Drawing Lines
I doubt that I have reached any final conclusions about the "big questions", but I do think I'm at a point to draw some lines under some of the key issues to allow myself to move on. Although I feel I'm making progress, I'm embarrassed to see how little what I have to say here differs from my "progress report", written in the summer of this year. The difference is mainly in the (final?) decision to off-load a lot of "metaphysics" and get down to the practical business of applying all these great ideas to real life.
CHRISTIANITY
I think I will stop calling myself a Christian.
The issue has little to do with "God", an idea that seems to mean anything at all, so therefore nothing in particular. But if we subtract "God" from the mythology, there is no "son" of God, no "dying for our sins", no "saving us". The entire Christian mythology collapses. Once we lose interest in the Bible and it's cast of characters, the Bible itself must be demoted to an interesting old book along side the Iliad, or the Upanishads. It's no longer a "holy" book, at least not to me.
To be sure, the loss of Christian credibility owes a lot to the crimes that have been committed throughout history and up to living memory in its name and by individuals who claimed its authority. But the fact is that Christianity lacks credibility at its core. Even in its earliest and purest form, it is not something that should command the serious interest of a well-informed citizen of the 21st century.
There are a few good ideas in the Christian canon (such as the definition of love in 1 Cor 13) but good ideas are everywhere. It would be very strange if Christianity had not picked up a few good ideas in 2,000 years. But we need to face the fact that Christianity has inherited a lot of terrible ideas and added more. The most destructive idea is "tribalism" -- the idea that somehow Christians are "chosen" and have the God-given right to ram their religion down the throats of "heathen". This idea is common to religions of the book -- Islam, Judaism and Christianity. It is the parent of quasi-religious nationalism that has stood in the way of world peace for recorded history, right from the God-sanctioned destruction of non-Jews in the Bible to the "wars of civilization" conducted by George Bush II.
ZEN
Zen has some very good ideas, especially those inherited from Buddhism (the fact that attachment is the source of many of our problems) and Taoism (the fact that words can never capture reality). Properly understood, Zen is an aesthetic point of view -- a way of experiencing the world and/or a way of getting rid of false impressions about what is real. As I understand it and practice it, Zen allows me to let go of the self-inflicted grief that comes from being over-protective of "me" and the habit of placing "I" in the centre of the universe.
On the other hand, the massive literature of Zen, Buddhism and Taoism really adds up to metaphysics. The self is not "real". The self must be destroyed in order to directly perceive reality, which cannot be described. To my mind, Zen writing contains a lot of balderdash and double-talk.
The experience of ultimate reality that is the subject of so much discussion in the Zen literature (Satori) can be seen as an abnormal brain state, not much different from one achieved through drugs, injury or mental illness or sometimes through blind chance. There is no basis for the claim that such brain states put the subject in contact with "reality" -- only perhaps that whatever it is that is perceived has some common elements, such as peacefulness, timelessness, loss of self etc. The fact is that such states are arrived at by subtracting uniquely human brain functions (such as awareness of the past and future), but they are treated in the Zen literature as somehow superior to normal brain function.
There is a subtle point to be made here: If enough people see the same thing when they perform the same series of operations, the percept can make strong claims to being "real". We have no other basis for distinguish reality. What is not real is the interpretation of what we are all seeing. This is the lesson of Taoism but it seems to be lost on the legions of Zen writers. Zen and the Brain attempts to analyze Zen in terms of modern neurology, but takes for granted the claim that Zen allows the practitioner to contact a "higher" reality. Nonetheless, this book provides ample evidence that "Satori" is achieved by subtraction of mental capabilities: overcoming the natural facilities of the brain, such as the "feel" that we are in a particular time and place, the feel that we "are" a body etc. It should come as no surprise that we feel very strange when a large part of our natural mental capability is somehow silenced. I would claim that a very similar experience can be obtained by adding to our mental powers, such as when we first peer at the heavens with a telescope or through a microscope at a drop of pond water. Such experiences seem to be closer to hand when we place ourselves in situations where our experience is less relevant or where an exceptional degree of attention is demanded, such as SCUBA diving on a coral reef, sailing in a brisk wind or skiing down a mountain.
