Dharma and Yajna

On Tuesday, (in passing), we touched upon the idea of dharma: Doing what must be done (not meaning acting like an automaton, which would be an example of "inaction"). One can think of dharma the way Epictetus defines as arete "doing the best I can at all times."

Some confuse dharma with anomie or passivity (expecting whatever comes). That's wrong. Dharma means pursuing our duty diligently, intensely. Which duty? The milieu we've inherited (family, commitments, our genes, etc). 

One can see "doing" as sacrifice (yajna), that is, turning upside-down all received notions of economic exchange. We touched upon this idea in our Tuesday class when we discussed ascetism as a possible manifestation of self-control.

Yajna is a form of sovereignty. The old existentialist metaphor of devenir.

Why? In a way, we’re born again every time we choose ourselves. Self-rule is a sign of inner development. The idea of detaching oneself from the fruits of one’s action may seem a bit counterintuitive, particularly in the West.

Could I run a race and “win” it for its own sake? The received notion of victory is defined as he or she who gets to finish line first. Yet, Krishna admits that one can win no matter the outcome. This -according to the Gita- is true action. Surely it’s difficult. It takes discipline (techne). In our post-Capitalist epoch we’re often caught up in a means-to-ends cycle. Yet, with discipline, this idea of detachment is achievable.

Gandhi's paralogical logic of ahimsa (a selection)

What follows is a selection from Gandhi on Non-violence.

1- Ahimsa means a steady progress with discipline.

2-  The power of the satyagrahi is greater than if he were violent.

3- There is no defeat in a-himsa.

4- In a-himsa the bravery consists in taking the brunt, not in killing.

5- The satyagrahi should never have any hatred toward his opponent... must be prepared to suffer until the end.

6- ...truth never jimsa a cause that is just.

7- A satyagrahi is never vindictive. He believes not in destruction but in conversion.

8- A-himsa presupposes the ability to strike.

9- ...injustice must be resisted. A-himsa is better, but where is does not come naturally jimsa is both necessary and honorable.

10- So long as one retains one's sword, one has not attain complete fearlessness.

11- A-himsa is impossible without self-purification.

12- A weak man is just by accident. A strong satyagrahi is unjust by accident.

13- A satyagrahi is dead to his body even before his enemy attempts to kill him, i.e. he is free from attachment to his body and only lives in the victory of his soul.

14- A non-violent revolution is not a program for a seizure of power, it's a program of transformation of relationships ending in a peaceful transfer of power.

15- No man has been able to describe God fully. The same goes for ahimsa.

16- Man as animal is violent but as spirit is non-violent. The moment he awakes to the spirit he cannot be violent.

17- It's better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts than to put the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent. (impotent = no reaction)

18- If we remain non-violent, hatred will die, as everything does, from disuse.

19- Ahimsa cannot be preached. It needs to be practiced.

20- Ahimsa succeeds only if one has faith.

21- Ahimsa is the supreme law.

22- Ahimsa is the only true force in life.

23- If one has pride & egoism there is no ahimsa. Ahimsa is impossible without self-control.

___________
All excerpts taken from Ghandi on Non-Violence, New Directions Paper book (New York, 1965)

my answers to some of your comments about the gita

as usual, i need to find a better space of reflection. here it goes:

1- i agree with specific points made by veronica, lars, geoffrey, ninie and carolina. for them the truth is sort of "already inside." the words in the gita just propitiate a rediscovery. valerie took the discussion home when she talked about our dharma (duty) to engage action and stop dithering.
martin's point of action "in the moment" rings true. the essence of bushido is to die everyday. knowing this "readiness" in action is the essence of dharma.

