Topics for Quiz #2 (Summer B)

Chapter 4

1. Qualitative Identity, numerical identity
Animalism; Counterexample: Siamese Twins
2. Memory Theory: Real memory, apparent memory,
3. Psychological Continuity Theory; Counterexample to Psychological Continuity: Parfit Teletransporter
4. Brain Theory; Counterexample: Parfit’s Division
5. Identity and what matters in survival and responsibility
6. What does it mean to say that the self is as "process"

Chapter 5

1. Subjective Absolutism; Counterargument: Moral disagreements become impossible
2. Subjective Relativism; Counterargument: Same
3. Cultural relativism; Counterargument: Though cultures are different in their superficial values, they are not that different in their moral constructions
4. Logical Structure of Moral Arguments: Moral Satandards + Factual Beliefs = Moral Judgments
5. Are there universal moral principles? Principle of Charity and equality (p. 345)
6. Consequentialism and Non-consequentialism
7. Intrinsic and Instrumental Values (p. 347)
8. Ethical egoism (p. 349): Counterexample: Problem with motivations and social cohesion
9. Act Utilitarianism; Counterexamples: Minorities are not included in the calculations
10. Rule Utilitarianism (Why is rule utilitarianism bettern than act utilitarianism?)
11. Perfect and imperfect duties (p. 371). Kantian ethics: Categorical Imperative (p. 369): Universalizability and reversibility; Second Formulation (respect); Counterargument to the second formulation: Problem with exceptions.
12. Pluralistic formalism (p. 377). Prima Facie Duties: You have to know this order: Justice, Fidelity, Reparation, Gratitude, Beneficence, Non-maleficence, Self-improvement
13. Negative & positive rights (p. 375).


LINK: This is the link for your textbook Doing Philosophy. If you click on Chapters 4 & 5 you'll find the different chapter's sections with flash cards, true or falseIF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, POST A COMMENT. I'LL GET BACK TO YOU AS SOON AS I CAN

D.T. Suzuki's Zen

From Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki's Essays on Zen Buddhism


