is there a purpose?

FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:

> Chris Malcolm wrote:
> > Keera Ann Fox <thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no> wrote:
> >> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> >>>> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> >>>>>> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
>
-snip-
> >>>>>> I get that sort of response (without the humor) from the
> >>>>>> religious/gnostic side only if they are fundie fruitcakes because they
> >>>>>> have Original Sin.
> >>>>> ???
> >>>> In some Christian circles, one believes humans are born losers, because
> >>>> of Original Sin. (This in spite of Jesus supposedly taking care of that
> >>>> problem.) A rather negative POV, IMO.
> >>> Are you dissing them?
> >
> >> By saying I find this particular religious tenet to be negative? I am
> >> speaking for myself (it is my opinion) so I don't see how.
>
> "fundie fruitcakes."

Just to clarify: I get the extreme negative responses only from people
who have stopped doing their own thinking, regardless of the fervor of
their faith.

But yes, I see your point. I should not have used names.

> >>>>>> So, does it help to have and to share a cynical view, even in jest? I
> >>>>>> mean, there must be a reason for choosing that response.
> >>>>> It could mean, "I prefer to take a less anthropocentric perspective."
> >>>> By dissing people?
> >>> Here I don't get what you mean - you'll have to be more specific.
> >
> >> You stated you wanted to be less anthropomorphic. But isn't it
> >> anthropomorphic to be focusing on the flaws of humans in a discussion
> >> about the purpose (if any) of the universe?
>
> Only in the sense that discussions of the 'purpose of the
> universe' usually place humans somewhere near the center, and
> rarely assume that humans are flawed, or if they do assume such,
> then those flaws can be overcome by salvation or multiple
> rebirths or some other mechanism that rights the errors of their
> flawed ways and sets them in the correct path, towards fulfilling
> the 'purpose of the universe'.

But there are other philosophies that don't involve "salvation" or
denial of human nature. For example, I recently attended a talk given by
a Danish lama. He compared Western religions with Eastern (Asian). One
of the differences he pointed out is that Western religions have the
concept of good and evil, while Eastern ones have the concept of
intelligent and stupid.

I was instantly on board with the Eastern take. IME, more cruelty has
been caused by stupidity (or ignorance) than by deliberate evil.

> I quibble with this type of
> sub-premise too, but it needs to be addressed. I do so by using
> dark humor to explore the possibility that the 'purpose' of
> humans is to thwart the purpose of the universe, or perhaps, to
> be used and discarded, or perhaps, that we were a bad idea, a
> design flaw. Sometimes to counter a proposition, you need to
> temporarily accept it and explore its implications.

Which is sometimes what I do, myself. :-)

> Or, how often do you hear a discussion of 'the purpose of the
> universe that begins with, "Well, the universe probably has
> purpose X, but humans are insignificant to that purpose, we can
> neither do anything to fulfill it nor can we do anything to
> interfere with it. Humans are just an anomaly of evolution, kind
> of like the duck-billed platypus." (Not to diss the duck-bills.
> For all I know, they are far more important in the grand scheme
> of things than humans are.) It's pretty rare for discussions of
> the 'purpose of the universe' to leave humans out of the
> equation, IME.

Of course. And since we are the observers and ponderers, that too makes
it hard to leave ourselves out. What I have sometimes observed is that
discussions such as ours tend to get too focused on the humans, and so
momentarily forget that _we_ are not the (sole) purpose of the universe.

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:5or685FnhqgdU2@mid.individual.net...
> Jette <bosslady@scotlandmail.com> wrote:
>> Dana? wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:26:31 -0400, "Cathy F."
>>> <clfrclfr@adelphiadotdashdot.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Reading this thread, I've snipped your reply, leaving in the pertinent
>>>> parts
>>>> with which I agree & was thinking before you posted.
>>>
>>> You understand what they are talking about?
>>>
>>> I was thinking I should 've stayed in school.
>
>> That's over-rated as a method of learning. Just read. Lots. :-)
>
> It's *essential* to do that in order to escape the indoctrination of
> school. Schools hate children who think and are very successful in
> stopping most of them from thinking :-)

Good thing that smiley's there...

Cathy

>
> --
> Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
> IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
>

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> Jette <bosslady@scotlandmail.com> wrote:
>> Dana? wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:26:31 -0400, "Cathy F."
>>> <clfrclfr@adelphiadotdashdot.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Reading this thread, I've snipped your reply, leaving in the pertinent parts
>>>> with which I agree & was thinking before you posted.
>>> You understand what they are talking about?
>>>
>>> I was thinking I should 've stayed in school.
>
>> That's over-rated as a method of learning. Just read. Lots. :-)
>
> It's *essential* to do that in order to escape the indoctrination of
> school. Schools hate children who think and are very successful in
> stopping most of them from thinking :-)
>

Depends on the teacher. I was lucky to have a few teachers who
thought it was their job to _teach_ us to *think*. Miss Lithgow, my
First Year English teacher and Mr McAskill, my Latin Master, will
always be honoured - Mr McAskill (aka "Mad Mac") actually got us to
come into school outside of school hours for _extra_ study.
Voluntarily.

--
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

Keera Ann Fox wrote:

> But there are other philosophies that don't involve "salvation" or
> denial of human nature. For example, I recently attended a talk given by
> a Danish lama. He compared Western religions with Eastern (Asian). One
> of the differences he pointed out is that Western religions have the
> concept of good and evil, while Eastern ones have the concept of
> intelligent and stupid.
>
> I was instantly on board with the Eastern take. IME, more cruelty has
> been caused by stupidity (or ignorance) than by deliberate evil.

If I were to embrace any one philosophy, it would probably be
some variety of Buddhism. I don't get on board with
reincarnation, but I'm quite drawn to their (because there are
several flavors of Buddhism) philosophies of compassion and
mental control and simplicity and mindfulness.

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Keera, you wonder why I'm so negative about humans. See above.
>> I'd like to think that I'm a realistic optimist, but the
>> realistic part shouts, and the optimist whispers.
>>
>> OK, I'll shut up.
>
> :-)
>
> From the rest of what you wrote, I suspect that not only are we probably
> of different temperament, but also exposed to different realities. I
> honestly cannot relate personally to many of the things you have said in
> this last post, and I guess that's where we'll have to leave this
> discussion.

