Stronger than Bridge Cables
Chica of Van Gogh Chica has been putting up some thoughtful posts lately. Her post “Solitary” is particularly poignant, a small masterpiece, reflecting on the limits of what she is able to do for others when caring for herself requires effort and when, for the time being, at least, there seem to be limits to what her system of sensibilities can put up with dealing with the problems and mayhem others present.
These issues are ones Buddhists tend to avoid in various psychologically dodgy ways, but Chica tackles ‘em head-on. Here is a central paragraph:
I care for some who are on a self guided path to harm and after many efforts at an intervention, I have pulled away because it was draining me with frustration and worry and their denial was stronger than bridge cables. I constantly re-check my thinking on this as I do not want to confuse giving them their freedom and respect of their choices to rescuing attempts -- which I do feel they need. It is hard to watch and do nothing. But I cannot do anything to change another's world view and experience. Only be there, love them; which is actually tremendous. But it does not feel that way to my friends in crisis or self misery. They are blind to it. But I remain there in my heart and try to not absorb it. It is real hard. It gets to me a lot.Introducing Blangha.com
Sean of Wandering the Pathless Land writes that he has put up a new [and exciting] website: Blangha.com [ www.Blangha.com ]. Sean notes that the word “blangha,” meaning the sangha of Buddhist bloggers, was first coined by Nacho of the Woodmoor Village Zendo blog [and has gained some currency from a widening circle of use on the internet.] Writes Sean re the new website…
I created Blangha.com because I thought it would be nice to have just one site to visit and see all that’s going on in the blangha in a single glance. I also wanted a place that made it easy to find new and inspiring information or resources. The creation process was relatively simple, but please note that this is only the first version. …The Blangha’s Energizer Bunny
Comments, questions and suggestions for improvement or additional features are always welcome.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN is surely the Energizer Bunny of the Buddhist blogosphere. It keeps going and going and going and going as a frequent posting topic, mostly because it is a favorite of Woodmoor Village Zendo's Nacho, who is to the ID issue what Voltaire is to France. A “Goog It!” of the woodmoorvillage.org website, which is almost wholly used for the blog, turns up an awesome 512 hits for the phrase “Intelligent Design.” Yowza!
It the past month, Ajahn Punnadhammo of Bhikkhu’s Blog has rushed in, showing bravery and compassion, to parry and thrust with Nacho, across the blog transom, regarding the ID issue and others associated with evolution and the nature of life.
In a Dec 23 post, titled “One More on Intelligent Design” in Bhikkhu’s Blog [you’ll have to scroll down to find the post; Bhikkhu’s Blog has no permalinks], Punnadhammo, the abbott of Arrow River Forest Hermitage [btw: located ~ 20miles west of Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada], explains his December 2 Toronto Star column on ID and rebuts Nacho's Dec 15 WVZ post “Creation Debate Not Irrelevant to Buddhism.”
