The three parables by Zen and The Existentialism are very similar. The moral of the first parable Muddy Road was that when we hold on to the past or always worrying about the future we will get caught up and won't take action on the present which is what we should be focusing on. The monk decided that he needed to what was best even though monks weren't suppose to go near females. Once he got the woman across the muddy water he never thought of it again but the monk that was with him kept questioning him and kept bringing it back up when the first monk had already moved on from that point. The second parable was also about how we need to focus on the present and not worry about what has not happened yet. The third parable was mainly about impatience, ignorance and ego. Once one man made a mistake they all made a mistake because they wanted to point out the others mistakes and not their own. The Existentialism was all about how existence precedes essence meaning that what we do in our life is what defines who we are. We have the choice to pick how we are going to live and what we are going to do which ends up determining who we are as a whole. The four readings are all about how our decisions and actions that we choose to do for ourself also affect everybody else around us even though we sometimes do not notice it. The four readings do not have any differences that I can point out except for that The Existentialism was mostly about what we do in our lives is defining who we are while the other three short stories were more about how we need to focus on the present and not look back.
I definitely agree with you whenever you say that the ideas represented in the three parables by Zen are similar to the whole idea of Existentialism. The moral of the first story is that when someone thinks too much about what they think the world should be like they forget about what the world really is and gets in the way of what is actually going on around them; not just what they think should be going on around them. I definitely 100% agree with what you believe the second and third story to represent, considering that the monk was worried about the lamp burning out and then all of them started worrying about the others talking instead of meditating like they said they would. But how does all of this relate to Existentialism? The Norton Reader describes Existentialism as two things, “On one the one hand, that an individual chooses and makes himself; and, on the other, that it is impossible for man to transcend human subjectivity.” This has multiple meanings, such as that in this world men are responsible for himself and for everyone else, and I feel like this definitely relates to the first story that Zen talks about, because the monk was able to help the girl in need but also to drop it immediately because of his beliefs. This is referring to man realizing that he is not the only person in this world, and even though that is how are brains are set up, its not true.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your explanation on the first parable about the monk. When I first read it I wasn't completely sure as to what it was working towards. But you explained it perfectly. You interpreted all three of the parables perfectly, and I would have to agree on all of the lessons to be learned from them all. But they begin to describe existentialism in many different ways. They start by breaking it down and describing the meaning of anguish as interpreted by their beliefs. They then continue to discuss how they see it as "very distressing" that God does not exist in their minds. But I am also confused as to how all of the passages match up to each other. It seems to me that the parables show life lessons to be understood and learned, while the passage discusses a lifestyle of one certain group of people. But either way, there are lessons to be learned from all of them.
ReplyDeleteI agree that these two readings are similar in the fact the both repeatedly state, that we may just be one person, but our decisions somehow effect everyone. As in the three parables, they each tell of a different story although they all connect in the sense that a decision made by one monk, one man chased by tigers, and pupils had an effect on the other people around them. “On the first day all were silent.. “I am the only one who has not talked, concluded the fourth pupil.” One person started talking and all the others seemed to follow, even though they clearing knew that they weren’t supposed to. These short stories are trying to convey that we should realize that not only do our decisions effect our life outcome and make who we are, but that they shape the people all around us. As for the reading of Existentialism, it states that “..man chooses his own self, … he also chooses all men” we are all connected through our decisions, which leads to all of outcomes to correlate in some kind of way. “Because he thinks that man will interpret the omen to suit himself” this kind of selfishness is also portrayed in the parables, like how the monks aren’t supposed to be near lovely women and how thr pupils weren’t suppose to talk, but they did anyways and than all the other people around them followed in suit. Both readings conclude that a decision made by one effects the decisions of everyone else.
ReplyDelete