2- regarding jose's point about the gita advocating moral relativism:

if relativism means that there's no right and wrong (it's all relative), or that right and wrong is relative to history, culture, self, etc, this is NOT what YOGA stipulates. the three yogas: bhakti, karma and jnana refer to a clear path of righteousness, i.e., thinking, living and knowing the good. a path surprisingly close (save the immense meditation component in YOGA) to aristotle's idea of arete. in this realm there is a clear right and wrong. as you know the regulation principle is ahimsa.

it's here that manny was referring to this "getting better" without reaching a limit (of perfection?). if i understood correctly he saw this "getting better" as a tension. why? the move is one of gradual improvement. how could one become the best one can be without the tribulations of change?

krishna's point is a metaphor for action (the sort that becomes "sovereign" by taking one's action off the economy of means-to-end). to vinicious i'd say: there is nothing utilitarian in the path of action put forth in the gita.

what's confusing is krishna's counsel to fight now, justified with reasons as high and supervenient as the ONE itself. but take the perspective of BRAHMAN for a second:  is there right and wrong in this heights of causation?  as more and more layers of history are added we literally witness how becoming "becomes." up there is just undifferentiated oneness. at the level of BRAHMAN, predator and prey are the same. how else can you explain ONEness with words?

3- fabio's interesting twist of krishna as "evil man whispering" reminds me of descartes' evil genius (malin génie) in his Méditations sur la philosophie (a very readable book in french by the way). i take the point because it makes for a great discussion.

surprise: the devil doesn't have to come back from gehenna. veronica's point is that evil dwells within oneself!

first outside: how do we deal with an external malin génie? well, the world is full of them: from wall street, to politicians, to religious leaders. from misguided parents, to pseudo friends, to stupid teachers. in fact, to really problematize fabio's point we'd have to factor the possibility that the evil genius is no genius. if by "genius" one has an edge, then misleading me just "for the sport" is as ignorant as me buying into it. there must be a better "genius" than that. the devil feels victorious to the degree that he really persuades me. so, convincing takes two.

keep in mind: ignorance is a two way street.

descartes' genius is worthy of his name because he plays for the sake of truth (truly on the other side). he knows what he believes. he also wants me to believe a lie. 

is arjuna that naïve? i advance three possibilities?

1- arjuna pretends to argue, i.e, "play along" and try to "fool" the genius (i.e., he's not trying to find out truth, but to argue as a devil's advocate). does arjuna really cares for truth?

2- arjuna argues in good faith until either he or krishna "win." let's call this option "socrates' hope."

the third one is weird, but here is goes,

3- arjuna inadvertently fools himself by fooling the genius. here they both lose: krishna, because he's not appearing "as good" anymore (how could he, if arjuna is not falling for his "angel of light" routine? remember, this is all a matter of perception!), arjuna, because he forfeits the opportunity to extract a formidable lesson, winning the truth from the devil himself! this is more than dr. faustus ever bargained for.

now let's go inside: arjuna knows what has to be done. he only needs a push, this is what we call a volition. but the reason buttressing the volition needs to be argued successfully. that's why philosophy has been presented as midwife for truth, what socrates called maieutics.

can one lie to oneself? indeed, this is the "bad faith" (la mauvaise foi) which sartre defined as "a lie to oneself, on condition that we distinguish the lie to oneself from lying in general". why?

according to sartre, the liar, in order to complete his task, must maintain complete lucidity about some truth that he possesses. one cannot lie without possessing some personal truth, and lying is different than simply being in error.

(in case you want to talk, say it here. comments are open). 

thanks for the company

phi 2070 was nice. lots of things said, broody exchanges, passionate discussions, foolish moments, possible future friendships,

thanks.

Topics for the final exam

The topics for the final (tuesday, december 18 @ 12:40pm) are:

Zen techniques
Wu wei
Confucianism
Taoism

the exam will have the same format than last test. i.e., fill in the blanks for main terms or concepts. the essay question for the final will be to write a page about your favorite theme from within taoism and zen. 

ryokan and the art of poetry

Chinese poems

Walking beside a clear running river, I come to a farmhouse.
The evening chill has given way to the warmth of the
morning sun.
Sparrows gather in a bamboo grove, voices fluttering
here and there.
I meet the old farmer returning to his home;
He greets me like a long-lost friend.
At his cottage, the farmer's wife heats sakè
While we eat freshly picked vegetables and chat.
Together, gloriously drunk, we no longer know
The meaning of unhappiness.

Yesterday I went to town begging food from east to west.
My shoulders are getting thinner and I cannot recall the
last time I had a heavy rice sack.
The thick frost is a continual reminder of my thin robe.
My old friends, where have they gone?
Even new faces are few.
As I walk toward the deserted summer pavilion,
Nothing but the wind of late autumn blowing through
the pines and oaks.

