Do you pray?

[Jun]

The "devil" "god" "deities" are all human constructs. They are a fiction that impedes awareness, an alternate reality that is idealism at work.

[Jundo]

The "devil" "god" "deities" are all human constructs. They are a fiction that impedes awareness, an alternate reality that is idealism at work.

Hi Jun,

I would say that what you say is likely so (I won't know for sure, if a human can ever know for sure, until I get to heaven or hell ... if there are such places). But, overall, I would say that I think you are right.

On the other hand, I would say that the other popular philosophical viewpoint these days (what my teacher, Nishijima, calls the religion of meaningless "materialism) is also likely wrong: namely, that we live by random chance in a cold, dark, dire & ultimately dead universe on a pointless piece of rock in a dusty corner of a deaf and dumb galaxy ... nothing but matter going no where driven by blind mathematical equations. That kind of thing. We are just something that universe happened to spit up like a bit of phlegm, or maybe a cosmic fart.

Our Zen practice presents us many alternative perspectives (experienced perspectives) besides either of those. Here are just a couple to ponder: If we are not merely a tiny PART of the universe, but instead, if we ARE an UNBROKEN EXPRESSION of the universe (much as the manner in which your smile is not a 'part' of you, but is 'you smiling' ... get the subtle difference? ... you are the "universe you-ing") then every time you smile, this universe smiles. So, given that you are conscious, alive and find direction in your life, this universe is conscious, alive and has direction. When you cry, it is a crying universe, when you are angry or peaceful, it is a peaceful or angry universe.

I mean, when you are angry or peaceful, you are "an angry or peaceful you." Our Buddhist perspective is much the same about all of Reality.*

*(Note: Some people may object at this point that the universe is this really really big and old thing, compared to little tiny us ... therefore it shows our importance, or lack thereof in the universe. Well, thoughts of "big" and "little", "old" or "young" are some of the first things we drop in our practice. But that is a bit off topic. Just think that every place in your body is you, so it is with you and the universe ... something like that)

As well, our Zazen leaves us with an awareness that we are beings of limited intelligence, just a tad smarter than ants, if that much. Our Zazen lets us embrace that fact, and not claim knowledge we do not have (like all those silly stories of gods and devils which you mention, which silly humans have invented over the centuries to explain things they could not grasp). However, our Zazen practice also leaves us with a deep, abiding suspicion that something more is afoot than that cold and dead system, that perhaps the dice were somehow loaded in our births and being, that our having popped up in the middle of time and space was not just a crazy happenstance of blind fate. (That does not mean that the universe was necessarily built with us at its center, as in that silly Adam and Eve Story. If the universe has a 'purpose', we may be here to serve its purpose ... not the other way around ... like the cells of your heart are born and beat, not for themselves, but for you. But, our Buddhism lets us know too, EVERY PLACE and TIME in the universe IS A CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE, as much an expression of the universe as any other!)

It is that "unknowing suspicion" that I 'wink' at sometimes. "Hey, universe," I say, "I do not know what the game is fully (or if there really is a game), but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I have my suspicions. Do with me as you will."

Something like that.

Gassho, Jundo

[egbrooks]

Jun,
Believing that gods, deities, devas, etc. are human constructs doesn't really matter. After all, they're not going to lead to the cessation of our own suffering. I think that's why the Buddha kept silent when asked about God or the origin of the universe...It doesn't matter either way.

Gassho,
Eric

[Ryumon]

On the other hand, I would say that the other popular philosophical viewpoint these days (what my teacher, Nishijima, calls the religion of meaningless "materialism) is also likely wrong: namely, that we live by random chance in a cold, dark, dire & ultimately dead universe on a pointless piece of rock in a dusty corner of a deaf and dumb galaxy ... nothing but matter going no where driven by blind mathematical equations. That kind of thing. We are just something that universe happened to spit up like a bit of phlegm, or maybe a cosmic fart.

The problem with Venerable Nishijima's comment is that no-one believes the above. It is a construct developed by fundamentalist Christians, designed to suggest what atheists believe in (or don't believe in). I have never read such a nihilistic viewpoint, except in debates between Christians and atheists. It is part of the "atheists are immoral, because there can be no morality without God" meme. In fact, Nishijima's assuming that such a viewpoint is the belief of anyone means he has been taken in by the fundamentalists.

