Irrelevance (tradition, Buddhism, beliefs, grace, America)

[Scarlett Wampus]

A poll on belief in God reminded me of something I saw some months back:-

I was in a Buddhist chat room that also doubles occasionally as a place for Taoists to hang out. A new guy asked whether a particular Taoist there believed in God. The Taoist said it was irrelevant. After a while the new guy asked whether the Taoist believed in Karma. He said that was also irrelevant. Finally he asked what in that case was relevant to the Tao. The Taoist told him if he said anything about relevance to Tao he would be confusing things. He then apologised and left. This confused the new guy, of course.

This interested me. I felt I knew where that Taoist was coming from but wondered if there were any way to explain it that wouldn't require asking someone to go look at a sunset or sit still, etc. since that is so often considered a cop out.

Any comments?

[lunamoth]

Could perhaps you say that the Tao is not about beliefs, but about a way of seeing things and a way of being? Isn't there a favorite quote something like the Tao that can be described is not the eternal Tao? For people unfamiliar with it (as I still consider myself), Taoism, like Zen, takes a while to see the pattern emerging, to get a feel of where it is coming from.

Not exactly related but I'll put it out there anyway. Do you think that 'compassion with detachment' would be fair characteristic of Taoism? Or is that more like Buddhism?

luna

[Scarlett Wampus]

Yes saying its about a way of seeing things or being seems good. Then people may ask how should they see things, how should they be? Its perplexing Not least because I don't know and I probably wouldn't trust anyone who said they did.

My brother inadvertently gave me an insight tonight. He said he wished he could show people how he saw the world (a feeling familiar to me) and that was the impetus behind a lot of his creativity yet he always felt he failed to do anything but entertain. I pushed him a little and he went on to tell me about a fantasy where he could actually allow people to experience events in his life from both the first person and also in the third person so they could discuss it in the second person. He added that they wouldn't understand him but that was right since he didn't understand himself either. To him that in itself was an understanding that went far beyond what he could get from describing or recreating things. It was profound but he didn't know why.

Something close to a principle of Tao Chia is that Tao cannot be described or even understood. Another principle would be that it can traversed through grace without the need for description or understanding. Submitting to grace, well I guess it plays into a further principle that the Tao cannot be attained through striving. To cease trying to make it happen or grasping what it is, then its like its unfolding unceasingly right now as it is. This is profound & beautiful and impossible to describe despite all of us being caught up in it right now as it is. The more rooted in that ceaseless movement the more action follows from it.

So I guess 'compassion with detachment' is something that typically follows. Seems to be the case but just by saying so some part of me is aware that I have lost my humility. Hmmm.

I'm sure I'll get over it. Pfff doesn't matter. There, its gone completely! *sigh*

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Scarlett Wampus

A poll on belief in God reminded me of something I saw some months back:-

I was in a Buddhist chat room that also doubles occasionally as a place for Taoists to hang out. A new guy asked whether a particular Taoist there believed in God. The Taoist said it was irrelevant. After a while the new guy asked whether the Taoist believed in Karma. He said that was also irrelevant. Finally he asked what in that case was relevant to the Tao. The Taoist told him if he said anything about relevance to Tao he would be confusing things. He then apologised and left. This confused the new guy, of course.

This interested me. I felt I knew where that Taoist was coming from but wondered if there were any way to explain it that wouldn't require asking someone to go look at a sunset or sit still, etc. since that is so often considered a cop out.

Any comments?

SW, I am genuinely confused as to how you can post this story and yet not think that my post in the other thread gave sufficient grounds for passing over the question. Perhaps the view from liberation theology does not speak to you, but surely the view from the Buddha is reminiscent of the above story.

[Mestemia]

Perhaps a way of is explaining it is that one needs to think in a certain way in order to understand.

I was reading a book and there was a discusion between two of the main charactors.
The first one asked why his insrtuction in the magic was not as successful as another charactor.

The teacher replied that it was because he did not think correctly to understand the magic well enough to use it. that the words alone will not produce results, it is the way it is thought that matters.


Is this even close?