Zen is the art of seeing into the nature of one's own being. It points the way from bondage to freedom. By making us drink right from the fountain of life, it liberates us from all the yokes under which we finite beings are usually suffering in this world. We can say that Zen liberates all the energies properly and naturally stored in each of us, which are in ordinary circumstances cramped and distorted so that they find no adequate channel for activity. 2- This body of ours is something like an electric battery in which a mysterious power latently lies. When this power is not properly brought into operation, it either grows moldy and withers away or is warped and expresses itself abnormally. It is the object of Zen, therefore, to save us from going crazy or being crippled. This is what I mean by “freedom,” giving free play to all the creative and benevolent impulses inherently lying in our hearts. 3- We are blind to this fact that we are in possession of all the necessary faculties that will make us happy and loving towards one another. All the struggles that we see around us come from this ignorance. Zen, therefore, wants us to open a “third eye,” as Buddhists call it, to the hitherto undreamed-of region shut away from us through our own ignorance. When the cloud of ignorance disappears, the infinity of the heavens is manifested, where we see for the first time into the nature of our own being. 4- Life, as most of us live it, is suffering. There is no denying the fact. As long as life is a form of struggle, it cannot be anything but pain. Does not a struggle mean the impact of two conflicting forces, each trying to get the upper hand of the other? If the battle is lost, the outcome is death, and death is the fearsomest thing in the world; even when death is conquered, one is left alone, and the loneliness is sometimes more unbearable than the struggle itself. 5- When the ego-shell is broken and the 'other' is taken into its own body, we can say that the ego has denied itself or that the ego has taken its first steps towards the infinite. How does Zen solve the problem of problems? 6- In the first place, Zen proposes its solution by directly appealing to facts of personal experience and not necessarily to knowledge from books. The nature of one's own being where apparently rages the struggle between the finite and the infinite is to be grasped by a higher faculty than the intellect. For Zen says it is the latter that first made us raise the question which it could not answer by itself, and that therefore it is to be put aside to make room for something higher and more enlightening. 7- The intellect has a peculiarly disquieting quality in it. Though it raises questions enough to disturb the serenity of the mind, it is too frequently unable to give satisfactory answers to them. It upsets the blissful peace of ignorance and yet it does not restore the former state of things by offering something else. Because it points out ignorance, it is often considered illuminating, whereas the fact is that it disturbs, not necessarily always bringing light on its path. It is not final; it waits for something higher than itself for the solution of all the questions it will raise regardless of consequences. This constant pulling down and building up is all right as far as philosophy itself is concerned; for the inherent nature of the intellect, as I take it, demands it and we cannot put a stop to the progress of philosophical inquiries any more than to our breathing. But when it comes to the question of life itself, we cannot wait for the ultimate solution to be offered by the intellect, even if it could do so. We cannot suspend even for a moment our life-activity for philosophy to unravel its mysteries. 8- The hungry cannot wait until a complete analysis of food is obtained and the nourishing value of each element is determined. For the dead the scientific knowledge of food will be of no use whatever. Zen therefore does not rely on the intellect for the solution of its deepest problems. 9- By personal experience it is meant to get at the fact at first hand and not through any intermediary, whatever this may be. Its favorite analogy is: “To point at the moon a finger is needed, but woe to those who take the finger for the moon.” A basket is welcome to carry our fish home, but when the fish are safely on the table why should we eternally bother ourselves with the basket? Here stands the fact, and let us grasp it with the naked hands lest it should slip away--this is what Zen proposes to do. 10- As nature abhors a vacuum, Zen abhors anything coming between the fact and ourselves. According to Zen there is no struggle in the fact itself such as between the finite and the infinite, between the flesh and the spirit. These are idle distinctions fictitiously designed by the intellect for its own interest. Those who take them too seriously or those who try to read them into the very fact of life are those who take the finger for the moon. When we are hungry we eat; when we are sleepy we lay ourselves down; and where does the infinite or the finite come in here? Are not we complete in ourselves and each in himself? Life as it is lived suffices. It is only when the disquieting intellect steps in and tries to murder it that we stop to live and imagine ourselves to be short of or in something. Let the intellect alone, it has its usefulness in its proper sphere, but let it not interfere with the flowing of the life-stream. If you are at all tempted to look into it, do so while letting it flow. The fact of flowing must under no circumstances be arrested or meddled with; for the moment your hands are dipped into it, its transparency is disturbed, it ceases to reflect your image which you have had from the very beginning and will continue to have to the end of time. This sums up all that is claimed by Zen as religion: No dependence upon words and letters;Direct pointing to the soul of man; Seeing into one's nature and the attainment ofBuddhahood.' 11- Zen never explains but indicates, it does not appeal to circumlocution, nor does it generalize. It always deals with facts, concrete and tangible. Logically considered, Zen may be full of contradictions and repetitions. But as it stands above all things, it goes serenely on its own way. As a Zen master aptly puts it, 'carrying his home-made cane on the shoulder, he goes right on among the mountains one rising above another.' It does not challenge logic; it simply walks its path of facts, leaving all the rest to their own fates. It is only when logic neglecting its proper functions tries to step into the track of Zen. 12- Zen always deals in concrete facts and does not indulge in generalizations. And I do not wish to add unnecessary legs to the painted snake, but if I try to waste my philosophical comments on Bokuju, I may say this: We are all finite, we cannot live out of time and space; inasmuch as we are earth-created, there is no way to grasp the infinite, how can we deliver ourselves from the limitations of existence? This is perhaps the idea put in the first question of the monk, to which the master replies: Salvation must be sought in the finite itself, there is nothing infinite apart from finite things; if you seek something transcendental, that will cut you off from this world of relativity, which is the same thing as the annihilation of yourself. You do not want salvation at the cost of your own existence. If so, drink and eat, and find your way of freedom in this drinking and eating. This was too much for the questioner, who, therefore, confessed himself as not understanding the meaning of the master. Therefore, the latter continued: Whether you understand or not, just the same go on living in the finite, with the finite; for you die if you stop eating and keeping yourself warm on account of your aspiration for the infinite. No matter how you struggle, Nirvāṇa is to be sought in the midst of Saṁsāra (birth-and-death). Whether an enlightened Zen master or an ignoramus of the first degree, neither can escape the so-called laws of nature. When the stomach is empty, both are hungry; when it snows, both have to put on an extra flannel. I do not, however, mean that they are both material existences, but they are what they are, regardless of their conditions of spiritual development. As the Buddhist scriptures have it, the darkness of the cave itself turns into enlightenment when a torch of spiritual insight burns. It is not that a thing called darkness is first taken out and another thing known by the name of enlightenment is carried in later, but that enlightenment and darkness are substantially one and the same thing from the very beginning; the change from the one to the other has taken place only inwardly or subjectively. Therefore the finite is the infinite, and vice versa. These are not two separate things, though we are compelled to conceive them so, intellectually. This is the idea, logically interpreted, perhaps contained in Bokuju's answer given to the monk. The mistake consists in our splitting into two what is really and absolutely one. 13- The truth of Zen is such that when we want to comprehend it penetratingly we have to go through with a great struggle, sometimes very long and exacting constant vigilance. To be disciplined in Zen is no easy task. A Zen master once remarked that the life of a monk can be attained only by a man of great moral strength, and that even a minister of the State cannot expect to become a successful monk. (Let us remark here that in China to be a minister of the State was considered to be the greatest achievement a man could ever hope for in this world.) Not that a monkish life requires the austere practice of asceticism but that it implies the elevation of one's spiritual powers to their highest notch. All the utterances or activities of the great Zen masters have come from this elevation. They are not intended to be enigmatic or driving us to confusion. They are the overflowing of a soul filled with deep experiences. Therefore, unless we are ourselves elevated to the same height as the masters, we cannot gain the same commanding views of life. Says Ruskin: 'And be sure also, if the author is worth anything, that you will not get at his meaning all at once--nay, that at his whole meaning you will not for a long time arrive in any wise. Not that he does not say what he means, and in strong words, too; but he cannot say it all and what is more strange, will not, but in a hidden way and in parable, in order that he may be sure you want it. I cannot see quite the reason of this, nor analyse that cruel reticence in the breasts of wise men which makes them always hide their deeper thought. They do not give it you by way of help, but of reward, and will make themselves sure that you deserve it before they allow you to reach it.' And this key to the royal treasury of wisdom is given us only after patient and painful moral struggle.

