Santa V God

[Tao_Equus]

What? Am I meant to find enlightenment in the narrative of Jacob as though he rejected existential angst and found God? My take is that whoever Jacob was he met some robber down by the riverbank where he walked alone and got stabbed in the leg. Though given Jacobs track record it may well have been someone he had cheated exacting revenge.

Tao

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Interesting. Consider this Buddhist "stopsign" regarding First Cause:

Acintita Sutta (in its entirety)
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas1 is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...2

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

It seems these "stopsigns" serve the purpose to keep us from going mad...

Once again you have the best quotes! That's cool, and I totally agree.

I was thinking that it's the same with Santa. There are certain things about Santa, like how he gets into houses without chimneys, that are best left alone as well. The semantical stop signs seem to me more like the markings on an ancient map which delineate the border of the explored world by depicting a sea monster with the caption "beyond here there be monsters." IOW, beyond here language fails.

Chris

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Once again you have the best quotes! That's cool, and I totally agree.

I was thinking that it's the same with Santa. There are certain things about Santa, like how he gets into houses without chimneys, that are best left alone as well. The semantical stop signs seem to me more like the markings on an ancient map which delineate the border of the explored world by depicting a sea monster with the caption "beyond here there be monsters." IOW, beyond here language fails.

Chris

Which goes back to post #78:

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I really find it interesting how Tao Te Ching 1 fits in so well here. It cannot be tao'ed (scientifically investigated in the conventional sense.)

The principle remains whether it is named or not. Naming it cannot possibly fully describe it. Denying it a name does not nullify it.

The more we desire for it to be named or unnamed, the further away from it we become. The entrenchment on both sides we see here, and the fruit of that entrenchment...the outer fringes. (I find it interesting how we describe 'cracked individuals' as being on the 'fringe'... )

1
The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and
unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and
unchanging name.

(Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven
and earth; (conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all
things.

Always without desire we must be found,
If its deep mystery we would sound;
But if desire always within us be,
Its outer fringe is all that we shall see.

Under these two aspects, it is really the same; but as development
takes place, it receives the different names. Together we call them
the Mystery. Where the Mystery is the deepest is the gate of all that
is subtle and wonderful.

Comparing the Acintita Sutta to Tao Te Ching 1, it seems that it's the desire to speculate in these areas that creates monsters (of delusion?) Does that mean that we can only stumble into these areas by accident without going off into delusion? (Would our stumbling into these areas be considered to be an accident, considering what the Tao Te Ching says about the Way? If I keep speculating along these lines, will I also go mad? )

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Exactly Tao. You see Cyberpi without the idea of there being a comprehensible order to life, without the concept of self and other there is a terrific void that most people don't like to face. The nice thing about religion is that it panders to the individuals sense of self and its continuity. Even the idea of "meaning" in itself is arbitrary at best. So as long as you can come up with a story in which there is a self and that self continues if it does the right things and that in the end everything will be just swell, deus ex machina as it were, you will be just fine. And, since you claim immunity you have obviously accomplished just that. Nothing wrong with that if it works for you.

It sounds like your (Tao's) definition of a terror of existential angst is just a fear of the unknown or a fear of losing control. For that reason this belief that faith in God brings 'order to life' is backwards to me. No such thing. Which brings more certainty: that there is a God present with the power to stir up things, or that there is NO God present in day to day life? Where there is God present then there is an increased degree of uncertainty. Without God, without that will present, there is a deterministic order. Relationships bring uncertainty.

So I tell you it is the opposite of what you claim. Placing faith in people is full of uncertainty. It is giving control to others. Where I give control to others, I receive a degree of chaos. Controlled chaos, but chaos never the less. Knowing that God exists doesn't mean that I have a crystal ball for what is next. I frankly don't even know where I'm eating dinner tomorrow night. It doesn't mean I can't choose, but I choose to give a degree of control to others... including God.

Hope and fear to me are different sides of the same coin. If I hope that Santa exists then I essentially fear that he doesn't. The hope does not remove the fear... it is the same thing. It is an expectation. If I fear that it will rain tomorrow then I am hoping that it won't. Just as there are irrational hopes, there are simultaneously irrational fears. If someone fears death then I would flip the coin over and say there is someone who loves their life and hopes that it continues. If someone fears uncertainty then I'd flip the coin over and say there is someone who hopes to have control and thus certainty of their life. Whereas I am saying... faith is a bit of giving control, which can bring uncertainty.

