Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Comments (3) - Many religions, common themes, different schemes
Message-ID: <583@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Apr-84 14:15:02 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.583
Posted: Wed Apr 18 14:15:02 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Apr-84 04:26:07 EST
References: <581@pyuxn.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 92

Steven Crane (coyote---another use of Jeff Sargent's login) makes the point
that it's a matter of god's will versus ours, that an individual could never
hope to win such a battle of wills, that those who choose to wrap themselves
up in themselves and their "wants and urges" are surely damned.  Someone else
later pointed out, in response to a response about "surrendering to god",
that god *is* like an enemy to whom you must surrender.

Wow!  What a nasty god!  I'll avoid the rehashed arguments by Tim Maroney,
myself, and now some others, that worshipping such a hideous, willful god
is an abomination.  (Those opposed would then say: "That's the way it is!
Worship or be damned!", and someone else would say: ...)

Buddhism (in a much gentler way) suggest that desire (wants? urges?) is the
root of all suffering.  Aside from the Zen-like notion that by not desiring
or seeking one will find the real goal/truth (which I'm beginning to believe
more and more is really applicable), there is another hidden notion that is
so close to Judaeo-Christian thought that we're positively missing it.
They're both saying the same thing:  physical urges and wants can often be
contrary to our "best interests".  Thus, as long as we have physical bodies
with chemicals running rampant combined with a pseudo-rational virtual
machine called the mind (whether it is a consequent chemical construct in the
brain or an external agent is irrelevant, though the latter is not necessary),
as long as we have this dichotomy, there will be conflict, and this will
continue to be so until we have shirked our physical bodies and become pure
intellect (whatever that means----wouldn't even an AI-based "thinking machine"
have physical needs?  Electricity?  Mightn't its "reflexes" (operating
system) and instincts result in other "wants"?)

Eastern philosophy (and I'm the furthest thing from an expert) seems to take
a rationalist sort of view of these things, but not totally.  Just because
something is the "best" path for me to take, does that oblige me to take it?
A balanced philosophy would recognize physical needs and wants as real and
genuine, and would counterbalance these with rationality (Could I hurt others
or myself by doing this thing?)  Purists might feel obliged to seek the
best path only, but why should others?

On the other side of the coin, Judaeo-Christian thought takes a parental
view of these things:  THESE THINGS ARE BAD FOR YOU AND YOU MUST NOT DO
THEM!!!!!!  I've always said that no one should adhere to a philosophy
unless they understand the reasons behind the belief system.  Otherwise,
you wind up like one of those future societies in post-nuclear-holocaust
science-fiction stories.  "No, the holy sign says "NO LEFT TURN", thus
none of us may turn left at any time.  Praise the Holy Highway Department!"
Authoritarian belief systems (even those that say "it's your choice, but
ignore the rules and you're dogdirt for eternity") deny that right of
understanding what you believe in, speaking for people "on their behalf,
in their best interest".  If you don't have the hard facts, what right does
such a belief system have to declare its tenets the only correct way for all
other people?  And what rights do its advocates have to punish transgressors?
We are all individuals with unique needs, desires, and perspectives.  A
society should be based on the concept that it should safeguard the rights and
needs of all individuals, meaning that it provides for individual freedom
while delineating individual responsibility not to interfere in the rights of
others (as well as an agreed-upon definition for individual responsibility
to the community that the individual chooses to belong to).

Back to the previous picture.  This whole notion sort of implies that, even
if god exists and is omnipotent, it has created a world of rules that perhaps
even it cannot diverge from (or perhaps it was created as a part of the system
of rules in the universe... if at all).  I don't just mean "physical laws"
when I say rules (as Einstein once asked, "Did God have a choice in how he
created the universe?"), because our "universe" may be but one of many
random possibilities with differing physical laws in a "many worlds"
scenario.  I mean specifically the physical and biochemical laws that
govern our existence; rules that, if we choose to ignore them, will result
in possible harm to us.  Like not eating poisonous substances.  But saying
in a book "Thou shalt not eat this" or "Thou shalt not engage in the
following sexual practices..." is as bad as saying "Thou shalt not eat
saccharin" without giving a reason.  If people are coerced into doing things
rather than making a decision based on knowledge, then they are failing
to use the most powerful gift they have (that "god" gave them?????)----their
reasoning capability.

One last comment on my Zen statement.  In case someone was ready to jump up
and say "Aha!  Rosen discards one non-rational belief for another!", let me
say this.  There is a rational basis for believing that "not seeking" is
more conducive to finding/achieving goals than "seeking".  "Seeking" and
"searching" modes often prevent one from looking objectively at what is
out there, since you are searching for a particular thing and may not see
other things that may be better suited to what you need than what you were
"looking for".  Also, being in "seek" mode not only changes your perception,
but may result in changes in you that affect the way others perceive you,
which may affect the "search" process.  This is especially applicable to
scientific inquiry, problem solving, creativity (my best songs are the ones
I wasn't *trying* to write), and certain topics that have cropped upin
net.singles recently.

I know little or nothing about Zen, 'Tao, Buddhism, etc. so don't listen to
anything I say.  I've said far too much uselessness already...
-- 
Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought.
			Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr