[plasmid]

I'm curious about non-theist opinions on this matter, but theists are of course invited to participate and provide illumination as well. The almost universal development of religion in some form or other across many different cultures seems to indicate that there is a deep underlying drive to have some sort of religious experience which is embedded in many (if not to some degree all) humans. I doubt that it's purely due to primitive attempts to understand the universe before the development of science -- even with modern science and state endorsement of atheism, the Soviet Union still had plenty of believers. If religion as we know it were wiped from the face of the earth, it seems likely that it would simply resprout in some new form.

If this is the case (which is certainly open to argument) then would it not be in our best interest to fill this illogical but evident need with a religion that is as benign and perhaps even beneficial as possible? Most mainstream religions at least preach to love thy neighbor and straighten up and fly right and all that, whether or not it's actually put into practice. Christianity may stand to be improved regarding its opposition to stem cell research and discrimination against homosexuals to name a few issues. However, it was previously opposed to a non-geocentric solar system and abolition of slavery (in areas where it was profitable) and has since mended its ways, not without cost in the meantime, but the point is that it's adaptable.

Is it better to have such a mainstream religion fill the void of the masses who apparently can't do without it, or attempt to eliminate all but reason and leave open the chance for something much more uncontrolled and potentially malignant to take root in the open void (militant jihadists, or another Jonestown)? If something must fill the void but not any currently existing religion, would it be possible to design something better, bearing in mind that you have control only over the text of the holy doctrine but not people's interpretation and implementation of it, and that it must have enough of this intangible spiritualistic property that people crave in order to persist?

And the ultimate question: could you craft a doctrine to fill this need in such a way that its propagation would have an overall positive effect on humanity, and be so convinced in its potential that you would put forth whatever effort and resources were required to make it a reality? I have no intention of converting any nonbelievers into messiahs, I'm just curious what people think. Seeing as how we're on BrainDen, you can consider this a practical riddle.

Edited April 20, 2009 by plasmid

[plasmid]

Finally got internet access sorted out, thank the Essence. I just realized I never put anything in any of the parables yet about there not being an omnipotent, omniscient God. I'll add a line to the final speech from the Seventh Shepherd: "Likewise, do not accept teachings about an omnipotent, omniscient God, for such beliefs beget a mind geared for servitude rather than questioning and understanding the motives and consequences of your actions."

Everything seems almost ready for posting on a new thread. For the parable of the monk, we had kicked around a few ideas on what we should get across in it in posts 200-204, do you think a final version is starting to gel? Also, I'd still like to put together a story about how a denomination changes its ways: lots of interesting points could come up, not least of which is how change proposed by an individual would play out in a faith that puts so much emphasis on listening to others: From the point of view of the person proposing a change, everyone else would be thinking along the old established lines when the change in first proposed, so the person proposing change might feel like they're not being a very good Phronist. But getting pen to paper on such a story has been tougher than writing parables. I might just have to forgo it.

[plasmid]

The more I thought about it, the more I decided that I don't really need to proscribe a set formula for how a denomination should adapt to the times. The denominations can each find their own ways, or else get overtaken by new denominations that are better suited to the times. I've gone ahead and compiled all the stuff to start a new thread, and since this is big I'll give everyone a few days to look it over and point out things that may need to be added and make revisions before posting it (mostly because of the parables, but since they'll form the basis of the faith it's important to scrutinize them and get them right). And also to get an updated parable of the monk added if you want.

In this thread we took on the question: given the nearly universal appearance of religions across all societies, what is the best way to fill the apparent need that people have for religion with something that would have the best possible overall impact on humanity? The OP pointed out that going without a religion creates the potential for cults to sprout in the vacuum, and we don't want another Jonestown or militant faith springing up.

So here's what we came up with after >200 posts of everything from rational debates to food fights to kumbaya moments. Now we'd like some fresh perspectives on what we've got so far: Whether it would accomplish its goals. Whether important additions need to be made to better guide people through their lives or act as safeguards. Whether there are better ways of describing the origins of Phronism than our current story of a meeting of seven great religious minds (Diotima of Mantinea who taught Socrates, Zoroaster the prophet of Zoroastrianism, Confucius, Gautama Buddha, Laozi who founded Taoism, Mahavira of Jainism, and a person known as the "Seventh Shepherd" who some speculate to have been the prophet Malachi). And speculation as to what would happen if such a beast were released into the world (preferably more than just a "it wouldn't catch on" – or if so then point out things that it would need, aside from a bigger "Bible" which we currently only have the skeleton of).

Briefly: "the Essence" is all of the laws of nature (cause and effect anyway) rolled up into a single, only slightly anthropomorphized thing. Phronism is all about understanding the Essence and "harmonizing" with it, which means acting to create a better society. The specifics of how to do this are not laid down in core Phronist doctrine in very detailed terms; instead Phronism will have many different denominations to specify what is and isn't considered moral in light of local circumstances, prevailing customs at the time, and scientific advancements. People are free to choose which denomination they want to associate with, and are instructed in the parables that make up the core doctrine of Phronism to visit other denominations frequently (at least every three years) and choose the one that they find drives them to best harmonize with the Essence (do the most good for society). Initially some of the denominations will likely look quite similar to the current major religions as far as their superficial customs in order to make the transition from current religion to Phronism easier, but they will likely evolve over time because new denominations can spring up and people are required to periodically try out other denominations.

Phronists are actively encouraged to heed the advice of outsiders who offer sincere advice on what they believe is the best course of action, and are instructed to judge the words of Phronists and outsiders alike based not on who said them but on how much sense they make. Phronism's core doctrine is silent on the existence of God, although the possibility of an omnipotent, omniscient, interventionalist God is excluded and people are encouraged toward action to harmonize with the Essence (improve society) rather than prayer and sacrifices to a God as the path to fulfillment. As for "afterlife", Phronism describes only a merging back with the Essence to enjoy an existence with bliss proportional to how well you harmonized with the Essence during your life.

Phronism is the pursuit of a noble course in life through prudent actions. It uses the concept of "the Essence" that drives the flow of events – a representation merging everything from the most basic laws of physics to the rules of behavior for intelligent people interacting within complex societies. The Essence includes science and extends beyond it, binding humans with the great mysteries of life and existence currently beyond understanding. Phronism encourages a vigorous pursuit of understanding the Essence through rational thought and imaginative intellect while simultaneously celebrating its sheer awe-inspiring depth and complexity, with the ultimate goal of using this knowledge to "harmonize" with the Essence: to act in ways that promote a safe, prosperous, and caring society.

Understanding this Essence and becoming one with it is our primary mantra. Phronism currently finds no evidence for afterlife (survival of consciousness after death), but instead anticipates a reconnection with the eternal Essence in ways that are determined by the legacy of our actions throughout life. We believe in no infallible or omnipotent gods, and avoid indulging in prayer, sacrifices, or other forms of worship that might distract from taking action toward useful ends. We instead believe that people's acts shape the Essence, manifesting itself in our daily lives by a karma-like reciprocity. We espouse harmonizing with the Essence by following the idealized "golden rule": "Do unto others what will benefit them most."

Phronism itself flows as does the Essence, constantly adapting to the sensibilities of the times and scientific and social advancement. It has a fluid, open structure that naturally engenders its own evolution: it has limited central leadership (the parables of Samarkand that form its core, and yearly meetings of the denominations described below) and, through a system of freely evolving, cross-fertilizing and self-correcting "denominations", mechanisms to prevent corruption, infighting, extremism or crusadism. It gives total freedom to its members to change within and out of the system. It appreciates the insights and views not only of members but of any person with sound reasoning and noble intentions. It is open to new ideas and opens its member's minds to think about everything around them and to learn more about themselves, their friends and the universe. It re-affirms the original meaning an purpose of religion: to re-connect the people with one another and with every level of reality from the parochial to the Essence. It extends beyond religion to being a true World Philosophy.

Phronism is based on the remaining oral traditions only recently pieced together of a meeting of seven great religious thinkers that took place in Samarkand at about 500 BC. Although it could not flourish at that time, it is currently undergoing a resurgence...

The Seventh Shepherd, on questioning words regardless of the speaker

After a long day of discussion at the council, the Seventh Shepherd walked out to the quiet hills outside Samarkand to reflect. But he noticed a crowd gathering and following him. "Teach us, master," they cried, "what has the council learned of God?" And so despite weariness from the day's deliberations the master spoke. "God says thusly," he began. "All persons have the manifest destiny to influence the course of events, acting to impact the community of all other living things – even the Earth itself – and so to steer everyone's and everything's path into the future. As such, the world's destiny is in each of our hands. We are each entrusted with this great responsibility, and for guidance to carry it out dutifully we must employ all tools at our disposal. Toward this end, one's spiritual consciousness must be unified with one's reason. Men do this best in community, for reason often fails the individual striving alone for truth. Those who stop improving or eschew reason are acting blindly and risk ruin for themselves and all around them. Each day is a cycle of habitation in physical body and spiritual pursuit while one's spirit takes shape. For most people, a striving toward balance, meditation in search of the guidance and support from one's ancestral past, consultation with the wise, and sincere veneration of truth is sufficient to find guidance for their actions so that they may shape a better future. Those with strong motivation to shape destiny may study nature to understand its inner workings and thereby know how best to guide it. Others may consult my Word. In invoking the Word of God, however, exquisite care is required to ensure alignment of thought and action, of humility and strength, of reason and divine guidance."

The Shepherd paused, gazed upon the people kindly and spoke again. "I ask you now: Why should men heed these words?" An eager seeker responded quickly, "Because they are the Word of God! Have we not now heard His voice, as if spoken through your mouth?" The Shepherd replied, "This is not the reason. The prudent man weighs the words rather than the speaker of them. How do you know that I did not just lie to you? Indeed, how do I myself know that I am not suffering from delusion and attributing wild thoughts to God? Judge words. Put them to the test. If they are wise and guide you toward honesty, compassion, and the courage to act with integrity then heed them. If they defy all reason and guide you down the path of corruption, hatred, and sloth then have nothing to do with them. Such would be a wise course whether you hear words from a prophet or from a child." As the seven met in council again the following day, the followers themselves met to discuss the wisdom of what the Seventh Shepherd had just told them, for now they began to understand.

Laozi, introducing the Essence

A group of followers waited outside for the Seventh Shepherd to emerge from the day's deliberations, but it was Laozi who first stepped out. The followers questioned him, "Laozi, we have discussed what the Seventh Shepherd told us, and we believe it may be true. Please then, teach us what more you have learned about God today?" Laozi responded, "You wish for me to tell you about God? How curious is this. Perhaps it is I who should be asking you about God, for you at least know to ask of him. Had I never heard of Zoroaster, I should not walk up to someone and say 'Tell me of Zoroaster' for I would not know the name. In fact, I should have no reason to ask of Zoroaster at all until someone had already told me something of him and I wished to learn more, or unless I saw him and asked another man 'Who is that person over there?' but I would not know to use the name Zoroaster. But here you come asking me to tell you about God, so you must already know something of this God. Did the Seventh Shepherd describe God to you the other day, or do you know him through some other means? Tell me."

A follower answered, "He spoke the word of God with his voice." Another follower corrected him, "He told us words that might have been from God. We have discussed them and believe they may be true regardless of their source." Laozi then said, "Is this all you can tell me about God, some words that might or might not have been said by him? There are several things I might speak about, but you want to know about God which is a name I do not find meaning in. How should I recognize this God you speak of so that I might explain this thing to you?"

A third follower answered, "Ancient scripture taught to me declares that God made the heavens and the Earth. He created us. He makes the plants grow, and gives the animals life. He brings the sun and the rain. He is the one we should worship." Laozi then said, "How did the hand that wrote these scriptures come to know that all these things emanated from one great being? Regardless, you have now given me a question I can address: who is this 'one' that gives life to the plants and animals, and brings the sun and the rain. You have formed ideas about this thing 'God' that you thought you knew, yet you were merely given words from a hand in an ancient book, or from the voice of a humble Shepherd. But hear me: things of power must not be named until they may be called by their proper names. So you do not attribute these ideas you had about 'God' to the thing I describe, let us give it a different name. Let us call it 'The Essence'. This is what brings the sun and the rain, and what brings life to the plants and animals. It is what brings the wind and the waves, what drives fire to dance. It is what gives breath to a living man and light to his eyes, and what makes the mountains keep their shape instead of crumbling like sand. You want me to describe this thing, 'The Essence', to you? In council we ponder this deeply. For indeed, the Essence ought to be explained to the people. Let me say simply now, just this: The Essence obeys its own laws - laws that men do not fully comprehend. The sun and the moon fly through the skies in patterns. New life looks similar to its predecessors: a goat does not beget a monkey. It is our noblest duty to learn these laws. For if you know how the Essence will act, you will know how to act yourself. A farmer would plant seed where crops might grow, but avoid land that will be scorched by fire. Tell me now, is this what you wanted to know about when you asked me of 'God'?"

A follower said, "It is not what I expected; but I thirst for your teaching. Please tell us more about the Essence." Laozi smiled and gazed beyond the horizon, "One might spend a lifetime learning about the Essence and not understand it completely. But you have taken the first step for now, you have begun to call this thing of apparent power by its proper name."

Diotima of Mantinea, on the nature of the Essence and rejoining it

Diotima was restless after the day's discussion with the six others. Unable to sleep, she began to pace. Her thoughts were interrupted by sounds from a neighboring room, and because she was expecting no visitors she went to investigate. There she found one of her traveling companions lying with a local man who Diotima knew spoke sweetly to the women. Diotima left them for the night, going unnoticed, but the next morning she approached her fellow traveler. "Last night, when you were visited by that local man, do you think you were acting wisely with him?" Knowing that she had been discovered, she was too embarrassed to answer, so Diotima continued, "Such men are but beggars whose only art is casting illusions to draw you near. They will leave you with nothing save an illness or a child with no father. You would do well to avoid them." "Diotima, surely he loved me! He told me things I had never heard from any man before. I listened to my heart, and it told me to be with him." But as soon as the words left her mouth, the traveler thought the situation over and realized that she was acting foolishly and recanted. Diotima continued, "Their behavior springs from a deep wish to live forever. Not being capable of this, they instead seek to live forever through their seed. But even that is failing to understand the situation. We have long known that it is not our flesh but our ideas that most define who we are, and such men are foolish enough to spread their flesh but do not pass on their ideas."

The traveler then said, "Were he only like us, seekers of truth. Surely we will find the answers, and as the others have said we will not have to settle for passing on our ideas to others because we will have eternal life itself." Diotima recalled the previous day's discussion and responded, "It does not seem that they are entirely correct. The Essence is no god like Zeus, and we do not simply live in its presence for all eternity. The Essence is something else entirely. It does not drive the sun like Apollo with a chariot and horses, and it does not fire an arrow like Cupid. Instead, the Essence is more like the waves and the wind, but reaching into everything around us. After we die, we do not live as we do now in a new land with the Essence; it would be more accurate to say that we join the Essence by becoming a part of it."

"Diotima, do you mean that we will have the powers of a god after we die? If this were true, imagine the things we could do. We would be able to so many great things for the world." As Diotima prepared to rejoin the others for the day she said, "You don't realize your own potential now. You might not have the power of the seas and wind, but you have your two hands. If you want to do great acts for the world, then now is the time." And so she left to meet the others.

Mahavira, on existence with the Essence

Mahavira came upon a woman in Samarkand who he found to be weeping, and seeking to comfort her, he asked why she wept. The woman answered that her husband had died, struck down by fever and festering boils, and she was sorrowful over the suffering he faced in his final days. But she wept most of all because, although her husband was a good man, he found little but suffering in this life. "Do you believe, then, that your husband's soul is gone? Far be it from the truth. At the end of the stream of life is a return to the Essence from which life is drawn. Do not grieve if your husband has returned." But the woman continued to lament for she believed that, as her husband had suffered in his life on Earth, so he would continue to suffer in his existence flowing back into the stream of the Essence.

Mahavira asked her, "Was your husband brutal, or a liar, or a thief, or a glutton, or full of avarice?" The woman answered that he was none of these. "Then his existence now with the Essence is free of pain and disease," said Mahavira, "Now tell me: was your husband faithful, and was he wise, and did he conduct himself well at all times?" The woman answered that he was. "Then at the end of his stream of existence here, in his existence with the Essence, is a safe and happy and quiet place." At this, the woman began to wonder if her husband might have attained Moksa, and asked if he had reached a state of eternal bliss. Mahavira asked, "How had your husband lived and even perceived his life? Did he see pleasure and pursue it, and did he see pain and try to avoid it? Or did he instead see his duty, and carry it out faithfully regardless of the pleasures or pains it might bring?" This the woman could not answer. "Then I cannot tell you whether he is in eternal bliss with the Essence," Mahavira answered, "but know this: we all return to the Essence at some time, and I have told you now what must be done to achieve the ultimate state with the Essence. You yourself have the opportunity to do so if you follow this path, as do all those around you. Do so, and teach others to do likewise."

Confucius, on reciprocity of the Essence

Confucius was deep in thought as he walked a road by the fields of Samarkand when a farmer saw him and approached. The farmer came holding another man at knife point and asked Confucius, "You are one of the men of the Phronist council, are you not? I have caught this thief stealing from my fields! How should I punish him in accordance with your faith?" Confucius looked to the thief, "Have you stolen from this man's farm?" "Yes, Confucius, I stole from him. Is this a sin? If so, let your Essence strike me down. I say there is no justice from your Essence. I grew up without my parents and rarely knew the shelter of a house, but what had I done to deserve such a fate while I was just a child? If fairness is not dealt to me then I need not grant it to others. Let your Essence that knows no justice be the one to punish me. It is inept and I fear nothing from it."

"Do you expect that the Essence should watch your every move, pay you promptly for every kind act, and punish all who cross you before they leave your sight? With every evil deed you tarnish yourself, and whether repaid immediately or not, you mark yourself for suffering. Good men are not paid for every act they perform, but by developing noble habits and becoming an honorable person they pave the way to happiness and contentment." Confucius turned to the farmer, "Samarkand has laws. Let the authorities punish this thief."

The thief taunted Confucius, "See, your Essence is powerless to bring justice! You are a fraud, deceiving your followers." Confucius answered the thief, "The Essence flows through everything, including the authorities. How did you expect it to act?" Confucius again turned to the farmer, "Just as the Essence brings punishment to this man for stealing, so this man was a punishment for you. Do the people of Samarkand cast children to the street? Do people of means give no way for those without to be a useful part of their society? If that is the case, you have just faced your own punishment at the hands of the Essence."

Zoroaster, on how to harmonize with the Essence

The followers were daily learning more about the Essence, and they began to understand that it was no mere idol demanding prayer or sacrifice but a force that is guided by every action they take. Yet the followers still lacked direction to channel their efforts. So as the council dismissed for the day, a group of them approached Zoroaster and asked, "Our actions shape the flow of the Essence and determine how we will ultimately exist with it, do they not?" Zoroaster replied, "Any one person's actions may influence the Essence and thereby affect the world around us, and they will affect both your ultimate existence and your existence now. The Essence should be your partner, your efforts must harmonize with it for you to achieve fulfillment."

"Then Zoroaster, if our actions are so important: how ought we to act?" Zoroaster answered them, "As your existence helps shape the Essence, the Essence shapes the lives of everyone else. The most noble of paths would have the Essence bring the world peace and prosperity, understanding of the world around us, imagination to create works that stir our hearts and minds, courage to explore new paths, and compassion to help our fellow man. Guide the Essence toward this end with your acts, and help others do the same with your speech. Focus your thoughts ever on this goal so that you can see clearly how to achieve it. With these right thoughts, right speech, and right acts, your life can harmonize with the Essence for the betterment of all."