That sort of comment really bothers me, not only because it is (if I may be so bold) clueless, and uses the rhetoric of one religious group to attempt to define what other people believe. It is, in fact, quite dangerous (IMHO) to spew such ideas around, because they only fan the fire of fundamentalism.

Sorry to sound harsh, but I have to react to what seems to be someone who simply doesn't understand western beliefs.

Kirk

[Jundo]

Hi Kirk,

Yes, I admit it paints things with a broad brush, as two black and white extremes for purposes of conversation. Each person has their own believes, most somewhere in between and all their own. You are right. But I think it does nicely summarize the two prevalent trends for folks who are religious and those who are not in Western countries.

Gassho, Jundo

[Ryumon]

Sorry, coach, I still have to disagree. The problem, again, is that it is an image created as a negation of all that is theistic. And I really don't know of anyone who would support that view. (Well, maybe Dostoyevsky...)

For me, the opposite of theism is simply a universe that doesn't need a god; that can function without the supernatural. One that values humans for what they are, rather than for some mystical mumbo-jumbo that has accreted over the millenia.

Kirk

[Justin]

Kirk,

With respect: though Nishijima's point is "broadly painted," there are in fact people that believe precisely what he suggests. I have met these people. I still know some of these people. I have been one of these people.

The Religious Right does use and abuse this particular portrait as a straw man (straw person?) for all atheists. It's an innacurate and incomplete image of the atheist population.

For me, the opposite of theism is simply a universe that doesn't need a god; that can function without the supernatural. One that values humans for what they are, rather than for some mystical mumbo-jumbo that has accreted over the millenia.

I agree with you completely that this is an accurate and sympathetic description of a specific non-theistic worldview, namely a non-theistic worldview that you and I seem to agree on. But this is decidedly different from the particularly nihilist form of materialism Jundo & Nishijima seem to be describing.

Gassho.

[Justin]

I have a slight problem with Nishijima Sensei's insistance on 'religious' status for things which are clearly not considered religious and are, effectively, non-religious... do people, for example, generally pray to 'material' in 'materialism' (as they certainly do to 'Buddha' in some forms of 'Buddhism'?) Is 'material' seen as a beacon of hope for mankind? Is 'material' a teacher, a prophet, or a result of practice?

I think it's important to note here that some materialists (Karl Marx, let's say) do in fact believe that material conditions, in themselves and largely independent of human will, will bring about revolution and freedom from capitalist oppression. Material conditions in themselves are studied like religious texts for the sake of prophecy. See Lenin's The State and Revolution, for example.

My suggestion here, like my suggestion to Kirk above, is simply that this sort of worldview does exist (and I have subscribed to this one too! I did say I was a philosophical tourist, didn't I?).

I understand that one might chafe at the implication that ALL non-theists "worship" material life, buuuuut...

we live by random chance in a cold, dark, dire & ultimately dead universe on a pointless piece of rock in a dusty corner of a deaf and dumb galaxy ... nothing but matter going no where driven by blind mathematical equations.

...sounds like quite a few half-formed existentialists to my ears.

This is a good conversation to have. Very stimulating.

Gassho.

[Jundo]

I don't feel that I practice a religion, even though I practice what I think its fair to call "Buddhism", but I would never suggest or argue that another Buddhist was non-religious if he/she didn't feel that way... it seems like it would be bad manners.

"Religion" is a very loaded term at this stage, I think it is wise to use it carefully.

Regards,

Harry.

Hi Harry,

Yep, we are just slicing the meaning of words, and painting with an overly broad brush some very complicated issues. When it comes to peoples' beliefs, there are about 6.6 billion (the current world's population) varieties, I think.

Nishijima never has made much distinction between a person's religion/philosophy/worldview. He says, rightly I think, that almost every individual holds some value judgments deep inside about the universe and our human place in it. The interesting point he makes, I believe, is that everyone is just ultimately making some major suppositions, even the people who think that they are being modern, scientific and rational about it all.