Update and link

This is the link for "Doing Philosophy" Website. Click on the different chapters and then review the section you are looking for. Each section has flash cards, true or false, and multiple choice questions. Test yourself and good luck.You most bring a scantron to the quiz. Buy only the green or teal rectangular scantron, which is for sale (15 cents) at the bookstore. Don't buy the red scantron.

Dogen

To appreciate the significance of poetry in the life and thought of Dogen (1200—1253), one must first consider the role of this Zen master and founder of the Sōtō sect in Japan as a philosopher and as a writer. Dōgen's philosophical writings have received high praise for their literary qualities, especially their eloquent poetic flavor. Dōgen employs a variety of verbal devices such as philosophical wordplay, paradox, and irony in order to stress that there is a fundamental identity of language and enlightenment. Rather than emphasizing silence or the transcendence of speech, Dōgen proves himself in his main work, the Shōbōgenzō, to be a master of language. He exhibits remarkable skill in revealing how ordinary words harbor a deeper though generally hidden metaphysical meaning. According to Tanabe Hajime, one of the leading modern philosophers in Japan associated with the Kyoto School, "viewed from the philosophical standpoint, Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō is matchless in its command of Japanese language and logic with the power to realize the ineffable in and through speech and discussion."-- Steven Heine (Tuttle Publishing, 1997).

Homework

Sections 6.2 (all) for next class (either monday or Thursday).

Homework

All classes: Secion 6.1 (all) for Monday and Tuesday.

Just a thought

Sun-Tzu says: “Some things in nature remain constant, others only apparently so. One must always know what changes and what stays fixed.” While in our class I wished to keep certain things flexible, some must stay fixed (I thought I had stressed that point recently). What to do when time lags and presence fails? Would intimidation keep things in place? Does my voice command more authority only because it threatens?

Homework

Section 5.1 (all) and 5.2 (1-4) (all classes).

Homework

The rest of 4.2 and 4.3 (all) for Friday or Thursday (depending the class).

Second paper

It's time for our second paper, which is more like a development of the first. Add at least seven more paragraphs to it, already getting down to a pre-conclusion. I want you to apply these suggestions: 1- fine-tune your initial research, 2- embroider the findings as to-and-fro of different views (in a holistic manner), 3- give a few sentences to each point of view to develop a bit and then expose the other view, 4- avoid religious arguments or pseudo arguments you're not sure about, 5- avoid a colloquial language unless it's necessary 6- maintain a competent level of English grammar and syntax. This second paper is due by March 19 or 20, depending if you are a M-W-F, or T-R frequency.

How to achieve "jen"

According to Confucius, “shu” is the right method to achieve jen. It contains important virtues that can help in the process. They are respectfulness (gong), reverence (jing), leniency (kuan), beneficence (hui), being quick in action (ming), reliability in words (xin) and cultivating slowness to speak (yan ren). “Gong” can be best explained as self-respect, self-worth. The Confucian self needs to be cultivated holistically (the mind is as important as the body). Next there is jing, or reverence, which is a public virtue. Perhaps a better term is estimation. How can one esteem something or someone? When one avoid the short-sightedness of the moment and ponders the far reaching implication of our actions seen within the context of the bigger society. One becomes socially productive when one leaves pettiness and jealousies behind. Quan is also known as Principle of Charity (it means magnanimity) i.e, being able to be thorough with oneself and others, but suspending judgment until one has all the possible evidence (Quan doesn’t rule out criticism, but presupposes self-awareness). Hui is also a public virtue which brings forth the notion of utility. It means that we can be beneficial instruments. Why? Because it’s good for society. According to Confucius, by doing good service to society, one brings good to oneself. Xin relates to the idea of using the proper words. It brings forth a coherence between intentions and words, which amounts to transparency (honesty). One is reliable if one is trustworthy. Finally, Yan ren amounts to taking one are time before talking, something very close to our idea of prudence. Prudence is akin to the idea of foresight and sagacity. Some scholars link yan ren to modesty.

Homework & Progress report

Sections 4.1 (all) and 4.2 (1-5). In addition I'm sending a progress report in the next two days (along with emails if needed).

Study for the midterm

Find the main concepts for Buddhism here. Since we have a midterm coming up, I'm not posting any new material this weekend.

Robots rule!

I thought that this new information would be extremely interesting in our ongoing discussion about A.I. and the possibilities of a world where robots play a bigger role.

Homework

3.1. and 3.2 (we're finishing chapter 3 this week and reviewing next week for our midterm exam).

Buddhist socio-political program

Let's open this post to analyze the essay below by the Dalai Lama, which can be construed as a a sort of socio-political program (from a Buddhist perspective). Though concise and simple in structure, this essay addresses fundamental problems of today's world, such as world peace, injustice, cooperation, the impact of technology, etc. Hannah Arendt used to say that politics was the realm of possibilities. If so, is this world-view any better than other alternatives?

Dalai Lama's buddhist program for world peace

"When we rise in the morning and listen to the radio or read the newspaper, we are confronted with the same sad news: violence, crime, wars, and disasters. I cannot recall a single day without a report of something terrible happening somewhere. Even in these modern times it is clear that one's precious life is not safe. No former generation has had to experience so much bad news as we face today; this constant awareness of fear and tension should make any sensitive and compassionate person question seriously the progress of our modern world.