I've never experienced any of those things myself - I've led
quite a sheltered existence. But I try to imagine what it would
be like, in order to keep my teeny weeny little woes and gripes
and whines in perspective, and to avoid patting myself on the
back for having an existence that to a large extent is due to the
roll of the dice going back quite a few generations.

> But thanks! I enjoyed having my opinions and thought processes
> challenged. :-)

So do I. :-)

FurPaw


--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

ellen wrote:

> i don't have the cognitive function to be able to direct my comments
> in such a detailed & point by point fashion as you & the others have.

Somehow, I expect that you do have it; you may just lack the
confidence to express it.

> i have thoroughly appreciated the quality of the discussion & continue
> to be amazed by the versatility of the people who post on asm.
>
> i spent a great deal of my youth on the existential cliff, peering
> into the abyss & thusly encumbered with angst beyond my years. it was
> a little like woody allen's quote in one of his early books, where a
> man asks his uncle: "Could it not be simply that we are alone and
> aimless, doomed to wander in an indifferent universe, with no hope of
> salvation, nor any prospect except misery, death, and the empty
> reality of eternal nothing?" The uncle replies, "You wonder why you're
> not invited to more parties."
>
> even at points of extreme crisis, i couldn't find solace in religion
> even while i so desperately wanted to (i was teaching at a catholic
> school at one point, so the nuns were quite active in trying to help
> me). i wanted the universe to have a purpose. i wanted life to have
> meaning. & i spent so much time mired in these questions (& bummed
> out about them, because i felt that there was no inherent meaning),
> that i was missing my life.

This sounds so much like me, in my late teens and early 20s,
going through an existential crisis, not being able to go back to
believing the tenets of the religion in which I was raised, but
not sure where to go with the existential void. The only
difference is, I didn't really want to turn back, except in those
moments when I wanted some solace. But it would have been empty.

> i've heard it said that 'reason itself is a matter of faith.' i know
> that i have clung to my reason with a fervor. who am i to know if
> there is or isn't a purpose? perhaps hamlet is right, "there are more
> things in heaven & earth, horatio, than are dreamt of in your
> philosophy."

I'm sure there are. They turn up every day. I was just reading this
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2..._fact_groopman
about brain activity in some people who are in a 'persistent
vegetative state.' It raises a lot of questions about what
consciousness is, keeps in the forefront the tight coupling
between 'mind' and 'brain' in discussing what happens to 'mind'
when 'brain' is damaged, and how much residual functioning can be
hidden from outside observers. (I don't know why I brought it up
- it's the most recent "wow" piece that I've read, I guess.)

> so i started asking different questions: how do i live a good life?
> what is beauty? & i started to listen more to what felt profound to
> me - like those moments of connection that are transcendent. in
> shifting my focus to the journey, to the moment, to awe, to the full
> awareness of life in all its bright & dark manifestations, i've
> somehow come to a place of acceptance with it. sometimes, dare i say,
> peace.

I don't know that I've come to peace, but I did stop looking for
externally defined meaning and purpose and started looking at how
I create my experience by the choices that I make, thinking about
the kind of life I wanted to live, within the limitations that
chance put on that. I don't know that I have free will - I do
know that I at least need to maintain that illusion in order to
stay sane.

> for my 40th birthday, a good friend gave me one of my all time
> favorite gifts. i call it my wwbd (what would buddha do) watch.
> instead on the timepiece, there is a stone & sand that continually
> moves over the stone as i move. it makes no sense to most people who
> meet me, but makes total sense to me. even if the universe just is.

That sounds like a very cool Zennish watch!

> but i still don't get invited to many parties...

Me either!

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

"Jette" <bosslady@scotlandmail.com> wrote in message
news:Sc3Wi.40136$c_1.30515@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> Jette <bosslady@scotlandmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dana? wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:26:31 -0400, "Cathy F."
>>>> <clfrclfr@adelphiadotdashdot.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Reading this thread, I've snipped your reply, leaving in the pertinent
>>>>> parts with which I agree & was thinking before you posted.
>>>> You understand what they are talking about?
>>>> I was thinking I should 've stayed in school.
>>
>>> That's over-rated as a method of learning. Just read. Lots. :-)
>>
>> It's *essential* to do that in order to escape the indoctrination of
>> school. Schools hate children who think and are very successful in
>> stopping most of them from thinking :-)
>>
>
> Depends on the teacher. I was lucky to have a few teachers who thought it
> was their job to _teach_ us to *think*. Miss Lithgow, my First Year
> English teacher and Mr McAskill, my Latin Master, will always be
> honoured - Mr McAskill (aka "Mad Mac") actually got us to come into school
> outside of school hours for _extra_ study. Voluntarily.

Not only does it depend on the individual teacher, but on education
movements - which way the pendulum happens to be swinging. [Not that every
teacher will adhere to the norm; I have always ignored the methods/movements
which I found to defy common sense & taught using what I thought made sense.
Can anyone say "Whole Language"? <eg> Throughout the Whole Language era, I
quietly used a reading basal ("basal" was an ultra-dirty word in elem. ed.
for many years) & taught decoding - sight/sound relationships, explaining
point-blank how the whole deal works, instead of hoping they'd get it
through osmosis.]

When I was in school & then first started teaching ('72), there was a LOT of
emphasis on learning facts, but little on independent thinking, or taking
what had been taught & then "running with it". Then, perhaps 10 - 20 years
ago, the pendulum swung the other way and there was much emphasis on
skipping the basic facts (whether it be how many feet are in a yard, or who
Clara Barton was), with the assumption that given the tools to do the
research, students (throughout life - in school & beyond) would find out
those basics for themselves. Which I found to be foolish. (The skipping the
facts bit, not the expansion part.) Although there are things which irk me
about the education system as it now stands, I have to say that it seems to
have found a middle ground in this area: to teach the basics, but to also
encourage more reading up on one's own interests - in school & beyond, more
thinking...

