A polite discourse on Syncretism

[ahimsaman72]

Hello Chris!

I found the following piece of Buddhist scripture that speaks about the five aggregates and their relation to dukha (suffering):

From the Udana - the third book of the Khuddaka Nikaya, which is the fifth collection in the Sutta Pitaka:

Enligtenment:

So have I heard:
When the Buddha, after 7 days of non-stop sitting meditation in the bliss of Awakening, in the first watch of the night then directed his unified attention to dependent co-arising in forward order thus:

When this exists, then that exists too.
When this arises, that arises too.

When ignorance arises, mental construction also comes to be.
When mental construction arises, consciousness emerges too.
When consciousness arises, name-&-form develops as well.
When name-&-form arises, the six senses appear too.
When the six senses arise, contact becomes obvious.
When contact arises, feeling is assigned on top.
When feeling arises, craving also automatically arises.
When craving arises, clinging follows.
When clinging arises, becoming additionally develops.
When becoming arises, rebirth emerges to.
When the rebirth process arises, aging & death, sorrow, distress, pain,
grief and despair also manifest. This verily is the origin of this
whole mass of Suffering…’ Then, he, the Blessed One, on recognizing the
significance of that reason, exclaimed:
When the appearance of phenomena becomes clearly manifest to the Noble
friend through keen meditation, then all his doubts evaporate, since by
that he understands the originating root causes of all phenomena.’

I realize what you were saying now about the five aggregates being inseparable from dukha. I see the progression expressed from this scripture I quoted above. The information I have studied didn’t really put this together in this way, it just showed the facts of them - without linking them together. I hope that makes sense. Thank you for bringing this up on the other thread. I thought it would be appropriate to list that here.

Blessings and peace to you…

 

[chrisb]

GilKobrin:

Deductive logic determines fact by means of the application of a hypothesis (of previous existence) and inductive logic determines the hypothesis through assessment of the facts. The two work hand in hand, and it is often hard to distinguish where one ends and another beings in a given argument - but it is important to do so.

Which is emphasized - deductive logic, which utilizes a closed system, or inductive logic, which utilizes an open system - is indicative of the overall approach; does one look for the concepts behind the particulars, or does one limit one’s self to only the particular manifestations of the concepts. It is similar to the difference between a mathematician and a scientist; a mathematician will limit himself to application of rules and axioms, while a scientist will seek out the reasoning behind those rules and axioms and even create his own.

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace GilKobrin,

Would you recognize that through the application of logic, particularly in the case of metaphysical discourse, one is “forced” to assume one has “all” the facts and that these facts about existence is “complete” and “accurate”? Applications of logic mistakes the unseen for it’s notions of the unseen and projects it’s determinations of these notions onto the unknowable. What we end up with are assumptions and assertions of the unspeakable and this leads to the subjugation of ideas that break these notions and becomes of form of spiritual tyranny which binds the soul.

I think in our Western Tradition this is where we error in our metaphysical proclaimations.

When it comes to phenomena which relate directly to God’s existence, such as Truth, one can not utilize inductive logic - as there exists an objective reality; there are no rules to create or room for hypothesis.

Does one assume that through our senses and our imagination we are capable to conclude objectively what reality is? This is a broad claim and one which the east claims silence on. I dare say that when confronted with the infinite silence is the only correct response.

Within our own, physical existence, we can certainly do well with inductive logic, for most of it is determined by our own selves.

However, when dealing with Truth - which does not change, and exists external to Man - one can only use the process of deduction. As the sky will be blue even if no one were to see it, it is useless to hypothesize that it might be green.I see that you greatly desire to know with certanity that which does not change. The idea that change is bad and non-change is good is what a Buddhist would call a fettish. It illuminates a fear buried deep within which surfaces regardless of ones desires over it. They would say that it is caused by an imbalance which is not been addressed. Clearly change is all around us and it brings about a certain among of uncertanity but in also brings about oportunity. It is something said that we project our own personal fettishes into our metaphysics. What is your insight on this?

As I approached it from an Aristotelian view, it wasn’t so much an assumption but the conclusion of your thought process.

Who “conclude” my thought process? Was what was “concluded” mine or yours?

All that exists “within” Man - be it physical or non-physical - undergoes change. Therefore, were Truth something ingrained within us - in our soul or our psyche - than it too would change along with that part of us. I did not mean to put words in your mouth, but rather to analyze the continuance of your idea.

Yes, and yet we are still ourselves. If Truth had not a resting place within, we would not recognize it when we encounter it and yet we do.

I do not believe that God has a relationship with Man, but rather that He (for whatever reason) interacts with the Universe and transmits knowledge to us via prophecy.

Well, from what you have said God does have somekind of a relationship with Man because He interacts with the Universe and thus Man via prophecy. I state anything with certanity one must have personal experience with it. I will only say that I hope you experience more.

