Dialoguing - A Neo-Buddhist and a Symbiotic Panentheist
Clyde G. is a respected thinker and Neo-Buddhist who has been acknowledged for his ability to ask questions going to the heart of issues regarding metaphysical models of reality.
Re: Self and the lack of 'self' - Introduction
[050608 cg] I'm not certain why you have this aversion to 'eternal recurrence'. You see it as a 'problem' for G-d as you understand G-d or that G-d would be less perfect in your eyes.
[050609 djs] Actually I do not have this aversion to 'eternal recurrence', nor do I see this as a 'problem' for G-d, nor do I understand G-d to be less perfect if 'this or that' were or were not the case.
What I see instead is 'man' sitting around and pining for an understanding as to the meaning of his existence.
[050611 cg] Perhaps what you see is yourself seeking the meaning of your existence.
[050613 djs] I am not seeking the meaning of 'my' existence for I am more than comfortable with who I am. What I am seeking is a rational meaning for the existence of the individual entity of knowing.
[050614 cg] Yes, I'm certain that is so.
[050613 djs continues…] The difference between 'my personal meaning' and the meaning of 'the myriad numbers of unique individuated entities of knowing' lies in finding a commonality for humanity or what might be termed a universal philosophy which would act as the foundation from which present day and future religions, sciences, and philosophies can emerge as unique human perceptions yet accept the concept of respect and tolerance for each other in a pluralistic manner as opposed to our historic perception that it is either 'my way' or else. ('or else': rejection, domination, genocide, denigration, torture, abuse, … ad nausea)
[050614 cg] OK.
[050611 cg continues] … The truth may be that Existence, including our existence, has no "meaning", that Existence simply is.
[050613 djs] That is a possibility. The problem with such a model, the model which states 'that Existence simply is', is that such a model provides absolutely no rational argument which rationalizes why 'humane' acts should trump 'inhumane' acts.
The result of a Reality within which 'Existence simply is' is the ultimate recognition that 'The Cambodian Killing Field' is no less legitimate than the 'American Civil War'.
The concepts of 'do no harm', you are your brother's keeper, love unconditionally, suffering must not be tolerated, justice, compassion, … have no meaning in a 'meaningless' Reality where 'Existence simply is'.
But again I will say: Although no rational argument supports your position, that does not negate the 'fact' that you 'may be correct'. Existence may have no meaning since it is possible that 'Existence simply is'.
[050614 cg] Let's then agree that 'Existence is'. You may believe that Existence is and has meaning. I may believe that Existence is and has no meaning. You will seek meaning and I will not seek meaning.
[050617 djs] I would never suggest you do as I do. We each have our own journey to take in life.
[050611 cg continues] … In that case, one may abandon one's search for meaning and be natural in the present.
[050613 djs] Perhaps, I will readily admit such a position is the least stressful of all positions, but the question becomes: Is such a position rational as opposed to being simply a mechanism by which one can find inner peace?
[050614 cg] If, as you wrote above, "it is possible that 'Existence simply is'", then it must be rational to hold the position that 'Existence simply is'.
[050617 djs] Just because something is ‘possible’ does not make it rational. It is possible the universe could collapse into nothingness tomorrow but is it rational to stand, day after day after day, on the corner carrying a sign stating ‘The world is coming to an end’?
I would suggest not. I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with the act, I am simply suggesting that it is not supported by any rational argument.
[050609 djs continues…] Now this pining is not a 'negative' aspect of humankind, rather the obsessing with meaning emerges from the natural curiosity of our specie and the natural desire of our specie to answer any questions which confront it.
[050611 cg] Yes, it is a natural occurrence is some of our specie, but not others. One might ask oneself, "Why do some pine for an understanding to the meaning of existence, but not others?" …
[050613 djs] Not meaning to be disrespectful, but perhaps some individuals look to meaning because they wish to understand reality as opposed to simply existing. Others look for meaning in order to help their specie come to grips with peace and tolerance for the benefit of all as opposed to perpetuating violence and intolerance for personal gain.
[050614 cg] Yes, you are right.
[deleted materials…]
[050611 cg continues] …For example, you may wonder if one can base an ethical system on 'emptiness', which for human beings means that we lack a "self" or "eternal soul".
[050613 djs] I have often wondered about such a possibility. So I will ask you, a Neo-Buddhist:
Is there a rational argument upon which one can ' … base an ethical system on 'emptiness', which for human beings means that we lack a "self" or "eternal soul"?
[050614 cg] There may be logic and reason, even if there is not purpose. …
[050617 djs] Agreed, however the statement does not rationalize the existence or the non-existence of purpose. There is nothing ‘rational’ about the statement. The statement is simply a statement of observation.
[050614 cg continues] … In any case, here is how I understand the ethical situation:All that is, whether you consider it physical, mental, consciousness, illusion, G-d, whatever Reality is, we are of the same substance.