It is ironic that the more serious problems emanate from the more industrially advanced societies. Science and technology have worked wonders in many fields, but the basic human problems remain. There is unprecedented literacy, yet this universal education does not seem to have fostered goodness, but only mental restlessness and discontent instead. There is no doubt about the increase in our material progress and technology, but somehow this is not sufficient as we have not yet succeeded in bringing about peace and happiness or in overcoming suffering. We can only conclude that there must be something seriously wrong with our progress and development, and if we do not check it in time there could be disastrous consequences for the future of humanity. I am not at all against science and technology -they have contributed immensely to the overall experience of humankind; to our material comfort and well-being and to our greater understanding of the world we live in. But if we give too much emphasis to science and technology we are in danger of losing touch with those aspects of human knowledge and understanding that aspire towards honesty and altruism.

Science and technology, though capable of creating immeasurable material comfort, cannot replace the age-old spiritual and humanitarian values that have largely shaped world civilization, in all its national forms, as we know it today. No one can deny the unprecedented material benefit of science and technology, but our basic human problems remain; we are still faced with the same, if not more, suffering, fear, and tension. Thus it is only logical to try to strike a balance between material developments on the one hand and the development of spiritual, human values on the other. In order to bring about this great adjustment, we need to revive our humanitarian values.

I am sure that many people share my concern about the present worldwide moral crisis and will join in my appeal to all humanitarians and religious practitioners who also share this concern to help make our societies more compassionate, just, and equitable. I do not speak as a Buddhist or even as a Tibetan. Nor do I speak as an expert on international politics (though I unavoidably comment on these matters). Rather, I speak simply as a human being, as an upholder of the humanitarian values that are the bedrock not only of Mahayana Buddhism but of all the great world religions.

From this perspective I share with you my personal outlook-that: 1- Universal humanitarianism is essential to solve global problems; 2- Compassion is the pillar of world peace; 3- All world religions are already for world peace in this way, as are all humanitarians of whatever ideology; 4- Each individual has a universal responsibility to shape institutions to serve human needs.

Of the many problems we face today, some are natural calamities and must be accepted and faced with equanimity. Others, however, are of our own making, created by misunderstanding, and can be corrected. One such type arises from the conflict of ideologies, political or religious, when people fight each other for petty ends, losing sight of the basic humanity that binds us all together as a single human family. We must remember that the different religions, ideologies, and political systems of the world are meant for human beings to achieve happiness. We must not lose sight of this fundamental goal and at no time should we place means above ends; the supremacy of humanity over matter and ideology must always be maintained. By far the greatest single danger facing humankind -in fact, all living beings on our planet- is the threat of nuclear destruction. (…) We know that in the event of a nuclear war there will be no victors because there will be no survivors! Is it not frightening just to contemplate such inhuman and heartless destruction? And, is it not logical that we should remove the cause for our own destruction when we know the cause and have both the time and the means to do so?

Often we cannot overcome our problems because we either do not know the cause or, if we understand it, do not have the means to remove it. This is not the case with the nuclear threat. Whether they belong to more evolved species like humans or to simpler ones such as animals, all beings primarily seek peace, comfort, and security. Life is as dear to the mute animal as it is to any human being; even the simplest insect strives for protection from dangers that threaten its life. Just as each one of us wants to live and does not wish to die, so it is with all other creatures in the universe, though their power to effect this is a different matter.

Broadly speaking there are two types of happiness and suffering, mental and physical, and of the two, I believe that mental suffering and happiness are the more acute. Hence, I stress the training of the mind to endure suffering and attain a more lasting state of happiness. However, I also have a more general and concrete idea of happiness: a combination of inner peace, economic development, and, above all, world peace. To achieve such goals I feel it is necessary to develop a sense of universal responsibility, a deep concern for all irrespective of creed, color, sex, or nationality.

The premise behind this idea of universal responsibility is the simple fact that, in general terms, all others' desires are the same as mine. Every being wants happiness and does not want suffering. If we, as intelligent human beings, do not accept this fact, there will be more and more suffering on this planet. If we adopt a self-centered approach to life and constantly try to use others for our own self-interest, we may gain temporary benefits, but in the long run we will not succeed in achieving even personal happiness, and world peace will be completely out of the question. In their quest for happiness, humans have used different methods, which all too often have been cruel and repellent. Behaving in ways utterly unbecoming to their status as humans, they inflict suffering upon fellow humans and the other living beings for their own selfish gains. In the end, such short-sighted actions bring suffering to oneself as well as to others. To be born a human being is a rare event in itself, and it is wise to use this opportunity as effectively and skillfully as possible. We must have the proper perspective, which of the universal life process, so that the happiness or glory of one person or group is not sought at the expense of others.