Zen claims to be skeptical and should therefore fit nicely with my natural skeptical tendencies. However, its skepticism is profoundly misplaced when it treats all "conventional" human knowledge as "mere talk". Science provides a fantastically wider view of the real world, not just language to describe it. Our generation treats the Hubble space telescope, genes, evolution, Google and MRI scans as part of our everyday experience. Our experience of the universe is enriched and expanded by Science in a way that no amount of navel gazing will ever provide.
SKEPTICISM
I have always been a Skeptic and I will probably die one. In the end, it is Skeptic standards that put all other theories and beliefs to the test. Skepticism is the heart of Science, but it can also be applied to all fields of human knowledge. Many experiences are far too complex and subtle for the cold, rough tools of the Scientific method. Yet we can still ask if these experiences are authentic, consistent and valid.
Can I be Skeptical about Skepticism? Only to the extent that I insist that whimsy, imagination and fantasy are valuable parts of the human experience. Without such adventurous modes of experience, life would be joyless. Creativity is the source of new ideas which must ultimately stand trial before the standards of Skepticism or remain as entertaining fantasy. To cite just one example, Special Relativity started out as a "thought experiment" -- a fantasy. Many insights we now take for granted started out as a leap of imagination -- "What if ...".
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
Of course, all this "progress" should have some effect on my life or its just navel gazing.
I do find that, with practice, Zen keeps pulling me away from being too self-absorbed -- allowing myself to be tortured by self-inflicted grief, like "I am not being treated fairly" or "Nobody is listening to me" or even "nobody really loves me". I can feel "invisible" to others and that can make me feel very sorry for myself.
Zen also encourages me to have a clear mind -- simply to pay attention to the task at hand or (if there is no task) to allow myself to just "be". It is easy to get bored with myself, always reaching for a book, an electronic distraction or an aimless chat. Zen certainly makes me a better driver.
With all the hocus pocus stripped away from Christianity, I am more free to hear the message of the prophets (including Jesus), which, I believe, is to reach out to the unfortunate people around me and to generally be a champion of justice. In this, I accept the fundamental premise of "The Zealot" -- that Jesus was one of many charismatic teachers who spoke against the injustice of his time and met the fate of those who speak up against power and corruption. At the same time, I reject the theories of Zen teachers like Allan Watts, who see Jesus as a mystic, for example, taking the Gospel of John as the core of His real teachings -- attempting to claim Jesus as just one of many believers in the Allan Watts view of the Universe. Whatever or whoever Jesus was, he was a man, like Buddha, or St. Paul with no special claim to authority outside the validity of his teachings, which can only be verified through actual experience of each one of us willing to "try them on". Like Buddha, Jesus believed in the metaphysical theories of the time (The Old Testament God in the case of Jesus, the Hindu universe in the case of Buddha). That doesn't mean that I should do the same. I have the good fortune to live in a time when not only is the Universe radically different, but we have found a way to explore the Universe and not just dream about it.
So, returning to the "message of the prophets". "Reaching out" and "justice" pose their individual challenges. Who do I reach out to and what is Justice? These are fitting subjects for future notes in this blog. However, Zen and it's parent, Buddhism, advises me to take the "middle way", to do what is practical, sane and comfortable. This would, for example, rule out a trip to Moscow to protest tyranny there or selling all I have and giving to the poor, as Jesus would have recommended. I need to start where I am and take the best advice how to move in the most promising direction. On this practical level, I find that Zen provides good day-to-day and even moment-to-moment guidance, but that the voices of the Prophets provide more reliable guides as to the "bigger picture" of ethics and justice. Of course, in all of this, I keep the Carl Sagan "bullshit detector" active. I know I am easily mislead.
Zen also contributes to the "big picture" in this way: whatever I do to help the unfortunate or promote justice should not be done to make "me" feel good and, indeed, it may do the opposite. Such concerns are not about "me" and, in this sense, "I" should be removed from my vision of the results of such actions. Even the feel that "I" am acting may be counter-productive. Participation in the right sort of event, "going with the right flow", getting out of the way of creative vision may be a better way to see things.