Mahavira, on listening to outsiders

As Mahavira was returning home, he saw in the distance a man who he recognized from a gathering of those who now called themselves "Phronists". Drawing nearer Mahavira watched as the man drew out from his robe a branch, and baring his back, he began to beat himself with it. When Mahavira drew nearer, he asked the man why he was flogging himself. "Mahavira," the man said, "I am practicing ascetic ways. I am forsaking my own worldly pleasures and comforts so that I might achieve loftier goals." Mahavira saw that the man did not fully understand his actions, but he did not correct the man himself. Indeed, Mahavira knew that although he might be able to correct this one mistake, he would not always be there to correct every mistake the man might make. So instead, Mahavira asked "Have you spoken with any of the others about this? Do they agree that striking yourself is a wise path?" The man answered, "No, but the other Phronists are only men just as I am a man. If we should disagree, then who is to say which of us is right and which is wrong? I have faith that my course is wise." Mahavira saw onlookers who watched as the man flogged himself, and he pressed the man again, "Look around you. Do you see those people over there staring at you? What do you suppose they think of your acts?" The man responded, "Why should I care what they think of my acts? They are not even Phronists! Their words are useless to me."

At this Mahavira became most concerned, and he called the onlookers forth and explained what the man was doing, and asked them if they thought it was wise. One of them said, "This seems foolish. You are beating yourself to deny yourself comfort, but what are you accomplishing? If you wish to deny yourself comfort, then go plow a field. Then you would not only be practicing asceticism, but you would produce a harvest in the Autumn." After the onlooker left, Mahavira asked the man what he thought of the advice. Again the man said that the onlooker's words were useless because he was not a Phronist. Then Mahavira said, "Would you have accepted the same words had they come from my mouth? Because I tell you truthfully, I would have said the same thing." The man was silent for a moment, but then asked "Surely you do not want me to live my life by the whims of an outsider, do you?" Mahavira answered, "Had the man mocked you, or tried to swindle you, or told you that his God has other commandments then you should ignore him, for his God is likely a figment of his imagination. But this man spoke to you as an outsider with no malice toward you, no eagerness to see you make a fool of yourself, and with full sincerity. You should consider such advice carefully. Beyond that, he gave reasoning with his words. Nowhere have we said that Phronists are always right, nor have we said that non-believers are always wrong. Reason is the best guidance that humans have, so do not forsake it no matter where it comes from."

Buddha, introducing the denominational system

As the young Phronist faith was taking shape, the followers began to disagree about the proper ways of observing the faith. The Hindu practice of cremating bodies was bewildering to the Egyptians, and the Hellenic sacrifices of cattle were reprehensible to the Hindus. The seven discussed this mounting discord in their council, and Gautama Buddha then addressed the followers:

"You each carry your own traditions, your own scriptures, and your own lessons from past teachers that now shape your beliefs. I submit that you should not rely so heavily on such sources of wisdom. The Essence makes itself manifest, for it is what gives the world its form and its function. Every day we interact with the Essence, and so we each learn about it through our own experiences. This experience will guide you in discerning what practices should be followed. When you know that a practice is good and that it is blameless, follow it. When not only your teachers but many wise men praise a practice, follow it. When a practice leads to the benefit and happiness of yourself and all others while avoiding suffering, follow it.

"Because you come from different lands with different customs, by no means must you all follow the same set of practices. Such practices do not define Phronism itself. They are merely different means of harmonizing with the Essence. For that reason, those of you who have found the practice of arranged marriage to lead to greater harmony than allowing each to find their own spouse should continue to do so as long as this is judged to be wise. Those of you who shun alcohol because of the disharmony it breeds, continue avoiding it as long as this course is judged to be wise. Since different groups of people will find different ways of harmonizing with the Essence, let them each form denominations of Phronism to practice the ways that they have found to be fit. Although each will be different in their own ways, these denominations will all be part of Phronism, united in their dedication to understand the Essence, expand the Actual, and benefit all of humankind."

Later, when these words of the great Buddha reached the people, the master was approached by a follower and questioned. "Revered One, we have learned that Phronists are to form various denominations that are instructed to travel to one another to exchange wisdom and understanding. You have traveled far to come to this council. Men of ordinary means cannot abandon their fields and flocks and make such an epic sojourn. What are we to do?"

The great Buddha heaved a deep sigh. His eyes lifted wistfully toward the sky as he responded. "My child, Phronism is a patient faith. I foresee a day when the teachings of Phronism have been completely forgotten for precisely the reason of the difficulty of our many denominations to stay in contact. But this is as it must be. For it is prophesied that the great Mithra, the Maitreya shall not arrive to provide the true dharma of the Essence until a far day when the oceans seem to have decreased in size such that the true dharma, the knowledge of the Essence of Phronism, may traverse the seas freely. In this time will the revival be readied, and Phronism shall finally flower. Be patient, my son."

Confucius, on selecting a denomination

As Confucius left the council for the day he was set upon immediately by a group of followers. "We have heard the instructions to each follow a denomination in our pursuit to harmonize with the Essence. How should we identify which of the denominations sets forth the best commandments?" Confucius responded, "Commandments? Laws may prevent people from doing harm, but guide a man by laws and you will only teach him to avoid the punishments that violation brings. If you seek to carry out Acts of Legacy, find those who can teach you virtue and excellence, for this will not only prevent you from doing ill but will drive you toward doing good. Those who know virtue and excellence cannot help but show this in their daily lives. They are the ones who act towards all others just as they would wish for others to act towards them. Their examples may be your instructor. Furthermore, seek those who not only know virtue but are able to teach it. If you see greatness but this does not drive you to greatness yourself although you make a sincere effort, then find a better teacher."

"Very well. We shall set forth to look for someone perfect in his virtue from whom to learn." Confucius was amused at this and said, "One with perfect virtue? Such a man I have yet to know. You might spend all of your life looking for this man and none of it learning. Let the man beside you be your teacher: select his good traits and emulate them, and if you see faults then avoid them. But unless you should find this perfectly virtuous man you speak of, do not stay with only one denomination. After three years of learning you should have learned something, if you are to learn anything at all; at that point go forth and look for others from whom to learn. Find and adopt the virtuous aspects of many people, and you will have few regrets."

The Seventh Shepherd's closing speech at Samarkand

Humanity struggles to fulfill our potential as it emanates from the Essence, and much remains to be learned and understood. Connecting with the Essence is an endless quest along a path that will be increasingly revealed as humanity parts the veil of the unknown through reason and sober study. While science reveals the mechanics of nature, it remains silent on our overall purpose, and for this we turn to the Essence. Purpose implies a need to act, and our Acts of Legacy will define our relationship with the Essence. To harmonize with the Essence: Help others, be generous, be reliable. Do not harm others, steal, or lie. Learn throughout your childhood, and fulfill your potential as an adult. Find something you do well that will benefit society and do it. Understand at all times that faith is a supplement to, and not a supplanter of, reason; it is a way to see the world that will lead to fulfillment, and its worth is measured by the degree to which it accomplishes this goal.

It is fit that there be many denominations of Phronism, for not all people are alike, and diversity helps humanity flourish. The denominations shall each have their own customs and ways of harmonizing with the Essence. As it is important for people to each find their unique role in the harmony of the Essence, it is imperative for them to visit other denominations from time to time and experience their ways, and thus find their place in the world. As it is important to have many denominations, so it is important to have people outside Phronism who can view it objectively and dispassionately. Outsiders that understand the world through mankind's endeavors are to be welcomed, for they offer a unique perspective and often seek to advance humanity as the followers do. But beware if outsiders bring ideas that are based not on reason but on unsubstantiated beliefs such as gods, for these may be illusions of human imaginations that guide the way to decay. Likewise, do not accept teachings about an omnipotent, omniscient God, for such beliefs beget a mind geared for servitude rather than questioning and understanding the motives and consequences of your actions.

Human understanding of the Essence is a never ending quest requiring the joint efforts of many, and humanity's understanding should be reviewed from time to time. Phronist councils should take place to review what is known, and when a more complete description of the Essence becomes clear it will be shared with the followers. The council must also evaluate whether people's practices truly guide the Essence to positively affect people's lives. If denominations need to be altered to harmonize with the Essence, they will be so instructed, or will be excluded from Phronism if they cannot harmonize. The council will evaluate new denominations and determine whether they harmonize with the Essence, and will admit those that do into Phronism and allow them to participate in the council.

Procedural details have not yet been worked out, but the idea is to have an annual meeting of denomination representatives to conduct business, including evaluating groups who want to establish a new denomination within Phronism. The path to forming a new denomination starts with simply putting up a shingle (so to speak) and getting people meeting, then beginning to invite people from established Phronist denominations to come visit (they're supposed to be visiting other denominations every once in a while anyway), and finally appearing at an annual council and ask to have the people who visited evaluate whether or not you're a suitable denomination.

The council will also evaluate the current denominations and offer input on whether or not changes to their practices should be considered. If offenses are considered very egregious with no realistic prospect for reconciliation, the council can decide to expel a denomination from Phronism and no longer encourage people to visit it. Changes may even be made to the interpretation of the core Phronist doctrine if a large enough percentage of the denominations support it.

[Guest]

I've read through all this material, and other than quibbling about wording I have nothing substantive to say.

I do feel strongly about including the monk parable, so I've taken it back to 500 BCE. Here's the new revision:

A wise monk from Samarkand, called the "Seventh Shepherd" by his followers, hosted the great council of the Phronist sect that took place around 500 BCE. One day shortly before the meeting he was walking along the top of the narrow Great Stone Quadrangle, a ruin said to be the site of a far more ancient Phronist gathering two thousand years before. He walked a continous route over the four walls, always going counterclockwise. At each cornerstone he chanted a brief phrase: at the first corner he said "I ponder the passing of this darkness into light and the Essence flows"; at the second "I observe my thoughts objectively and the currents divide"; at the third "I choose the noble course and the flow nourishes me"; and at the fourth "I drink of its waters and awake to a new light"; and so on.

A neophyte monk came up to the monk after watching his progress for nearly an hour.

"Why do you walk forever in such a route?" the neophyte asked. "You get nowhere."

"Do you not hear my chant?" the monk responded. "It is a form of meditation. I walk to celebrate the infinite, circular journey of Life, a journey into light, which has no beginning, no end and no destination."

"Wasn't it you who advised us to follow our own hearts to find meaning in life and to always enjoy its bounty? You seem to plod this worn and dreary path without purpose. Is there not so much more to life than this?"

"This is my greatest joy," said the wise monk. "Everyone celebrates life in a different way. You must respect this facet of Nature. You say I am walking without purpose upon these hallowed ruins, but your argument applies to any other action in life as well. The meaning is what we apply to it, there is no pre-ordained or mandated purpose. Each person's journey is his destination."