All this calls for a new approach to global problems. The world is becoming smaller and smaller -and more and more interdependent- as a result of rapid technological advances and international trade as well as increasing trans-national relations. We now depend very much on each other. In ancient times problems were mostly family-size, and they were naturally tackled at the family level, but the situation has changed. Today we are so interdependent, so closely interconnected with each other, that without a sense of universal responsibility, a feeling of universal brotherhood and sisterhood, and an understanding and belief that we really are part of one big human family, we cannot hope to overcome the dangers to our very existence -let alone bring about peace and happiness. One nation's problems can no longer be satisfactorily solved by itself alone; too much depends on the interest, attitude, and cooperation of other nations. A universal humanitarian approach to world problems seems the only sound basis for world peace.

What does this mean? We begin from the recognition mentioned previously that all beings cherish happiness and do not want suffering. It then becomes both morally wrong and pragmatically unwise to pursue only one's own happiness oblivious to the feelings and aspirations of all others who surround us as members of the same human family. The wiser course is to think of others also when pursuing our own happiness. This will lead to what I call "wise self-interest," which hopefully will transform itself into "compromised self-interest," or better still, "mutual interest." Although the increasing interdependence among nations might be expected to generate more sympathetic cooperation, it is difficult to achieve a spirit of genuine cooperation as long as people remain indifferent to the feelings and happiness of others. When people are motivated mostly by greed and jealousy, it is not possible for them to live in harmony.

A spiritual approach may not solve all the political problems that have been caused by the existing self-centered approach, but in the long run it will overcome the very basis of the problems that we face today. On the other hand, if humankind continues to approach its problems considering only temporary expediency, future generations will have to face tremendous difficulties. Global population is increasing, and our resources are being rapidly depleted. Look at the trees, for example. No one knows exactly what adverse effects massive deforestation will have on the climate, the soil, and global ecology as a whole. We are facing problems because people are concentrating only on their short-term, selfish interests, not thinking of the entire human family. They are not thinking of the earth and the long-term effects on universal life as a whole. If we of the present generation do not think about these now, future generations may not be able to cope with them.

I feel that love and compassion are the moral fabric of world peace. The rationale for compassion is that every one of us wants to avoid suffering and gain happiness. This, in turn, is based on the valid feeling of 'I,' which determines the universal desire for happiness. Indeed, all beings are born with similar desires and should have an equal right to fulfill them. If I compare myself with others, who are countless, I feel that others are more important because I am just one person whereas others are many. Further, the Tibetan Buddhist tradition teaches us to view all sentient beings as our dear mothers and to show our gratitude by loving them all. For, according to Buddhist theory, we are born and reborn countless numbers of times, and it is conceivable that each being has been our parent at one time or another. In this way all beings in the universe share a family relationship.

Whether one believes in religion or not, there is no one who does not appreciate love and compassion. Right from the moment of our birth, we are under the care and kindness of our parents; later in life, when facing the sufferings of disease and old age, we are again dependent on the kindness of others. If at the beginning and end of our lives we depend upon others' kindness, why then in the middle should be not act kindly towards others? The development of a kind heart (a feeling of closeness for all human beings) does not involve the religiosity we normally associate with conventional religious practice. It is not only for people who believe in religion, but is for everyone regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation. It is for anyone who considers himself or herself, above all, a member of the human family and who sees things from this larger and longer perspective. This is a powerful feeling that we should develop and apply; instead, we often neglect it, particularly in our prime years when we experience a false sense of security.

When we take into account a longer perspective, the fact that all wish to gain happiness and avoid suffering, and keep in mind our relative unimportance in relation to countless others, we can conclude that it is worthwhile to share our possessions with others. When you train in this sort of outlook, a true sense of compassion -a true sense of love and respect for others- becomes possible. Individual happiness ceases to be a conscious self-seeking effort; it becomes an automatic and far superior by-product of the whole process of loving and serving others. Another result of spiritual development, most useful in day-to-day life, is that it gives a calmness and presence of mind. Our lives are in constant flux, bringing many difficulties. When faced with a calm and clear mind, problems can be successfully resolved. When, instead, we lose control over our minds through hatred, selfishness, jealousy, and anger, we lose our sense of judgment. Our minds are blinded and at those wild moments anything can happen, including war. Thus, the practice of compassion and wisdom is useful to all, especially to those responsible for running national affairs, in whose hands lie the power and opportunity to create the structure of world peace.

Anger plays no small role in current conflicts such as those in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, the North-South problem, and so forth. These conflicts arise from a failure to understand one another's humanness. The answer is not the development and use of greater military force, nor an arms race. Nor is it purely political or purely technological. Basically it is spiritual, in the sense that what is required is a sensitive understanding of our common human situation. Hatred and fighting cannot bring happiness to anyone, even to the winners of battles. Violence always produces misery and thus is essentially counter-productive. It is, therefore, time for world leaders to learn to transcend the differences of race, culture, and ideology and to regard one another through eyes that see the common human situation. To do so would benefit individuals, communities, nations, and the world at large.

World leaders must realize their own and others' humanness. Without this basic realization, very little effective reduction of organized hatred can be achieved. I suggest that world leaders meet about once a year in a beautiful place without any business, just to get to know each other as human beings. Then, later, they could meet to discuss mutual and global problems. As all nations are economically dependent upon one another more than ever before, human understanding must go beyond national boundaries and embrace the international community at large. Indeed, unless we can create an atmosphere of genuine cooperation, gained not by threatened or actual use of force but by heartfelt understanding, world problems will only increase. If people in poorer countries are denied the happiness they desire and deserve, they will naturally be dissatisfied and pose problems for the rich. If unwanted social, political, and cultural forms continue to be imposed upon unwilling people, the attainment of world peace is doubtful. However, if we satisfy people at a heart-to-heart level, peace will surely come.

