Comparison

The bigger picture in Jeans is that we choose how the future will be affected. What we believe and so on will affect us all. “The man who involves himself and who realizes that he is not only the person he chooses to be, but also a lawmaker who is, at the same time, choosing all mankind as well as himself, cannot help escape the feeling of his total and deep responsibility.” Without rules we are nothing. If we do away with God then we make up our own rules. We are affected to this day by religion and rules. We choose to live by them if we didn't choose to do so our future would be drastically different. and it most likely would affect a lot of people. In the Zen Parables “Muddy Road” and “Learning to be Silent” are both about rules/choices that they made for themselves or others. “We monk don’t go near females.” A rule places on himself and the promising to stay quiet thing.  “A Parable” is only similar because he chose his path either be eaten there jump on a vine and be eaten later. The four girls chose to not talk and the guy decided that he couldn’t go near women because monks don’t. Choices we make affects not only us but those around us.

How they are not similar is well for starters ones a parable and the other isn’t. there isn’t a bigger picture when it came to the parables but with the other one there was a glimpse of a bigger picture that the author wanted us to see. The examples in Jeans are more sad and more than slightly problematic. Such as choosing to leave mother or not when you know she needs you and if something happened to you it would end up killing her.

Comparison

      There are numerous similarities and differences between the several parables included in “Zen Parables” and “Existentialism” by Jean-Paul Sartre on the topic of world views.  Specifically in the way that both passages look at human behavior while still thinking of the universe in the big picture aspect, not so much specifically.  One similarity or connection occurs with Learning to Be Silent, Jean- Paul Sartre makes the point that “man chooses his own self” but that in doing this we “also choose all men”, meaning that when we choose to make a decision for ourselves in the bigger picture our decision sets a precedent for everyone else around us, making us responsible for all of mankind around us. Just like when the first boy began talking he set an example for the other kids and in pointing out his wrong doing all four of them ended up breaking their vow of silence. The first boy chose himself which in turn affected the others making him responsible for them too.

      The biggest difference between the passages is the structure of them and the way their ideas are presented. The Zen Parables was composed of three separate stories that each taught a lesson independent of one another.  The first Zen Parable, “Muddy Road” , teaches the lesson of letting go of the past and living in the present, more specifically inconsequential events. Ekido harbors confusion and negative energy about Tanzan helping the young woman because “monks don’t go near females”, and when he voices his opinion Tanzan replies “I left the girl there” , meaning he has let the situation go, and poses the question of “are you still carrying her?”, asking Ekido if he is still stuck in the past and silently urging him to move on.  “A Parable” moves on to teach us the lessons of living in the moment and finding the silver lining in every bad situation. The tigers represent the man`s future and past, both chasing him and trying to consume his being but he catches “hold of the root of a wild vine and swung himself down over the edge” suspending him in the air (the man`s present). He realizes that eventually he will fall and one of the tigers will consume him but rather than focus on his demise he grasps “ the vine with one hand, he plucked the strawberry with the other”, he found something sweet in a time of despair. The last parable teaches us that everything we do has consequences and sets the precedent for others around us to follow suit. “Existenalism” was more of an essay and had his three separate ideas presented in paragraph for and eventually tied them all together, making his structure completely different from the Zen Parables.

Simalarities and differences

In Zen Parables there are three stories. The first is about a two monk, one who escorts a women across the street. The other monk says that monks should not carry women. The first monk explains that his friend is the one carrying her in his thoughts. The second story is about a man who is being chased by a tiger, he then flees up a tree and when death is certain, he indulges himself with the sweet taste of a strawberry. The third story is about how four monks, who have made a vow in silence, breaks that silence with something as trivial as a flickering lamp. The second story teaches us about how “Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself” (Sartre). There also is a story of how a man must make the choice to stay with his mother or leave to fight in the war to avenge his brother, even if it mean his mother will wither into despair. The only similarity in both the readings is that the choice that the monk makes to help the woman and the decision of the man to leave his mother is a choice in character and in a universal and that he must take responsibility for his actions. The differences in the story however, are apparent. Each story in Zen Parables teaches us a different lesson, the first being to not carry misdeeds in though. The second being to know when to give up, and the third being to not be bothered with trivial things. The second story has one universal message which whether or not god exist, the choice and responsibilities lies with the man who makes those choices. 

Similarities and Differences

A similarity I was able to point out in both readings is based on both readings having similar ideologies. In "Learning to be Silent" from the Zen Parables, four pupils of the Tendai school promise to one another that they will observe seven days of silence. By the time the lamps began to get dimmer on the first night, one of the pupils spoke, and the others followed suit in a sort of domino effect, each breaking their promise to the others. In Existentialism by Jean-Paul Sartre he says "...when we say man is responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he is responsible for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men." Sartre's idea of responsibility for all connects to the pupils in "Learning to be Silent" because once one of them broke the promise to speak, the remaining three proceeded to do the same. The first pupil spoke without the consideration that he could also cause the others to falter. A concept that seems to be apparent in both pieces is that even if one sole person doesn't intend for their actions to directly influence anyone other than themselves it's inevitable that it will in some way. It is important for man to be aware of his actions because chances are they will directly affect those around them, at the very least.

A difference I noticed in the Zen Parables and Existentialism is the difference in intent by the authors. The authors of the Zen Parables attempt to leave their writings up for interpretation. They could be simple lessons about self-control, overcoming fear, and the importance of silence, but it’s purely up to be interpreted by the reader themselves. Sartre’s Existentialism however seems, to me, to be more persuasive. Almost like he's trying to say believe what you want, but this way of belief is better. He tries to slyly point out why his point of view makes sense. He says existentialism "...declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing." In this he’s acknowledging that he sees the other side, but it’s pointless because what he has to say makes more sense.