Cathy

Cathy F. <clfrclfr@adelphiadotdashdot.net> wrote:

> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:5or685FnhqgdU2@mid.individual.net...
>> Jette <bosslady@scotlandmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dana? wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:26:31 -0400, "Cathy F."
>>>> <clfrclfr@adelphiadotdashdot.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Reading this thread, I've snipped your reply, leaving in the pertinent
>>>>> parts
>>>>> with which I agree & was thinking before you posted.
>>>>
>>>> You understand what they are talking about?
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking I should 've stayed in school.
>>
>>> That's over-rated as a method of learning. Just read. Lots. :-)
>>
>> It's *essential* to do that in order to escape the indoctrination of
>> school. Schools hate children who think and are very successful in
>> stopping most of them from thinking :-)

> Good thing that smiley's there...

My remark was meant to be a broad generalisation. I'm quite happy to
acknowledge those few very important school teachers who did encourage
me to think. They were, however, eccentrics, and held on to their
approach in the face of general disapproval from their colleagues.
They also apologised to their students for some of the rather
pointless stuff which the demands of the official curriculum forced
them to teach and us to learn.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Cathy F. <clfrclfr@adelphiadotdashdot.net> wrote:
> "Jette" <bosslady@scotlandmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Sc3Wi.40136$c_1.30515@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>> Jette <bosslady@scotlandmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Dana? wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:26:31 -0400, "Cathy F."
>>>>> <clfrclfr@adelphiadotdashdot.net> wrote:

>>>>>> Reading this thread, I've snipped your reply, leaving in the pertinent
>>>>>> parts with which I agree & was thinking before you posted.
>>>>> You understand what they are talking about?

>>>>> I was thinking I should 've stayed in school.

>>>> That's over-rated as a method of learning. Just read. Lots. :-)

>>> It's *essential* to do that in order to escape the indoctrination of
>>> school. Schools hate children who think and are very successful in
>>> stopping most of them from thinking :-)

>> Depends on the teacher. I was lucky to have a few teachers who thought it
>> was their job to _teach_ us to *think*. Miss Lithgow, my First Year
>> English teacher and Mr McAskill, my Latin Master, will always be
>> honoured - Mr McAskill (aka "Mad Mac") actually got us to come into school
>> outside of school hours for _extra_ study. Voluntarily.

> Not only does it depend on the individual teacher, but on education
> movements - which way the pendulum happens to be swinging. [Not that every
> teacher will adhere to the norm; I have always ignored the methods/movements
> which I found to defy common sense & taught using what I thought made sense.
> Can anyone say "Whole Language"? <eg> Throughout the Whole Language era, I
> quietly used a reading basal ("basal" was an ultra-dirty word in elem. ed.
> for many years) & taught decoding - sight/sound relationships, explaining
> point-blank how the whole deal works, instead of hoping they'd get it
> through osmosis.]

> When I was in school & then first started teaching ('72), there was a LOT of
> emphasis on learning facts, but little on independent thinking, or taking
> what had been taught & then "running with it". Then, perhaps 10 - 20 years
> ago, the pendulum swung the other way and there was much emphasis on
> skipping the basic facts (whether it be how many feet are in a yard, or who
> Clara Barton was), with the assumption that given the tools to do the
> research, students (throughout life - in school & beyond) would find out
> those basics for themselves. Which I found to be foolish. (The skipping the
> facts bit, not the expansion part.) Although there are things which irk me
> about the education system as it now stands, I have to say that it seems to
> have found a middle ground in this area: to teach the basics, but to also
> encourage more reading up on one's own interests - in school & beyond, more
> thinking...

I'm old enough to have watched these pendulum swings of educational
fashion for many decades. What puzzles me is how little research has
to do with it. Over the decades research pychologists have been
steadily accumulating useful knowledge about human learning. Yet most
of the swings in national education policies over the decades seem to
have been made either on the basis of what politicians like to call
"common sense", or if by chance any science was considered, it was
only in the most superficial fashion.

You mentioned the "Whole Language" thing. That was one such swing. I
liked your concept of "osmosis". There have also been attempts to
teach spelling and reading by osmosis. Then there was the daft idea
that because mathematics could be formally elaborated from a basis of
simple set theory, that children should be taught set theory as a
precursor to learning maths. There was never any good science behind
any of these things.

What kind of an education system has such little respect for science
that it ignores relevant science in its own policy decisions?

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm wrote:

>> Not only does it depend on the individual teacher, but on education
>> movements - which way the pendulum happens to be swinging. [Not that every
>> teacher will adhere to the norm; I have always ignored the methods/movements
>> which I found to defy common sense & taught using what I thought made sense.
>> Can anyone say "Whole Language"? <eg> Throughout the Whole Language era, I
>> quietly used a reading basal ("basal" was an ultra-dirty word in elem. ed.
>> for many years) & taught decoding - sight/sound relationships, explaining
>> point-blank how the whole deal works, instead of hoping they'd get it
>> through osmosis.]
>
>> When I was in school & then first started teaching ('72), there was a LOT of
>> emphasis on learning facts, but little on independent thinking, or taking
>> what had been taught & then "running with it". Then, perhaps 10 - 20 years
>> ago, the pendulum swung the other way and there was much emphasis on
>> skipping the basic facts (whether it be how many feet are in a yard, or who
>> Clara Barton was), with the assumption that given the tools to do the
>> research, students (throughout life - in school & beyond) would find out
>> those basics for themselves. Which I found to be foolish. (The skipping the
>> facts bit, not the expansion part.) Although there are things which irk me
>> about the education system as it now stands, I have to say that it seems to
>> have found a middle ground in this area: to teach the basics, but to also
>> encourage more reading up on one's own interests - in school & beyond, more
>> thinking...
>
> I'm old enough to have watched these pendulum swings of educational
> fashion for many decades. What puzzles me is how little research has
> to do with it. Over the decades research pychologists have been
> steadily accumulating useful knowledge about human learning. Yet most
> of the swings in national education policies over the decades seem to
> have been made either on the basis of what politicians like to call
> "common sense", or if by chance any science was considered, it was
> only in the most superficial fashion.
>
> You mentioned the "Whole Language" thing. That was one such swing. I
> liked your concept of "osmosis". There have also been attempts to
> teach spelling and reading by osmosis. Then there was the daft idea
> that because mathematics could be formally elaborated from a basis of
> simple set theory, that children should be taught set theory as a
> precursor to learning maths.

