[Dialogue] Grand Design

Tue May 22 12:23:30 PDT 2012

Steve,

I don't pretend to understand the zen references, but the point you made of the two domains having common ground is the classic understanding of "heaven and earth".  In ancient symbol systems it is represented by the intersection of two circles, the periphery of each passing through the center of each, giving you the "fish" as the common space, or that space where heaven and earth (spirit and matter, the Word becomes flesh etc.) are understood as one reality.  It is the reconciliation of the Center-Periphery dilemma.  (The co-existance of the One (center) and the Many (periphery) in a way that they communicate with mutual recognition).  It is also represented in geometry as the interaction of the circle and the square, with the circle being the eternal and the square being the temporal, or again, heaven and earth.  That is why sacred geometry is based on the "squaring of the circle" and can be found in Stonehenge, the Pyramids as well as other sacred sites.  It is also the reason why the mystical guild of the Masons has the compass and the rule as their symbol.  

So, as you point out, it's not just the recognition of two domains, which honor one another's domain, it is what is the common ground, what is the unifying understanding that both live in?  That is the question of the "Grand Design".  To simplify the present state of the dialogue, the scientific perspective says: "You need my understanding to live in today's world.  The rational, scientific explanation of the universe and how it functions is the ground all of us stand.  Although I appreciate your (the other circle) quests for meaning and, as you say, G-O-D, we really don't need it and we can declare ourselves comfortable with the one circle (what is REAL)and be agnostic or atheist and live just fine, thank you!"  

Now the response may be, "Well you're sure missing one hell of a lot that comes from my perspective (circle), and although I do recognize your explanations of how your "earth" side operates (evolution, law of physics etc.) as probably right, I don't have any way to speak how my circle penetrates your circle in such a way that we live and exist in common ground.  I surrender to the point that we all need you, but you don't need me."  The point being that as long as the "heaven" circle's contribution to the common ground becomes reduced to a question of Faith, then all you get are nice polite discussions like we see in the video.  The rules of understanding are set by the "earth" side of the common ground and the other side (heaven) has no rules that really make any difference, or compliments, the "earth" set of rules.  To put it another way, intuitive knowing doesn't count.       

For so many years the only response has been "You must believe (Saved, enlightened, meditate on the silence, etc.) before you grasp the common ground and benefit from the "heaven" side of the penetrating circle.  Then you grasp the Grand Design, etc."  But the aboriginal people had no trouble seeing and living in both worlds.  They saw and experienced the world of matter and spirit as one reality.  They intuited the living in both domains, or the "aliveness" of all.  When the common language that was used to refer to the common ground collapsed (the two story universe) than the capacity for the two circles to "talk" (communicate) with one another also collapsed.  The "aliveness" of all has no relevance or impact on how the "earth circle" is to be understood.  You can say the world is "intelligent" but you can't prove it and I can explain all without it (using my rules of course).  

This is much more than the creation of a new story (Myth) or even our work on the Other World.  For as beneficial as these are to the "heaven" circle and it's penetration and co-existance with This World, it is not enough.  We need a way to grasp (not an idea or belief or theory) intuitively and ground in experience how the common area of the two circles operates in such a way that all creation benefits, and indeed, creation itself unfolds.   It is, as Thomas Berry says, "The Great Work".

Jack

On May 22, 2012, at 10:53 AM, steve har wrote:

> Jack
> 
> I went to the zen center last night with your "provocative
> proposition" in the arena of scientific distinctions vs having a
> getalt, perhaps a mostly christian gestalt that holds heaven and earth
> more or less in the same unifying framework. [my take on your view,
> might not be your take on your view]
> 
> The words I carried with me from your last dialogue post were:
> 
> ..."You (John Epps) are very kind to Dawkins with your last statement
> "The two can co-exist......" because, although there is a general
> acceptance of evolution by most theologians (but not necessarily to
> the degree of mindlessness that Dawkins advocates), their side
> (Dawkins) does not recognize the other side at all.  All of the wonder
> and mystery will some day be understood as simply brain signals that
> trigger these feelings etc. etc.  So the whole "game" is played on the
> left brain rules of the game; logic, science and language.
> I'm not going to again make the case for an intelligence implicit in
> all things, but the ability to have a purpose to all this requires
> some direction, some purpose behind all the science activity.  The
> capacity to integrate experience and thus evolve into better survival
> capacity requires intelligence. Jack."
> 
> For those not acquainted with Soto zen...
> the ceremonial & study group I attended is a tradition of a 100 days
> study group that became a because of the rainy season hundreds of
> years ago which continues today.
> 
> There wasn't much for the monks to do except get out of the rain and
> gather together and among other tasks study something. The usual
> routine is
> -listen for the signal of the  "Han" -a wooden hammer striking a
> wooden announcement board inscribed with "the important matter of life
> and death
> -silent siting meditation
> -a 1on1 short private, sometimes public conversation between teacher
> and student often around a
> -a study of some text in sort of a bible study mode or maybe a
> literary seminar group at a college.
> 
> I was startled to hear Dosho Port -the seminar leader" take up a 1300
> Century paragraph for Dogen who was the founder of Soto Zen and the
> 1st person to write holy literature in Japanese instead of Chinese;
> sort of like Luther publishing 99 paragraphs in German instead of
> Latin [the real blasphemy'
> 
> The paragraph from Dogen was YOUR theme: "Even if there is a
> hair-breath of difference, you ar as far away as heaven from earth.
> This being so, the ultimate way is not difficult, it is just that
> selection is necessary" [talking about Awareness/Enlightenment]
> 
> The Rochester Zen Center took up this paragraph which is often treated
> as a zen koan and with poetry like:  "Zin Zin Ming" -- often
> translated as Faith or Affirming Faith in Mind [written by one of the
> oldest Chinese Buddhist teachers a kind of Joe Mathews character]
> 
> The Poem talks about the advantages/disadvantages of having
> distinctions or having a unified view and reads in part:
> 
> The Great Way is not diﬃcult for those who do not pick and choose.
> When preferences are cast aside, the Way stands clear and undisguised.
> But even slight distinctions made set earth and heaven far apart.
> If you would clearly see the truth, discard opinions pro and con.
> To founder in dislike and like is nothing but the mind’s disease.
> And not to see the Way’s deep truth disturbs the mind’s essential peace.
> 
> You can read the whole thing at:
> http://www.rzc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/RZC-chant-book-cropped.pdf
> 
> The Rochester Zen Center has spent some years trying to get the
> Chinese and Japanese into suitable English so it can be made into a
> proper Soto-style chant, which is a little like learning how write and
> perform current hip-hop. You can hear the Rochester Zen Center
> changing this poem here:
> http://www.rzc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Affirming-Faith-in-Mind.mp3
> 
> What's my point:
> 1. Dawkin's view may be a little scientific provincial, like his
> christian debaters are a little christian provincial.
> It is a big world out there.
> 
> There are a lot of people trying to find what it means to try to find
> a space to stand in that hyphenated space between This world -- The
> other world.
> 
> 2 And it is the reason I like your provocative propositions...and also
> -Joe Mathews talk on the Other World about 1972
> -John Epps 1996+ work on Other World in contemporary language not the
> coded  jargon of 1972  Other World Charts
> -the Jenkins translations of the New Religious Mode Chartes into 21C language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Steve Harrington
> _______________________________________________
> Dialogue mailing list
> Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net