I think most of us have concepts of "justice", maybe some better than others.
There there are those who maybe speak of "man's justice" (these seem often to not be very PC!) and then move on to what is considered "God's justice", which - variously - is deemed "inscrutable" or just maybe is as explained in a particular book considered "holy" and as interpreted by a particular group.
However, a commonality I have found is the "promise" that the "law" (of justice and of all things) will/can be written upon the human heart and not upon tablets of stone. Obviously, such language draws upon the Christian tradition, yet I say "commonality" purposely. That the "truth" is to be written on human hearts is found across the world of Faiths. I have faith that it can be so, yet there is no one path for all.
But, whatever, justice (and all things) would then simply be the "appropriate statement", the expression of the mind/heart of radical freedom.
We may view reality as a collection of independent things or we may view it as one vast seamless whole. In philosophy this relates to the preference for internal rather than external relations. i.e. if A and B are related, in external relations they both exist independently and any relationship between them becomes a third factor, C. By contrast, in internal relations, the necessary third factor is that which overlaps, or interlinks, in fact the shared part of A and B. This obviously has implications for the relationship between "knower" and "known", subject and object. In external relations, such a relationship becomes "knowledge", and then theories arise as to what would make the "knowledge" true. Within internal relations, knowledge becomes that which overlaps, is interdependent.........therefore Dogen's "we are that which we understand". There would be no obstruction between mindfulness and reality.
As has been said......."Such a model stresses engagement and praxis in preference to observation and analysis." The ideal is thus not the detached observer, but the one who is engaged, always somatic and not just intellective.
Further, if one assumes human being in its entirety to be part of the world, then knowledge of the world, in the final analysis, means that part of the world knows itself." The two modes of relations also implies that the passing on of knowledge, rather than something objective being transmitted systematically to another via words, involves more the relationship between human beings - knowledge as "love", "compassion", "empathy" and as Dogen would say, "selflessness."
Another corollary, of just how "knowledge" comes about - by reading and study or within the heart of life itself? For me, as with all things, it is not a case of either/or.
The reality is that both ways of knowing can be part of just what it is to be human. Yet this perhaps brings with it the so called "argument by relegation" (and of which is to be relegated!) Opposite positions are treated not by refuting them, but by accepting them as true, but only true as a part of the full picture. One way of knowing is therefore not cast aside - the main idea is perhaps to know/live just which form of knowledge encompasses/infolds the other.
The consequence of all this is that a "little child can lead them". Ultimately life can be very simple when lived to the very fullest.
Therefore seeking any answer/understanding for how an assumed independent thing - however defined - (i.e "Justice") relates to other independent things, how it can be applied to them, is to be immediately on the wrong foot, wandering from how Reality actually IS. The pursuit of any such "answer" will necessarily descend into the eternal conflict within reason that the Buddhist Madhyamika philosophy highlights and seeks to supercede (by the Middle Way)
(Is this why there are such unending and inconclusive disputes such as determinism v free will, absolute v relative?)
Dogen's thinking, which sees epistemology, ontology and soteriology as a unity is obviously the way to go, as far as my own path is concerned.
No comments:
Post a Comment