I was in a pilot program ("new math") starting in 8th grade that
was based on this, aimed at secondary school math. I struggled
with it until I got to college, where, in my college algebra
class math was taught using "old math" methods, and my brain
finally said, "MOMMA! I'M HOME!"

> There was never any good science behind
> any of these things.
>
> What kind of an education system has such little respect for science
> that it ignores relevant science in its own policy decisions?

One in which the decision makers don't have a good grounding in
science and its methodologies? I doubt that appointment to high
positions in local, state or national education establishments
requires, or even looks, at this as a qualification.

Then again, it's not restricted to education... look at the
environmental "policies" of the current administration, and the
attempts of the top level administrators to suppress science that
contradicts those policies. They even recently censored
testimony from the head of the CDC that was destined for the
Senate, because it contained statements implying that global
warming might have undesirable health consequences. Faugh.

FurPaw
--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:5otoqnFoirr1U1@mid.individual.net...
<snipped>
Then there was the daft idea
> that because mathematics could be formally elaborated from a basis of
> simple set theory, that children should be taught set theory as a
> precursor to learning maths. There was never any good science behind
> any of these things.

Ah... that would probably be the "New Math". Arghhh. Thank goodness that
particular movement was short-lived! It cropped up while I was in college,
& by the time I was teaching was already on its way out...

> What kind of an education system has such little respect for science
> that it ignores relevant science in its own policy decisions?

Apparently education systems all over the place! It obviously isn't
restricted to the NYSED, nor to other states in the US, & most likely not to
ones in the UK,either. Believe me, there have been times when I've wanted
to shake the SED people by their shoulders till their heads rattled; maybe
would shake some common sense back into place?!

Cathy

>
> --
> Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
> IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
>

FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:

> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
>
> > But there are other philosophies that don't involve "salvation" or
> > denial of human nature. For example, I recently attended a talk given by
> > a Danish lama. He compared Western religions with Eastern (Asian). One
> > of the differences he pointed out is that Western religions have the
> > concept of good and evil, while Eastern ones have the concept of
> > intelligent and stupid.
> >
> > I was instantly on board with the Eastern take. IME, more cruelty has
> > been caused by stupidity (or ignorance) than by deliberate evil.
>
> If I were to embrace any one philosophy, it would probably be
> some variety of Buddhism. I don't get on board with
> reincarnation, but I'm quite drawn to their (because there are
> several flavors of Buddhism) philosophies of compassion

Compassion is a Christian ideal. The lama I listened to actually
mentioned that this was what made being a Buddhist with a Western
background so difficult (and which is why Buddhism is growing slower in
the west than Christianity is in the east): Eastern religions believe
that each of us creates his own situation; there are no victims, just
the results of unenlightened thinking. So there is no point to
compassion or mercy.

I remember reading that the Buddhist monks watching Westerners help the
tsunami's victims in December of 2004 came to realize that they needed
to adopt compassion, i.e. helping people without regard to any
individual's perceived karma.

> and mental control and simplicity and mindfulness.

Which is the way out of trouble.

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
>>
>>> But there are other philosophies that don't involve "salvation" or
>>> denial of human nature. For example, I recently attended a talk given by
>>> a Danish lama. He compared Western religions with Eastern (Asian). One
>>> of the differences he pointed out is that Western religions have the
>>> concept of good and evil, while Eastern ones have the concept of
>>> intelligent and stupid.
>>>
>>> I was instantly on board with the Eastern take. IME, more cruelty has
>>> been caused by stupidity (or ignorance) than by deliberate evil.

>> If I were to embrace any one philosophy, it would probably be
>> some variety of Buddhism. I don't get on board with
>> reincarnation, but I'm quite drawn to their (because there are
>> several flavors of Buddhism) philosophies of compassion
>
> Compassion is a Christian ideal.

It is... but it is also a central point of Buddhist teachings.

If you read much about Buddhism, it's hard to avoid bumping into
the importance of compassion. It predated Christianity by
several centuries. Meditations that focus on compassion abound.
The Bodhisattva is a compassionate being that could enter
Nirvana, but does not in order to save others (Mahayana
Buddhism). Try searching amazon.com on Dalai Lama compassion
- he alone has written several books on the subject of compassion
in Buddhism. I don't think that compassion is listed as one of
the four noble truths or the eight-fold path, but it is a major
part of modern Buddhism with, I understand, ancient roots.

"From the Buddha's enlightenment, two great powers were awakened
in him: transcendent wisdom and universal compassion. Setting in
motion the Wheel of the Dharma, the Buddha wandered first to the
Deer Park in Benares and gave instructions to the yogis who had
practiced with him in the forest. After this, for forty-five
years he brought the teachings of wisdom and compassion to all
who would listen. These teachings, which the Buddha called the
Dharma, or Way, are an invitation to follow the path of
enlightenment. They are an invitation to all who hear them to
discover their own buddha-nature, the freedom and great heart of
compassion that is possible for every human being."
http://www.teachingsofthebuddha.com/the_buddha.htm

"Knowing that people's suffering is avoidable, that it is
surmountable, our sympathy for their inability to extricate
themselves leads to a more powerful compassion. Otherwise,
though our compassion may be strong, it is likely to have a
quality of hopelessness, even despair....

"[Developing compassion] is a goal we must commit ourselves to
with all our heart."

The Dalai Lama, _An Open Heart_, p102. Little & Brown Co., 2001.

> The lama I listened to actually
> mentioned that this was what made being a Buddhist with a Western
> background so difficult (and which is why Buddhism is growing slower in
> the west than Christianity is in the east): Eastern religions believe
> that each of us creates his own situation; there are no victims, just
> the results of unenlightened thinking. So there is no point to
> compassion or mercy.

I think you may have misunderstood what this Lama was saying, or
what he was saying was not representative... at least, not of the
Buddhist writings that I have read.

> I remember reading that the Buddhist monks watching Westerners help the
> tsunami's victims in December of 2004 came to realize that they needed
> to adopt compassion, i.e. helping people without regard to any
> individual's perceived karma.

Just like many people of every religious persuasion, they may not
have been aware of the full implications of their religion's
teachings?

>> and mental control and simplicity and mindfulness.
>
> Which is the way out of trouble.

Or, as is usually stated, some of the ways out of suffering.

