總網頁瀏覽量

2011年2月7日 星期一

A Brush with Eternity

Yesterday I had a discussion with a friend about many things. One of the things we discussed concerns that eternal mystery some people call "God".  I said I felt frightened because I seemed to be wandering into a territory in which I could find little solid support from anything or anyone, as if I were stepping into empty space or a void. After I got home, I picked up a book "On God"  by J Krishnamurti and read the final chapter. It's entitled "From the Ending of Time, 2nd April, 1980". It is the record of a conversation between Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986), a famed spiritual thinker and writer and David Bohm (1917-1992), one of the foremost quantum scientists and theoreticians of the twentieth century, who participated in the Manhattan Project which led to the production of the first atom bomb, a fearless seeker of the truth, whether physical or metaphysical and author of the influential book Wholeness and the Implicate Order (1980).


Both Bohm and Krishnamurti feel that there is something beyond quantum physics, something ungraspable and Krishnamurti was asking whether our mind can move beyond theories, enter into another metaphysical reality, beyond words, beyond emptiness into a silence which is part of that emptiness. Bohm said, "I should say that." and that it is the territory of the absolute, something totally independent, entirely self-moving, self-active, something which is the cause of itself or the same thing, something that has no cause. Krishnamurti thinks that that emptiness is energy, energy which exists in silence but that there is something beyond even that, something much more immense, immeasurable, something much greater than that, something which is the beginning and ending of everything, something that is the ground (used as a metaphor) upon which everything else exist (space, energy, emptiness, silence etc), something which is the "death" or "ending" of the "particular" mind and even of the "universal" mind. He said, "I think it becomes almost inexpressible if you say the universal is gone, because expression is the universal. It is something which can never be put into words but which must be put into words" but that any attempt to put it into words makes it relative. Their idea is remarkably like the idea of LaoTzu that the Tao is nameless but that if we are forced to give it a name, we shall call it the Tao and Bohm said, " I think we have a long history of danger with the absolute. People have put it into words, and it has become very oppressive.".


If what Krishnamurti says is right, then God is something, some being, some entity, some Ground out of which everything arises and into which it dies so that God has no beginning and no ending. Bohm asked Krishnamurti: "What would it mean to talk of the ending of the universal?" Krishnamurti replied: "Nothing. Why should it have a meaning if it is happening? What has that to do with man?...That ground hasn't any relationship with man.".


Bohm poses the question that going about it logically, starting from the suffering of mankind, whether it's possible that such suffering originates from a wrong turning and man has got it wrong but Krishnamurti replies, "Yes, but man asks, help me to get past the wrong turn. Put me on the right path. And to that one says, please don't become anything...But man won't listen." To Krishnamurti, the barrier to that refusal is the "I", all our thoughts, all our deep attachments and thinks that if we can't leave these, then we will have no relationship with this "God" but man doesn't want to leave these! What man wants is some comfortable, easy way of living without any trouble, and he can't have that. Since without this relationship with this "God", this "Ground" of being, there is no meaning, hence people start to "invent" meaning. Bohm suggests that the ancient religions have said that God is the Ground and that "God" is "the attempt to put this notion a bit too personally perhaps." and Krishnamurti agrees because it gives them "hope", gives them "faith" and "make life a little more comfortable to live" and that if there is no "I", there is something else operating. Bohm thinks that the "Christian idea of perfection may seem rather boring because there is nothing to do!" Bohm was thinking of the idea of "creating" order, the subject of his book with F David Peat, "Science, Order and Creativity." (1987) .