[050617 djs] And if ‘nothingness’ exists? Are you suggesting that we are also of the same substance as ‘nothingness’?
[050614 cg continues] … This means that we are all fundamentally equal and not separate, and is the source of respectfulness and kindness.
[050617 djs] I agree but just because you and I agree upon this statement does not make it a rational statement. The statement is simply a statement based upon the lack of an in-depth discussion of reality.
[050614 cg continues] … All things, including us, are not self-existent; i.e., things lack a "self" (or an "eternal soul") and will pass away. This means that there is no self to be selfish
[050617 djs] I respect your perception, but the question becomes: If there is no self to be selfish then why do we speak of the individual being ‘self’ish, since there is no self?
[050614 cg continues] … and that we, our desire, and the things we desire are temporary, and this is the source of selflessness.
[050617 djs] Again I respect your perception but again I ask: If there is no ‘self’ then do we speak of an individuals ‘desire’, an individuals selfishness, an individuals incorrect perception, …?
[050614 cg continues] … A truly logical and reasonable entity, knowing (or believing) the above to be true, would act accordingly.
[050617 djs] And again I respect your position. Here again you speak of ‘the’ ‘entity’ as if it exists as ‘a’ ‘self’ and as if it has free will to choose yet you speak of there being no ‘self’. Where is the rationale which explains the apparent discrepancy of the lack of self and the constant reference to self?
Although I’m not sure what to do with the last three statements let me state the following:
The metaphysical understanding put forward by symbiotic panentheism fully embraces your positions.
The purpose of symbiotic panentheism is not to establish a religion but rather to place into society a model of reality based upon scientific, religious, and philosophical wisdoms which together establish the underlying rationality needed to validate the model itself.
The model, interestingly enough, does nothing to reduce the significance or the legitimacy of Buddhism, Islam, Atheism, Judaism, Tao, Hinduism, Rosicrucians, Theosophers, Catholics, Protestents, Cosmologists, Existentialists, Phenomenologists, …
Symbiotic panentheism is a universal philosophy capable of acting as the trunk from which all of the above can branch uniquely. The roots of sp are composed of the human wisdom generated by the above and the roots of sp find themselves anchored in the soil of rational discourse.
As such to argue the points you present is in essence to suggest Buddhism is ‘wrong’ when in fact it is no more wrong than is Christianity, Hinduism, …
[050614 cg continues] … Such a person
[050617 djs] But there can be no ‘person’ if there is ‘no self’. Symbiotic panentheism would purport that Buddhism is correct when it address positive issues, address issues of what is as opposed to issues of ‘what is not’. Symbiotic panentheism holds this view of all religions, sciences, and philosophies. Symbiotic panentheism also suggest that the negative absolutism embraced by religions, sciences, and philosophies is where the three must tread lightly and where the three are most likely to be in error.
For instance Buddhism address the issue of The Whole in a positive sense, but appears to state the ‘self’ does not exist. The absolutism of the negative, “self ‘does not’ exist”, is what is Buddhism leaves as it emerges from the trunk of the tree represented by sp. The religion of Buddhism then becomes a branch which distinguishes itself from the trunk through the process of removing ‘self’. The branch therefore is symbolically ‘smaller’ than the trunk.
This does not cause the branch to be insignificant nor does it cause the branch to be invalid but rather the branch simply represents a unique perception of reality which fits the needs of specific organizations (branches of branches, stems of branches, … ) and of individuals (the leaves) and the thinkers, developers of new ideas, artists, creative individuals… (flowers found on the branches).
[050614 cg continues] … (Such a person) would understand the illusion of separateness, of self, of gain and loss and would be free to act compassionately; i.e., respectfully, kindly, and selflessly.
[050617 djs] I agree completely with your analysis as to the affect Buddhism would have upon civilization should everyone become a Buddhist. But the fact of the matter is that not everyone will become a Buddhist because not everyone agrees with the Buddhistic premise that ‘self’ does not exist, since the premise is based upon ‘faith’ as opposed to ‘reason’.
Now there is nothing ‘wrong’ with basing one’s life upon faith as opposed to ‘reason’. In fact faith is a wonderful characteristic of humanity. We have faith in our observations and thus we reach to open the door before entering a room as opposed to walking into the door.
We have faith in our fellow man. We have faith in science. We have faith in the teachings of our religions. We have faith in our ability reason.
Without faith we could not survive.
One must not lose sight of the fact, however, that all people are not ‘logical’ and not all people are ‘reasonable’, nor will this ever be true of all people.
What then needs to be established is the trunk of the tree from which all religions, sciences, and philosophies can spring. I would suggest such a trunk can be established using human wisdom/knowledge as the roots from which the trunk emerges and rationality as the soil which anchors the roots.
The trunk is a mutual religious, scientific, and philosophical consensus arrived at through the coordinated analysis of the vast accumulation of human wisdom/knowledge developed by our specie. The trunk provides a common ground upon which the diversity of human opinion can commune and embrace diversity.