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

On Oct 31, 1:44 pm, FurPaw <furrealpaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ellen wrote:
> > i don't have the cognitive function to be able to direct my comments
> > in such a detailed & point by point fashion as you & the others have.
>
> Somehow, I expect that you do have it; you may just lack the
> confidence to express it.
>
>
>
> > i have thoroughly appreciated the quality of the discussion & continue
> > to be amazed by the versatility of the people who post on asm.
>
> > i spent a great deal of my youth on the existential cliff, peering
> > into the abyss & thusly encumbered with angst beyond my years. it was
> > a little like woody allen's quote in one of his early books, where a
> > man asks his uncle: "Could it not be simply that we are alone and
> > aimless, doomed to wander in an indifferent universe, with no hope of
> > salvation, nor any prospect except misery, death, and the empty
> > reality of eternal nothing?" The uncle replies, "You wonder why you're
> > not invited to more parties."
>
> > even at points of extreme crisis, i couldn't find solace in religion
> > even while i so desperately wanted to (i was teaching at a catholic
> > school at one point, so the nuns were quite active in trying to help
> > me). i wanted the universe to have a purpose. i wanted life to have
> > meaning. & i spent so much time mired in these questions (& bummed
> > out about them, because i felt that there was no inherent meaning),
> > that i was missing my life.
>
> This sounds so much like me, in my late teens and early 20s,
> going through an existential crisis, not being able to go back to
> believing the tenets of the religion in which I was raised, but
> not sure where to go with the existential void. The only
> difference is, I didn't really want to turn back, except in those
> moments when I wanted some solace. But it would have been empty.
>
> > i've heard it said that 'reason itself is a matter of faith.' i know
> > that i have clung to my reason with a fervor. who am i to know if
> > there is or isn't a purpose? perhaps hamlet is right, "there are more
> > things in heaven & earth, horatio, than are dreamt of in your
> > philosophy."
>
> I'm sure there are. They turn up every day. I was just reading thishttp://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/15/071015fa_fact_groopman
> about brain activity in some people who are in a 'persistent
> vegetative state.' It raises a lot of questions about what
> consciousness is, keeps in the forefront the tight coupling
> between 'mind' and 'brain' in discussing what happens to 'mind'
> when 'brain' is damaged, and how much residual functioning can be
> hidden from outside observers. (I don't know why I brought it up
> - it's the most recent "wow" piece that I've read, I guess.)
>
> > so i started asking different questions: how do i live a good life?
> > what is beauty? & i started to listen more to what felt profound to
> > me - like those moments of connection that are transcendent. in
> > shifting my focus to the journey, to the moment, to awe, to the full
> > awareness of life in all its bright & dark manifestations, i've
> > somehow come to a place of acceptance with it. sometimes, dare i say,
> > peace.
>
> I don't know that I've come to peace, but I did stop looking for
> externally defined meaning and purpose and started looking at how
> I create my experience by the choices that I make, thinking about
> the kind of life I wanted to live, within the limitations that
> chance put on that. I don't know that I have free will - I do
> know that I at least need to maintain that illusion in order to
> stay sane.
>
> > for my 40th birthday, a good friend gave me one of my all time
> > favorite gifts. i call it my wwbd (what would buddha do) watch.
> > instead on the timepiece, there is a stone & sand that continually
> > moves over the stone as i move. it makes no sense to most people who
> > meet me, but makes total sense to me. even if the universe just is.
>
> That sounds like a very cool Zennish watch!
>
> > but i still don't get invited to many parties...
>
> Me either!
>
> FurPaw
>
> --
> "Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
> every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
> a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
> those who are cold and are not clothed."
> - Dwight D. Eisenhower
>
> To reply, unleash the dog.

'where to go with the existential void'... pretty much summarizes it.
where you have gone with it seems to be a similar path to mine.
perhaps that is why i so often relate to your perspectives.

excellent article. my mom was in a coma prior to her death, & this
type of info always makes me reflect on those final days. i have been
thinking alot about 'the self' & the role of our chemistry & internal
processes on our consciousness & sense of self. the view from my
particular rollercoaster can be a bit unsettling & can at times leave
me wondering about where particular realities intersect. sometimes it
feels as if the only stability of (my)self is the apparent instability
that seems to arise out of fluctuating hormones & neurochemicals. but
then again, as you point out, there are those matters of free will &
choice.

so maybe we can have our own party & i will bring viktor frankl's
'man's search for meaning' (which i read 100 years ago). but i
promise as well both dark & light humor, with an emphasis on the
absurd. it could even be a birthday party with timeless timepieces.

btw, i do lack confidence, but it is also true that my cognitive
skills have hitched a ride on that rollercoaster.

ellen

FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:

> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> > FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> >>
> >>> But there are other philosophies that don't involve "salvation" or
> >>> denial of human nature. For example, I recently attended a talk given by
> >>> a Danish lama. He compared Western religions with Eastern (Asian). One
> >>> of the differences he pointed out is that Western religions have the
> >>> concept of good and evil, while Eastern ones have the concept of
> >>> intelligent and stupid.
> >>>
> >>> I was instantly on board with the Eastern take. IME, more cruelty has
> >>> been caused by stupidity (or ignorance) than by deliberate evil.
>
> >> If I were to embrace any one philosophy, it would probably be
> >> some variety of Buddhism. I don't get on board with
> >> reincarnation, but I'm quite drawn to their (because there are
> >> several flavors of Buddhism) philosophies of compassion
> >
> > Compassion is a Christian ideal.
>
> It is... but it is also a central point of Buddhist teachings.
>
> If you read much about Buddhism, it's hard to avoid bumping into
> the importance of compassion. It predated Christianity by
> several centuries. Meditations that focus on compassion abound.
> The Bodhisattva is a compassionate being that could enter
> Nirvana, but does not in order to save others (Mahayana
> Buddhism). Try searching amazon.com on Dalai Lama compassion
> - he alone has written several books on the subject of compassion
> in Buddhism. I don't think that compassion is listed as one of
> the four noble truths or the eight-fold path, but it is a major
> part of modern Buddhism with, I understand, ancient roots.
>
> "From the Buddha's enlightenment, two great powers were awakened
> in him: transcendent wisdom and universal compassion. Setting in
> motion the Wheel of the Dharma, the Buddha wandered first to the
> Deer Park in Benares and gave instructions to the yogis who had
> practiced with him in the forest. After this, for forty-five
> years he brought the teachings of wisdom and compassion to all
> who would listen. These teachings, which the Buddha called the
> Dharma, or Way, are an invitation to follow the path of
> enlightenment. They are an invitation to all who hear them to
> discover their own buddha-nature, the freedom and great heart of
> compassion that is possible for every human being."
> http://www.teachingsofthebuddha.com/the_buddha.htm
>
> "Knowing that people's suffering is avoidable, that it is
> surmountable, our sympathy for their inability to extricate
> themselves leads to a more powerful compassion. Otherwise,
> though our compassion may be strong, it is likely to have a
> quality of hopelessness, even despair....
>
> "[Developing compassion] is a goal we must commit ourselves to
> with all our heart."
>
> The Dalai Lama, _An Open Heart_, p102. Little & Brown Co., 2001.

