Nice post Neil…again I learn new words. I have heard that today the Buddhism of old can no longer thrive. Many monks I’ve discussed this with share a clarity about the insanity of the pace and activities of our current culture…many attempting to live within it agree. The days of being able to find a cave for many years and/or being supported by a community as one walks the streets with a bowl, wishing to fulfill the communal contract that divides the ‘labor’ of things meditative and more mundane activities is all but over. It doesn’t work at all in NYC.
So, the current practice as I see it I to live in the world and not of it. Of course, this is not new, just seems to have a more pressing agenda today due to the lack of more diverse methods of contemplation. Also, fully admitting gross ignorance when it comes to things political, the notion of secular democracy, unless much more expansive and complex than I envision it, does not in and of itself appear to be the ‘answer’ in this case. In a way, it appears more to be the tail wagging the dog. And, yes, as interesting and perhaps enlightening as reviewing history can be, there is absolutely nothing but the now. On Oct 1, 6:43 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Chan Buddhism has a rather excellent rejection of conventional ethical > values as blinkering and distorting (see Hui Neng, Liuxu tanjing, and > The Recorded Conversations of I-Hsüan), and also a sense that one can > become attuned to the world so as to move with its grain I am less > sure about. The special emphasis on the elimination of suffering and > on the way it explains suffering by referring to the human attachment > to self as fixed ego entity challenges Western orthodoxy. Realization > that the self is not a bounded and discrete entity may encourage a > much more impersonal view of oneself and one's projects and desires. > One's concern widens to all of life, and one dampens one's desires so > as to lessen attachment to the self's cares and concerns. This may > seem to drain all passion from life, and it requires that we dampen > the attachment we have not only to our selves but also to special > others. Western ethics tend to uphold only a limited altruism that > allows one a private sphere of life free from moral demands and in > which one gives much more weight to the cares and concerns of the self > and those close to the self. There are themes in Western philosophy > that parallel the kind of impersonal altruism urged upon us by > Buddhism. Some utilitarians have strongly held to the theme that each > counts for one in calculating what produces the greatest good, and > they have derived challenging consequences from that theme for the > question of what one should be prepared to give to alleviate the > suffering of strangers, arguing that the way many in affluent nations > indulge themselves and their own is simply insupportable in a world of > widespread and severe suffering. Some have seen the sort of impersonal > concern that utilitarianism may demand as an indication that it > unsuitable for human beings, who are so strongly partial to themselves > and their own. Buddhism presses for the possibility that impersonal > concern is humanly possible, and the fact that it is a vibrant and > long-lived tradition with many committed practitioners provides some > support for the viability of impersonal concern as a ideal that is > capable of claiming allegiance and influencing how people try to live > their lives. A barbarian such as myself, of course, only prefers this > because I just can't stand wailing women! > The problem really is that what is offered as 'success' is so naff, > yet we are frightened to move to the delights of peace because this > will only let others develop power, including the power to exert their > ethical judgement on us. None of this matters as long as most of the > world is consumed by idiot economics and almost no ability to tolerate > peaceful diversity based on minimal rules within practical security. > The issue is political and not philosophical and we know the answer is > secular democracy based on improvements of what we have managed around > the world. The best for me will be the moment when we laugh at and > ridicule any notion raised by parochial politicians of our great, > noble history in the recognition this is a future we need to build by > recognising the past as myth. > > On 1 Oct, 19:56, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the laugh. In the context of Conan, this makes sense: > > > 'To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the > > lamentation of their women' > > > No doubt, the world has its barbarians and what they see as the best > > in life may differ than the viewpoint of the worlds mystics. The > > barbaric love of conflict will only take Conan so far, as it is > > limited to the lower states of consciousness. So what is best, is > > relative and ever changing with the emergence of greater possibility > > and awareness. > > > On Oct 1, 1:32 pm, Lonlaz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Don't mean to derail the conversation, but as far deep quotes from > > > Conan the Barbarian, I found a different one more impressive. I can't > > > find it online, but I did find its analog in the written REH stories: > > > > [The] chief [of the gods of Cimmeria] is Crom. He dwells on a great > > > mountain. What use to call on him? Little he cares if men live or die. > > > Better to be silent than to call his attention to you; he will send > > > you dooms, not fortune! He is grim and loveless, but at birth he > > > breathes power to strive and slay into a man's soul. What else shall > > > men ask of the gods? ... There is no hope here or hereafter in the > > > cult of my people. In this world men struggle and suffer vainly, > > > finding pleasure only in the bright madness of battle; dying, their > > > souls enter a gray misty realm of clouds and icy winds, to wander > > > cheerlessly throughout eternity. > > > > Conan, first fictional prehistorial proto-athiest?? > > > > What's best in life for me depends on my mood, at the moment it is to > > > sit in a quiet corner and read a book with some beverage laced with > > > caffene.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