CHRISTIANITY
I think I will stop calling myself a Christian.
The issue has little to do with "God", an idea that seems to mean anything at all, so therefore nothing in particular. But if we subtract "God" from the mythology, there is no "son" of God, no "dying for our sins", no "saving us". The entire Christian mythology collapses. Once we lose interest in the Bible and it's cast of characters, the Bible itself must be demoted to an interesting old book along side the Iliad, or the Upanishads. It's no longer a "holy" book, at least not to me.
To be sure, the loss of Christian credibility owes a lot to the crimes that have been committed throughout history and up to living memory in its name and by individuals who claimed its authority. But the fact is that Christianity lacks credibility at its core. Even in its earliest and purest form, it is not something that should command the serious interest of a well-informed citizen of the 21st century.
There are a few good ideas in the Christian canon (such as the definition of love in 1 Cor 13) but good ideas are everywhere. It would be very strange if Christianity had not picked up a few good ideas in 2,000 years. But we need to face the fact that Christianity has inherited a lot of terrible ideas and added more. The most destructive idea is "tribalism" -- the idea that somehow Christians are "chosen" and have the God-given right to ram their religion down the throats of "heathen". This idea is common to religions of the book -- Islam, Judaism and Christianity. It is the parent of quasi-religious nationalism that has stood in the way of world peace for recorded history, right from the God-sanctioned destruction of non-Jews in the Bible to the "wars of civilization" conducted by George Bush II.
ZEN
Zen has some very good ideas, especially those inherited from Buddhism (the fact that attachment is the source of many of our problems) and Taoism (the fact that words can never capture reality). Properly understood, Zen is an aesthetic point of view -- a way of experiencing the world and/or a way of getting rid of false impressions about what is real. As I understand it and practice it, Zen allows me to let go of the self-inflicted grief that comes from being over-protective of "me" and the habit of placing "I" in the centre of the universe.
On the other hand, the massive literature of Zen, Buddhism and Taoism really adds up to metaphysics. The self is not "real". The self must be destroyed in order to directly perceive reality, which cannot be described. To my mind, Zen writing contains a lot of balderdash and double-talk.
The experience of ultimate reality that is the subject of so much discussion in the Zen literature (Satori) can be seen as an abnormal brain state, not much different from one achieved through drugs, injury or mental illness or sometimes through blind chance. There is no basis for the claim that such brain states put the subject in contact with "reality" -- only perhaps that whatever it is that is perceived has some common elements, such as peacefulness, timelessness, loss of self etc. The fact is that such states are arrived at by subtracting uniquely human brain functions (such as awareness of the past and future), but they are treated in the Zen literature as somehow superior to normal brain function.
There is a subtle point to be made here: If enough people see the same thing when they perform the same series of operations, the percept can make strong claims to being "real". We have no other basis for distinguish reality. What is not real is the interpretation of what we are all seeing. This is the lesson of Taoism but it seems to be lost on the legions of Zen writers. Zen and the Brain attempts to analyze Zen in terms of modern neurology, but takes for granted the claim that Zen allows the practitioner to contact a "higher" reality. Nonetheless, this book provides ample evidence that "Satori" is achieved by subtraction of mental capabilities: overcoming the natural facilities of the brain, such as the "feel" that we are in a particular time and place, the feel that we "are" a body etc. It should come as no surprise that we feel very strange when a large part of our natural mental capability is somehow silenced. I would claim that a very similar experience can be obtained by adding to our mental powers, such as when we first peer at the heavens with a telescope or through a microscope at a drop of pond water. Such experiences seem to be closer to hand when we place ourselves in situations where our experience is less relevant or where an exceptional degree of attention is demanded, such as SCUBA diving on a coral reef, sailing in a brisk wind or skiing down a mountain.