"But why do you enjoy life in this way that seems so tedious?" the neophyte wrinkled his brow into deep furrows.

"Because it is the course I choose," the monk responded.

"Choice?" the neophyte puzzled. "Master, the Silk Road trade has linked east with west. Traders and explorers and pilgrims pass through this city bearing thoughts as well as goods that dazzle the eye and the mind. The more we discover about the world, the more we seem able to break it down, smaller and smaller, into causes and their effects, actions and reactions. Surely the sum of our being is the result of much smaller bits, each acting according to the laws of the Universe, not by a choice in our individual minds."

The monk just smiled. "The manner of choice is mysterious. What is a choice? A decision based on experience and need. The currents divide before us many times with each heartbeat."

"Yes, but each path is determined by what came before, and by some random spark from the Essence that you have taught us produces equal degrees of good and ill."

"And what other influence would your reason allow?" the monk asked. "Call the good light, the ill darkness. Choose the light and your course in life will not be in vain."

The neophyte gave no response, but seemed deep in thought.

The monk spoke again. "This path I walk - is it not firmly rooted in what came before? Would you have me instead stumble about like a drunken madman? Would you have your decisions spring spontaneously from pure folly, not connected at all to the previous state of things? Or would you have me walk straight, unswerving, unquestioning, until I tumble off the high corner of this wall and plunge to my death while proclaiming that I did so because the guidance from the Essence is neutral, so that all choices are ultimately futile and without meaning?"

"Not at all, Master."

"Then study the currents as they divide and merge on that glorious braided river before you. Ponder and revel in your options, good and ill, for they are your living journey. You are already set in motion on strong currents. Draw upon them to choose your channel. The way your brain makes choices is tied intrinsically with the unique mix of currents that form you and no other, therefore it can always be said that you are choosing. Choose the noble course and let it nourish you."

At that moment, the frown left the neophyte's face; and he was enlightened. His eyes gleamed, and he gazed up at the Seventh Shepherd. "What is it I have just experienced, Master?" he asked, awed by the inexplicable power of the sensation.

"It is the power of the Essence. You have awakened and are beginning to merge with its flow," the monk said with a slight grin. "Through its infinte subtlety, the Essence is the real apex of choice. You may learn the fullness of what that means as you continue your journey."

"I find your meaning now, Master," the neophyte added, though now he was no longer a neophyte but a new inductee into his master's denomination. "Life is so simple!"

"Like the path around this foundation."

An hour later, a novice monk entered the Quadrangle after a short meditation exercise. She looked around and saw two wise monks walking around the rim of the Quadrangle, chanting at each cornerstone. Curious, she climbed the ancient stone steps and waited until they approached her.

"Why do you walk forever in such a route?" the novice asked. "You get nowhere."

[Guest]

Hey guys, I'll be back on topic in a week or so. I can't wait to wear out my eyes catching up on everything I've missed!

As for where I've been, my sig says it all. Things are looking up though, and by this time next week, I may have some very interesting news regarding Phronism... Wait and see.

[Guest]

Well, I've joined the ranks of the unemployed. Perfect timing.

The nerve of some employers - giving the boot to a new father. I wish you the best.

Hey guys, I'll be back on topic in a week or so. I can't wait to wear out my eyes catching up on everything I've missed!

As for where I've been, my sig says it all. Things are looking up though, and by this time next week, I may have some very interesting news regarding Phronism... Wait and see.

Now you've got my curiosity piqued. I can't wait! Be back soon.

[plasmid]

Sorry to hear the news, Grayven. I hope your circumstances improve soon, and I'll definitely hold off starting a new thread until after you get a chance to toss in your 2 cents.

As for the revised monk parable, the concepts of determinism and allusions to randomness arising outside the laws of classical mechanics seem too advanced for an ancient setting (or maybe I'm just not aware of how much people really knew back then.) Unreality originally had it set at the time of the Principia. That would allow it to address such topics, but would require something more low-key than a monk walking the walls of Phronist ruins. Instead of moving the parable back in time, how about if it were kept in the 17th century but dealt with a grandfather who knew of and passed down the Phronist legends and is teaching his kids?

[Guest]

As for the revised monk parable, the concepts of determinism and allusions to randomness arising outside the laws of classical mechanics seem too advanced for an ancient setting (or maybe I'm just not aware of how much people really knew back then.) Unreality originally had it set at the time of the Principia. That would allow it to address such topics, but would require something more low-key than a monk walking the walls of Phronist ruins. Instead of moving the parable back in time, how about if it were kept in the 17th century but dealt with a grandfather who knew of and passed down the Phronist legends and is teaching his kids?

I have several reactions to this: first it would seem incongruous to have a whole slew of 500 BCE parables and one from 1680 CE. First off, if it will help, take out the single phrase "action and reaction", maybe that's too anachronistic for 500 BCE. (However one can always argue that anachronisms snuck in through the retelling over many generations.) Then try to look at it from an ancient perspective where "laws of classical mechanics" were not given any such name and were not organized into any sort of formalism, but were nevertheless intrinsically understood in a common-sense sort of way (yes, actions and reactions, also cause and effect and the nagging randomness/indifference of nature and the struggle with determinism - all these things have been recognized throughout history). What Newton did was formalize things with mathematics and contribute new insights into second order processes (involving the square of velocity, like acceleration and gravity). So I'm arguing to keep the monk parable in 500BCE. In my recent revision I threw in a reference to an even more ancient Phronist meeting - hope that can stay too. I'll rest my case there and leave the judgment up to you.

Edited June 16, 2009 by seeksit

[Guest]

Since we're in the final phases of stage 1 I felt I ought to bung in my 2penn'orth.

Looking at the parables I'd say they vary from the good to the sublime, the main one I'd take issue with is the Mahavira one, partly on account of it playing up to the desire for eternal bliss, and also because it suggests that the single minded performance of "duty" is the route to that objective, which could be interpreted as advocating obedience to authority. I'll try and do another spin on it, feel free to edit my efforts as you all see fit:

Mahavira came upon a woman in Samarkand who he found to be weeping, and seeking to comfort her, he asked why she wept. The woman answered that her husband had died, struck down by fever and festering boils, and she was sorrowful over the suffering he faced in his final days. But she wept most of all because, although her husband was a good man, he found little but suffering in this life. "Do you believe, then, that your husband's soul is gone? Far be it from the truth. At the end of the stream of life is a return to the Essence from which life is drawn. Do not grieve if your husband has returned." But the woman continued to lament for she believed that, as her husband had suffered in his life on Earth, so he would continue to suffer in his existence flowing back into the stream of the Essence.

Mahavira asked her, "Was your husband brutal, or a liar, or a thief, or a glutton, or full of avarice?" The woman answered that he was none of these. "Then his existence now with the Essence is free of pain" said Mahavira, "Now tell me: was your husband faithful, and was he wise, and did he conduct himself well at all times?" The woman answered that he was. "Then at the end of his stream of existence here, in his existence with the Essence, is a safe and happy and quiet place." The woman then asked if the man would have eternal life in heaven.

Mahavira paused to consider, and told her "You must understand, your husband is dead. No life is eternal, and his is ended. He is no longer plagued by the desires and fears of life, the pain and pleasure, the hubristic and terrified state of clinging to an identity that must grow, change, and ultimately dissipate. Your husband exists, but he does not live. Now he has a new state of being. If his words and deeds have directed the world onto a better course, so has he directed the essence of himself on a better course. As a school of fish may divide and go where the ocean takes them, so has your husband lost his individuality but gained his true identity, shedding the false one that held him in life. Life makes us individuals, but the true substance of ourselves is not so. Fear, desire and pride make us serve and cling to the individual state, but death takes this from us regardless. When we can release ourselves in life from our attachment to the individual, and embrace the whole, then we may attain Nirvana."

Also plasmid asked me if I thought that concepts like the Prisoner's Dilemma ought to be incorporated into the teachings. The short answer is "yes". That particular example is a very clear-cut illustration of how prioritising for the self can make us all worse off, and is a concise model of the sort of thing that actually happens in business and politics to a very large extent. Whenever we create an imbalanced outcome, the general state of the whole tends to be worse off. In real life this is often because so much resources are spent on maintaining the imbalance. As long as the future of humankind runs along those lines, we will never fulfill our potential. We can bring about such change better if we understand the problem, and the Prisoner's Dilemma is useful in that it gives a clear example without judgement (the logic of the prisoners is valid if they choose to betray each other, it's their priorities that are wrong). The answer is to change personal objectives from serving the self in material ways, to fulfilling your potential (to do good for the world). But in order to be effective we must be intelligent as well as idealistic, recognising that where people are driven by incentives, we need to get those right. I can't help but think that this a good example of the sort of social and ethical lessons that we need to incorporate. We could rely on denominations to provide such content, but I think we ought to include a selection of such things into the core doctrine in order to set the tone.

[Guest]

Oh, I forgot to mention the Monk Parable:

"Purpose, Free Will and the Cyclical Nature of Life"

I love what the first part says about Purpose (it is what we make it and the journey is the destination), but then we get all mired in a Free Will discussion which seems a little unnecessary. My feeling on the topic of Free Will is the less we say about it the better. It's an interesting paradox but I feel that we gain nothing from addressing it, and as far as core doctrine is concerned I think we should just stick with Purpose.

Oh yes, and I feel we've glossed over the matter of worship a little so here's a suggested addition to the 7th Shepherd's speech...

The Seventh Shepherd's closing speech at Samarkand

Humanity struggles to fulfill our potential as it emanates from the Essence, and much remains to be learned and understood. Connecting with the Essence is an endless quest along a path that will be increasingly revealed as humanity parts the veil of the unknown through reason and sober study. While science reveals the mechanics of nature, it remains silent on our overall purpose, and for this we turn to the Essence. We do not do so through sacrifice and worship, for these are actions required by unscrupulous people who use false gods to control you and strengthen their grip on power. Live on your knees, and you shall die on them. Prayer is not action, and purpose implies a need to act. Our relationship with the Essence is attained through contemplation and exposing ourselves to new ideas, and defined through our Acts of Legacy. To harmonize with the Essence: Help others, be generous, be reliable. Do not harm others, steal, or lie. Learn throughout your childhood, and fulfill your potential as an adult. Find something you do well that will benefit society and do it. Understand at all times that faith is a supplement to, and not a supplanter of, reason; it is a way to see the world that will lead to fulfillment, and its worth is measured by the degree to which it accomplishes this goal.

