Sometimes karma is a beach, or a blue sky, or just catching up with an old friend. I have no problem with the "reap what you sow" type karma, the existential cause-and-effect type of karma, but the supernatural aspect of good v. evil loses me at the first step into that metaphysical abyss.
As a naturalist, I try to view classic thinkers or religious texts with a rationalist lens first, just to get a sense of the big question they are trying to answer. It doesn't make sense to assume the author knew more than the available science of the day. Although there were some good guesses and predictions about the natural world by ancient philosophers and theologians, most theologians thought the world was flat and weren't sure where the sun went at night. I make myself to start there. It's all too easy to start down a path of a phenomenological or symbolic theory and read something into a text that simply isn't there. The next thing you know you have a list of people who deserve eternal damnation and suffering.
I think it's best to start with the fewest assumptions. Maybe, sometimes, no answer is the best answer.
It makes for a nice day at the beach when you don't have to keep looking over you shoulder.
I think it's best to start with the fewest assumptions. Maybe, sometimes, no answer is the best answer.
It makes for a nice day at the beach when you don't have to keep looking over you shoulder.
I found an audio version of Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" on YouTube.
FQ: Which three poisons does Flanagan describe as "original sin, Buddhist style?"
ReplyDeleteA: Delusion; Avaricious, greedy desire; Hatred.
Also, I'd just like to add that you made a rather brilliant statement in saying that you think that "it's best to start with the fewest assumptions. Maybe, sometimes, no answer is the best answer." Without getting too into my whole weakness-of-the-human-mind spiel, it seems that humans are fatally attached to having answers, even at the cost of the veracity of those answers themselves.
DQ: Is Karma legitimately present, or is it purely a construct of our minds in a post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc kind of way?
question: 17th century version of "all in flux" had three things that were unfluxable. what were they:
ReplyDeletegod, individual souls, and the laws of nature
discussion: no part of us (our bodies) is the same as it was 10 years ago. the matter that was here is no more. discuss.....
i have to agree with dean on the naturalist. i too tend to look at things through a rational lens (photo reference. lol), especially with religion and the amount of people these days who get so mad. what happened to the good and love religions where everybody loved and took care of each other. these days all i am seeing on the television is angry christians wanting to "take back their country" from the muslim president. craziness i tell you!
here is a link i found about a happiness project that someone is doing. pretty cool site.
http://www.gretchenrubin.com/
To be fair, there is a long, long history of hatred and bigotry in religion. I don't think there was ever a solely good and loving period for religions. I would imagine that our access through the media skews our images of religious people--either the focus is on the negative extremists and their ridiculous claims or we remove the beliefs entirely in order to highlight how subjectively good some of these people can be (i.e. philanthropic individuals that give their actions the description of "being a good Christian" or other similar religious ethical codes).
DeleteIf you watch any of the strictly Christian television networks, there's a whole cornucopia of love and goodness that they spread and share...ironically these are juxtaposed to hellfire and brimstone sermons at three in the morning, begging the viewer to "Sow their seeds with Jesus" by way of excessive tithing.
Regardless, I totally agree with Dean on the karma as a sense of cosmic good and evil thing. It's a little too optimistic for my taste...kind of like the concept of all justice being served in good time. I don't think so. I think a lot of good people get the short end of the stick while terrible people get to live luxurious, irresponsible lives, and even if they are "reborn" in a lower status, the fact that they have no permanent sense of self does the exact opposite of justice--it allows them to forget their wrongs, or rights, and live another, completely separate life later on. Buh.
Though the current Dalai Lama deviates from any normative conceptions of reincarnation...
DeleteSo Flanagan reports. But in his "Meaning of Life" the DL goes on quite a bit about cycles of death and rebirth. I'll post a sample.
Delete"discussion: no part of us (our bodies) is the same as it was 10 years ago. the matter that was here is no more. discuss....."
DeleteI'm glad that you pointed this out, Leigh. On a cellular level, we regenerate and are reborn, and we are made up of our cellular lineage. I love to see when microcosm matches macrocosm, and the habits and lifestyle choices we make affect how our new cells develop. The same might be said for our reincarnated selves, or even children/ grandchildren. Prior choices affecting the whole that we are part of and the people who will continue to be in the big picture is a possible way to see karma. The cells that you had as a baby may not experience the consequences of your life choices that may result in well-being or illness, but their descendants will have to deal with it, and they are still part of the whole that is you. (Maia Lewis)
CH. 5 FQ: According to Buddhism wisdom consists of Impermanence, dependent origination, and _____.
ReplyDeleteA: No-self
DQ: The Dalai Lama confessed to Flanagan that he does not believe in reincarnation in a literal sense. In what way could he believe in reincarnation?
Speaking of naturalists, here is a TED talk with Dan Gilbert going over some things we are discovering about the brain and it's connection to what makes us happy and what effects happiness.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html
(Maia Lewis)
ReplyDeleteFQ: What is atman? (Soul)
DQ: (Not dairy queen) What do you think are the defining differences between being selfless and nice are?
Link: http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/94134-don-t-be-nice-be-real-balancing-passion-for-self-with-compassion-for-o
Factual Question- Egoism that takes the form of acquisitiveness of multifarious sorts is the main cause of what?
ReplyDeleteSuffering
Discussion Question- What do you think of the question posed "Was the Buddha like Nietzsche's peacock, who hid his true colors but called them his pride?"
I would like to share a quote with you all by a novelist some of you may be familiar with, Hermann Hesse- For those times when you feel lackluster- from the book Demian. I own it if anyone wants to borrow it!
“Every man is more than just himself; he also represents the unique, the very special and always significant and remarkable point at which the world's phenomena intersect, only once in this way, and never again. That is why every man's story is important, eternal, sacred; that is why every man, as long as he lives and fulfills the will of nature, is wondrous, and worthy of consideration. In each individual the spirit has become flesh, in each man the creation suffers, within each one a redeemer is nailed to the cross.”
― Hermann Hesse, Demian