Which brings me more certainty... to put a sign on my door that says, "NO visitors", or to put a sign on my door that says, "Strangers, Solicitors, and Sinners welcome anytime". Giving the control to others brings me uncertainty. I don't exactly know what the wind will bring next.

So then how do I think that I have avoided this alleged terror of existential angst that you so fondly attribute to others? I let loose the expectations for what is out of my control, yet take responsibility for what is.

[Netti-Netti]

Tao wrote:

when I was in India and Nepal the laughter there was everywhere. It was completely infectious too.

It must be that both native Hinduism and Buddhism encourage people to cope with their existential angst by covering it up with mirth.

SeattleGal wrote:

If I keep speculating along these lines, will I also go mad

Not sure if desire for knowledge as such is the problem. Curiosity about the world around us is both natural and adaptive. Egoic attachment and investing tasks with more energy that is necessary to accomplish them is a potential problem - i.e., "mental affliction." The person becomes dysfunctional in a sense because they are slowed down by self-consciousness, narcissistic preoccupation, defensiveness, and all that good stuff. Consider the difficulties a narcissistic person has learning anything new. If you're perfect you don't need to learn anything, right? This is not adaptive.


SeattleGal wrote:

It seems these 'stopsigns' serve the purpose to keep us from going mad...

I don't know what the original Chinese term for "madness" would be. It's possible that the suggestion of emotional disorder or menal disorganization is too strong a translation for a Chinese term that is typically used to describe vexation stemming from the intellectual dissatisfaction that can be expect to arise with the misapplications of modes of knowing.

Personally, I think the issue is a misapplication of different ways of knowing. There are various levels of mind. Aeshetic "experiences," Intuition, and "extrasensory perception" would be ways of knowing that are basically different from the usual discursive and conceptual knowing. The emphasis is on keeping quiet. That's different from trying to impose one's own abstract organization on the world.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

SeattleGal wrote:
Not sure if desire for knowledge as such is the problem. Curiosity about the world around us is both natural and adaptive. Egoic attachment and investing tasks with more energy that is necessary to accomplish them is a potential problem - i.e., "mental affliction." The person becomes dysfunctional in a sense because they are slowed down by self-consciousness, narcissistic preoccupation, defensiveness, and all that good stuff. Consider the difficulties a narcissistic person has learning anything new. If you're perfect you don't need to learn anything, right? This is not adaptive.


SeattleGal wrote:

I don't know what the original Chinese term for "madness" would be. It's possible that the suggestion of emotional disorder or menal disorganization is too strong a translation for a Chinese term that is typically used to describe vexation stemming from the intellectual dissatisfaction that can be expect to arise with the misapplications of modes of knowing.
Personally, I think the issue is a misapplication of different ways of knowing. There are various levels of mind. Aeshetic "experiences," Intuition, and "extrasensory perception" would be ways of knowing that are basically different from the usual discursive and conceptual knowing. The emphasis is on keeping quiet. That's different from trying to impose one's own abstract organization on the world.

Compare Dvedhavitakka Sutta, (Two Types of Thinking)

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

So then how do I think that I have avoided this alleged terror of existential angst that you so fondly attribute to others?

By your faith. As long as you have faith you could never experience it fully, in its entirety. CCS's analogy of the ancient maps is an absolutely perfect one, "here be monsters". Religion is full of subtle and not so subtle signposts to steer you clear of the void. But I disagree with the idea that there is only madness awaiting those that venture there. For some, like myself, there is the acceptance that there are places we simply cannot go. And further this is no loss as there are more than enough places we can go freed from the shackles of a set paradigm.

tao

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Compare Dvedhavitakka Sutta, (Two Types of Thinking)

See also Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta, which states this:

"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me.

"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.

"And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me.

"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared."

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

It sounds like your (Tao's) definition of a terror of existential angst is just a fear of the unknown or a fear of losing control. For that reason this belief that faith in God brings 'order to life' is backwards to me. No such thing. Which brings more certainty: that there is a God present with the power to stir up things, or that there is NO God present in day to day life? Where there is God present then there is an increased degree of uncertainty. Without God, without that will present, there is a deterministic order. Relationships bring uncertainty.

So I tell you it is the opposite of what you claim. Placing faith in people is full of uncertainty. It is giving control to others. Where I give control to others, I receive a degree of chaos. Controlled chaos, but chaos never the less. Knowing that God exists doesn't mean that I have a crystal ball for what is next. I frankly don't even know where I'm eating dinner tomorrow night. It doesn't mean I can't choose, but I choose to give a degree of control to others... including God.

