In a Chinese-colonized North America, Buddhism is:
"'...influenced by Taoism and local nature cults.'" (p. 191)
People with any world-view, from polytheism to atheism, can meditate. As I understand it, Zen synthesizes Buddhism and Taoism because it emphasizes immediate awareness and deemphasizes rebirth which was derived from the prevalent Indian belief in reincarnation.
I would be happy to meditate in front of an altar bearing images of both the Buddha and Lao Tzu (see image) but that is not the view in the Order of Buddhist Contemplatives, which runs the Serene Reflection Meditation groups.
This timeline never gets a real science because:
"'Their genius lies in other realms.'" (p. 191)
I regard that as a major lack. The search for truth should encompass both meditative self-knowledge and empirical knowledge of the external universe. I have met people who asked, "What does it matter whether there are galaxies or mythical worlds?" It matters.
12 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I'm a bit puzzled, I somewhat vaguely thought Japanese "Zen" was a mix of Buddhism and Shintoism. But of course I was probably wrong!
Anderson gives us speculations about an alternate America colonized by Mongols and Chinese in "The Only Game In Town."
And,in "Delenda Est" and IS THERE LIFE ON OTHER WORLDS? Anderson gives us his views on the how and why of what it took for a true science to arise on our world.
I agree, it does matter whether galaxies or mythical worlds exist. Including whether alternate worlds exist.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
As a matter of fact:
Buddhism synthesized aspects of Jainism and philosophical materialism;
Chinese Ch'an Buddhism synthesized aspects of Buddhism and Taoism;
Japanese Zen Buddhism synthesizes imported Ch'an with aspects of Shinto.
Paul.
And I try to synthesize Zen with secularist philosophy.
Kaor, Paul!
If, of course, Jainism even existed in Buddha's time. And I disagree with materialism, for reasons expounded at length by John Wright.
And SHINTOISM had no effect on Japanese Zen? That still surprises me.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I did suggest above that Zen synthesizes Ch'an with aspects of Shinto.
Paul.
Sean,
Of course, if particles are defined as possessing only properties like mass, volume, electric charge etc which exclude consciousness, then it becomes impossible to understand how combinations of particles can bring into existence the qualitatively different property of consciousness.
However, if, instead, our starting point is dynamic energy/being/potentiality, then it is possible that consciousness emerges from some states of being and not from others just as:
a qualitatively new color emerges from the mixing of two familiar colors;
wetness is an emergent property since a single water molecule is not wet but a large number of such molecules is.
Consciousness is an emergent property of brains. A single neuron is not conscious. Naturally selected organismic sensitivity to environmental alterations quantitatively increased until it was qualitatively transformed into conscious sensation.
Inanimate matter is not conscious but matter is capable of becoming organic, then conscious, because quantitative changes can become qualitative as when a quantitative increase in temperature becomes a qualitative change from solid to liquid, then from liquid to gas.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Re Shintoism affecting Japanese Zen. You are right! I was too hasty and missed how you included Shintoism among factors shaping Zen.
Re materialism: if I understand Mr. Wright's argument, materialism cannot account for how men can think of or about non material things. The number 5, for example, simply as NUMBER, is not a material object or caused by a merely material thing. The concept FIVE, has to be always in itself non material. But, I'm sure I'm botching Wright's point!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Numbers are caused by material things because the numbers arise from counting such things.
Are radiation, gravitation, electric potentials etc material objects? If, by "material object," we mean a visible, tangible, solid thing, then most of reality is not material objects.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I grant what you said about gravitation, radiation, electric potentials, etc. But I would still argue CONCEPTS like number, the soul, God, etc., logically and physically cannot be "material" in any sense.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We have to distinguish between the particular/concrete and the general/abstract. Thus:
my body is particular and concrete whereas the idea, "body," is a generalization and abstraction;
my soul, if it exists, is particular and (in this sense) concrete whereas the idea, "soul," is a generalization and abstraction.
Clearly, "material" and "concrete" are not interchangeable. A concept is a single quality or property abstracted from many concrete particulars. Thus, one concept of redness is abstracted from many red things each of which is concrete because it also possesses other properties which are left out of the abstraction.
God, if He exists, is a very specific particular being, not an abstraction. The word, "god," is an abstraction because it abstracted from many particular imagined beings, Zeus, Thor etc.
Abstractions, I suggest, exist only in minds which are functions of brains.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I would still argue that a non material abstraction still means materialism cannot explain everything.
I would still argue that if God exists (as I believe He does), then that alone undermines materialism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
If brains generate abstractions, then materialism explains them.
If God exists, then that undermines materialism.
Paul.
Post a Comment