EDIT: Maybe that could be better. It's quite a big negative statement.

[plasmid]

I like the revision to the Mahavira parable; it both presents things in an revelationary sort of way that seems appealing to a religious audience, and presents the Jainist concepts in the way that we're looking to establish them in Phronism. For the addition to the Seventh Shepherd's closing speech, to de-negativify it a little bit I would propose:

Humanity struggles to fulfill our potential as it emanates from the Essence, and much remains to be learned and understood. Connecting with the Essence is an endless quest along a path that will be increasingly revealed as humanity parts the veil of the unknown through reason and sober study. While science reveals the mechanics of nature, it remains silent on our overall purpose, and for this we turn to the Essence. Purpose implies a need to act, which is done not with sacrifices, nor prayer, nor worship as they are now known. Sacrificing by surrendering your possessions is not action; true sacrifice is forsaking your own comfort to help your fellow man. Praying by saying to the Essence what is already known is not action; true prayer is contemplation and exposing yourself to new ideas to guide your deeds. Worshiping by engaging in rituals is not action; true worship is defined through our Acts of Legacy that will endure throughout time. To harmonize with the Essence: Help others, be generous, be reliable. Do not harm others, steal, or lie. Learn throughout your childhood, and fulfill your potential as an adult. Find something you do well that will benefit society and do it. Understand at all times that faith is a supplement to, and not a supplanter of, reason; it is a way to see the world that will lead to fulfillment, and its worth is measured by the degree to which it accomplishes this goal.

Regarding the idea of just keeping the purpose part of the monk parable: looking at the paragraph above and comparing that to the story of a monk walking around in circles reciting chants for hours made me realize that there might be a problem here. The underlying message of finding your own purpose in life is an important one though and I'll try to find another way of getting it across.

Also, one of my motives for exploring the Prisoner's Dilemma a bit more was to see if we might have several modern concepts that we would want to include in Phronism along with the purpose and free will concepts that the monk parable was getting at. If so then including a small set of modern parables as well as the Samarkand ones might be worthwhile, which would mean that the Newtonian part of the monk parable could be placed in the 17th century and really address the concepts it's aiming at head-on without sticking out as the only non-500 BC one. I sympathize with octopuppy's reaction that raising a determinism vs free will debate might just unnecessarily stir up a hornet's nest; but since the Essence is basically all the laws of cause and effect rolled up into one thing, it sounds like the type of thing that people might try to blame for their own shortcomings with a determinism-type argument. As long as a determinism vs free will parable reaches the conclusion that people are responsible for their actions, it might be worth exploring. These last two paragraphs could give us something to work on for the next little bit.

[Guest]

Yay big thumbs up for that, plasmid. The monk is doing something for his own reasons though, and if it enlightens him, then it has purpose. Maybe we should not denouce engaging in rituals, we do want to keep some stuff that makes it a religion after all.

If we redefine sacrifice, prayer and worship we turn them into acceptable concepts, and their current meaning is so ingrained into our society that this creates a confusing situation where we appear to condone that which we do not. So here's another stab at it...

Humanity struggles to fulfill our potential as it emanates from the Essence, and much remains to be learned and understood. Connecting with the Essence is an endless quest along a path that will be increasingly revealed as humanity parts the veil of the unknown through reason and sober study. While science reveals the mechanics of nature, it remains silent on our overall purpose, and for this we turn to the Essence. Purpose implies a need to act, which is done not with sacrifices, nor prayer, nor worship as they are now known. Sacrifice by wasting life or possessions, or by surrendering possessions and freedoms to religious authority, is ineffective; true sacrifice is forsaking your own comfort to help your fellow man. Prayer which seeks favour or action directly from the Essence is misguided; this is not action. Nor is the restatement of what is already known; rather we should build our understanding of the Essence through meditation and expose ourselves to new ideas, that we may better guide our own deeds. Worship as an expression of submission is not action; rather our oneness with the Essence is best expressed by living joyously, and by humble Acts of Legacy that will endure throughout time. To harmonize with the Essence: Help others, be generous, be reliable. Do not harm others, steal, or lie. Learn throughout your childhood, and fulfill your potential as an adult. Find something you do well that will benefit society and do it. Understand at all times that faith is a supplement to, and not a supplanter of, reason; it is a way to see the world that will lead to fulfillment, and its worth is measured by the degree to which it accomplishes this goal.

Also, one of my motives for exploring the Prisoner's Dilemma a bit more was to see if we might have several modern concepts that we would want to include in Phronism along with the purpose and free will concepts that the monk parable was getting at. If so then including a small set of modern parables as well as the Samarkand ones might be worthwhile, which would mean that the Newtonian part of the monk parable could be placed in the 17th century and really address the concepts it's aiming at head-on without sticking out as the only non-500 BC one. I sympathize with octopuppy's reaction that raising a determinism vs free will debate might just unnecessarily stir up a hornet's nest; but since the Essence is basically all the laws of cause and effect rolled up into one thing, it sounds like the type of thing that people might try to blame for their own shortcomings with a determinism-type argument. As long as a determinism vs free will parable reaches the conclusion that people are responsible for their actions, it might be worth exploring. These last two paragraphs could give us something to work on for the next little bit.

The problem I have with the Free Will issue is that having responsibility for your actions is our built-in default position, and exploring the issue can only cast doubt on that. I propose a simple statement along the lines of "the Essence gives us choice and responsibility for our actions" (part of a definition of the Essence). This acknowledges the existence of the debate but places the Essence at the heart of the mystery. My opinion is that the deeper we look into it, the harder it is to use that information in some understandable way to conclude that responsibility is a meaningful concept. Still, if you think it can be done convincingly, give it a try...

I think the prisoner's dilemma or other game-theory problems can be transposed to 500BC without a loss of plausibility. This would probably be a teaching offered after the Samarkand meeting, as an illustration of the problems we face in the real world. I think we could put a lot of post-Samarkand stuff into the central document, though maybe that's phase 2.

[Guest]

Yay big thumbs up for that, plasmid. The monk is doing something for his own reasons though, and if it enlightens him, then it has purpose. Maybe we should not denouce engaging in rituals, we do want to keep some stuff that makes it a religion after all.

Amen The repetitious rituals often free the mind to be elsewhere while keeping focused on a central religious theme (in this case, the workings of the Essence.) It's not the ritual that matters, but the fertile plain it establishes in which you can plant seeds and let them grow. Maybe that needs to be said in the Monk's parable.

If we redefine sacrifice, prayer and worship we turn them into acceptable concepts, and their current meaning is so ingrained into our society that this creates a confusing situation where we appear to condone that which we do not. So here's another stab at it...

Humanity struggles to fulfill our potential as it emanates from the Essence, and much remains to be learned and understood. Connecting with the Essence is an endless quest along a path that will be increasingly revealed as humanity parts the veil of the unknown through reason and sober study. While science reveals the mechanics of nature, it remains silent on our overall purpose, and for this we turn to the Essence. Purpose implies a need to act, which is done not with sacrifices, nor prayer, nor worship as they are now known. Sacrifice by wasting life or possessions, or by surrendering possessions and freedoms to religious authority, is ineffective; true sacrifice is forsaking your own comfort to help your fellow man. Prayer which seeks favour or action directly from the Essence is misguided; this is not action. Nor is the restatement of what is already known; rather we should build our understanding of the Essence through meditation and expose ourselves to new ideas, that we may better guide our own deeds. Worship as an expression of submission is not action; rather our oneness with the Essence is best expressed by living joyously, and by humble Acts of Legacy that will endure throughout time. To harmonize with the Essence: Help others, be generous, be reliable. Do not harm others, steal, or lie. Learn throughout your childhood, and fulfill your potential as an adult. Find something you do well that will benefit society and do it. Understand at all times that faith is a supplement to, and not a supplanter of, reason; it is a way to see the world that will lead to fulfillment, and its worth is measured by the degree to which it accomplishes this goal.

This looks pretty good to me - I can sign off on it, though I'd prefer the word "contemplation", or even "pondering" rather than meditation.

The problem I have with the Free Will issue is that having responsibility for your actions is our built-in default position, and exploring the issue can only cast doubt on that. I propose a simple statement along the lines of "the Essence gives us choice and responsibility for our actions" (part of a definition of the Essence). This acknowledges the existence of the debate but places the Essence at the heart of the mystery. My opinion is that the deeper we look into it, the harder it is to use that information in some understandable way to conclude that responsibility is a meaningful concept. Still, if you think it can be done convincingly, give it a try...

I'd like to take a step back and look objectively at the free will vs. determinism issue. For me it is really rooted in the unresolvable conflict between infinite cause and effect vs. first cause. (If there is an infinite chain of cause and effect, what caused it to be possible? How does (or how can) the finite age of the universe truncate the chain of cause and effect? etc., etc.) The Essence hides these answers. Theoretically, the Essence *is* the answer to *all* such questions. So there is nothing unique or special about the determinism issue - it's just another of those unanswerables. Man's goal of harmonizing with the Essence requires him to sustain a balance (in his thoughts and actions) between the conflicting, contradicting sides of all these great mysteries of life and reality. Going too far toward one extreme or the other can lead one to stray down risky paths toward, for example, false gods or irresponsible self-importance. In my personal experience, I've run into far too many people who refuse to accept personal responsibility for their actions. They always seek to place blame elsewhere for their condition. Therefore I don't agree with the premise that there is a built-in default position on this issue in humans. Instead I see the whole spectrum represented equally; and once again, my experience tells me that balance, the middle road, yes Prudence as defined by Aristotle (a pursuit of virtue that is a discipline on equal footing with Science and Art), is the key to achieving harmony with the Essence. Therefore when life seems beyond your control, you accept all the responsibility you can, work as hard as you can to change the course of events for the better, but accept that the Essence also holds equal measure of influence upon the ultimate outcome.