Autum night -- unable to sleep, I leave my tiny cottage.
Fall insects cry under the rocks, and
The cold branches are sparsely covered.
Far away, from deep in the valley, the sound of water.
The moon rises slowly over the highest peak;
I stand there quietly for a long time and
My robe becomes moist with dew.

Returning to my hermitage after filling my rice bowl,
Now only the gentle glow of twilight.
Surrounded by mountain peaks and thinly scattered leaves;
In the forest a winter crow flies.

My life may appear melancholy,
But traveling through this world
I have entrusted myself to Heaven.
In my sack, three sho of rice;
By the hearth, a bundle of firewood.
If someone asks what is the mark of enlightenment
or illusion,

I cannot say -- wealth and honor are nothing but dust.
As the evening rain falls I sit in my hermitage
And stretch out both feet in answer.

The Long Winter Night: 3 poems 

The long winter night! The long winter night seems endless;
When will it be day?
No flame in the lamp nor charcoal in the fireplace;
Lying in bed, listening to the sound of freezing rain.

To an old man, dreams come easy;
I let my thoughts drift.
The room is empty and both the sakè and the oil are used up --
The long winter night.

When I was a boy studying in an empty hall,
Over and over I had to fill the lamp with oil.
Even now, that task is disagreeable --
The long winter night.

Green mountains front and back,
White clouds east and west.
Even if I met a fellow traveler,
No news could I give him.

Deep in the mountains at night, alone in my hermitage,
I listen to the plaintive sound of rain and snow.
A monkey cries on top of a mountain;
The sound of the valley river has faded away.
A light flickers in front of the window;
On the desk, the water in the inkstone has dried.
Unable to sleep all night,
I prepare ink and brush, and write this poem.

Winter -- in the eleventh month
Snow falls thick and fast.
A thousand mountains, one color.
Men of the world passing this way are few.
Dense grass conceals the door.
All night in silence, a few woodchips burn slowly
As I read the poems of the ancients.

Loneliness: spring has already passed.
Silence: I close the gate.
From heaven, darkness; the wisteria arbor is no longer
visible.  The stairway is overgrown with herbs
And the rice bag hangs from the fence.
Deep stillness, long isolated from the world.
All night the hototogisu cries.

Immediateness

According to Zen intellectualizations, concepts, even language itself are inadequate for expressing our experience as it is experienced.

We go through life thinking that our words and ideas mirror what we experience, but repeatedly we discover that the distinctions taken to be true are mental constructs. In verbalizing something, we may have a lingering sense of having compromised part of our experience, but we continue to devise new categories, new names for new things, more distinctions when a moment before there were no distinctions.

The goal of Zen training is to break down our dependence on categories that interfere with the directness and immediacy of experience, but this does not mean that thought stops altogether.

The Zen student is interested in preserving immediacy, but the myriad forms of life situations present a baffling assortment of possibilities to which one must respond.

Thought is effective only when it arises spontaneously out of a problematic situation.

which war? mine!

atRifF

what is war? "a condition of active antagonism."

antagonism? the "condition of being an opposing principle, force, or factor."

as opposed to what? which force? to be is to continually wage a battle with opposing instincts within oneself. a dynamic conflict of domination and subordination. to be means taking sides against oneself.

with this premise of "internal opposition" i'd like to probe an ancient taoist text, the art of war.
let's backtrack to philosopher f. nietzsche, who speaks a constant "wrestling of opposite forces." reality for nietzsche, is a flux of contradictions. an authentic individual must not only acknowledge this fact, but seek to promote similar oppositions within himself:

(...) a given quality contends against itself and separates into opposites; everlastingly these opposites seek to reunite. odinary people fancy they see something rigid, complete and permanent. in truth, however, light and dark, bitter and sweet are attached to each other and interlocked at any given moment like wrestlers of whom sometimes the one, sometimes the other is on top. (PTAG, 5)

a wrestling act. here's another one: "one is fruitful only at the cost of being rich in contradictions; one remains young only on condition the soul does not relax, does not long for peace." (TI, morality as antinature, 3)

this nietszchean auto-poesis (the making of oneself) is fundamental to overcome the stagnation posed by self-satisfaction, which paradoxically is something we all seek.  change means (inner) conflict engendered by opposites (friend, enemy, self). authentic self is he/she who is determined by this intensity of self-oppositions.