Within each nation, the individual ought to be given the right to happiness, and among nations, there must be equal concern for the welfare of even the smallest nations. I am not suggesting that one system is better than another and all should adopt it. On the contrary, a variety of political systems and ideologies is desirable and accords with the variety of dispositions within the human community. This variety enhances the ceaseless human quest for happiness. Thus each community should be free to evolve its own political and socio economic system, based on the principle of self-determination.

The achievement of justice, harmony, and peace depends on many factors. We should think about them in terms of human benefit in the long run rather than the short term. I realize the enormity of the task before us, but I see no other alternative than the one I am proposing -which is based on our common humanity. Nations have no choice but to be concerned about the welfare of others, not so much because of their belief in humanity, but because it is in the mutual and long-term interest of all concerned. Ethics is as crucial to a politician as it is to a religious practitioner. Dangerous consequences will follow when politicians and rulers forget moral principles.

If there is any hope, it is in the future generations, but not unless we institute major change on a worldwide scale in our present educational system. We need a revolution in our commitment to and practice of universal humanitarian values. It is not enough to make noisy calls to halt moral degeneration; we must do something about it. Since present-day governments do not shoulder such 'religious' responsibilities, humanitarian and religious leaders must strengthen the existing civic, social, cultural, educational, and religious organizations to revive human and spiritual values. Where necessary, we must create new organizations to achieve these goals. Only in so doing can we hope to create a more stable basis for world peace.

We must set an example by our own practice, for we cannot hope to convince others of the value of religion by mere words. We must live up to the same high standards of integrity and sacrifice that we ask of others. The ultimate purpose of all religions is to serve and benefit humanity. This is why it is so important that religion always be used to effect the happiness and peace of all beings and not merely to convert others. In this regard there are two things important to keep in mind: self-examination and self-correction. We should constantly check our attitude toward others, examining ourselves carefully, and we should correct ourselves immediately when we find we are in the wrong.

Finally, a few words about material progress: I have heard a great deal of complaint against material progress from Westerners, and yet, paradoxically, it has been the very pride of the Western world. I see nothing wrong with material progress per se, provided people are always given precedence. It is my firm belief that in order to solve human problems in all their dimensions, we must combine and harmonize economic development with spiritual growth. However, we must know its limitations. Although materialistic knowledge in the form of science and technology has contributed enormously to human welfare, it is not capable of creating lasting happiness.

In America, for example, where technological development is perhaps more advanced than in any other country, there is still a great deal of mental suffering. This is because materialistic knowledge can only provide a type of happiness that is dependent upon physical conditions. It cannot provide happiness that springs from inner development independent of external factors. For renewal of human values and attainment of lasting happiness, we need to look to the common humanitarian heritage of all nations the world over. May this essay serve as an urgent reminder lest we forget the human values that unite us all as a single family on this planet."

Homework

For next class: 2.5 (All)

A bit of hermeneutics

Below, I've posted some of the main ideas behind Buddhism but I'm more interested now in the kind of hermeneutics that we're doing in class. Reading closely, thinking and applying. We did a little bit of that on Thursday with the first five chapters of the Dhammapada. What do you make of it?

Buddhism (3)

Buddhism is a dharmic, non-theistic religion, which is also a philosophy. Buddhism is also known as Buddha Dharma or Dhamma, which means the "teachings of the Awakened One." Buddhism was founded around the fifth century BCE by Siddhartha Gautama, hereafter referred to as "the Buddha".

Homework

Section 2.1 and 2.2. (all questions).

Your comments

(Regarding discipline) Remember I need your comments to my post before my Tuesday class. This is an important part of the course routine and the final grade. Thanks.

Hatha yoga

One has to marvel at the amount of knowledge that these people were able to develop and archive (about all these ways of Hatha and its enhancing capacities for the body and the mind i.e., asana with all its different postures). Yoga teaches us that discipline is essential for spiritual growth. What are your thoughts?

Paper (or better), just an excercise

I'm beginning to discuss how I want this paper to look like. 1- First choose a theme; preferably one you feel strongly in favor or against (we want the paper to be fun). 2- Inform yourself of all the arguments for the position you defend and then research the arguments from the position you're arguing against. Remember, the more you know your enemy's point of view, the better your paper will look. 3- Now flesh out the arguments. When you have this ready. You can go ahead and write the exercise. I think that six paragraphs is enough to embroider both points of view. For now, I don't want a conclusion. Instead, I want you to warm up and mix the ingredients. Let's leave the conclusion for the next exercise. Tips: You could use phrases like this: "My thesis is that" or "I believe that" or "With this paper I would like to show that," etc. When you want to mix both arguments you move to "on the the hand," "however, one could say that" or "one could retort that," etc. So, it may look like this: "Although some people argue that abortion is killing a person, I believe that..." Any questions? Post it! The deadline for this exercise is around February 8 or 9 (depending whether the class meets T&R or M,W,&F).