[plasmid]

Good point about the confusion that would arise from redefining words. The Laozi of the Phronist parable would be upset with me. I renounce my prior heresy and see the light. Getting the redefinitions out of there and adopting a term other than meditation:

Humanity struggles to fulfill our potential as it emanates from the Essence, and much remains to be learned and understood. Connecting with the Essence is an endless quest along a path that will be increasingly revealed as humanity parts the veil of the unknown through reason and sober study. While science reveals the mechanics of nature, it remains silent on our overall purpose, and for this we turn to the Essence. Purpose implies a need to act, so old practices which accomplish nothing should be shunned. Do not offer up sacrifices of life or belongings, rather use them to aid your fellow man. Do not pray rote prayers, rather contemplate on your experiences and expose yourself to new ideas to build your understanding of the Essence. Do not pray for intervention from the Essence, rather act to guide its flow. Do not worship by expressing submission, rather express your oneness with the Essence by living joyously and with humble Acts of Legacy. To harmonize with the Essence: Help others, be generous, be reliable. Do not harm others, steal, or lie. Learn throughout your childhood, and fulfill your potential as an adult. Find something you do well that will benefit society and do it. Understand at all times that faith is a supplement to, and not a supplanter of, reason; it is a way to see the world that will lead to fulfillment, and its worth is measured by the degree to which it accomplishes this goal.

For the parable of the monk, if we took the route of splitting up the purpose and the free will messages into their own separate parables, how about this for the purpose part? I think Buddha qualifies as the most famous of the meditators at Samarkand with the Bodhi tree story, so he seems like the best candidate to be the monk. I'll also throw in a few words to explain its purpose in establishing his state of mind. (I'm currently undecided on whether a free will vs determinism one should be part of Samarkand or in a Modern Testament so they can talk about Newton.)

One day shortly before the council was to convene, Buddha was walking along the top of the narrow Great Stone Quadrangle, a ruin said to be the site of a far more ancient Phronist gathering thousands of years before. He walked a continuous route over the four walls, always going counterclockwise. At each cornerstone he chanted a brief phrase: at the first corner he said "I ponder the passing of this darkness into light and the Essence flows"; at the second "I observe my thoughts objectively and the currents divide"; at the third "I choose the noble course and the flow nourishes me"; and at the fourth "I drink of its waters and awake to a new light"; and so on.

A neophyte Phronist came up to Buddha after watching his progress. "Why do you walk forever in such a route?" the neophyte asked. "You get nowhere."

"Do you not hear my chant?" Buddha responded. "It is a form of meditation. I walk to celebrate the infinite, circular journey of life, a journey into light, which has no beginning, no end and no destination."

"Wasn't it you who advised us to follow our own hearts to find meaning in life and to always enjoy its bounty? You seem to plod this worn and dreary path without purpose. Is there not so much more to life than this?"

"This is a great joy," said Buddha. "Everyone celebrates life in a different way. You must respect this facet of nature. You say I am walking without purpose upon these hallowed ruins, but your argument applies to any other action in life as well. The meaning is what we apply to it, there is no pre-ordained or mandated purpose. Each person's journey is his destination."

"But why do you enjoy life in this way that seems so tedious?" the neophyte wrinkled his brow into deep furrows.

"Do you find it tedious already? You should build more fortitude if you are already exhausted before taking your first step. For me this is an old familiar way to contemplate on past events and better understand the Essence, but for you this is an unexplored path. If you sincerely believe that it will bring ruin then you have good reason to avoid it, otherwise you are depriving yourself of a possible path among many." Buddha then continued his circuit.

Another Phronist soon entered the Quadrangle. She looked around and saw two others walking around the rim of the Quadrangle, chanting at each cornerstone. Curious, she climbed the ancient stone steps and waited until they approached her.

"Why do you walk forever in such a route?" she asked. "You get nowhere."

[Guest]

The problem I have with the Free Will issue is that having responsibility for your actions is our built-in default position, and exploring the issue can only cast doubt on that. I propose a simple statement along the lines of "the Essence gives us choice and responsibility for our actions" (part of a definition of the Essence). This acknowledges the existence of the debate but places the Essence at the heart of the mystery. My opinion is that the deeper we look into it, the harder it is to use that information in some understandable way to conclude that responsibility is a meaningful concept. Still, if you think it can be done convincingly, give it a try...

I think the prisoner's dilemma or other game-theory problems can be transposed to 500BC without a loss of plausibility. This would probably be a teaching offered after the Samarkand meeting, as an illustration of the problems we face in the real world. I think we could put a lot of post-Samarkand stuff into the central document, though maybe that's phase 2.

I'd like to take a step back and look objectively at the free will vs. determinism issue. For me it is really rooted in the unresolvable conflict between infinite cause and effect vs. first cause. (If there is an infinite chain of cause and effect, what caused it to be possible? How does (or how can) the finite age of the universe truncate the chain of cause and effect? etc., etc.) The Essence hides these answers. Theoretically, the Essence *is* the answer to *all* such questions. So there is nothing unique or special about the determinism issue - it's just another of those unanswerables. Man's goal of harmonizing with the Essence requires him to sustain a balance (in his thoughts and actions) between the conflicting, contradicting sides of all these great mysteries of life and reality. Going too far toward one extreme or the other can lead one to stray down risky paths toward, for example, false gods or irresponsible self-importance. In my personal experience, I've run into far too many people who refuse to accept personal responsibility for their actions. They always seek to place blame elsewhere for their condition. Therefore I don't agree with the premise that there is a built-in default position on this issue in humans. Instead I see the whole spectrum represented equally; and once again, my experience tells me that balance, the middle road, yes Prudence as defined by Aristotle (a pursuit of virtue that is a discipline on equal footing with Science and Art), is the key to achieving harmony with the Essence. Therefore when life seems beyond your control, you accept all the responsibility you can, work as hard as you can to change the course of events for the better, but accept that the Essence also holds equal measure of influence upon the ultimate outcome.

I think that you are having a bit of a misunderstanding, though seeksit brings up some good points (IMO). When octopuppy said "our default position" I think he meant the Phronist default, and while I agree that is the sensible way of doing things, seeksit's point is still valid. The problem is that any time we take any definitive stand on something, we have the risk of people adhering to it blindly and then rejecting any analysis that proves it wrong. That's one reason that we want to avoid taking such a controversial stand.

However, if we choose the course of moderation or "Prudence" every time we have to make a controversial decision, then it may be difficult to attract converts. This is the part we really don't know anything about and need someone coming from a more religious perspective to offer advice (if they would offer it ). We can tell them, if you don't like a particular aspect of the available denominations, make your own and as long as you're true to the Essence, you should be accepted into the fold, but most people won't necessarily want to make a new denomination on their own, they'll want to just be able to insert themselves into something that already exists. If they can't find their niche, they'll probably decide it isn't worth their time to try. (Of course, this is just an assumption on my part, maybe you guys have all done such a wonderful job creating the backstory that this won't be an issue. )

The real debate (I think) is how much do we want to "stand for" and risk blind adherence to, and how much freedom do we want to allow members? If there's too much freedom, then we risk losing people who need the structure of a regular religion...

That's just my take on events. I think that all of the parables so far make some excellent points and I think that we can come up with more if we need them. I'd have to read through the Monk parable again, but since it really seems to be covering a couple of different subjects, maybe it could be split in two and presented as two related stories rather than one longish one? Hmm, looks like plasmid has already got that idea covered... My one comment about the ending of the parable now is that the neophyte needs to have some response, a moment of enlightenment for the last paragraph to make sense. It was in the other part that you removed and something needs to replace it in this one.

[Guest]

I think that you are having a bit of a misunderstanding, though seeksit brings up some good points (IMO). When octopuppy said "our default position" I think he meant the Phronist default ...

Ooops! You're right. What was I thinking?

However, if we choose the course of moderation or "Prudence" every time we have to make a controversial decision, then it may be difficult to attract converts. This is the part we really don't know anything about and need someone coming from a more religious perspective to offer advice (if they would offer it ). ...

The real debate (I think) is how much do we want to "stand for" and risk blind adherence to, and how much freedom do we want to allow members? If there's too much freedom, then we risk losing people who need the structure of a regular religion...

Well, we stand for freedom from oppression by other religions. We can make pitches that show how others are burdened by guilt for no good reason. We can get a good charismatic spokesman (like Barack Obama ) because lots of positive energy comes from putting a face on the message. We can prominently feature babies (grayven) and Puppies (Octopuppy) on our web site and all our literature. We have a wholesome message and roots that go back to before religion went wrong. Ritual such as that in the monk's parable can provide structure. Meetings at the local pub (remember Ontaporism?) could help. Maybe what I'm saying is that the message can be milquetoast, but it can come in a glitzy package (*shrugs*).

My one comment about the ending of the parable now is that the neophyte needs to have some response, a moment of enlightenment for the last paragraph to make sense. It was in the other part that you removed and something needs to replace it in this one.

Yeah, I think the moment of enlightenment can go back in there. It doesn't need to refer to the choice/determinism issue, just a response to Buddha's last statement.

[plasmid]

Back by popular demand, enlightenment for the neophyte. With a little bit of a nod to Buddhism's eightfold path by making them non-mutually-exclusive.

One day shortly before the council was to convene, Buddha was walking along the top of the narrow Great Stone Quadrangle, a ruin said to be the site of a far more ancient Phronist gathering thousands of years before. He walked a continuous route over the four walls, always going counterclockwise. At each cornerstone he chanted a brief phrase: at the first corner he said "I ponder the passing of this darkness into light and the Essence flows"; at the second "I observe my thoughts objectively and the currents divide"; at the third "I choose the noble course and the flow nourishes me"; and at the fourth "I drink of its waters and awake to a new light"; and so on.

A neophyte Phronist came up to Buddha after watching his progress. "Why do you walk forever in such a route?" the neophyte asked. "You get nowhere."

"Do you not hear my chant?" Buddha responded. "It is a form of meditation. I walk to celebrate the infinite, circular journey of life, a journey into light, which has no beginning, no end and no destination."

"Wasn't it you who advised us to follow our own hearts to find meaning in life and to always enjoy its bounty? You seem to plod this worn and dreary path without purpose. Is there not so much more to life than this?"

"This is a great joy," said Buddha. "Everyone celebrates life in a different way. You must respect this facet of nature. You say I am walking without purpose upon these hallowed ruins, but your argument applies to any other action in life as well. The meaning is what we apply to it, there is no pre-ordained or mandated purpose. Each person's journey is his destination."