let's not beat around the bush. we can now entertain the opening words in the art of war:

1. military action is important. it's the ground of death and life... so it is imperative to examine it.

how can there be a "military" of oneself?

military relates to armed forces. soldiers! what's a soldier? one who actively serves a cause. which?

one, any, whether event or condition in which one is responsible for an action or result. 

i can see myself as a soldier on my way to battle with myself in an unforeseen event. any situation is in principle a pure beginning. here we must accept the uncertainty principle: everything begins in confusion and obscurity. the emergence of clarity is the result of this internal wrestling which leads to never-ending clarification. am i not responsible for this most significant cause? is is not mine? is it not my duty to fight? (think of the literal? non- literal? meaning of the b. gita).  

is this the end?

(...) he who has overcome his passions has entered into possession of the most fertile ground … to sow the seeds of good spiritual works in the soil of the subdued passions is then the immediate urgent task. the overcoming itself is only a means, not a goal; if it is not so viewed, all kinds of weeds and devilish nonsense will quickly spring up in this rich soil now unoccupied, and soon there will be more rank confusion than there ever was before. (WS, 53)

a new battle will have to be fought. and why not? 

enough said.

i'm closing this post next wednesday at 11pm.   

The Chuang Tzu

Excerpts from The Chuang Tzu.

do your work and step back (post for comment)

Thomas Bayrle, Maxwell Kaffee, Oil on canvas (1967).

The Tao doesn't take sides;
it gives birth to both good and evil.
The Master doesn't take sides;
she welcomes both saints and sinners.- Tao Te Ching

atRifF

i take thomas bayrle Maxwell Kaffee (above) as a metaphor for the paradox of the one and the multiple. we find it again in kenyan artist ingrid mwuangi's If:

The Tao gives birth to One.
One gives birth to Two.
Two gives birth to Three.
Three gives birth to all things. (vers. 42)¹

Ingrid Mwuangi, If, digital c-prints mounted on aluminum (2001).

The Tao is like a well:

used but never used up.

It is like the eternal void:

filled with infinite possibilities. (vers. 4)

according to the tao te ching, our will to fix things, to render reality "coherent," could paradoxically take us into unexpected detours.

when should we let things just be?

If you don't realize the source,
you stumble in confusion and sorrow.
When you realize where you come from,
you naturally become tolerant,
disinterested, amused,  (vers. 16)

the answer is near. one just have to take the chance:

 Since before time and space were,
the Tao is.
It is beyond is and is not.
How do I know this is true?
I look inside myself and see. (vers. 21)

we don't see our will as being impeded by anything other than our desire to act. in the big realm of overall causation, our will is not the only mover, but one amongst hundreds of millions of other intersecting wills. seldom we stop to ponder our volition as an infinitesimal fraction of an overall sum of (unknown) wills in the here and now, plus the already existing chain/reactions which our time/space.

how to see one's will vis-a-vis this higher order of will/differentials? what's the relative limit between one's doing and one doing too much? and viceversa, how much of our lives simply end up -unknowingly- "happening" to us?
 

ray bradbury, A Sound of Thunder, edition of collier's magazine (june 1952).

just as in bradbury's A Sound of Thunder,² imagine how much of our planet's future is -and is not- in our hands right now.

The Tao is like a bellows:

it is empty yet infinitely capable.

The more you use it, the more it produces;

the more you talk of it, the less you understand. ( vers. 5)

on the positive side, think of serendipity in science, randomness in quantum mechanics and aleatoricism in music. ³

Marco Fusinato, Mass Black Implosion, ink on archival facsimile of score (2007).

on the negative side, think of black swans, popper's historicist fallacy and uneventful events. which brings us back to the mismatch of essence/appearance. of course, the question that we need to answer is how can we tell the difference of the ONEw32w2?

Look, and it can't be seen.

Listen, and it can't be heard.