Zen claims to be skeptical and should therefore fit nicely with my natural skeptical tendencies. However, its skepticism is profoundly misplaced when it treats all "conventional" human knowledge as "mere talk". Science provides a fantastically wider view of the real world, not just language to describe it. Our generation treats the Hubble space telescope, genes, evolution, Google and MRI scans as part of our everyday experience. Our experience of the universe is enriched and expanded by Science in a way that no amount of navel gazing will ever provide.
SKEPTICISM
I have always been a Skeptic and I will probably die one. In the end, it is Skeptic standards that put all other theories and beliefs to the test. Skepticism is the heart of Science, but it can also be applied to all fields of human knowledge. Many experiences are far too complex and subtle for the cold, rough tools of the Scientific method. Yet we can still ask if these experiences are authentic, consistent and valid.
Can I be Skeptical about Skepticism? Only to the extent that I insist that whimsy, imagination and fantasy are valuable parts of the human experience. Without such adventurous modes of experience, life would be joyless. Creativity is the source of new ideas which must ultimately stand trial before the standards of Skepticism or remain as entertaining fantasy. To cite just one example, Special Relativity started out as a "thought experiment" -- a fantasy. Many insights we now take for granted started out as a leap of imagination -- "What if ...".
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
Of course, all this "progress" should have some effect on my life or its just navel gazing.
I do find that, with practice, Zen keeps pulling me away from being too self-absorbed -- allowing myself to be tortured by self-inflicted grief, like "I am not being treated fairly" or "Nobody is listening to me" or even "nobody really loves me". I can feel "invisible" to others and that can make me feel very sorry for myself.
Zen also encourages me to have a clear mind -- simply to pay attention to the task at hand or (if there is no task) to allow myself to just "be". It is easy to get bored with myself, always reaching for a book, an electronic distraction or an aimless chat. Zen certainly makes me a better driver.
With all the hocus pocus stripped away from Christianity, I am more free to hear the message of the prophets (including Jesus), which, I believe, is to reach out to the unfortunate people around me and to generally be a champion of justice. In this, I accept the fundamental premise of "The Zealot" -- that Jesus was one of many charismatic teachers who spoke against the injustice of his time and met the fate of those who speak up against power and corruption. At the same time, I reject the theories of Zen teachers like Allan Watts, who see Jesus as a mystic, for example, taking the Gospel of John as the core of His real teachings -- attempting to claim Jesus as just one of many believers in the Allan Watts view of the Universe. Whatever or whoever Jesus was, he was a man, like Buddha, or St. Paul with no special claim to authority outside the validity of his teachings, which can only be verified through actual experience of each one of us willing to "try them on". Like Buddha, Jesus believed in the metaphysical theories of the time (The Old Testament God in the case of Jesus, the Hindu universe in the case of Buddha). That doesn't mean that I should do the same. I have the good fortune to live in a time when not only is the Universe radically different, but we have found a way to explore the Universe and not just dream about it.
So, returning to the "message of the prophets". "Reaching out" and "justice" pose their individual challenges. Who do I reach out to and what is Justice? These are fitting subjects for future notes in this blog. However, Zen and it's parent, Buddhism, advises me to take the "middle way", to do what is practical, sane and comfortable. This would, for example, rule out a trip to Moscow to protest tyranny there or selling all I have and giving to the poor, as Jesus would have recommended. I need to start where I am and take the best advice how to move in the most promising direction. On this practical level, I find that Zen provides good day-to-day and even moment-to-moment guidance, but that the voices of the Prophets provide more reliable guides as to the "bigger picture" of ethics and justice. Of course, in all of this, I keep the Carl Sagan "bullshit detector" active. I know I am easily mislead.
Zen also contributes to the "big picture" in this way: whatever I do to help the unfortunate or promote justice should not be done to make "me" feel good and, indeed, it may do the opposite. Such concerns are not about "me" and, in this sense, "I" should be removed from my vision of the results of such actions. Even the feel that "I" am acting may be counter-productive. Participation in the right sort of event, "going with the right flow", getting out of the way of creative vision may be a better way to see things.
Comments
Post a Comment