Erich From and Zen Buddhism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Erich From and Zen Buddhism - Essay Example The unconscious, in terms of Zen, the unidentified, is antescientific but however not beyond the reach of consciousness. To become conscious of the unconscious is certainly Zen's primary task. He completed his education at the Universities of Frankfurt, Heidelberg, and Munich, and at the Berlin Institute of Psychoanalysis. Following his immigration to the United States in 1933, he established a private practice in psychiatry and taught at New York University and the National University of Mexico. His main writings explored those needs that he recognized as exclusively human- relatedness, transcendence, rootedness, individuality, and a frame of orientation. His works, several of which reached wide audiences, include Escape from Freedom (1941), Man For Himself (1947), The Heart of Man (1964), and The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (1973). The manifestation of many contributions to the topic of Zen Buddhism, is in more than one way indicative of our state of affairs in the Western World. If the need of Oriental philosophy is however increasingly felt in our times, the explanation would rather point to a psychological frame of reference. Erich Fromm maintains that there is a paradoxical element in Zen Buddhism which is more congenial to Western rational thought than is Western religion itself. Thus according to him, it is not surprising that the teachings of Zen help Western man to find an answer to his most upsetting problems. (Fromm, 2000) C.G. Jung is inclined to equate the terms satori with the Self. (Suzuki, 1999) Jung terms the ego as the center of awareness. The Self embraces and includes the ego. (Jung, 1998 ) Satori is, therefore, a release of the ego through the Self, to which the Buddha-Nature, i.e. total consciousness is added. Sigmund Freud is less hopeful about the success of this approach. Even as the methods used in reaching conscious awareness are varied, there remains however a weak relationship between Zen and psychoanalysis. The Zen master, to be true, maintains that intellection of any kind is a key offense so far as the understanding of Zen is concerned, while Freud emphatically posits: "where id was, there ego shall be". The great experts of Zen are well aware of this quandary, and it is in this light that Suzuki states: "If I am asked ... what Zen teaches, I would reply, Zen teaches nothing. Whatever teachings there are in Zen, they come out of one's own mind. We teach ourselves; Zen only points t he way. Unless this pointing is teaching, there is certainly nothing in Zen intentionally set up as its fundamental doctrines or as its fundamental philosophy." (Suzuki, 2000) Hubert Benoit concurs with this idea when he points out that Zen comprises a variety of angles. "My reader", he states, "should understand that no artificial understanding is deemed to pass from my mind to his ... this synthesis should happen in his mind by a means appropriate to himself, as it occurs in my mind by a means appropriate to me". (Benoit,1995) Zen Buddhism and Psychoanalysis Many a fundamental difference between Zen and psycho-analysis is already perceptible at this point, but so are other similarities, despite the varied methods of approach. It is thus

Markets & Water rights Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Markets & Water rights - Essay Example The researcher states that questions regarding property become problematic when it comes to properties that stretch over the boundaries of many private properties (as well as public properties) owned by several owners such as water bodies like streams or rivers. Therefore, it worthwhile to analyze water rights in the light of property issues. McPherson states that property has different connotations in different contexts and he rightly argues that property is a right and not physical possession. For instance, a person may be in possession of a house on rent or for safekeeping on behalf of a friend or a landlord, but that does not mean that the current occupant is the owner of the property. Assuming that rights will settle the matter as to who owns the property there are several instances where the boundaries of rights can become confusing. One is where the property is described as a common one and the other is where the property in question is a water body. As McPherson purports ever yone has an 'enforceable claim to use' common lands, public parks, city streets, highways. On the other hand, there are state-owned properties like for example, NASA or other properties owned by the state and federal governments. These properties do not provide the same rights to citizens as do common properties. Such properties are maintained for some specific purpose aimed at the benefit of the society or individual sections of the society and not for individual enjoyment. A court of law is an ideal example, which does not provide an enforceable claim to use sections of the property as in the case of a park or a highway. It may be used under certain conditions to address the rights of citizens to enforce law. The question here is where water bodies that cannot be defined clearly fall in the case of property rights. In an area where there is abundant rainfall or availability of common water bodies, this might not be much of an issue. But the case of the American West, where availab ility of water is more of an issue, the rights of property becomes an issue that needs legal and statutory assistance to find a settlement. Gillian and Brown, in their paper titled 'Instream flow protection' has discussed this issue in some detail, referring to the history of water disputes and laws right from the start of colonization of the country. For instance, the Spaniards followed their own domestic water laws which provide the property owner to use water flowing through their property. But public benefit would override private needs and in such an instance, the latter would prevail. British settlers, who back home had few problems with water, were not as well prepared. After attaining independence, different states in the union had to develop their own laws regarding management of water and most were made according to current demands at the time. For example, the California gold rush prompted lawmakers to allow property owners to use water for their own use. American law fol lowing British statutes aimed at implementing what is known as the Riparian law whereby any owner who has access to flowing water (watercourse) adjacent or through his property can make reasonable use of it for his own use.