It seems that both Krishnamurti and Bohm think that even if there is some metaphysical reality upon which everything which exists relies for their existence, it has no relationship with man. This is what I think too. But since this  is a rather bleak conclusion, most men are too weak to accept it and as a result they invent the idea of various gods or a God, who is the head of all other gods, much greater than Zeus (the Christian God is supposed to be all knowing, all powerful and all perfect and all loving and is ready to intervene on behalf of those who worship him and believe in him). It looks to me remarkably like an entirely human concept of normal social exchange between one man and another: "If you scratch my back, I will scratch your back" . The only difference in the relationship between this object of our social exchange and us and and our normal social or commercial exchange with the ordinary man is that that the opposite party to that exchange, the supposed being we call God is invisible but still somehow "omnipresent", much more powerful, much more knowledgeable and much more loving than our "normal" fellow human being. He is simply man's imaginative projection of what is the best, the most noble and the most powerful human being writ large, a kind of invisible but loving Superman! We are said to be created in the image of God. To me, it looks far more likely that we have fashioned our own God in the image of our own " ideal" self! We simply heap upon that concept everything we wish we might have been but are not and call him "God".



7 則留言:

  1. ELZORRO 開工大吉啦.要做未呀
    [版主回覆02/07/2011 09:13:00]Happy Chinese New Year! Of course, I got to work just like everybody else except those who are fotunate enough to be already in retirement!

    回覆刪除
  2. I believe god is just an “opinion” (or different opinions) of the human mind out of their bewilderment in the face of the ungraspable unknown. Human beings fashion an almighty supreme being out of different emotions: hope, submission, admiration, and even fear. As seen in different cultures, a god/goddess may not necessarily be a benevolent supreme being; he/she can be malevolent who needs to be “bribed” or pacified. Some natives for instance worship the volcanoes as gods, sacrificing human lives to allay their anger in return for a peaceful life. Fishermen invented 媽祖 to protect them from storms on their fishing trips. Women worship the phallus for fertility. In some cultures, farmers even copulate in the paddy fields during the sowing season in the hope of abundant harvest, etc. The creation of god in way amounts to Karl Marx’s slogan: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Isn’t it ironic that we humans always shout at the top of our voice for absolute freedom and yet deep at heart, we need a god to bind our every activity?
     
    [版主回覆02/07/2011 12:55:00]To me, god is not an "opinion". "god" is an invention of the human mind to help them deal with matters beyond their control. In like manner that we pacify the anger or win the favor of those who think have some kind of control over our fate, we offer sacrifices to our "gods". We have since learned much more about how various physical forces of Nature operate to cause results we either desire or fear e.g the causes of life, sickness, death, plagues, the causes of storms, floods, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, the weather, the origin of life and of the universe which have enromous and very real effects upon harvests of crops we rely upon for survival, the causes of the movement of sun, the moon, the stars, the way  Life operates etc, we now have far less need for supernatural "explanations".

    回覆刪除
  3. http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/unclebasketball 介紹你去睇睇我BLOG友的文章.
    [版主回覆02/07/2011 22:50:00]Thank you for your introduction. I have already read  it as well as the following:
    1. Michael Behe   Darwin's Black Box (96)
    2.  Kenneth R Miller's criticism of Behe in Finding Darwin's God (99)
    3.  Michael Ruse   Darwinism and its discontents (06)
    4.  Robert M Baird & Stuart E Rosenbaum (ed) Intelligent Design: 
        Science or Religion (07)
    It may not really be necessary to preach to the converted. Thanks any way for visiting and your suggestion.

    回覆刪除
  4. What is the meaning of suffering?
    Everybody has his or her suffering after born or before born ...
    who knows his or her first suffering?
    how it's first start?
    all come from our senses ...
    [版主回覆02/08/2011 00:22:00]Suffering comes with life. The Buddhists say they come from ignorance of the causes of suffering: avarice, anger, bafflement, lack of insight. The simple answer is that suffering arises from excess of anything. To me, the pains and suffering from the senses are much less terrible than those affecting our heart! 

    回覆刪除
  5. what is heart?
    where is it?
    without senses,  without heart ... ( i suppost so ... )
     
     
    [版主回覆02/08/2011 00:55:00]Our senses tell us what kind of physical pain we are suffering from but our heart (read brain ) causes emotional suffering far less easy to cure.

    回覆刪除
  6. Hello
     
    How are you doing? How do you feel now? How did you celebrate lunar new year? Did you do that this year? I didn't celebrate anything coz I thought it's boring and tedious. I have a confession that I'm late tenth and I'm already fed up with the uniformity of the festival.
     