I wonder if the Buddhist idea of compassion isn't a bit different from
the Christian one? Buddhists believe in helping everyone to
enlightenment which is their way of showing compassion; in Buddhism is
the goal of enlightening every soul on this planet. Christians show
compassion for those who are suffering, without regard for how they got
there or what would help them get away from it (short of believing in
God).

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
>>> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But there are other philosophies that don't involve "salvation" or
>>>>> denial of human nature. For example, I recently attended a talk given by
>>>>> a Danish lama. He compared Western religions with Eastern (Asian). One
>>>>> of the differences he pointed out is that Western religions have the
>>>>> concept of good and evil, while Eastern ones have the concept of
>>>>> intelligent and stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was instantly on board with the Eastern take. IME, more cruelty has
>>>>> been caused by stupidity (or ignorance) than by deliberate evil.
>>>> If I were to embrace any one philosophy, it would probably be
>>>> some variety of Buddhism. I don't get on board with
>>>> reincarnation, but I'm quite drawn to their (because there are
>>>> several flavors of Buddhism) philosophies of compassion
>>> Compassion is a Christian ideal.
>> It is... but it is also a central point of Buddhist teachings.
>>
>> If you read much about Buddhism, it's hard to avoid bumping into
>> the importance of compassion. It predated Christianity by
>> several centuries. Meditations that focus on compassion abound.
>> The Bodhisattva is a compassionate being that could enter
>> Nirvana, but does not in order to save others (Mahayana
>> Buddhism). Try searching amazon.com on Dalai Lama compassion
>> - he alone has written several books on the subject of compassion
>> in Buddhism. I don't think that compassion is listed as one of
>> the four noble truths or the eight-fold path, but it is a major
>> part of modern Buddhism with, I understand, ancient roots.
>>
>> "From the Buddha's enlightenment, two great powers were awakened
>> in him: transcendent wisdom and universal compassion. Setting in
>> motion the Wheel of the Dharma, the Buddha wandered first to the
>> Deer Park in Benares and gave instructions to the yogis who had
>> practiced with him in the forest. After this, for forty-five
>> years he brought the teachings of wisdom and compassion to all
>> who would listen. These teachings, which the Buddha called the
>> Dharma, or Way, are an invitation to follow the path of
>> enlightenment. They are an invitation to all who hear them to
>> discover their own buddha-nature, the freedom and great heart of
>> compassion that is possible for every human being."
>> http://www.teachingsofthebuddha.com/the_buddha.htm
>>
>> "Knowing that people's suffering is avoidable, that it is
>> surmountable, our sympathy for their inability to extricate
>> themselves leads to a more powerful compassion. Otherwise,
>> though our compassion may be strong, it is likely to have a
>> quality of hopelessness, even despair....
>>
>> "[Developing compassion] is a goal we must commit ourselves to
>> with all our heart."
>>
>> The Dalai Lama, _An Open Heart_, p102. Little & Brown Co., 2001.
>
> I wonder if the Buddhist idea of compassion isn't a bit different from
> the Christian one? Buddhists believe in helping everyone to
> enlightenment which is their way of showing compassion; in Buddhism is
> the goal of enlightening every soul on this planet. Christians show
> compassion for those who are suffering, without regard for how they got
> there or what would help them get away from it (short of believing in
> God).

My reading of the Buddhist idea of compassion is that it is more
complex than this, although helping everyone to enlightenment is
clearly an ultimate goal. You cited some monks as being caught
up short with the realization that compassion included giving to
people in need, no matter what karmic reasons led them to their
predicament, but I don't think that's typical of Buddhist views
on compassion. (Or maybe it is - Buddhism isn't a single uniform
collection of beliefs and tenets, any more than Christianity is;
different sects, different individuals each have their own take,
and these can vary widely in their interpretation of a central
core of beliefs. I don't know enough about the differences and
so I tend to see them all as "Buddhist," although I know that
some of the differences are profound.)

Now I'm getting onto somewhat shaky ground, because my reading of
Buddhism isn't that deep or extensive. What I understand is that
contained in the Buddhist concept of compassion there is a focus
on getting your own mental house clean first, because it's hard
to develop compassion for others if you are still stuck in need,
desire, an egocentric view of self. There is a desire that
suffering be ended for all creatures, and (clearly my words
here), that each person can best start that by being a role model
of compassion in their own actions and in the way that they treat
others.

And there are also discussions regarding caring for others and
altruistic actions, which seem parallel to (or perhaps including)
the Christian concept of compassion (charity/love).