Ahimsa

Yesterday, we had a very interesting discussion concerning Ghandi's view of ahimsa. So, in the spirit of problematizing, let's share our thoughts.

Homework

Section 7.3 #1-6 and 6-10.

Ataraxia

ataraxia (from Gr. a (not) and taraktos (disturbed) refers to unperturbedness, freedom from emotional and intellectual disturbance, tranquility of soul. Sextus Empiricus writes: “Scepticism has its arche, its inception and cause in the hope of attaining ataraxia, mental tranquillity.” The goal is not truth, but eudaimonia (contentment). The central means to ataraxia is the suspension (epoche) of beliefs. Not all beliefs, but only those that give rise to contention and strife.
_______

We've learned lots of terms from the Gita: dharma, action/non-action, action as yajna, discipline, bhakti, infinite spirit. Then, from Stoic philosophy, ataraxia, aretê, etc. What are your thougts?

Homework

For some classes, I've have assigned Section 7.2. all study questions (p. 571). If your group is not there yet, you now what's next.

Stoic cosmogony

Yesterday, I pointed to obvious similarities between Hindu and Stoic cosmogies. They happen at the same time in two different parts of the world. Stoicism arose in the Hellenistic period. The beginnings of Stoicism lie with Zeno of Citium, who came to Athens from Cyprus. For many years a student of the Cynic philosophy Crates, Zeno eventually founded his own school in 300 B.C. Because he taught his students in a stoa or portico in Athens, Zeno's philosophy came to be known as Stoicism. Zeno was succeeded as head of the school by Cleanthes and Cleanthes by Chrysippus. According to Diogenes Laertius, these three early Stoics wrote many works, but nothing except fragments of these have survived. Diogenes's summary of Stoic philosophy in his Lives of Eminent Philosophers is the best source of information for early Stoicism. Some information about Stoic philosophy also derives from their critics, such as Plutarch or Sextus Empiricus. Cicero cites from Stoic sources in his On the Nature of the Gods. 1- God as Soul of the Cosmos: Now the term Nature is used by them to mean sometimes that which holds the cosmos together, sometimes that which causes terrestrial things to spring up. Nature is defined as a force moving of itself, producing and preserving in being its offspring in accordance with seminal reasons (spermatikoi logoi) within different periods, and effecting results homogenous with their sources (Lives 7;148-49). In this passage, Nature is defined as the force at work to hold the cosmos together and to bring things into existence. 2- God as Identical to the Cosmos: The Stoics conceive God as identical with the cosmos. The cosmos is defined as the totality of all entities, as if it were a single entity or subject that has predicates. This ultimately allows the Stoics to deify the cosmos. As the totality of all things, the cosmos is perfect since it lacks nothing. Zeno is said to have argued further that, since it is the greatest of all things, since it is inclusive of all things, the cosmos cannot be denied the greatest attribute, which is reason: There is nothing more excellent than the cosmos (Cicero, Nature, 2.8). God not only made all things but is or is in all things. Plants and bodies are "bound up and united with the whole." Since the human soul is really a portion of God as soul of the cosmos, it follows that whatever human beings know, God also knows. God does not simply oversee all things, but is said "to be present with all," and is thereby identified with the all. The sun that illuminates all things, except that part of the on which the shadow of the earth falls, is likewise a small part of God, so that one must conclude that God is even more illuminating. 3- For Stoicism, the state of being in conformity with nature is virtue (aretê); according to Chrysippus, virtue "is a harmonious disposition, choiceworthy for its own sake, and not from hope or fear or any external motive" (Lives, 7.89). To be virtuous is to be in harmony with oneself and the cosmos, which is the same thing; this goal is intrinsically valuable, and should be pursued for its own sake. Thus, for the Stoic, happiness is not the goal of the exercise of the human will, but it is, nonetheless, a by-product of living according to nature and being harmonious (Lives, 7.86, 88-89).

Help needed: The books arrived, but there's a problem

I just came from the MDC bookstore. They have 12 copies of the Dhammapada and Gandhi on Non-violence. I found only one copy of the Gita and didn't see the Analects. Where are the Lao Tzus? Could you find out and leave a comment below?

Just in case: 1- The Bhagavad-Gita, Translated by Barbara Stoler Miller (Bantam Books, 1986); 2- The Way of Life According to Lao Tzu, translated by Witter Bynner (Perigee Book, 1986).

But don't order anything until we find out what's going on.

Shaivism and Vaishnavism

New religious contexts require a new body of scriptures. These were produced in form of the Puranas, Agamas Tantras and hymns. Two of the principal sect that developd during this period are Shaivism and Vaishnavism. 1- Shaivism is the cult of Shiva. The beginnings of the Shiva cult have been traced back by some scholars to non-Aryan phallic worship. Although this is not conclusive, it is clear that the Vedic god Rudra ("the Howler") was amalgamated with the figure of Shiva ("Auspicious One") that emerged in the period after the Upanishads. Shiva is inseparable from Parvati (also referred to as Shakti). There is no Shakti without Shiva and Shakti is His expression; the two are one, the absolute state of being -consciousness and bliss. Shaivism, like some of the other forms of Hinduism, spread in the past to other parts of Southeast Asia, including Java, Bali, and parts of Indochina and Cambodia. 2- Vaishnavism is the worship of Vishnu and his various incarnations. Vishnu has been the object of devotional religion (bhakti) in his incarnations or avatars (especially as Krishna and Rama). Like most other gods, Vishnu has his especial entourage: his wife is Lakshmi or Shri, the lotus goddess, granter of beauty, wealth, and good luck. Vishnu's mount is the bird Garuda, archenemy of snakes, and his emblems are the lotus, club, discus (as a weapon), and a conch shell, which he carries in his four hands. Vaishnava faith is essentially monotheistic, whether the object of adoration be Vishnu or one of his avatars. Characterized by a continual consciousness of participating in God's essence, Ramanuja, however, complete self-surrender (prapatti) came to be distinguished from bhakti as a superior means of spiritual realization.