    I've got a debate topic. I've to write a short essay about monetary points. We have altogether three teammates. And I'm resposible for presentation of points related to monetary value. May you do me a favour please? Here the topic is:
     
    That the psuedo-model phenomenon is a cause for concern in HK?
     
    I'm affirmative side so I have to argue for psuedo-model phenomenon being a cause in HK. No matter the phenomenon  brings about a good or bad impact, it's a concern. We should concern about this. For example, I'm going to say psuedo-models use their body to sell merchandise and this may make teenagers think wrong about how to make money.  Can you show me more about the other points that you can think of, please? Thank you so much.
     
    Wish you a happy new year.
     
    Regards,
    Preesa
    [版主回覆02/08/2011 18:22:00]Here're some of the points you may like to consider:
    1. whilst it may be argued that sex itself may be good because it is something which for biological reasons is capable of giving visual and tactile pleasure, it is most precious part of the human being normally used most sparingly to express the most intimate feelings between a man and a woman.Therefore, to use it for earning money will turn it into a mere commodity. This commodification of the young female body threatens to turn this most precious part of a girl's inherent faculty into an "object"and thereby lowers or diminishes her "dignity" as a human being. A human being is inherently more valuable than a mere object.
    2. displaying different parts of her arms, legs, breasts for public gazing the spectators of which may include males with lascivious intent. Such gazes may cause deep embarrasssment to the girl and depending on the inherent sensitivity of the relevant pseudo-model, may even cause her irrreparable psychological harm in that she may by constant exposure become completely desensitized to undressing before males. This may desensitize her to the extent that she may later be unable to respond to the natural amorous advances of her boy friend, lover or husband and thereby deprive her one of the most exquisite pleasures provided by Nature to cement the bond between a man and woman. This psychological harm cannot be quantified in monetary terms ie. no amount of money will adequately compensate her for the loss of this sensitivity.
    3. Flowing from 2, she may grow to dislike or be completely averse to having sex and even if she does, she may not respond naturally to the extent that she will be deprived of the chance of wanting to or be capable of actually completing the sexual intercourse for the production of children, one of the most precious resources of a society. This loss is so damaging that again, it cannot be quantified in monetary terms. 
    4. Commodification of the young female body will encourage those participating that the highest value in a society is money. Whilst money is important, there are other things which are equally if not even more important like self-respect, dignity, respect for the integrity and inviolability of the human body, the most basic, fundamental possession of its owner. Constant emphasis on money may overshadow or even completely obliterate such other human values.  
    5. If the pseudo-model is paid peanut money, which is likely because she is young and inexperienced, this in turn may cause her not to value that most precious resource that a person may have, her own body and thus cheapen her own self-esteem. Again, this may cause her incalculable psychological harm.
    There are other points you may usefully urge, of course. These are merely the ideas which occurred to me whilst trying to formulate an impromtu response to your request. Good luck.

    回覆刪除
  7. Thank you for your help. How about saying that they can encourage youngsters to work but only in a wrong way? They become psuedo-models to try to earn money themselves. There's nothing wrong about the working attitude itself. Essentially, they should be appreciated by their industrious mind, but not for their naive act. The thing wrong is that they are depreciating the image of female beauty as they feature sexy and mad behaviour and use thier bodies to advertise or sell some products...
    [版主回覆02/09/2011 03:40:00]I would say that if they are still students, then it is likely that their minds are still not yet fully developed and they are at a stage when their first priority at that stage of their lives should be to develop the potential of their mind. Working as pseudo models may encourage the idea that it is not really necessary to do that and they would still be able to earn good money. If so, this may retard the development of their full potential as balanced human being with not only a fully developed body but also one with a fully developed mind.
    If the way their images are presented to the public is not really that good, then it is likely that they may get some wrong ideas about what is really beautiful e.g. when their image is used to promote some excessively gaudy products in realy bad taste.  If so, then it may have the effect of "cheapening" the standards of female beauty with the secondary effect of influencing their fellow students' esthetic tastes.

    回覆刪除