Reach, and it can't be grasped. (vers. 14)

the answer to the problem is not that simple, because there is no single unequivocal course of action. it's at this point that jazz can help. when musicians improvise, they are also part of a center of energy given by the whole ensemble. if one sees it synchronically (as if you could make a slice in the music sequence) the musicians seem to solo, if one sees it diachronically, it plays as a perfectly fit sequence. the success of the solo depends precisely of this give-and-take between part and whole and vice-versa. this is known as "groove."⁴ 

as in jazz, taoism offers different solutions to a given problem. this doesn't mean that all solutions are the same. just as there are good and bad improvisations, there are good and bad solutions to a given problem.

tao is plural, it offers diverse interpretations. why? think of this question: is the Big Dipper made by nature? philosopher nelson goodman thinks not: a constellation is a "version," i.e., a construction that picks some stars from others. the same with "star," which is a version that "picks" (configures) stars from other celestial bodies.⁵

Lecia Dole-Recio, Untitled, paper, vellum, tape and gouache (2003).

goodman explains:

Truth of statements,rightness of descriptions, representations, exemplifications, expressions,... is primarily a matter of fit, fit to what is referred to in one way, or other renderings, or modes and manners of organization.⁶

in our quest/struggle with reality, we keep building construction upon construction (human endeavor in science, politics and the arts, reflects this dynamic). what comes first in Ochoa's Collapsed? hint: the concrete wall is the future event of the aggregate of rock, sand and water. you see the cause, then you see the effect, but never at once. art does the trick! 

Ruben Ochoa, Collapsed, Concrete, steel, burlap, wood, dirt (2009).

at some point we discussed the apparent riddle of the Tao Te Ching, which brings forth the idea "speaking/not speaking" in zen, which we'll go into detail pretty soon. the Chuang Tzu helps: "if tao is made clear (by words), it is not tao. if words are argumentative, they do not reach the point."

yeah, every now and then we just have to let go and shut up. at that point one really but briefly understands the value of letting words flush down into the word/sewer.

Close your mouth,
block off your senses,
blunt your sharpness,
untie your knots,
soften your glare,
settle your dust.
This is the primal identity. (vers 56)

  
tao listens to silence. composer & buddhist john cage puts is beautifully: "every something is an echo of nothing."

let's pay attention to tao's subtle groove:  

If you want to become whole,
let yourself be partial.
If you want to become straight,
let yourself be crooked.
If you want to become full,
let yourself be empty.
If you want to be reborn,
let yourself die.
If you want to be given everything,
give everything up. (vers 22)

in our reading tuesday, we commented an important (and often glossed over) element in taoism: humor. now chuang tzu counsels: "the general idea is to show the happy excursion, the enjoyment in the way of inaction and self-enjoyment." (Chuang Tzu, A Happy Excursion)

no one fits this metaphor better than a child. we must try to bring back our lost innocence and sense of wonderment. there is something to be said for a child's natural ability to take in the world without any prejudice. unfortunately, growing up means repressing this ability so that the adult becomes an entrenchment of hardened stereotypes. meanwhile, our ability for enjoyment gets regimented and instrumentalized.

"having fun" -as we usually use the word nowadays- carries this sense of being entertained, which in our post-capitalist society is exactly the opposite of true fun, the equivalent of forfeiting our curiosity by domesticating ourselves into vacuous, purposeless compliance.

against this disposition we must present tao's flexible, contrarian, comical, side. tao's flexibility avoids the pitfalls of intellectual constipation:
 

Proud beyond measure,

you come to your knees:

Do enough without vieing,

Be living, not dying.

now the fool comes back. he's been with us this semester. chuang tzu advises: a man who knows he is a fool is not a great fool (how close to this). as you'll see, the fool becomes an distinguished character in zen.

there is a caveat though, if we unproblematically go for enjoyment, not only because, to begin with, the capitalist imperative "enjoy yourself" can castrate the true feeling we seek, but because, as sarah kay points out, enjoyment can be a double-edge sword: "enjoy-meant," and then meaning displaces the being.⁷

said differently, desire may end up killing the true feeling. i think this is what philosopher simon critchley has in mind when he cites a telling passage from beckett's Watt:

