Topic: The Big Ideas / #38. Aristotle: Be Mean, Please

Oh yeah: “Golden mean”=Buddhism’s “Middle Way.” Lots of Buddhist literature on that. The Greeks and the Aryans of India had a lot in common…

Topic: The Big Ideas / #38. Aristotle: Be Mean, Please

Re: Buffoonery

There used to be a quiz show on NPR after “A Prairie Home Companion,” called “My Word” (may still be on, for all I know). Celebrity guests had to answer questions about language. They were really “witty” people. Sometimes, when one didn’t know the answer, he’d make up something funny. The moderator, who had full power over the granting of points, would say, “Two marks, for effrontery.”

Cracked me up. As a junior hi teacher, I used that more than once in class! Couldn’t give marks for buffoonery, tough…

Topic: The Big Ideas / #34. Abraham Maslow: What Must You Be?

A hint, but not a 1-2-3, at finding what one must do: The young writer wants to know if he has “talent,” if old Master Rilke will validate him. Rilke says this need for external validation is nonsense:

Go into yourself. Find out the reason that commands you to write; see whether it has spread its roots into the very depths of your heart; confess to yourself whether you would have to die if you were forbidden to write. This most of all: ask yourself in the most silent hour of your night: must I write? Dig into yourself for a deep answer. And if this answer rings out in assent, if you meet this solemn question with a strong, simple “I must,” then build your life in accordance with this necessity; your whole life, even into its humblest and most indifferent hour, must become a sign and witness to this impulse.” – Rainer Maria Rilke Letters to a Young Poet

Uncle Joe Campbell put it more bluntly (if more vaguely?): “Follow your bliss.”

Topic: The Big Ideas / #31. Ken Wilber: Spiral Dynamics

TravisE:

You know it, I know it. But some of us don’t know it.

Some of us are intolerant of the intolerant. “I’m open-minded and you’re not, so you’re wrong.”

I once saw Huston Smith in front of a large audience. In the questions-and-answers (inevitably) a fundamentalist Christian arose to “show him the way.” “Dr. Smith,” she said, “what would you say to someone who says, ‘I’ve been saved by the blood of Jesus Christ’?” Dr. Smith’s reply made a big impact on me. “I would say that you’re one of the lucky ones,” he said. “If a simple faith in a loving God is enough for you, you’re lucky. But it wasn’t enough for me.” The lady sat down, robbed of her ambush.

Dr. Smith’s answer was full-on second tier. Would that all who identify themselves as such could be so gracious.

Thanks, by the way. You’re my first respondent besides Brian (and he doesn’t count—sorry, Bri!)

peace,
James

Topic: The Big Ideas / #36. Friedrich Nietzsche: God Is Dead

Hi, “rstringer.”

I approach your question with respect, and tentatively. If you are looking for apologetics, I “apologize” from the beginning. But if this is a sincere question, let me try to frame a sincere answer from my perspective.

In a spirit of full disclosure: I was raised in the Episcopal Church. In my early twenties I was an evangical Bible teacher for several years. Since then I have moved into a more “Perennialist” position. There are numerous threads in the Christian tapestry. Some would read the Bible as history and science; others as mere allegory. I’m somewhere in the Middle: I see it as much more than “just stories,” but not a literal record of events either.

I see the Bible as a book of questions, not answers. I see it as meant to knock us off our asses (on the road to Damascus). I see it as a challenge to the status quo, not a comfort at all. The preacher at the back door of the church hears, “Nice sermon, Reverend,” and thinks, “I’ve failed.” But, “What you said troubles me…” Ahhh!

In this sense, then, I see Nietzche’s statement as being in the same vein as the words of the 13th-century German mystic (some would say “heretic”) Meister Eckhart: “The ultimate leave-taking is the leaving of God for God.” You see, Eckhart (like many others, Christian and otherwise) postulated that all that we know about God, all that we say about God, all that we think about God—this isn’t God. Somewhere beyond all this is something ineffable. Jewish tradition has it right when they refuse to say a name for God. The Tao Te Ching begins:

The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.

This is very close to “No man has seen the Father except me.”

The story of Eden, and the quote from Nietzsche, are indeed connected, but some would say in a positive way: It was necessary for Adam & Eve (=us) to leave our concept in order to find true godness. The Medievals framed it as “the fortunate fall” – without their sin, there would have been no salvation in Christ. (If God is omnipotent, then in some ways Satan must be working for God – see Job.) I see the Eden-Calvary connection not as a literal chain of events in history, but as a necessary psychological event. We must fall from innocence to come to a mature spiritual life (compare Ken Wilber’s “pre-post fallacy”).

This, I think, is what Nietzsche was driving at. But there is great danger in this approach, too. As J.D. McCoughy cracked: “God is dead, but 50,000 social workers have risen to take his place.” Or as Jesus put it (Luke 11), when one demon is removed (and nothing comes to fill its place), it will return with seven more wicked than itself. (Please don’t get me wrong; I’m not calling God a demon here; the first “demon” is our underdeveloped “concept of God”). The man’s final state is worse than at the beginning. And so the loss of a God-centered society has unleashed chaos—but also the potential for true personal transformation.