"But why do you enjoy life in this way that seems so tedious?" the neophyte wrinkled his brow into deep furrows.

"Do you find it tedious already? You should build more fortitude if you are already exhausted before taking your first step. For me this is an old familiar way to contemplate on past events and better understand the Essence, but for you this is an unexplored path. If you sincerely believe that it will bring ruin then you have good reason to avoid it, otherwise you are depriving yourself of a possible path among many toward the Essence." Buddha then continued his circuit.

As Buddha's figure slipped away his words echoed in the neophyte's mind, stirring a new perspective that took shape as the footsteps sounded in the distance. When Buddha completed the circuit, he returned to the neophyte to find that the frown had cleared, and he met eyes filled not with confusion but with purpose. "What is it I have just experienced?" the neophyte asked, awed by the inexplicable power of the sensation.

"It is the power of the Essence. You have awakened and are beginning to merge with its flow," Buddha said with a slight grin. "Through its infinite subtlety the Essence offers us a goal, but there are many paths toward that goal and many may be followed by any one person. You may learn the fullness of what that means as you continue your journey and ever refine your direction through this world."

Another Phronist soon entered the Quadrangle. She looked around and saw two others walking around the rim of the Quadrangle, chanting at each cornerstone. Curious, she climbed the ancient stone steps and waited until they approached her.

"Why do you walk forever in such a route?" she asked. "You get nowhere."

[Guest]

Purpose implies a need to act, so old practices which accomplish nothing should be shunned. Do not offer up sacrifices of life or belongings, rather use them to aid your fellow man. Do not pray rote prayers, rather contemplate on your experiences and expose yourself to new ideas to build your understanding of the Essence. Do not pray for intervention from the Essence, rather act to guide its flow. Do not worship by expressing submission, rather express your oneness with the Essence by living joyously and with humble Acts of Legacy.

Excellent, concise. That gets my thumbs up

I've run into far too many people who refuse to accept personal responsibility for their actions. They always seek to place blame elsewhere for their condition. Therefore I don't agree with the premise that there is a built-in default position on this issue in humans.

Although dawh made a good point, to be honest I really meant that responsibility is the default position for all humans, being part of our biological composition as a social animal. But I don't wish to argue the case because your comments are valid and I share your concerns about that aspect of humanity being eroded. I see it as a social problem, that we are subjected to influences which encourage us to abdicate responsibility, and responsibility isn't such a strong aspect of our nature that we won't happily abandon it given a good excuse*. What matters is that we address it as a social issue, I think the physics and free will debates run the risk of just giving people more excuses. If it's to be addressed that deeply, I think it's a denominational matter because it's too risky for the core doctrine. However we have not addressed the matter of responsibility head on...

Therefore when life seems beyond your control, you accept all the responsibility you can, work as hard as you can to change the course of events for the better, but accept that the Essence also holds equal measure of influence upon the ultimate outcome.

I really like what you're saying here. I feel that perhaps we should address ethics and morality in a general sense, in one of the core teachings. Maybe it's a job for Confucius (meaning Buddha will have to explain the denominational system in full). We should include:

1) A declaration that the Essence is that which makes us responsible and gives us choice

2) A general statement of what is morally right (the golden rule?)

3) Influences that undermine personal responsibility, such as deference to authority, institutions and laws, group diffusion of responsibility (also see Tragedy of the Commons), moral exclusion of outsiders

4) Acknowledgement of our limitations, as seeksit put so nicely above. Maybe looking in the past at somebody who tried and failed to make a difference

5) Anything else?

...all wrapped up in a nice cohesive package, which gives a motivational message despite acknowledging all setbacks. Maybe based on a dilemma, such as someone who needs to balance the needs of raising a family with the obligation to oppose an oppressive tyrant who taxes everybody too heavily. I haven't actually written it because I feel as though it's lacking that bit of inspiration it needs. Help me out somebody!

* I see parallels between responsibility and reason there. Maybe we could make the point that these are virtues which elevate us to a higher state (not as high as complete oneness with the Essence, which involves going beyond the self, but important steps to get there). Other notable virtues include awareness and consideration of others, a resilient drive to accomplish things, pursuit of knowledge and understanding, honesty, wisdom (moderation and prudence), and joyfulness. Though I fear I am straying into denominational territory. Maybe we should say something about the cultivation of a virtuous state, and note that it is easy to fall from this state and we must be diligent in retaining it, without specifically stating all of what virtue is. To me, a statement of virtue would probably look more like a map or tree diagram than a simple list. Perhaps we should make some reference to "the vital virtues" (meaning those pertaining to life as opposed to oneness with the Essence, which is the complete and final state of virtuousness), without providing a full list.

[plasmid]

Here's an initial shot at it. A parable to take place right after Confucius' parable with the farmer and the thief. I actually thought that Taoist "action through inaction" might come into play on this one, so I gave it to Laozi. It doesn't address all the points that octopuppy brought up, but might be a good starting point to build on.

Laozi was awoken in the night as a farmer barged into his dwelling and began looking for valuables to steal. Surprised but not unsettled, Laozi asked the man what he was doing. "I've come to take whatever I wish," was his reply, "for your friend Confucius told me the other day that I was responsible for a thief stealing my crops. If that is they way you Phronists think, then I will steal from you and the fault will be your own for spreading such teachings."

Laozi remained calm and asked, "By what reasoning did Confucius say that you were responsible for that theft?" The farmer answered, "He said that I gave the thief no way of supporting himself without stealing, and so I was to blame." Laozi then asked the farmer, "Do you have means of supporting yourself without stealing?" The farmer realized that he did not need to steal and he began to see the fault in his actions, but he replied, "That is beside the point. If the thief was sent by the Essence to punish me for Samarkand's society, then so I am sent by the Essence to punish you for the flaws of Phronism. Now go back to sleep and I will take what I please."

To that Laozi answered, "Strike a beast and it will move. Give it a harness and it will move in the direction you wish. It is a wonderful thing to be able to guide so much power and to move without moving at all. Still, any horse would have the sense not to run into a burning fire or jump off a cliff. We all take part in the flow of the Essence. We may attempt to guide it, and it will affect the way that we may act. Just like a horse and rider, so a person and the Essence join forces to make their way through the world. Would you call a horse that jumps off a cliff foolish and deserving of its fate? So too is the person who says that the Essence guided them to act foolishly when they should have known better.

"Now in your case, how does the Essence guide you? Tell me which way you would go if you did not struggle against it. Does necessity compel you to steal? Are the laws silent on stealing? Where would you expect to find my foot if you were to steal from me? And what did Confucius say to do with the thief that stole from you the other day?" When the farmer recalled what had happened to the thief, he realized that he was still held accountable for his actions. The farmer did not stay to answer but dropped all we was carrying and fled. Laozi returned to sleep without having to use his foot.

Edited June 18, 2009 by plasmid

[Guest]

I really like what you're saying here. I feel that perhaps we should address ethics and morality in a general sense, in one of the core teachings. Maybe it's a job for Confucius (meaning Buddha will have to explain the denominational system in full). We should include:

1) A declaration that the Essence is that which makes us responsible and gives us choice

2) A general statement of what is morally right (the golden rule?)

3) Influences that undermine personal responsibility, such as deference to authority, institutions and laws, group diffusion of responsibility (also see Tragedy of the Commons), moral exclusion of outsiders

4) Acknowledgement of our limitations, as seeksit put so nicely above. Maybe looking in the past at somebody who tried and failed to make a difference

5) Anything else?

...all wrapped up in a nice cohesive package, which gives a motivational message despite acknowledging all setbacks. Maybe based on a dilemma, such as someone who needs to balance the needs of raising a family with the obligation to oppose an oppressive tyrant who taxes everybody too heavily. I haven't actually written it because I feel as though it's lacking that bit of inspiration it needs. Help me out somebody!

* I see parallels between responsibility and reason there. Maybe we could make the point that these are virtues which elevate us to a higher state (not as high as complete oneness with the Essence, which involves going beyond the self, but important steps to get there). Other notable virtues include awareness and consideration of others, a resilient drive to accomplish things, pursuit of knowledge and understanding, honesty, wisdom (moderation and prudence), and joyfulness. Though I fear I am straying into denominational territory. Maybe we should say something about the cultivation of a virtuous state, and note that it is easy to fall from this state and we must be diligent in retaining it, without specifically stating all of what virtue is. To me, a statement of virtue would probably look more like a map or tree diagram than a simple list. Perhaps we should make some reference to "the vital virtues" (meaning those pertaining to life as opposed to oneness with the Essence, which is the complete and final state of virtuousness), without providing a full list.

I have a couple of thoughts on some of this. First, with 2) above. I'm not sure if this is simply due to my friend's flawed reasoning, but he insisted to me that the "Golden Rule" (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...et al.) is fundamentally flawed because of different people's expectations. His argument was something along the lines of "You wouldn't want a masochist or a sadist to treat as they would like to be treated." He used this argument as a justification for ignoring the rule (as was his inclination). When I tried to argue that the rule was intended for the "average" person, he retorted that it was impossible to define such a person. I think that as a general rule it works (hence its universal acclaim), but does he have a point, or should we just ignore such arguments and accept that some people won't be interested in following such a guideline no matter how it's phrased? (As I'm writing this, I think that ignoring them will probably be the only answer, but I thought that it's still an interesting point to discuss.)

My other comment regards the ideas on the whole. If I remember correctly, part of the original inspiration (though admittedly I don't know exactly where seeksit came up with it) was due to a desired relationship to Aristotle. We had found that a large number of our goals were in line with Aristotle's reasoning and there was some thought of tying him into the movement. Then seeksit presented his idea and the fact that it tied to Socrates who tied to Aristotle was a bonus. Though I don't know how much the "virtues" have worked their way into the parables, we've been talking about a lot of Aristotelian virtues (Prudence, Moderation, etc.) and while the layman might not consider the connection at all, it seems like many scholars of that era might see the parallels and wonder why there is no cross reference in any surviving documents of the time. Surely Aristotle would have written something about this gathering of minds only a couple of hundred years earlier? Especially when so many of the subjects he discussed were so well related to the discussions they had in the parables. It's something else to consider.