The bitter the hollow and -haw, haw!- the mirthless. The bitter laugh laughs at that which is not good, it is the ethics laugh. The hollow laugh laughs at that which is not true, it is the intellectual laugh. Not good! Not true! Well, well. But the mirthless laugh is the dianoetic laugh, down the snout - haw!- so. It is the laugh of laughs, the risus purus, the laugh laughing at the laugh, the beholding, the saluting of the highest joke, in a word the laugh that laughs -silence please- at that which is unhappy. ⁸

risus purus that may work as an antidote to the negative attitudes of our political comedy: anal-retentiveness, social hostility, impetuous rage and self-importance.

the tao of self-knowledge is personal, contrarian & paradoxical!

Not-knowing is true knowledge.
Presuming to know is a disease.
First realize that you are sick;
then you can move toward health. (vers. 71)

i am closing this post wednesday november 21 

________________
¹ taken from Tao Te Ching, translated by s. mitchell.  ² in his short story A Sound of Thunder, ray bradbury imagines the impact of the so-called butterfly effect:

Maybe Time can't be changed by us. Or maybe it can be changed only in little subtle ways. A dead mouse here makes an insect imbalance there, a population disproportion later, a bad harvest further on, a depression, mass starvation, and finally, a change in social temperament in far-flung countries. Something much more subtle, like that. Perhaps only a soft breath, a whisper, a hair, pollen on the air, such a slight, slight change that unless you looked close you wouldn't see it. Who knows? Who really can say he knows? We don’t know. We’re guessing. But until we do know for certain whether our messing around in Time can make a big roar or a little rustle in history, we’re being careful.

³ serendipity is the finding of something valuable without its being specifically sought. in general, activities and skills that can function in parallel may interact in unplanned and unforeseen ways. professor Jeffrey McKee argues that some of the most important forces of human evolution (the roles of which have been largely neglected) are chance, coincidence, and chaos. according to McKee one cannot understand how humans evolved without taking these three factors into account. see, The riddled chain: Chance, coincidence, and chaos in human evolution (Rutgers University Press, 2000). ⁴"when jazz is really grooving -whether it's a solo pianist, a quartet, or a big band -there is indeed an unmistakable feeling of buoyancy and lift (...) relaxed intensity is the key." Johnny King, What Jazz Is: An Insider's Guide to Understanding and Listening to Jazz (Walker: 1997) p. 24. ⁵ Hilary Putnam, Renewing Philosophy, (Cambridge, 1992), p. 115. ⁶Nelson Goodman, Ways of Worldmaking, (Hackett Publishing, 1978).  ⁷Sarah Kay, Zizek: A Critical Introduction (Cambridge, 2003), p. 162.  ⁸ Simon Critchley, Infinitely Demanding, (Verso, 2007), p. 82

Tao Te Ching

for the sake of simplicity, i found this translation by s mitchell.

phallocentric power twice

this late 19th century poster illustrates phallocentric power @ the height of the struggle for women's suffrage in the U.S. take a look at the role of "men." a policeman hold the woman down, he reddish nose a sign of having been "attacked" by a "masculine woman" (epithet used against the suffragettes at the time).

 
a dapper mustached man vexingly steps on the woman's chest while force-feeding her through a funnel. "men" resent women's claim for political equality (in so doing, they are betrayed by their own representation). the "victims" are now the torturers who deprive  women of their freedom to go on a huger strike for being arbitrarily detained (for protesting men's political inequality?) this is how men protect their right not to be infringed upon by women.

and why not -all the while- have a little fun?

but meanings multiply with contexts: a little more than a century later water-boarding becomes a policy of state. the phallocentric method remains, now with different subjects. instead of women, now we got terrorists. both suffrage and terror are subversive acts.

who is the well-dressed man?

