The two readings seem to me to have both similarities as well as dissimilarities. They are similar in the following ways: both are life philosophies that do not include the concept of god. Instead, they both examine what humans are to due if there is no god and humans are the main focus of living. Instead of pleasing god, we should attempt to improve the human condition. In “Existentialism,” Sartre examines the implications of god’s nonexistence saying, “The existentialist thinks it very distressing that god does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him.” Though not stated explicitly in the Zen readings, Zen Buddhism begins with the observation of suffering. For example, the “tigers” in “A Parable” are symbols of suffering or at least potential suffering. The strawberry may be a symbol for nirvana or at least finding contentment in the midst of suffering. So both of the readings are similar in so far as they view the human condition without a god. But they also have some dissimilarities: the main focus of Zen is to eliminate suffering, while the point of Existentialism is to simply convince one of their own lack of value. Zen is an answer to a problem, while Existentialism creates a problem. So in the “Muddy Road” one of the monks still carries the idea of the young, beautiful girl with him thus causing suffering. To eliminate that suffering, he must leave the idea of her in the forest. In “Existentialism,” Sartre asks more questions then he does answer them: “Am I really the kind of man who as the right to act in such a way that humanity might guide itself by my action?”
i definitely have to free with your statement that "zen is an answer and existentialism creates a problem." i found it interesting in "Learning to be silent", the student felt as though it was the servants duty to keep the lights going and that since the lights were dimming it caused him so much distress that he broke his vow of silence. The other three, then followed in suit, stating that he was the reason they couldn't focus on their vow of silence because h broke his. In reality, the first student breaking his vow has absolutely nothing to do with the others breaking theirs. Zen is a mid set of peace, and you are the only one who has control over that mind set. Bad example, but in the TV show Blue Mountain State, the football captain has to learn how to control his anger or he gets kicked off the team. When Thad finds his zen, he becomes the biggest push over and won't even sack the QB. He had entered such a state of zen, that not even his passion for football and winning could snap him out of it. Zen is not something that can be altered simply. it is designed to be strong enough to stabilize you through even your hardest times. Existentialism is what makes you question your ability to control yourself, and is therefor the problem to keeping the zen inside alive.
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian I cannot agree necessarily with what these readings tell us about the nonexistence of God. But I do understand how they go about their lives. The Zen Parables reading really was an interesting reading because it was stories of monks, whom basically had trouble not breaking the rules which were set for them to follow. In the Muddy Road section it talks about how these two monks were crossing a very muddy intersection. One of the rules the monks must follow is that they must not go near females. Even though this is a rule one of the monks takes the girl and carriers her across the intersection so as not to get her muddy. Once he set her down that was all he thought of and she left his mind. Later on the other monk questions him about carrying the girl saying “it is dangerous. Why did you do that?” The truth of the situation is that even though the monk who carried the girl broke a rule, so is the man questioning him because he cannot get her out of his mind. I think that this represents the struggle for most humans to be able to stick to what our own societies and cultures tell us to do. We crave to experience something that we would not experience otherwise, even if it is not too serious of a situation. Breaking the rules gives us insight into how the other half lives and it interests us greatly.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you also on your interpretations of the readings. Agreeing with the fact that both do not include the concepts of god. In Existentialism Sartre states "...nothing exists prior to a plan; there is nothing in heaven; man will be what he will have planned to be. Not what He will want to be". To me meaning that man, any person, how you stated 'improve the human condition instead of pleasing god'. To just live life basically. In the Zen Parables I did although get a different idea in "A Parable". Hanging for his life on the wild vine, the man had two tigers above and below him. The story says "two mice, one white and one black, little by little started to gnaw away the vine". I thought to symbolize each mice as a good and a bad, gnawing away, risking this mans life. But he sees this one strawberry, takes it, eats and enjoys it without a care. To me, for a second, like he saw the "good and bad" (the mice) out of the situation. And for the lack of better wording, not letting life bite him in the ass.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these readings have nothing to do with God. I was not a big fan of Existentialism, though it had some good points. I found the Zen parables to be very interesting, thought there was no evidence of God, it showed how to find happiness in a time of suffering. The parable about the lion and man was a great example of finding happiness during a time of suffering. The Muddy Road was awesome; I love the idea of it. Even though it was against "the rules" for him to help the young girl, his motives were all in the right place. He was doing it strictly in the sense of helping, where as the other monk didn't. In Existentialism, Jean makes a point about how "everyone doesn't act this way." I agree I feel as if we, as mankind, have gone crazy as a whole, and could adopt this way of thinking.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analyzation of the two readings but another similarity that I noticed is that the concept of free will is present in both theories. According to the Zen Parables, desire is our downfall and to reach enlightenment or nirvana, we must give up all desires, which is essentially our own will. "But if existence really does precede essence, man is responsible for what he is. Thus, existentialism’s first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the full responsibility of his existence rest on him," Existentialism.
ReplyDeleteAnother similarity, as you mentioned is the fact that in both text, they neglect or in Existentialism, they denounce God's existence, or mention that his existence is irrelevant. "Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing." The Zen Parables does not state anything in particular to God, but just alludes to the fact that we can each reach enlightenment and end suffering on our own without the help of a higher power. Being a Christian, I do not agree with either theories that both texts state or don’t state about Christianity. When Sartre states, “if God exists, that it would change nothing,” I honestly feel like that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. That statement totally contradicts itself. If God does exist then your whole dang argument is complete garbage and is irrelevant to humanity, a waste of space, paper and ink.
I definitely agree that both readings are similar in viewing the human condition without a God. Both readings are what humans are to do if there is no God and that humans are the main focus. I cannot relate with the readings and how they talk about the nonexistence in God but reading them made me understand more how they live and think. In Existentialism Sartre I do not agree with what it said but by how it was explained, made me understand where they were coming from. The reading says”…there is nothing in heaven; man will be what he will have planned to be. Not what he will want to be.” He is saying live for yourself not for God and I disagree with that, but it also says there is no evidence in God. The reading does make good points and that’s why it makes me understand it more. It also says that if God did exist, it wouldn’t change anything. The reading tries to keep making points on why he thinks there is no existence in God and is really against it, so his ignorance is creating a barrier to ever believing there is a God.
ReplyDelete