Here's a link to a site that quotes quite a few Buddhists on the
subject of compassion - as you can see, the definitions are
broader than simply wishing enlightenment for everyone:

http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/compassion.html

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:

> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> > FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> >>> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> But there are other philosophies that don't involve "salvation" or
> >>>>> denial of human nature. For example, I recently attended a talk given by
> >>>>> a Danish lama. He compared Western religions with Eastern (Asian). One
> >>>>> of the differences he pointed out is that Western religions have the
> >>>>> concept of good and evil, while Eastern ones have the concept of
> >>>>> intelligent and stupid.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I was instantly on board with the Eastern take. IME, more cruelty has
> >>>>> been caused by stupidity (or ignorance) than by deliberate evil.
> >>>> If I were to embrace any one philosophy, it would probably be
> >>>> some variety of Buddhism. I don't get on board with
> >>>> reincarnation, but I'm quite drawn to their (because there are
> >>>> several flavors of Buddhism) philosophies of compassion
> >>> Compassion is a Christian ideal.
> >> It is... but it is also a central point of Buddhist teachings.
> >>
> >> If you read much about Buddhism, it's hard to avoid bumping into
> >> the importance of compassion. It predated Christianity by
> >> several centuries. Meditations that focus on compassion abound.
> >> The Bodhisattva is a compassionate being that could enter
> >> Nirvana, but does not in order to save others (Mahayana
> >> Buddhism). Try searching amazon.com on Dalai Lama compassion
> >> - he alone has written several books on the subject of compassion
> >> in Buddhism. I don't think that compassion is listed as one of
> >> the four noble truths or the eight-fold path, but it is a major
> >> part of modern Buddhism with, I understand, ancient roots.
> >>
> >> "From the Buddha's enlightenment, two great powers were awakened
> >> in him: transcendent wisdom and universal compassion. Setting in
> >> motion the Wheel of the Dharma, the Buddha wandered first to the
> >> Deer Park in Benares and gave instructions to the yogis who had
> >> practiced with him in the forest. After this, for forty-five
> >> years he brought the teachings of wisdom and compassion to all
> >> who would listen. These teachings, which the Buddha called the
> >> Dharma, or Way, are an invitation to follow the path of
> >> enlightenment. They are an invitation to all who hear them to
> >> discover their own buddha-nature, the freedom and great heart of
> >> compassion that is possible for every human being."
> >> http://www.teachingsofthebuddha.com/the_buddha.htm
> >>
> >> "Knowing that people's suffering is avoidable, that it is
> >> surmountable, our sympathy for their inability to extricate
> >> themselves leads to a more powerful compassion. Otherwise,
> >> though our compassion may be strong, it is likely to have a
> >> quality of hopelessness, even despair....
> >>
> >> "[Developing compassion] is a goal we must commit ourselves to
> >> with all our heart."
> >>
> >> The Dalai Lama, _An Open Heart_, p102. Little & Brown Co., 2001.
> >
> > I wonder if the Buddhist idea of compassion isn't a bit different from
> > the Christian one? Buddhists believe in helping everyone to
> > enlightenment which is their way of showing compassion; in Buddhism is
> > the goal of enlightening every soul on this planet. Christians show
> > compassion for those who are suffering, without regard for how they got
> > there or what would help them get away from it (short of believing in
> > God).
>
> My reading of the Buddhist idea of compassion is that it is more
> complex than this, although helping everyone to enlightenment is
> clearly an ultimate goal. You cited some monks as being caught
> up short with the realization that compassion included giving to
> people in need, no matter what karmic reasons led them to their
> predicament, but I don't think that's typical of Buddhist views
> on compassion. (Or maybe it is - Buddhism isn't a single uniform
> collection of beliefs and tenets, any more than Christianity is;
> different sects, different individuals each have their own take,
> and these can vary widely in their interpretation of a central
> core of beliefs. I don't know enough about the differences and
> so I tend to see them all as "Buddhist," although I know that
> some of the differences are profound.)
>
> Now I'm getting onto somewhat shaky ground, because my reading of
> Buddhism isn't that deep or extensive. What I understand is that
> contained in the Buddhist concept of compassion there is a focus
> on getting your own mental house clean first, because it's hard
> to develop compassion for others if you are still stuck in need,
> desire, an egocentric view of self. There is a desire that
> suffering be ended for all creatures, and (clearly my words
> here), that each person can best start that by being a role model
> of compassion in their own actions and in the way that they treat
> others.

Which is "backwards" from the way the Christians do it: They believe in
salvation by helping others first, to put it very simply. And that
difference in approach and motivation may be why the compassion doesn't
look the same.

> And there are also discussions regarding caring for others and
> altruistic actions, which seem parallel to (or perhaps including)
> the Christian concept of compassion (charity/love).
>
> Here's a link to a site that quotes quite a few Buddhists on the
> subject of compassion - as you can see, the definitions are
> broader than simply wishing enlightenment for everyone:
>
> http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/compassion.html

Note, though, that it states things like "Compassion without attachment
is possible. Therefore, we need to clarify the distinctions between
compassion and attachment."

So _how_ do Buddhists express compassion? As I understand it (and it
looks like I'm as much of a Buddhist newbie as you may be) they don't do
it the Christian way, as exemplified by Mother Theresa[1], or by "Save
the Children", or even the UN, which is to feed the hungry, shelter the
homeless, i.e. offer reprieve from problems. (One can argue whether or
not they offer solutions to problems.)

The Buddhists constantly talk about detachment. From everything, even
the good stuff. (Here is where a lot of Westerners get lost because the
Buddhists talk about getting rid of desire, and we in the west tend to
think of desire for the good of all, etc., as a good thing.) The
Buddhist compassion is not one of sharing sympathy, but one of sharing
knowledge or enlightenment, or to put it another way: To offer
self-empowerment[2]. Perhaps a subtle difference, but it's basically the
difference between giving a hungry man a fish versus teaching him how to
fish. For the Buddhist, it would be incompassionate not to teach the
man, whereas Christians for centuries have had the habit of
tithing/donating to charities because it would be incompassionate not to
feed the man.

[1]When you get to her level, there's no seeing the difference between
what she did and what Buddha taught. Spiritual truth is the same
everywhere. Only the path to it varies.

[2]Christians offer faith. As long as you believe in the one Lord, all
will go well. I can make the argument that that is indeed the case; see
[1]. :-)

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

Cathy F. <clfrclfr@adelphiadotdashdot.net> wrote:
> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:5otoqnFoirr1U1@mid.individual.net...
> <snipped>
> Then there was the daft idea
>> that because mathematics could be formally elaborated from a basis of
>> simple set theory, that children should be taught set theory as a
>> precursor to learning maths. There was never any good science behind
>> any of these things.

> Ah... that would probably be the "New Math". Arghhh. Thank goodness that
> particular movement was short-lived! It cropped up while I was in college,
> & by the time I was teaching was already on its way out...

>> What kind of an education system has such little respect for science
>> that it ignores relevant science in its own policy decisions?