Homework

Section 7.1 #1, 2, 4, 7, 8. Also the definitional gray boxes on pages 531, 533, 535.

Commenting post

After our discussion this morning, I kept thinking of Baruch Spinoza (one of my favorite philosophers), born in Holland of Jewish parents. He was to receive from his parents a "fine education," with a thorough grounding in such subjects as Latin and physics (further, he studied Descartes and Bruno). Later, he supported himself by grinding and polishing lenses, an occupation which eventually led to his early demise (glass dust in his lungs). Spinoza is a pantheist / monist. He believed that there is no difference between God and the universe. God moves and lives in nature; the whole of it, the entire universe is God. Nature (or God) is Its own cause and is self-sufficient (So, I guess this makes of Spinoza the first Eco-philosopher of the West). According to Spinoza, we have a need to anthropomorphize God, as if HE had a special interest in, and concern for us. The Spinozistic God does not love nor hate. (Note: Spinoza’s cosmogony may have been inspired by the Kabbalah [incidentally, Kabbalistic works propose a theodicy where evil is in an intimate relationship with God, not that far apart from the Hindu theodicy]).
___________________

Although it's still too early in the course, I’ve sense your uneasiness (resistance?) with some of these concepts. Don't worry. The nice thing about philosophy is that we don’t have to argue over the literalness of some of these concepts. Let's play the game of seeing a paradox "with three eyes" (as in the old myth), in order to grasp deeper and subtler meanings. We need to enrich our understanding and multiply the world in different ways. There’s plenty to talk about: Monism, pantheism, samsara, bhakti, karma, OM… go ahead!

Homework

Section 1.3 (all study questions).

Homework

I have assigned section 1.2 on page 40; #1-5 for next class.

Gordon Rule and Update

1- As we discussed this morning, our Gordon Rule contract will be fulfilled by commenting my posts. By "comment" I mean a minimum of 110-word exchange per post requiring comments (Note: Ununnilium, with atomic number 110 is a synthetic element that is not present in the environment) 2- I went by the bookstore today and found that they had not ordered our books yet. However, they assured me that the textbooks would be ordered today (and expect our books to be available this weekend or the beginning of next week).

Brief historic background

The story of Hinduism begins during a cultural period known as the Indus Valley civilization (3,500-1,500 B.C.). Some of what we know of this civilization comes from archaeological digs in the 1920s at Harappa and Mohenjo-daro. These digs show an advanced civilization as early as 2,500 B.C., with cities laid out in rectangular blocks with drainage systems. Houses were made of fired brick and contained bathrooms with running water. The civilization also had a written language, which has yet to be translated. Archeologists discovered religious statues and amulets of fertility gods and goddesses; some figures sit in a lotus position. The only written accounts of these people are from Hindu texts of a later time (the Vedas). These imaginative accounts describe them as having snubbed noses, curly black hair, and crude behavior. A common theory associates this civilization with dark skinned inhabitants who spoke Dravidian languages (a language group now found in the southern region of India). According to this theory, at around 1,500 B.C., a group of white skinned people migrated to the Indus Valley from Persia and drove the Dravidians south. The invaders called themselves Aryans, meaning noblemen or landlord, and scholars often connect them with the Hyksos people who invaded and ruled Egypt around 1700 B.C., and to the Celtic people of the British Isles. Those who didn’t migrate to India stayed in Persia and established the Zoroastrian religion. The Aryans spoke an Indo-European language called Sanskrit, which is the language of the ancient Hindu texts. The Aryans may have been less culturally advanced than their Dravidian counterparts and in time they absorbed many of the Dravidian cultural practices including some of their religious beliefs. For the next thousand years the Aryans extended their influence over India. Although this theory remains to be proved, historians and sociologists commonly use it to explain the origins of the northern Aryan language group and the southern Dravidian language group.

Koans

I'll be posting some interesting links over the weekend. In the meantime, a couple of Buddhist koans:

Hot Tea

Leaves swirl, into
Autumn streams fall.
Old men drink from
Withered hands.
Hot tea!

Killing

Gasan instructed his adherents one day: "Those who speak against killing and who desire to spare the lives of all conscious beings are right. It is good to protect even animals and insects. But what about those persons who kill time, what about those who are destroying wealth, and those who destroy political economy? We should not overlook them. Furthermore, what of the one who preaches without enlightenment? He is killing Buddhism."

PHI 2010 Homework (All classes)

Section 1.1. (all questions) for next monday and tuesday.