Confucius' Analects

The Analects.

don't forget to vote!

i don't think there's a more important ritual right now.

when the absolutist, the subjectivist, the relativist and the skeptic discuss truth

we cannot stop making inferences. but inferences are tricky. here's an example from our last class. if i recall correctly (and a lot was said back-and-forth and my memory may betray me), jonathan made the point that my saying: religious pluralism is better than religious fundamentalism is an absolutist statement.

please, read my chicken soup dilemma. 

why make a purported-to-be-true statement the sole property of the absolutist?

as my chicken-soup-dilemma suggests, diverse and opposite positions can converge on particular statements. the problem is not a statement, but what backs it up.

truth (well, except truths of math) has to be dependent of time, space & milieu. here i part with the idealist. why bragging an "evermore" when life is just a breathing cosmic/second? truth is no less decisive when it aims for the now --but i'll let the future settle the matter.  

take this statement:

i believe truth is a marriage between 1. thought & 2. a time-bounded state-of-affairs. 

let's examine possible justifications:

absolutists would accept 1. & 2. as long as both are infallible and transcendent.
subjectivists do exactly the opposite of the absolutist.
relativists take 1. while doubting the necessity of 2. 
skeptics suspend the value of 1. & 2.
nihilists care for neither.

i heard that i could also be a "subjectivist." when you add the two: subjectivist + absolutist, you get a bizarre stew of infallibility (the absolutist part) & solipsism (the subjectivist part).

i wish them both away from me & my shadow.*  

so, where are we? i don't know exactly -but hope- in a better place than before. :)
______________
* a line from cristopher marlowe's dr. faustus.

on the advantage of religious pluralism

after a couple of points were made, i tried to argue in class my preference for religious pluralism over religious fundamentalism*, but there's so much one can do within an hour of class. what is religious pluralism?

religious pluralism is the view that there is more than one path of salvation.**

we have a pretty good idea that ashoka the great, the buddhist king of the 2nd century b.c. preached a very early form of religious pluralism:

all religions should reside everywhere, for all of them desire self-control and purity of heart. (in the s. dhammika) and this one: contact (between religions) is good. one should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. rock edict Nb12 (s. dhammika)

why do i find religious pluralism a preferable option? religious tolerance would be first on my list. then one could argue that pluralism is epistemologically sound. earlier, i said that infallibility is not a trait of the wise (who by principle keeps his/her fallibility in check).

pluralism presupposes fallibilism. the quest for knowledge, truth, (whatever you want to call it) is an open-ended, historic, time-bounded, proposition. coming back to religion, this is the an attitude of the mystic sufi poet rumi:

i looked for god. i went to a temple, and i didn't find him there. then i went to a church, and i didn't find him there. and then i went to a mosque, and i didn't find him there. and then finally i looked in my heart, and there he was.

better yet: "how many paths are there to god? there are as many paths to god as there are souls on the earth."***

here is a consequence of pluralism:

even if i believed that my religion is a "better" choice of worship, i understand that "better" are --not objective standards, but-- open-ended biographical, sociopolitical preconditions. there is nothing else that makes my religion "better" except my belief that it does (of course i share this belief with a community of believers that think like me). as a pluralist i have to be aware that i cannot prove that my religion is "better" without begging the question on my own assumption. why?

the reason is that the "ultimate" test rests on my religion's claim to legitimacy: it boils down to saying, my religion is best/better because my religion (church, doctrine, whatever) claims to be best/better. in theology this might be good enough for a test.

not in philosophy.

_________
* islam, christianity and judaism have fundamentalist versions. for example, here are some of the fundamental views of the presbyterian church: 1- the bible is inspired and infallible. 2- christ was born of a virgin. 3- christ's death is the atonement for human sin. 4- christ resurrected in a body from the dead. 4- christ's miracles are real. **keep in mind that pluralism is not relativism. the relativist claims not that there is more than one valid path of salvation, but that all paths are the same. but you see, as a pluralist i'm saying exactly the opposite of this. i believe that religious pluralism is better than religious fundamentalism. ***another mystic virtuoso of this same period, abu hafs al-suhrawardi says: "whoever claims possession of something, his altruistic outlook is not sound, since he considers his self more entitled to the thing by possessing it … altruism is the mark of those who see that all things belong to god." see Paul L. Heck's Common Ground: Islam, Christianity, and Religious Pluralism, p. 205. 

Confucius and "Li"

I'd like to start with Li and why Confucius makes rituals so important. 

