Here is something I posted on Facebook-

And of course one of the most interesting questions is how our characterization of "what-ever-It-is" affects our ability to love.

Zhuangzi seems to have based his love (rong = the all-embracing) on not knowing if the other person's characterization of any phenomenon was right or wrong.

And so if I meet another person who says "God is absolute", according to Zhuangzi, I am wise to consider that person as quite plausibly correct. And to do unto an atheist in the same manner.

RaymondSigrist wrote:

Here is something I posted on Facebook-

And of course one of the most interesting questions is how our characterization of "what-ever-It-is" affects our ability to love.

Zhuangzi seems to have based his love (rong = the all-embracing) on not knowing if the other person's characterization of any phenomenon was right or wrong.

And so if I meet another person who says "God is absolute", according to Zhuangzi, I am wise to consider that person as quite plausibly correct. And to do unto an atheist in the same manner.

I mostly post on Science & Religion. It's quite interesting to see the theists and atheists debate. The theists are quite sure they are correct and the atheists are quite sure they are correct. Neither group can see that they are mostly seeing the world through their own subjective lens which was created mostly unconsciously.

Now, I think we can operate from a hypothesis (either one or the other), but still remain open to all that we can't possibly know. I don't see either 'side' on S & R being very open.

What I do understand is that whatever our view has come to be, even if it is a direct experience of reality, can't be passed on to another, except conceptually. For any truth to be 'passed on', it has to be experienced, again, on an individual personal basis.

This is why I like the Zen truth stated, transmission outside the scripture. Experience can't be transmitted through the written word.

I think you are right, real love is openess to everyone, even enemies, as one said (but not putting yourself in jeopardy).

But people are content to believe words written on paper, and neglect to see that the words are merely pointing to something else, something vital that mere belief in words is lacking. Most people are satisfied with eating the (actual) menu. Sad. ..........and what's more, that words can actually point to what you don't have but should have, and not seeing there's a problem in this.......

That's why I like Zen. It's immediate, to the point, now. Too much of Christianity is 'pie-in-the-sky' in the future. If you read the Jesus words in red, it ain't so. Jesus was all about, now, also. But people believe tradition instead of words pointing to truth..........
sdp

wonderment wrote:

"This is why I like the Zen truth stated, transmission outside the scripture. Experience can't be transmitted through the written word."

Me too Sdp:). Zen masters don't actually transmit anything, do they? They just recognize when someone has realized or uncovered the true nature of the self. That's all that's "transmitted".

Zen is so radically open. So much so that it can drive you nuts because it continually points to the necessity of finding out for oneself. It's often thought of as a very weird and esoteric teaching but I don't see it that way at all. It simply puts the onus on us. There are no masters or teachers that are going to give us answers. But the good ones do powerfully point us in the direction we need to go.

Yes. If you look at the interaction of student and Master in many Zen stories, the action of the Master, you can see that through either word or deed, he is bringing the student to the present moment. And likewise, recognition by the student is always in the present moment. .........Very practical. If you see this, most of the 'weirdness' goes away.
sdp

one of the things that Gandhi wrote about God was that if an entire nation fasted for him to no longer believe in God, it would do no good.

there is the search for truth and there is a kind of academic game of rhetoric play.

they are not the same thing.

God exists.  A higher life exists.  If you do not believe in either, then don't follow a spiritual path.

Sri Ramakrishna said...that he could take "this" and throw it away, and he could take "that" and throw it away, but he could not take truth and throw it away (poor paraphrase, but it is the best I've got for now).

There are spiritual paths and forms of meditation in which it is best not to think about any form, including that of God.  That is different than not believing God to exist.

Many professional scientists believe in God.  Some of the world's greatest minds, including Ben Franklin and Isaac Newton believed in God.  Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi all believed in God. 

If you enter the path and practice it, you will know, directly the spiritual gifts it produces.  Then, the evidence is quite direct.  Speculating on what spirituality is or is not, before engaging in some hard spiritual work, is really useless.

If you put in the time and effort, you will know...beyond any doubt and rhetoric games.

[QUOTE=stardustpilgrim;968753]I mostly post on Science & Religion. It's quite interesting to see the theists and atheists debate. The theists are quite sure they are correct and the atheists are quite sure they are correct. Neither group can see that they are mostly seeing the world through their own subjective lens which was created mostly unconsciously. [/QUOTE]

The problem is that they mistake the menu for the meal.