August 03, 2009
THE DHARMA OF STAR TREK
Three of my favorite sources for reflections on the human condition are
The Lotus Sutra
Shakespeare
Star Trek (original)
Here are some musings on individuality. Please feel free to contribute.
“And what a variety of senses you have.
This thing you call... language, though...
most remarkable.
You depend on it...
for so very much.
But is any one of you really its master?
But most of all...
the aloneness.
You are so alone.
You live out your lives...
in this...
shell of flesh,
self-contained...
separate.
How lonely you are.
How terribly lonely.”
Spock as Ambassador Kollos from Star Trek “Is There In Truth No Beauty?”
“We are all star stuff that has attained consciousness.”
-Carl Sagan
“The fundamental teaching of the Lotus concerning the reality of the universe amounts to this, that every being exists and subsists by virtue of the inexhaustible qualities inherent in each. There are innumerable individuals, and also groups of beings, including Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, celestial beings, mankind, furious spirits, beings in the purgatories, etc. Their respective characteristics are unmistakably distinct, but their qualities and conditions are constantly subject to change, because in each of the beings are inherent the qualities manifest in others, the differences arising simply from the varying configuration of the manifest and the potential qualities. Moreover, even taking the existences as they are at a given moment, they cannot subsist but by mutual interaction and influence. To subsist by itself by no means signifies to be separate from others; on the contrary, to interact one with another is the nature of every particular being. These features of existence are the laws or truths (dharma), and the cosmos is the stage of the infinite varieties and interactions of the dharmas, in other words, the realm of ‘mutual participation’.”
Masaharu Anesaki- Nichiren The Buddhist Prophet
“If our humanity is found and developed within the context of relations with other people, unbridled individualism is a condition stripped of these connections. The respectful acknowledgement of the existence of others is always predicated on the ability to master and rein in one’s private desires, and this cannot be developed except within the framework of human interaction. There is thus an intolerable vacuity at the heart of such extreme individualism, an instability and insecurity that haunts it and proves the extent to which it is estranged from any normal, healthy way of being. It is ultimately incompatible with our striving to be human.”
Daisaku Ikeda- 2006 Peace Proposal
“Both early Buddhist teachings and systems theory emphasize that causation, as the interaction of mutually conditioning phenomena, entails the radical impermanence of these phenomena. Entities are ever-changing, because they participate in and are subject to relationships in a world constituted by relationships.”
Joanna Macy – Mutual Causality In Buddhism And General Systems Theory
“In his life-form the individual is necessarily only a fraction and distortion of the total image of man. He is limited either as male or as female; at an given period of his life he is again limited as child, youth, mature adult, or ancient; furthermore, in his life-role he is necessarily specialized as craftsman, tradesman, servant, or thief, priest, leader, wife, nun, or harlot; he cannot be all. Hence, the totality- the fullness of man- is not in the separate member, but in the body of the society as a whole; the individual can only be an organ. From this group he has derived his techniques of life, the language in which he thinks, the ideas on which he thrives; through the past of that society descended the genes that built his body. If he presumes to cut himself off, either in deed or in thought and feeling, he only breaks connection with the sources of his existence.”
Joseph Campbell- The Hero With A Thousand Faces
“To ‘experience the full realm of Buddhahood’ refers to the doctrine of the ten factors. One comes to fully realize and understand that these ten factors and the Ten Worlds are mutually inclusive, that the causes and effects of the Ten Worlds and the ten factors, the two types of wisdom provisional and true, and the two kinds of realms are all contained
within one’s own life, within everyone’s life without exception, and hence one can fully comprehend the Buddha’s words.”
WND Vol. II page 854
“Everything flows.”
-Heraclitus
Posted by joeisuzu at August 3, 2009 07:47 PMJoe –
Is it just me or did you go kind of deep on us with this one?
I keep checking back to see who’s going to comment and how… but so far nada.
Here are some of my musings, which feel more like ramblings the more I read them but anyway, here goes…
As for some of your favorite sources for reflection on the human condition, Shakespeare has always intrigued me. Not so much his works – of course they are what they are and they speak for themselves – but Shakespeare, the man is what always got me. My first observation about him, way back in adolescent English Lit, was that he wore an earring.