In his own way, Nietzsche was challenging us to move beyond the limits of our social conditioning and find true divinity, not just “abandon God.” The Buddhist version of this is just as shocking: The Chan (Zen) Patriarch Lin Chi told his followers that if they were to meet the Buddha, they should kill him! This would keep them from becoming “stuck” at some point of development.

Someone said, “It is better to LOVE the truth than to KNOW the truth.” The one who “knows” stops looking.

I hope this somehow addresses the intent of your question.

Topic: The Big Ideas / #33. Savor

Two quick thoughts:

1. It’s easier to savor the pleasures in life. Only a sage can figure out how to savor unpleasantness.

2. Why does multi-tasking have such a bad rap?
Disciple: Master, how do I attain enlightenment?
Master: When you eat, just eat. When you sleep, just sleep. When you sit, just sit.
Disciple: But how can I keep this perspective in such a busy world?
Master: Well…when you multi-task, just multi-task!

Topic: The Big Ideas / #30. Dream or Nightmare?

Quibbles, quibbles:

Meta-quibble: “Buddhism”: What’s that? It’s a word coined by Westerners to describe the indescribable. Better, “Buddhisms” (like “Christianities.”) Even “Buddhisms” is tough, though…

Zooming in: “Buddhism tries to…”: As I understand the Buddha, he would not have anyone try anything on you except YOU. “Buddha” means (loosely) “one who is awake.” But the analogy breaks down, because in everyday speech, something usually wakes us—”wake” is transitive. “My alarm woke me,” “My mom woke me,” “My teacher woke me…” But in “Buddhism,” it’s intransitive: “I awoke.” Coming from our paradigms, it’s hard to see how fiercely self-reliant the Buddha called us to be. In time, “Buddhism” developed a powerful strain of what the Japanese call “Tariki,” other power, “the way of the kitten” whose mother carries him/her to safety (cf Joseph Campbell for more). But the foundational “Buddhism” was all “Jiriki,” self power, “the way of the monkey” who must herself/himself cling to the mother or be lost. (This is Theravada Buddhism, and Zen in the Mahayana.) The frightening but ultimately liberating news is: It’s all up to me. No one nor no thing can wake me.

(I know: It’s a figure of speech, “Buddhism tries…” But when we look at pithy, seemingly-wise statements, it doesn’t hurt to unpack them a little.)

Now, to the nub: “Psychologists try…”: I’m not sure how the two statements are meant to articulate. Is “the dream” in the second statement the same as in the first? Then, are the shrinks doing something to the dream before you awake, in place of waking you? That’s a negative read on the art of therapy. Keep they dreaming happily, never let them wake. Or are they helping you wake to an unnightmarish dawn? That’s a positive read.

In either case: “Buddhism” eschews the idea that the dream can be positive or negative. The dream is irrelevant, as the Diamond Sutra says:
As stars, a fault of vision, as a lamp,
A mock show, dew drops, or a bubble,
A dream, a lightning flash, or cloud,
So should one view what is conditioned. (Trans. Conze)

To wake means to see this, and abandon the dream altogether. One incisive statement of the goal of “Buddhism” is: To see things as they really are. Add a corollary: Without judgment. To see the truth of things, without judging it dream or nightmare.

Yikes! a huge can of worms. I recognize that there is much subjectivity in my point of view, yet I feel a strong need to respond when I see “loose talk” about Buddhism. But perhaps some other forum members will take this up and either support me or batter me down…

Read a little more about “Buddhism and Me” in this old essay: http://youarethat.org/foundations/buddhism.htm

Topic: The Big Ideas / #31. Ken Wilber: Spiral Dynamics

Hmmmm…what makes second tier thinkers think THEY’RE the only ones that are right?

Topic: The Big Ideas / #26. David Emerald: Rubber Bands and Your Ideals

Hi, Bri.

I’ve decided to post here instead of nagging you with personal mails. That way, everyone can share the fun!

This thing about tension…

I had been a teacher in American schools for over 13 years (and a private teacher for a few more) when I moved to Japan to learn how to teach ESL. Remember, I was “highly trained” in the States, with a Master of Education degree. I was a school principal at 29, and thought I knew what I was doing.

The school where I taught in Japan was a commercial school, kind of like Berlitz, where “students” are actually customers. I would have said, “I teach English to Japanese students,” but the company would have said, “He delivers a service that we have contracted to provide to our customers.”

Same event, different paradigms.

I learned a lot from them, and one of the best things (at last, back to the Big Idea) was about creating tension.

They taught us that the lesson proper (after a warm-up) would begin with a “Pre-Activity.” This was a talking activity designed to do two things: allow the teacher to assess the students’ ability (and adjust the lesson accordingly), and-get this-show the student what s/he didn’t know. This was specifically designed to create tension between where the student was and where s/he wanted to go.

The lesson was then taught. Finally there was a concluding activity. This was like the Pre-activity, but at a higher skill level. Its purpose was to show the student what s/he had learned.

From a business standpoint, of course, this was brilliant. Student/customers could see that their 50 minutes and tons of yen were well spent.

As a teacher, though, I have carried this away in my toolkit. The pre-activity, by creating tension, makes the students “hungry.” Too much tension and they give up; too little and theY sit back and relax. It’s like the Buddha said: The strings on a lute must be neither too tight nor too loose (I call this “The Goldilocks Principle.”) Hence the idea of “Baby Steps.” Not too much tension, yeah?

Another good one, Bri. Thanks.

James