So, for example (to go again, for a moment, to wide extremes), if one person says that the universe is run by a god named "Fred" based primarily on conclusions of faith, then (I would say) that person may be jumping to superstitious conclusions. As well, if a person says the universe is dead, dank and dreary, pointless and without a creator, that person has little better evidence to back up of his or her position, I think (mainly because humans are slightly smarter than ants, and really have no idea what is going on any more than an ant can understand modern physics). Furthermore, statements that the universe is "without meaning or purpose" are just as much personal value judgments as those that the universe "has meaning and purpose". Each is in the eye of the beholder, and furthermore, are human-centric judgments that may have little if anything to do with what is really going on in the universe (which may be beyond any of that).

The interesting point (to me anyway) is that nobody escapes Nishijima's defintion. So, for example, even a fellow "in between" who generally believes in the theory of evolution, scientific method, and considers himself an agnostic on questions of diety is (in the end) just making certain inevitable, major value judgments, half-informed calls and suppositions, interpreting the meaning behind scientific facts (e.g., Darwin's ideas means the universe is operating blindly and without direction vs. that Darwin's system is itself the product of something with direction and purpose) thus relying on a bit of faith of his/her own.

I would say Harry is a good example. In the end, his opinions on the topics we are now discussing are his value judgments, and interpretations, based on his personal reading of the facts. That is his religion/philosophy/world-view. Same for mine, and what I express here. Same for all half-smart/half-dumb human beings.

It is easier to call a spade a spade, not a shovel (as each is a concrete object of generally agreed properties). It is much tougher to not engage in personal faith and value judgments when discussing the definitions and significance of more abstract topics such as faith, religion, science, life etc. etc. I think.

Gassho, Jundo

P.S. - I want to underline that we are having a fun chat here, and I do want to emphasize that it has little to do with some unique "correct perspective" for Zen practice. I am not insisting that my, or Nishijima's definition of "religion", is something you must accept (that would be forcing our "religion" on you, asking you to drop your religion). In other words, we could all be right, all be wrong, yet still practice the Zazen we do around here without change. This is a VERY flexible practice, this Zen Practice.

[Jundo]

Oh, and Nishijima calls Buddhism a "religion/philosophy" of being and action, a kind of optimistic, positive existentialism ... just to be/act as a human being. On top of that, you can dress the doll in whatever "ism" hats and "value judgment" suit of clothes you wish. Our practice is merely to realize our "Original Face" prior to all that (the Christmas Tree itself) and that we can then live however we decorate it (whatever tinsel, shiny balls and popcorn strings we choose to to lace across it).

Something like that.

Gassho, J

[paige]

So, for example (to go again, for a moment, to wide extremes), if one person says that the universe is run by a god named "Fred" based primarily on conclusions of faith, then (I would say) that person may be jumping to superstitious conclusions.

I met someone who used to mess up the Lord's Prayer as a child:

Our Father,
Who art in Heaven
Harold be thy name..

[paige]

Re: do you pray

When reading a sutra at someone's bedside in hospital, just read a sutra at a someone's bedside in hospital. Who knows about auspicious rebirth in the future? I do know there is rebirth moment by moment--my cells regenerate--even as I am aging--there is still more of me regenerating itself than not--could this moment by moment rebirth be anything other than auspicious?
Everytime you open your mouth it is fresh and original, even if you've said everything before--just like sitting zazen on the cushion--each moment is fresh and like no other.
Conversation takes place on many levels more than just spoken words between people. Without a single word uttered, rich conversations can and do take place.

Thanks Keishin! Having certain prayers or sutras to recite makes piling into the car with other temple members and driving off to the hospital much less stressful for me - I know what my 'job' is, and it doesn't matter how well I know the sick person.

On our way back from a sesshin, our rented bus got stuck in traffic due to an accident and we chanted Guan Yin praise for the victims and the rescue workers. Which seems a reasonable thing to do - we weren't moving for 1/2 an hour anyway, and nobody'd brought a bridge set!

What stood out in your comments, for me, was the central aspect of 'being with,' thank you.

It sounds as if you are doing hospice work, or work of similar nature. It is very important work.

Unfortunately, I've pretty much given up my charity commitments - my seizures are too frequent now, I can't give any assurance that I will be able to make it for the day and time I'm scheduled to work.