Fortunately, I've already thought of a few things that might make it a moot point, but it's best that we have everything on the table. Pretty much all of the ancient texts that we have today survived via the Islamic Renaissance that took place during the European Dark Ages. So many of the old documents didn't survive the revival (either through being lost or burned or personal bias of the recorders) and that could be a reason why none of the documents that would have supported Phronism's existence didn't survive to the present. Related to that is that maybe the teachings were considered heretical to the Roman Emperors, so they had them destroyed. Finally, there is certainly evidence that Aristotle was a particularly arrogant member of a particularly arrogant race of men. Maybe he simply took the ideas of the council and took them as his own. If you are going to write down the ideas that so many others did not, why don't you take credit for those ideas. It makes you so much more important to your readers if these are your ideas (Gilderoy Lockhart knew that well enough ).

So I don't know if anything I said here will be relevant in the long run, but I'm just trying to paranoidly view the story from many different angles and see where someone might have a grievance and when it might actually be problematic.

[Guest]

I'm not sure if this is simply due to my friend's flawed reasoning, but he insisted to me that the "Golden Rule" (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...et al.) is fundamentally flawed because of different people's expectations. His argument was something along the lines of "You wouldn't want a masochist or a sadist to treat as they would like to be treated." He used this argument as a justification for ignoring the rule (as was his inclination). When I tried to argue that the rule was intended for the "average" person, he retorted that it was impossible to define such a person. I think that as a general rule it works (hence its universal acclaim), but does he have a point, or should we just ignore such arguments and accept that some people won't be interested in following such a guideline no matter how it's phrased? (As I'm writing this, I think that ignoring them will probably be the only answer, but I thought that it's still an interesting point to discuss.)

Ignore the unbeliever! Shun!! Shun!!

If I like being spanked, then obviously the golden rule does not imply that I should spank everyone I meet. A little common sense would tell me that different folks enjoy different strokes. In general if someone were kind enough to spank me then they would be helping me to fulfill my kinky little desires, and if I want to help others fulfill their kinky little desires then I am putting the golden rule into practice. Morality is about how we distribute desirable and undesirable stuff in a reasonable way that will be acceptable to all. What's desirable to one person might be undesirable to another, but this little detail is IMHO just a distraction. If we all wanted different things, we would have a lot less moral conflict. Moral conflicts generally occur as a result of us all wanting the same things, and principles like the golden rule generally come into play in these situations. Criticising it because it doesn't work when people want different things is a bit like criticising the use of climbing ropes because you can trip over them climbing the stairs.

So I don't know if anything I said here will be relevant in the long run, but I'm just trying to paranoidly view the story from many different angles and see where someone might have a grievance and when it might actually be problematic.

I also think we might be going out on a limb a bit, but what the hell, fortune favours the brave. A controversial story is better than a boring one.

[plasmid]

Interesting. Even though I never pointed it out, I was thinking almost the exact same thing as dawh about the golden rule. That's why in the "Self description of Phronism for a modern audience" in my summary earlier I said "Do unto others what will benefit them most" instead of the regular golden rule, to subtly finesse the issue away. But also like octopuppy I thought that it was a very minor detail overall and so I hadn't commented on it until now. And I shall never comment on it again.

The origins of Phronism problem is also one that I've been considering. Even with the destruction of the old texts for the reasons that dawh mentioned, it does seem fishy that not so much of an outside mention of Phronism survived in any other text. Plus, we don't even have so much as an eighteenth-century book on Phronism from the people who have supposedly been passing the legends down through the ages. Unlike the golden rule thing, this I think is very important because it seems like a completely incredible story could ruin the religion at the outset... the only reason I've stayed silent is because I don't have a good answer for it, aside from hiring our own archaeologists and historians to investigate (who will of course be completely impartial despite the fact that we pay their salaries). Political support from a group with an interest in seeing our religion flourish might also help (just as it did with the Protestants) so I propose that the master plan include befriending atheist organizations that might like to see a faith whose core doctrine states that you must heed the advice of rational outsiders.

Finally, after re-reading that last parable myself, I realized it needed a bit more to keep it on track with the choice vs determinism question, so slightly revised:

Laozi was awoken in the night as a farmer barged into his dwelling. Surprised but not unsettled, Laozi asked the man what he was doing. "I've come to take whatever I wish," was the farmer's reply, "for your friend Confucius told me the other day that I was responsible for a thief stealing my crops. If that is they way you Phronists think, then I will steal from you and the fault will be your own for spreading such teachings." Laozi remained calm and asked, "By what reasoning did Confucius say that you were responsible for that theft?" The farmer answered, "He said that I gave the thief no way of supporting himself without stealing, and so I was to blame."

Laozi then asked the farmer, "Then why do you now steal? Do you have means of supporting yourself without stealing?" The farmer realized that he did not need to steal, and that he was acting out of anger over Confucius' accusation rather than out of necessity. But he stubbornly replied, "That is beside the point. If the thief was sent by the Essence to punish me for Samarkand's society, then so I am sent by the Essence to punish you for the flaws of Phronism. Such is your version of justice. Now go back to sleep and I will take what I please."

To that Laozi answered, "You say that the Essence sent you? Consider this. Strike a beast and it will move. Give it a harness and it will move in the direction you wish. It is a wonderful thing to be able to guide so much power and to move without moving at all. Still you do not exercise complete control over the animal: any horse would have the sense not to run into a burning fire or jump off a cliff, and it will take charge of its own destiny. We all take part in the flow of the Essence. Just like a horse and rider, so a person and the Essence join forces to make their way through the world. Would you call a horse that jumps off a cliff foolish and deserving of its fate? So too is the person who says that the Essence guided him to act foolishly when he should have known better.

"Now in your case, how does the Essence guide you? Tell me which way you would go if you did not struggle against it. Does necessity compel you to steal? Do the laws allow you to steal and go unmolested? Where would you expect to find my foot if you were to steal from me? And what did Confucius say to do with the thief that stole from you the other day?" The farmer recalled what had happened to the thief, and realized that even though he was driven to steal by his circumstances he was still held accountable for his actions. The farmer did not stay to answer Laozi; he dropped all we was carrying and fled. Having thus used the Essence to guide the farmer back on course, Laozi returned to sleep without having to use his foot.

[Guest]

The new Laozi-farmer parable is taking shape nicely.

Regarding the origin of Phronism issue, let me point to the end of the parable in which Buddha introduces the denominational system. I suggested adding these last two paragraphs in post #213, and I discussed there why I added them. If we are to believe what the Buddha says in that parable, then it was *required* that Phronism be *completely* forgotten since the 500 BCE phronist council. There is a widely known prophesy in Buddhism that says that in order for the Maitreya to appear (we Phronists interpret the Maitreya to be the enlightened leader who will re-reveal Phronism to the modern world) the oceans must seem to have shrunk in size (i.e. modern travel and telecommunication) and all memory of the relevant teachings of the Buddha must have been forgotten. To reiterate, all these things were prophesied soon after the time of Gautama Buddha, and they have a strange connection to other 'denominations', specifically Zoroastrianism).

So by our interpretation, the teachings of Phronism (that is, the portion of Gautama Buddha's words and all other ancient denomination leaders' words that refer to Phronism) must have been entirely eradicated from the record. Only then, this ancient prophecy says, will the new teachings spread (the re-revelation of Phronism via its modern leaders' inspiration/connection with the Essence.) Again, this prophecy *requires* all memory of Phronism to have been forgotten. How it was forgotten we have been adequately explaining. Given this widely known ancient prophecy, I don't see any missing pieces or loose ends in the "origin of Phromism" story. The faith and its traditions are very ancient, elegant, mysterious and, most importantly, internally self-consistent -- pretty attractive as a religious origin story.

Edited June 19, 2009 by seeksit

[Guest]

I didn't get the edit in before time expired. I wanted to add this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya#The_...ing_of_Maitreya

[Guest]

sorry for the scatter-shot posting, but there's still more in my head on the origin story that I think I need to explicitly spell out so that there is no room for confusion:

What happened is that after the Council of Samarkand in 500 BCE, all the "seven shepherds" returned home and formed their own denominations. Originally all these denominations were unified by Phronism. But because of the great distances between them, just as Buddha lamented in the parable about denominations, people weren't able to make the pilgrimages to other denominations. So over the years, the Phronist connection, and all references to Phronism itself, were lost. The result was the seven religions evolved in isolation from one another and lost their Phronist roots. But that is just as the prophecy foretold and required. Now, finally, with modern communications and travel, these ancient religions can once again all find their common origins (through study of common threads of values, theology and philosophy, but with no expectation of finding any actual references to Phronism) and return to their unified roots in the great modern Phronist awakening of 2009 CE.

Edited June 19, 2009 by seeksit

[Guest]

I didn't get the edit in before time expired. I wanted to add this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya#The_...ing_of_Maitreya

I agree that the prophecy provides the perfect entrance point for Phronism, since for the prophecy to be true, the true religion must be completely forgotten (though what does that mean about the prophecy? Does it have to be forgotten as well before this can happen? ), so the sudden appearance of Phronism on the scene could be interpreted to to fulfill that role. However, while Buddhists are not the most evangelical and fire and brimstone type people who will violently oppose an attempted to gerrymander into their religious territory, I don't think that they would appreciate all of the tenets of Phronism.

No longer will they regard anything as their own, they will have no possession, no gold or silver, no home, no relatives! But they will lead the holy life of chastity under Maitreya's guidance.

This quote from the wikipedia article butts heads with some of the desired sentiments of Phronism described on this thread. I think it was a point that octopuppy kept pushing (but I'm not going to search through the whole thread to find the posts) regarding the fact that we live in the material world. The point being that since this is the material world and it's the only thing we know we have for sure, we shouldn't be teaching people to flee from it as a way to enlightenment so much as to respect what it has to offer and be at peace with that.

I'm not sure how well this explanation is coming out and Phronism has come a long way since this topic was at the forefront, but in true Buddhist style, they want to give up all possessions and find pure nirvana through that and while I think that "harmonizing with the Essence" fits the bill with discovering nirvana, I don't think that giving up material possessions to achieve that harmony would be on the Phronist agenda (though I guess it could be a denominational thing, but the lack of logical reason for depriving yourself as such might cause most other denoms to shun one that does insist on it... ).