot of questions that it really hasn't answered at all. The question of materialism, idealism, Cartesian dualism, or related ontolgies for example, hasn't really been answered by science. The data of science is compatible with all of these approaches. Admittedly, most scientists seem to assume materialism, but there are others who would point out that there are as many problems with that assumption as with any other.


But it isn't that simple. Buddha's "astute observations of human behavior" are based on a very specific methodology. That methodology is a process of personal self-discovery which today we call "mysticism." So what we are dealing with here is an epitemological method. And it is a method which is not accepted as valid in the modern Western world. However, I see no reason why it should be rejected. It is basically a form of radical empiricism. And, as I have pointed out before, everything we know about the physical world is predicated on a certain understanding about the nature of the knower i.e. a self-understanding. So a proper understanding of the nature of self is essential to a proper understanding of even the physical world. But Western science and epistemology ignores this very crucial area.

boneyard bill

St. Robert writes:

And so the Christian koan of a beneficent God and a sinful earth is resolved in the satori of Christ. The contradiction is never overcome. Instead it is synthesized into the very nature of divinity. That is where Christianity differs from Buddhism and where the imagery is so powerful. And so the Christian is called upon to embrace suffering rather than simply to endure it as the Buddhists and Stoics recommend.

I don't mean to be disrespectful of this Christian view by my constant analysis and comparisons with Buddhism, but it is the topic of the thread, and I think these professions of faith help to elucidate the similarities and the differences.

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: boneyard bill ]</p>