Here’s a snippet from early on in the Dec 23 post:
“I do agree with [Nacho] that the Intelligent Design issue shouldn't be irrelevant to Buddhists from a public policy perspective. … But is the issue of creation vs. evolution relevant to Buddhism philosophically? In one sense no; the Buddha himself said we can never know the ultimate origin of things and that speculation about them is fruitless. In another sense yes, because the debate as it is currently formulated in most venues is one between two opposing miccha-ditthis (false views or heresies) specifically called such by the Buddha in the Brahmajala sutta and elsewhere.”On Dec 27, with a post in WVZ titled “A Reply to the Bhikkhu – Synopsis,” Nacho, an assistant professor of rhetoric and ethics at Willemette University in Oregon, says quite a bit. [Not synoptic, this!] Here’s a piece of it:
The Bhikkhu notes that there is at least another unacknowledged alternative besides the usual perspectives of Creationism/Intelligent Design and the Scientific theory of evolution. He identifies a position grounded on a Buddhist understanding of dependent origination, one that still safeguards a telos, a purpose in life: “There seems to be a teleology in evolution that is unaccounted for.” In his reply he states his inclination to believe this “unaccounted for” teleology, but he does not provide any solid support for it. He primarily relies on arguments for the complexity of consciousness to support his assertion of an evident teleology.On Dec 30 in his Bhikkhu’s Blog, Punnadhammo posted “The Ongoing I.D. Controversy” [You will need to scroll down to find this post; Bhikkhu’s Blog has no permalinks.]. Here’s a snip:
…[F]or the record, I definitely do not hold that there is any intelligent design, much less a designer. However, that does not mean that I subscribe to the idea that the observed data can be entirely explained by a mechanistic evolution either. … I accept the claim that natural selection is one factor driving evolution; I am very doubtful that it is the only factor. … Instead, my idea is that mind ought to be recognized as a separate class of natural phenomenon with a formative power over matter.On Dec 28, in a WVZ post titled, “A Reply to the Bhikkhu, II,” Nacho retorts. Here’s a piece of it:
I think the Bhikkhu wants us to, at the very least recognize, that there is uncertainty. To that I will subscribe. As he tells us the Buddha stated, we might never know the ultimate causes, or origins of things. I think that is probably correct. There will be more to find out, there will be mystery, there will be uncertainty, there will be incompleteness and non-trivial questions that theoretical accounts cannot satisfy. I think Godel put it rather succinctly, all complex logical systems are inherently incomplete. My commitment is to remain with a scientific worldview as we continue to make sense of much of our experience. I am inclined to believe that there are other ways of knowing in the world, but I do not admit to supernatural ones.On Jan 6, Ajahn Punnadhammo posted a couple of entries, the last before he took a break until February for a meeting he is attending in Thailand. In one of the Jan 6 entries in Bhikkhu's Blog, he addressed a subissue in the ID & life discussion he is having with Nacho [and with others of his readers] re celebacy and its impact on evolution. [I won’t go into all of that, here in Blogmandu.] His other, last entry before his break is titled “Buddhism and the Philosophy of Mind.” Here, the bhikkhu steps back from the ID or evolution or life or meaning discussion and sets things in context of Buddhism. He writes that both physicalism [mechanistic evolution] and the duality of the 'ghost in the machine' are conceptual mistakes, so far as Buddhist teachings are concerned.
Here is bit of the essay, the full text of which you can find in Bhikkhu's Blog if you scroll to Jan 6:
… I firmly believe that any attempt to base a Buddhist philosophy and practise on materialism or physicalism is going to be a practise without fruit, or at least the highest fruit. The Third Noble Truth promises an end of suffering, and this is only to be had by realization of the Unconditioned. This is impossible if one holds that only Matter is real; how could there be an Unconditioned in such a universe? We can see that skeptical Buddhists always perforce redefine the goal from transcending samsara to reconciling with it.Meantime, the great Dave Bonta offers his views on the ID debate with a long rich post titled "Defending Creation from the Creationists" in Via Negativa. Dave writes of his annoyance with the Christian Right crowd that disengenuously promotes Intelligent Design masking their clear, real purpose to inject study of Christian beliefs into the ciriculum of schools. Dave then uses information in a recent issue of Christian Century to make several cogent points. Writes Dave,
the advocates of ID limit the realm of the sacred to whatever lies beyond human comprehension or rational explanation. Worldwide, few truly religious people from any tradition would make such an elementary mistake. ID advocates are as reductionist as the scientists they critique.The Magic of 3
Justin of American Buddhist Perspective wrote an ambitious three-post series on “The Magic of Three.” Here are introductory words from the first post of the three:
There is something magical about the number '3'. We all know of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) of Catholicism and the Three Refuges (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) in Buddhism. But also in Philosophy this '3' comes up in The True, the Good, and the Beautiful. What is it about '3' that holds us all in its grasp?