I never noticed if all 16th century Englishmen did so, but noticing his, was pretty cool to a Catholic schoolgirl bored in lit class. Then there’s the whole born and died on the same day thing, in an abstract way that feels very “Buddhisty” to me, in the cause and effect -complete the circle- ichinen sanzen sense. I don’t think this is where you were gong with this one, but it’s where I ended up.
As for Star Trek, I never got into it. I have observed that people either LOVE it or they don’t – there is no “middle way”… hummmm? The closest I’ve come to Star Trek are reruns of Boston Legal (William Shatner – Denny Crain) now there’s some human condition dredged in blue, cheesy, comedy.
And, I mentioned in another thread about presently re-reading the Lotus Sutra. I always have to put it down for a while, somewhere around the Phantom City – but as best as I can surmise, the entire thing we call life is one giant expedient means to/for something else, though I’m not sure what. But not to be confused with something after life, but rather something else, along with life - an undercurrent so to speak, that most of us miss, by being caught up in life itself. Does that make any sense? Studying the Lotus Sutra, as one who calls herself a Buddhist, has reminded me of the handful of people I’ve known who get half way through seminary then questioned if they were in fact Christians. I’ll pick it up again in a few more days - Just not now.
And speaking of undercurrents – I happened to flip through a copy of “All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten”, by Robert Fulghum, yesterday, where he tells a story about how all the dust in our homes, under our beds, behind our desks and bookcases, are a combination of minute particles of us (exfoliated skin, and hair) and meteorites - disintegrated as they hit the earth’s atmosphere. Joe, there’s stardust behind your fridge! Fulghum agrees with Sagan, in that, we are the stuff of stars.
Yup, everything flows…so much so that you can’t step in it twice.
Rouge~
Posted by: Rougebuddha at August 6, 2009 01:12 PM"All I Need Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten"
And Star Trek
What 's in a name? A Rouge by any other name would smell as sweet.
Makiguchi found life's values to be Beauty, Gain and Good. He substituted Beauty for Truth in Aristotle's triad of values, Good, Gain, Truth.
I wonder if this has something to do with the question, "Is there in truth no beauty?"
Of course there is beauty but as is often said it is in the eye of the beholder. You can discuss a painting in terms of symetry, contrast, and colors. These will be somewhat objective but whether or not the painting is beautiful is a matter of opinion.
But isn't truth the same way? It is subjective based on position and perspective.
I don't know that any of these values hold up. In order for one person to gain something it would seem that someone else must lose. The exception would be non-material things like knowledge or love.
Generally speaking I would be of the opinion that in life there is no value or meaning beyond that which you decide is there. The existentialist position.
But back to the question, "Is there in truth no Beauty?" I would say truth and beauty are everywhere but you need the qualities that enable you to see them.
Clown,
“But back to the question, "Is there in truth no Beauty?" I would say truth and beauty are everywhere but you need the qualities that enable you to see them.”
Well said.
If I may, let me comment upon what you’ve written and perhaps I can add a flavor or two.
“But isn't truth the same way? It is subjective based on position and perspective.”
Kant argued that “reason” was faulty because the person doing the reasoning was subjective. But then he also argued that there was a “truth” that existed and was beyond subjective reasoning because the empirical data had to go through a filter. Get rid of the filter to see the authentic truth. Pascal had the same idea. Except he had a religious epiphany, which he never told anyone about until after his death, and it was found sewed into the lining of his coat which explained what he experienced, but only on a subjective level. This is the same argument for substituting wisdom for faith, which supposedly leads to an authentic truth, which I argued about previously. Kierkegaard expanded on Kant and turned that into existentialism, and that put humanism into the equation.
Neil deGrasse Tyson has an interesting perspective which I find refreshing in speaking towards the checks and balances of the scientific process:
“Perhaps science is not the best way to answer all questions. That would lead to ‘Scientism’. Science has the capacity, without equal, as far as possible, to remove our own urges to delude ourselves. That is the fundamental element of the scientific process: the tacit recognition that our five senses are faulty data taking devices. They need help.”
He was also talking about the “qualities” you mentioned, but from another avenue.