Similarities and Differences

Both of the readings are similar in a way that each puts forth the idea of human behavior in perspective to the universe as a whole. In Existentialism there is an example of a boy who is faced with a choice “of leaving for England and joining the Free French forces leaving his mother behind” or “remaining with his mother and helping her carry on” as he was the only source of consolation. The boy had to choose one of the two options if he chooses the first then his mother would be left alone to circumstances that may not always be in her favor and if he chooses the second then his brother’s vengeance would be incomplete. A similar situation is faced in the parable Muddy Road by a monk called Tanzan who is crossing a muddy road and sees a girl struggling to cross the road. He too is faced with two choices: to help the girl cross the road by carrying her or to just continue without bothering because “monks don’t go near females because it is dangerous.” These situations are similar in that they show that life is not always so straightforward there are times when the decision is difficult to make. In the world there are always two choices either to go with the known results or path or to discover new things by exploring something that is unknown.

The main difference between these two readings is that in the Zen Parables there are three explicit lessons. The first one being that you should not live in the past you should live in the present. This is depicted by when Tanzan tells Ekido “are you still carrying her,” this implies that Ekido is still in the past (a monk should not go near women) grasping onto something that he can easily let go. The second lesson is that you should live in the moment. Even when the Buddha is stuck in a situation that can eventually kill him (tiger knaw at vine saving him from being food) he decides to “grasp the vine with one hand and pluck the strawberry with the other.” This implies that the Buddha wasn’t really thinking about his future but currently living his present to the best. The last lesson is that there is a domino effect present in human nature; what one person does is followed even unconsciously by others. This is shown when the first pupil asks the servant to “fix the lamps” that were growing dim. As a result the rest of the pupils speak up either telling the first pupil that they are “not supposed to talk”, complaining about the two pupils talking, or claiming that “I am the only one who has not talked.” Whereas in Existentialism, Sartre explains three terms: anguish, forlornness, and despair to explain his philosophy. He defines anguish as “the man who involves himself and who realizes that he is not only the person he chooses to be, but also a lawmaker who is, at the same time, choosing all mankind as well as himself.” This in turn leads to the responsibility of everything. Forlornness is defined as “god does not exist and that we have to face all the consequences of this.” Basically it states that God should be abolished. Lastly he defines despair as being bitterness. This philosophy takes a more positive outlook than the parables’ lessons. 

Comparison

As humans we try to understand the divine or try to make sense of the larger universe that we live in. In the Zen Parables, three stories are told with each sending a different message. The “Muddy Roads”, is the story of two monks who are walking throw heavy rain and they come across a woman that is having trouble because she cannot cross the muddy road. Because of this one of the men (Tanzan) carries the woman across. Afterwards the fellow monk reminds the other who helped the woman across the mud that “monks don’t go near females…” as well as questions why Tanzan even did it. Similarly in Existentialism by Jean-Paul Sartre, he gives an example of a boy given the choice to leave his mother in need or to join the Free French forces. Sartre then states that the boy is deciding between two kinds of ethics, “an ethics of sympathy, of personal devotion; on the other, a broader ethics, but one whose efficacy was more dubious.” The concept of the two are similar because both Tanzan and the boy were put in situations where they had to make a choice, to follow what they believe to be instinctually right or to choose a path that could lead to different possibilities.
                Although the two readings share similarities they do share differences in how each one is perceived. Throughout the readings in Zen Parables a man’s actions all lead to a despair type ending. From the “Muddy Road”, the monk’s actions are influenced by the woman because she is in need of assistance so she can get across the mud which results him to disobey is teachings of staying away from women. In “A Parable” the man who will soon fall to his death is influenced by nature around him for example, the strawberry to find the good in a bad situation. As well as in the “Learning to be silent” reading where when one student spoke it lead to all of the fellow students into speaking which results in the failure in understanding meditation.  These examples are how the actions of man lead them to anguish. However in Existentialism, Sartre states that existentialism is a more optimistic view point, it includes sayings like, “Conquer yourself rather than the world” and “nothing ventured nothing gained”. Therefore the ideas in the Zen Parables take a negative approach while the Existentialism article takes a more optimistic approach.

Morality: Good vs Evil

Both, Moral Insticts and Why Can't We All Get Along?, have situational awareness as an emphasis as well as logical and emotional thinking. With this in mind, an individual's intentions affects the goodness or evilness when it is perceived. A persons morality deeply impacts daily routines and even critical moments. Joshua Greene's study has a scientific approach in discovering what influences an individuals decisions, actions, and over all morals. Depending on which parts of the individual's brain is being stimulated, can either make a solid logical approach or a more sensitive emotional approach. Does a sympathetic neurological reaction result in a better or worse outcome than a systematic one? Well, Greene explained that the outcome is ultimately the same, but the only real difference is the individual perceiving this action. In, Moral Insticts, Steven Pinker starts off with an example of most admirable and least admirable celebrity or successful person. Mother Tereasa was the most common answer for most admirable because of her caring and giving acts, and accomplishments. Bill Gates on the other had unfortunately been the victim of being most unadmirable. Which begs the question, Why? Both individuals accomplished great things that have advanced the world, whether that be technologically or as a community or country. Both impacted the culture of the United States and even touched other countries. Joshua Greene, Why Can't We All Get Along, summarized this the best, by explaining how "Moral Dumbfounding" can complicate our reasoning. If it feels right to say someone is more admirable because their achievements are more caring and kind when compared to another's achievements then there lays the real problem. The self awareness that Greene and Pinker mention is to help lift the veil from over the eyes of most people. Appreciation of all acts, whether the intentions were positive or negative, has helped everyone evolve over time. If history is ignored then history is destined to repeat itself.