American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce considered the formation of habits to be an essentially inductive process. In one of his earliest published articles, he concludes that the formation of a habit is an induction, and is therefore necessarily connected with attention. 

Habituation is a matter of induction, but also the process is characterized as being linked to specific acts of attention. Sociologist Clifford Geerts agrees:

It is in some sort of ceremonial form-even if that form be hardly more than the recitation of a myth, the consultation of an oracle, or the decoration of a grave that the moods and motivations which sacred symbols induce in [people] and the general conceptions of the order of existence which they formulate for [people] meet and reinforce one another. In a ritual, the world as lived and the world as imagined fused under the agency of a single set of symbolic forms, turn out to be the same world.

"Li" has this quality of being a praxis. It's performative, and repetitive. 

Their repetition brings forth a transformative function. For example, religious rituals can produce a spiritual transformation (purifying, healing, reconciling, protecting, informing, and so on). Through ritual practice, the individual comes to understand and participate in the Tao, the harmonious patterns of individual, social, and cosmic interaction created by the Confucian sages. Simultaneously, the transformative process of moral cultivation occurs.

"Li" is automatic behavior, a kind of psycho-somatic response that helps one deal with the world. 

Rituals are a form of cultural transmission that involves the generation, retention, and communication of those representations. 

"Li" incorporates somatic and affective aspects. "Li" shapes, transforms, and orders certain cognitive and affective responses to our environment. Why? Because, through "Li" one comes to embody the culture. 

Not only one internalize the conceptual categories and ideals expressed symbolically in "Li," but our gestures and movements become ritualized as well. Part of this process of transformation, takes place because of the somatic experience of praxis. This is the key to Confucian ritual ideals.

concerning the fool

humata, hukhta, huvarshta. we had a nice exchange in our last reading. here are my ten cents.

first, what's a fool?

64. If a fool be associated with a wise man, even all his life, he will perceive the truth as little as a spoon perceives the taste of soup.

the spoon perceives nothing. so, the fool is basically ignorant: he/she just cannot tell the difference. thus,

67: That deed is not well done of which a man must repent, and the reward of which he receives crying and with a tearful face.

the fool doesn't understand the cause-effect correspondence between deed and reward. this is pratitya sumutpada: you reap what you sow.

don't take this to be an ethical pronouncement. rather, it's the way things are! in this case, dharma & karma follow a universal law. the fool's ignorance is that he/she's out of synch with reality. the fool wishes the reward to be different than it is when time is ripe. but the deed/reward correspondence cannot be bent. thus:

69. As long as the evil deed done does not bear fruit, the fool thinks it is like honey; but when it ripens, then the fool suffers grief.

the problem with the fool is that he/she doesn't understand that reality is surreptitiously piecemeal. the effect of our deeds is pending in the future. we really don't know when the time comes. this heavy -likely unnoticed weight- pursues the fool -and the wise- wherever he/she goes: 

71. An evil deed, like newly-drawn milk, does not turn (suddenly); smouldering, like fire covered by ashes, it follows the fool.

now comes 63, which suggests a possible fool/non-fool limit:

63. The fool who knows his/her foolishness, is wise at least so far. But a fool who thinks himself wise, he-she is called a fool indeed.

acknowledging one's own foolishness is wise "at least so far." this is not really wisdom, but a hopeful sign. obviously, there are degrees. one can be a total fool, or the least-so-far  that understand his/her condition, which automatically makes him/her a bit different.

could the wise ever become a fool?

once the wise thinks he's wise there lies an opening for foolishness (as long as the wise's confidence doesn't make him/her less wise by ignoring his/her own potential fallibility,  thus opening up the dreaded possibility of self-delusion).

let's problematize 63. we take it that the wise knows, but how much?  the wise needs to know (that he knows), but for knowledge's sake, he must leave room for doubt. why? because we're fallible.

infallibility is not a trait of the wise, (who by principle keeps his/her fallibility in check). rather it's the fool who believes himself to be infallible. finally, it seems that being wise is not so much thinking it but doing it. when it comes to talking, the wise should not boast being wise -nor fool.

dhammapada (with stories)

another wonderful site for dhammapada wich verses and stories, here.

Dhammapada

Dhammapada here.