Hope and fear to me are different sides of the same coin. If I hope that Santa exists then I essentially fear that he doesn't. The hope does not remove the fear... it is the same thing. It is an expectation. If I fear that it will rain tomorrow then I am hoping that it won't. Just as there are irrational hopes, there are simultaneously irrational fears. If someone fears death then I would flip the coin over and say there is someone who loves their life and hopes that it continues. If someone fears uncertainty then I'd flip the coin over and say there is someone who hopes to have control and thus certainty of their life. Whereas I am saying... faith is a bit of giving control, which can bring uncertainty.

Which brings me more certainty... to put a sign on my door that says, "NO visitors", or to put a sign on my door that says, "Strangers, Solicitors, and Sinners welcome anytime". Giving the control to others brings me uncertainty. I don't exactly know what the wind will bring next.

So then how do I think that I have avoided this alleged terror of existential angst that you so fondly attribute to others? I let loose the expectations for what is out of my control, yet take responsibility for what is.

Well aren't you special!

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Religion is full of subtle and not so subtle signposts to steer you clear of the void.

The ultimate void is lack of an afterlife. Not all religions address the afterlife in any kind of detail. Judaism for one. Basic Buddhism doesn't really address it either. Nirvana is attained in this life.

But I disagree with the idea that there is only madness awaiting those that venture there. For some, like myself, there is the acceptance that there are places we simply cannot go.

Yet here we have a thead that started out with you applying a notion of analytic proof to the intuitive process that is faith. :lightbulb:

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

We force our young kids to believe in Santa by our lies and by a multiplicity of cultural reinforcements. Is not belief in God exactly the same thing?

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Yet here we have a thead that started out with you applying a notion of analytic proof to the intuitive process that is faith. :lightbulb:

You state it to be an 'intuitive' process. If you look at my question it is a challenge to such and offers an alternative explanation for the phenomenon. So I hope your light bulb sheds some light into the question I asked, not the diversion you create

Tao

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

By your faith. As long as you have faith you could never experience it fully, in its entirety. CCS's analogy of the ancient maps is an absolutely perfect one, "here be monsters". Religion is full of subtle and not so subtle signposts to steer you clear of the void. But I disagree with the idea that there is only madness awaiting those that venture there. For some, like myself, there is the acceptance that there are places we simply cannot go. And further this is no loss as there are more than enough places we can go freed from the shackles of a set paradigm.

tao

Faith is not the belief in the scribblings upon a dead tree. Ask the person who wrote the map what a monster is... his mind is uncharted territory.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Yet here we have a thead that started out with you applying a notion of analytic proof to the intuitive process that is faith. :lightbulb:

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

You state it to be an 'intuitive' process. If you look at my question it is a challenge to such and offers an alternative explanation for the phenomenon. So I hope your light bulb sheds some light into the question I asked, not the diversion you create

Tao

Regarding faith and light bulbs: I have faith the the light bulb in the lamp will light up when I flip the switch. (Although, it might not, due to a power failure, a burned out light bulb, defective switch or wiring, etc.) My faith is based on my repeated observations that the light bulb almost always lights up when I flip the switch. However, I can't prove that the light bulb will light up until after I flip the switch and see it light up.

Is that faith intuitive?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

So I hope your light bulb sheds some light onto the question I asked, not the diversion you create

Hi Tao, Yes, I read your Post #1:

We force our young kids to believe in Santa by our lies and by a multiplicity of cultural reinforcements. Is not belief in God exactly the same thing?

How does one prove that faith is a cultural artifact rather than an intuitive process?

How does one operationalize the intuitive process without resorting to simplistic concepts that don't involve, by their very nature, a mismatch to the level of analysis?

If you look at my question, it is a challenge to such and offers an alternative explanation for the phenomenon.

I understand the question semantically. But as suggested before, conceptually it makes no sense to pose the challenge that way. No workie.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Regarding faith and light bulbs: I have faith the the light bulb in the lamp will light up when I flip the switch. (Although, it might not, due to a power failure, a burned out light bulb, defective switch or wiring, etc.) My faith is based on my repeated observations that the light bulb almost always lights up when I flip the switch. However, I can't prove that the light bulb will light up until after I flip the switch and see it light up.

Is that faith intuitive?

I call that a hope... an expectation.

Wire up two light switches and then share the light with someone else. Try to form agreements of when or not the light should be on. True faith is in the will... not the instrument.