Unless you want to count my baby-sitting my sister's three kids (she's pregnant and on partial bed-rest). They are little :twisted: s!

[Jundo]

Hi again Harry,

Dear Jundo et al,

Yes, a person (me very much included!) will view the world in his/her own unique way for myriad reasons (reasons beyond a few 'ist' and 'ism' values...)

But, doesn't Buddhism teach that we are also inherently of the same stuff, the now a bit trite: 'we're all one'?... Is this just another philosophy, a relative view, or an actual reality?

Relative philosophies, 'ists' and 'isms', out of their real contexts seem quite dicey in religious territory. I am only interested in some forms of Buddhism because they seem to see beyond these superficialities to an inclusive whole.

Regards,

Harry.

Yes, Buddhism lets us taste something so whole that it is even beyond all silly words such as "One". (What is a "one", after all, without two, three four.) It is Reality.

And that "One" can sometimes come to be a Republican, a Communist, an Atheist or a Methodist. That is also Reality.

Perhaps we might think of the universe as a salad, and you (Harry) as a slice of tomato. (Give me a break guys ... in this Zen biz, We've always got to reach for new references and metaphors ... So why not a salad? ;-) )We do not know how this salad came to be mixed ... whether by blind nature or by the hand of some cosmic Salad Chef or something else (I have my suspitions). Whatever the origins, the leaves are green (a few sometimes wilted), the peppers ever generally fresh, the dressing well balanced save for some naked spots, and the seasoning not overly done ... if you don't happen to catch a fork full of pepper by chance (okay, guys ... humor me!).

Now, is the salad not fully a "whole" and "one", even though it is not a single ingredient and flavorless? (I hope that was worth waiting for! ;-) ) Does it not need each of its Harry tomatoes, its walnuts, its oil and it tart vinegar for it 'saladness'??

The salad is both the salad and all the salad contains, and all are the salad and each is itself ... and the whole is whole. I think.

So, please think of our Zen Practice at Treeleaf Zendo as salad tasting lessons.

Gassho, J

[Keishin]

do you pray

Hellos to everyone!

I experience it as Buddh--Is m, it's about the IS ness, of the whole enchilada.

gassho
Keishin

[Ryumon]

In the abscence of any proof to the contrary, one has to accept whatever evidence there is. Therefore, should someone say that there is no proof that a god exists that runs the universe, that person is not wrong; that person cannot be wrong, because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

If we grew up in a civilization that hadn't descended from cavemen who had created gods to explain the thunder, would we even be having this kind of discussion?

As to the universe "having a purpose" or not, that's a ludicrous concept in itself. Rocks don't "have a purpose"; nor do streams or stars. They just are. Suggesting the contrary is merely a projection of our hopes, desires or feelings of insufficiency. Purpose comes from thought; it comes from us. If you say the universe has a purpose, then you are implying that there is some level of thought that the "universe" has. Of course, one cannot rule out that the universe (or universes, to be more correct) is a thinking being, but since there is no evidence to suggest this is the case...

The problem with this whole discussion, and with Nishijima's splitting of people into two artificial groups, is that it attempts to label things that don't even exist. While a few posters said they knew people with nihilistic views of the "universe", I say, "so what?". There aren't many people like that; only those who are interested in philosophy. Look at the average person in this world - what does he or she do? Eke out an existence. Worry about the quotidian. Out of 6 billion people, only a handful have time to have such thoughts. Of course on the other end of the spectrum, one can say that a majority of people do have superstitious views. Again, we've descended from those quivering cavemen who found creating a god (or many gods) to be helpful because it offered explanations for the unknown. But as we know more (we know that no god makes winds or thunder) we still can't, as a society, throw off the belief in other superstitions.

Yet when Zen comes into the game, it says - if I understand correctly - that it doesn't matter whether there is or isn't a god; in fact, don't even bother speculating, because that's not what Life is all about. Look beyond those ideas, look through the veil of superstition and see what Is. So I think what bothers me most about Nishijima's comments is that he should be practicing what Zen preaches rather than spout a caricature of non-believers.

Sorry to sound harsh, but I'm especially sensitive to the whole issue of god vs. all the bad people who don't believe in him...

Kirk