> Apparently education systems all over the place! It obviously isn't
> restricted to the NYSED, nor to other states in the US, & most likely not to
> ones in the UK,either. Believe me, there have been times when I've wanted
> to shake the SED people by their shoulders till their heads rattled; maybe
> would shake some common sense back into place?!

As far as I can see from discussions of this kind of topic in past
years in newsgroups it does seem to be at least in all the national
education systems of all the anglophone nationsq, which suggests some
kind of generic cultural shifts of fashion in the educational
community. I'd love to know what makes them change their minds about
how to educate our children, because it certainly doesn't seem to be
research by cognitive psychologists into how children learn :-)

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
>>> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
>>>>> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But there are other philosophies that don't involve "salvation" or
>>>>>>> denial of human nature. For example, I recently attended a talk given by
>>>>>>> a Danish lama. He compared Western religions with Eastern (Asian). One
>>>>>>> of the differences he pointed out is that Western religions have the
>>>>>>> concept of good and evil, while Eastern ones have the concept of
>>>>>>> intelligent and stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was instantly on board with the Eastern take. IME, more cruelty has
>>>>>>> been caused by stupidity (or ignorance) than by deliberate evil.
>>>>>> If I were to embrace any one philosophy, it would probably be
>>>>>> some variety of Buddhism. I don't get on board with
>>>>>> reincarnation, but I'm quite drawn to their (because there are
>>>>>> several flavors of Buddhism) philosophies of compassion
>>>>> Compassion is a Christian ideal.
>>>> It is... but it is also a central point of Buddhist teachings.
>>>>
>>>> If you read much about Buddhism, it's hard to avoid bumping into
>>>> the importance of compassion. It predated Christianity by
>>>> several centuries. Meditations that focus on compassion abound.
>>>> The Bodhisattva is a compassionate being that could enter
>>>> Nirvana, but does not in order to save others (Mahayana
>>>> Buddhism). Try searching amazon.com on Dalai Lama compassion
>>>> - he alone has written several books on the subject of compassion
>>>> in Buddhism. I don't think that compassion is listed as one of
>>>> the four noble truths or the eight-fold path, but it is a major
>>>> part of modern Buddhism with, I understand, ancient roots.
>>>>
>>>> "From the Buddha's enlightenment, two great powers were awakened
>>>> in him: transcendent wisdom and universal compassion. Setting in
>>>> motion the Wheel of the Dharma, the Buddha wandered first to the
>>>> Deer Park in Benares and gave instructions to the yogis who had
>>>> practiced with him in the forest. After this, for forty-five
>>>> years he brought the teachings of wisdom and compassion to all
>>>> who would listen. These teachings, which the Buddha called the
>>>> Dharma, or Way, are an invitation to follow the path of
>>>> enlightenment. They are an invitation to all who hear them to
>>>> discover their own buddha-nature, the freedom and great heart of
>>>> compassion that is possible for every human being."
>>>> http://www.teachingsofthebuddha.com/the_buddha.htm
>>>>
>>>> "Knowing that people's suffering is avoidable, that it is
>>>> surmountable, our sympathy for their inability to extricate
>>>> themselves leads to a more powerful compassion. Otherwise,
>>>> though our compassion may be strong, it is likely to have a
>>>> quality of hopelessness, even despair....
>>>>
>>>> "[Developing compassion] is a goal we must commit ourselves to
>>>> with all our heart."
>>>>
>>>> The Dalai Lama, _An Open Heart_, p102. Little & Brown Co., 2001.
>>> I wonder if the Buddhist idea of compassion isn't a bit different from
>>> the Christian one? Buddhists believe in helping everyone to
>>> enlightenment which is their way of showing compassion; in Buddhism is
>>> the goal of enlightening every soul on this planet. Christians show
>>> compassion for those who are suffering, without regard for how they got
>>> there or what would help them get away from it (short of believing in
>>> God).
>> My reading of the Buddhist idea of compassion is that it is more
>> complex than this, although helping everyone to enlightenment is
>> clearly an ultimate goal. You cited some monks as being caught
>> up short with the realization that compassion included giving to
>> people in need, no matter what karmic reasons led them to their
>> predicament, but I don't think that's typical of Buddhist views
>> on compassion. (Or maybe it is - Buddhism isn't a single uniform
>> collection of beliefs and tenets, any more than Christianity is;
>> different sects, different individuals each have their own take,
>> and these can vary widely in their interpretation of a central
>> core of beliefs. I don't know enough about the differences and
>> so I tend to see them all as "Buddhist," although I know that
>> some of the differences are profound.)
>>
>> Now I'm getting onto somewhat shaky ground, because my reading of
>> Buddhism isn't that deep or extensive. What I understand is that
>> contained in the Buddhist concept of compassion there is a focus
>> on getting your own mental house clean first, because it's hard
>> to develop compassion for others if you are still stuck in need,
>> desire, an egocentric view of self. There is a desire that
>> suffering be ended for all creatures, and (clearly my words
>> here), that each person can best start that by being a role model
>> of compassion in their own actions and in the way that they treat
>> others.
>
> Which is "backwards" from the way the Christians do it: They believe in
> salvation by helping others first, to put it very simply. And that
> difference in approach and motivation may be why the compassion doesn't
> look the same.

I don't think you can put all Christians in a single basket any
more than you can put all Buddhists in a single basket. But not
being very familiar with the varieties of either Buddhist charity
work (it does exist - google on Buddhist charity) or Christian
charity work, I don't have any more to add on this topic.

>> And there are also discussions regarding caring for others and
>> altruistic actions, which seem parallel to (or perhaps including)
>> the Christian concept of compassion (charity/love).
>>
>> Here's a link to a site that quotes quite a few Buddhists on the
>> subject of compassion - as you can see, the definitions are
>> broader than simply wishing enlightenment for everyone:
>>
>> http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/compassion.html
>
> Note, though, that it states things like "Compassion without attachment
> is possible. Therefore, we need to clarify the distinctions between
> compassion and attachment."

And elsewhere 'it' says, "Thus the practical and realistic aim is
compassion, a warm heart, serving other people, helping others,
respecting others, being less selfish." But what's the point of
selective quotation here? The point I got from that page is that
there are multiple v