[Scarlett Wampus]

Originally Posted by lilithu

SW, I am genuinely confused as to how you can post this story and yet not think that my post in the other thread gave sufficient grounds for passing over the question. Perhaps the view from liberation theology does not speak to you, but surely the view from the Buddha is reminiscent of the above story.

Lilithu I'm afraid I'm often inconsistent like that because I'm often playing around. I was putting out feelers on two separate trains of thought to see where they might go. Typically I can flip between different perspectives, pretty much different personalities, when thinking a few things through. Perhaps they can meet in the middle somehow. Perhaps not. That is bound to be pronounced in a place like this where there is much diversity to play with. If it proves too irritating for others that would be bad but hopefully I'm not quite there yet.

Originally Posted by lilithu

I'm just really tired of the "does God exist?" argument. People waste so much time and energy on it. And they divde themselves along the answers to this question. Yes, for me the ethics are what is most important and metaphysics takes a backseat to that. I can't really be sure of the truth of either the ethics or the metaphysics, but I can be sure of the outcome of how we conduct our ethics.

Two things:

1) The question of the existence of God has traditionally been and continues to be a question asked by middle-class, white Westerners. In Latin America and amongst many African-Americans, and other people who are traditionally oppressed, they do not have the time for such navel-gazing. The question isn't about the existence of God but rather, what does the existence of God mean in a world where there is injustice and suffering. Where does God stand on injustice? What does that empower me to do? What does that require me to do?

2) As the Buddha said, if a man is shot with a poison arrow, what is most pressing is that he receive treatment. If he insists on knowing the answers to questions like who made the arrow and out of what, etc, he will die before he gets the answers. The Buddha was speaking directly about dwelling on the answers of these unanswerable metaphysical questions.

I don't care whether or not someone believes in God. I do care whether or not they waste time arguing about it.
Ok, so you believe, what are you going to do about it?
Ok, so you don't believe, what are you going to do about it?

Originally Posted by Scarlett Wampus

Ok Lilithu fair enough. Those two things you mentioned don't seem to me grounds enough for always passing over the question but I can understand why it can seem rather pointless when other things are more pressing.

I'll try to explain why I reacted as I did. First of all to someone pondering the question of whether God exists or not that inquiry may be important in ways we and they cannot see while it is ongoing. Or, it may be trivial. It has to work itself out. It seems it is often the case that it can lead to nowhere yet as I said, this is not always how it goes for everyone even if it looks pointless from the outside. Also realising 'nowhere' can be in itself a highly significant thing. If I was not allowed to follow my own questions about what persists after death to a conclusion its likely I would still have fearful ideas about non-existence. But I'm getting sidetracked. That enough people feel inclined to ask, well, do you trust that things are on their natural course? That people concerned about whether or not God exists tend to be white middle-class westerners is interesting to point out but to dictate what questions they should be asking is unlikely to win them over, unless you force them. As I see it that is not the way of the Tao. Trying to force the world to be as we think it should be is the root of more terrible things than the problems we seek to overcome imo.

Secondly concerning Buddha's story of the man shot with an arrow I thought the argument was very rational whereas the story I posted gave little in the way of rational explanation as to why the questions asked were irrelevant. I suspect asking a metaphysical question about the existence of God is either irrelevant to people because it would not occur to them to ask, in which case Buddha's story is a mute point, or, its irrelevant because the question touches on something outside of the bounds of rational thought, so arguably the pragmatism of Buddha's story is also misleading. In the latter case no one can really understand that such a question is unanswerable unless they experience that failure of reason in person. Even then is it a case of asking or not asking further? No answer to that either so its all thrown open. People fond of Taoism are likely to be familiar with one or both of the above scenarios which is why I posted this thread here.

Btw lilithu I really did like those questions you posted.

Originally Posted by Mestemia

Perhaps a way of is explaining it is that one needs to think in a certain way in order to understand.

I was reading a book and there was a discusion between two of the main charactors.
The first one asked why his insrtuction in the magic was not as successful as another charactor.

The teacher replied that it was because he did not think correctly to understand the magic well enough to use it. that the words alone will not produce results, it is the way it is thought that matters.

Is this even close?

Mesternia yes thats it. However the certain way might be said to be not so certain. According to Taoist principles how we should think and how we should help others is not something that can be reached by striving and is more a case of letting things go as they go, forsaking ideals and submitting to how things are. This in theory (and I don't expect to convince anyone through just saying it works like this) results in action that brings harmony to the world in a way not limited by (but also not necessarily excluding) intellectual understanding.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Scarlett Wampus

Lilithu I'm afraid I'm often inconsistent like that because I'm often playing around. I was putting out feelers on two separate trains of thought to see where they might go. Typically I can flip between different perspectives, pretty much different personalities, when thinking a few things through. Perhaps they can meet in the middle somehow. Perhaps not. That is bound to be pronounced in a place like this where there is much diversity to play with. If it proves too irritating for others that would be bad but hopefully I'm not quite there yet.

No prob. Tho you may have to remind me once in a while.

Originally Posted by Scarlett Wampus

I'll try to explain why I reacted as I did. First of all to someone pondering the question of whether God exists or not that inquiry may be important in ways we and they cannot see while it is ongoing. Or, it may be trivial. It has to work itself out. It seems it is often the case that it can lead to nowhere yet as I said, this is not always how it goes for everyone even if it looks pointless from the outside. Also realising 'nowhere' can be in itself a highly significant thing. If I was not allowed to follow my own questions about what persists after death to a conclusion its likely I would still have fearful ideas about non-existence. But I'm getting sidetracked. That enough people feel inclined to ask, well, do you trust that things are on their natural course? That people concerned about whether or not God exists tend to be white middle-class westerners is interesting to point out but to dictate what questions they should be asking is unlikely to win them over, unless you force them. As I see it that is not the way of the Tao. Trying to force the world to be as we think it should be is the root of more terrible things than the problems we seek to overcome imo.

Well I can't force anyone to think differently than they do. But I do occasionally try to shake things up a bit. I posted the view from liberation theology, which is ****** off at liberal religion for its complacency. We argue about God while people continue to suffer. But I could just as easily have posted from Kierkegaard, who was ****** off at Christians for saying that they believe when they don't really. Meaning that their so called beliefs do not move them to act any differently. We've come to the point where we think that holding correct beliefs is all there is.

And I honestly feel that we are too stuck in the idea of "objective reality" and that is where the obsession with the question of whether or not there is a God comes from. And the idea that this is something to be quantified??!

Originally Posted by Scarlett Wampus

Secondly concerning Buddha's story of the man shot with an arrow I thought the argument was very rational whereas the story I posted gave little in the way of rational explanation as to why the questions asked were irrelevant. I suspect asking a metaphysical question about the existence of God is either irrelevant to people because it would not occur to them to ask, in which case Buddha's story is a mute point, or, its irrelevant because the question touches on something outside of the bounds of rational thought, so arguably the pragmatism of Buddha's story is also misleading. In the latter case no one can really understand that such a question is unanswerable unless they experience that failure of reason in person. Even then is it a case of asking or not asking further? No answer to that either so its all thrown open. People fond of Taoism are likely to be familiar with one or both of the above scenarios which is why I posted this thread here.

I do not see the difference in Buddhism and Taosim as being one of rationalality. The Buddha's rational expanation leads one to the conclusion that the question is irrelevant. The Taoist arrives at the same place, just doesn't try to explain it. Where Taoism is silent, Buddhism writes tomes. Buddhism tries to explain the inexplicable (and does a very good job, I think) and Taoism attempts to not mislead by avoiding explanation. I must admit that my temperment lies more with Buddhism. But I do see the two as leading to the same place.

Originally Posted by Scarlett Wampus

Btw lilithu I really did like those questions you posted.

I know. And may I say that it's good to see you around again. I've missed you!

[ChrisP]

Originally Posted by Scarlett Wampus

Yes saying its about a way of seeing things or being seems good. Then people may ask how should they see things, how should they be?

Hey S_W good to see you dude.

Explaining Tao to Abrahamics has always been a little tricky. Some Taoists speak of it mystically, and this has compounded the problem.

What is Tao - Tao is the way things move together, the way things are, on the surface and beneath.

How should things be? Humans cause this problem for themselves by considering this question. Follow your nature and what you feel/understand in your heart is "the right thing to do".

Simpleton out