I am enjoying this discussion!

I have greatly enjoyed this discussion as well. You are a very articulate individual and I am both impressed and excited to encounter you.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[chrisb]

ahimsaman72:

When this exists, then that exists too.

When this arises, that arises too.

When ignorance arises, mental construction also comes to be.

When mental construction arises, consciousness emerges too.

When consciousness arises, name-&-form develops as well.

When name-&-form arises, the six senses appear too.

When the six senses arise, contact becomes obvious.

When contact arises, feeling is assigned on top.

When feeling arises, craving also automatically arises.

When craving arises, clinging follows.

When clinging arises, becoming additionally develops.

When becoming arises, rebirth emerges to.

When the rebirth process arises, aging & death, sorrow, distress, pain, grief and despair also manifest. This verily is the origin of this whole mass of Suffering…’ Then, he, the Blessed One, on recognizing the significance of that reason, exclaimed:

When the appearance of phenomena becomes clearly manifest to the Noble friend through keen meditation, then all his doubts evaporate, since by that he understands the originating root causes of all phenomena.’

I realize what you were saying now about the five aggregates being inseparable from dukha. I see the progression expressed from this scripture I quoted above. The information I have studied didn’t really put this together in this way, it just showed the facts of them - without linking them together. I hope that makes sense. Thank you for bringing this up on the other thread. I thought it would be appropriate to list that here.

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace,

Yeah, this is a wonderful piece of the puzzle! Thank you for digging it up! I bind dukkha with the Five Aggregates because, in a since, to completely separate ourselves from them we, in effect, would no longer exist. I think the Buddha later elaborates on this with the notion of Nabana with Remainder and Nabana without Remainder as Ahimsa offered. Clearly it is a ‘puzzle’ to ponder and one of the "mysteries’ of Buddhism.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[ahimsaman72]

chrisb:

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace,

Yeah, this is a wonderful piece of the puzzle! Thank you for digging it up! I bind dukkha with the Five Aggregates because, in a since, to completely separate ourselves from them we, in effect, would no longer exist. I think the Buddha later elaborates on this with the notion of Nabana with Remainder and Nabana without Remainder as Ahimsa offered. Clearly it is a ‘puzzle’ to ponder and one of the "mysteries’ of Buddhism.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

It is a puzzle, isn’t it??? Oh, your welcome. I signed up for an emailing list which sends dhamma teachings direct to your email. One of the first emails I received included the above scripture! So, it was only fitting that I reproduce it here.

Eastern philosophy is so different and seems very complex. But I find it fascinating to see how other people in the world view their world. My father practiced karate and had Buddha statues and meditated when I was a teenager. He loved Bruce Lee and enjoyed Eastern practices. I didn’t pay much attention back then, but I find it to be rather exciting now that I’m older.

You guys lost me a loooooonnnnnnggggg time ago with your discussions of deductive logic and inductive logic, etc. I’m glad you know what you are talking about!!

You have obviously studied such things in depth and I’m so glad to see your openness and willingness to discuss Eastern philosophy and teachings.

Peace and blessings to you…

 

[GilKobrin]

chrisb:

Would you recognize that through the application of logic, particularly in the case of metaphysical discourse, one is “forced” to assume one has “all” the facts and that these facts about existence is “complete” and “accurate”?

I would not recognize this, although it is a common error many people make. Logic is merely a though process, nothing more; in fact, it’s how people naturally think. The validity of a logical argument has nothing to do with the truth of its premises.

chrisb:

Applications of logic mistakes the unseen for it’s notions of the unseen and projects it’s determinations of these notions onto the unknowable. What we end up with are assumptions and assertions of the unspeakable and this leads to the subjugation of ideas that break these notions and becomes of form of spiritual tyranny which binds the soul.
I think in our Western Tradition this is where we error in our metaphysical proclaimations.

Actually, it is by the very process of logic that one is able to validate religion and construct a true belief system. The invalid assumptions and assertions of which you speak are the result of faulty premises, not logic; it is valid logic - and true premises - which I maintain set the soul free from such things.

chrisb:

Does one assume that through our senses and our imagination we are capable to conclude objectively what reality is? This is a broad claim and one which the east claims silence on. I dare say that when confronted with the infinite silence is the only correct response.

We are able to perceive some of it, although no true philosopher-logician would claim that we can perceive all of it. Our imaginative capacity - that is, the ability to countenance abstractions - is what sets us apart from the animals. I believe it is our God-given tool to perceive Truth - the truth that exists separate from the physical universe.

chrisb:

We can only have certanity about that which we know most intimately. What do we know more about than ourselves?

After exploring the outside Universe, one must turn inward, and explore the Universe within one’s self. However, the two work under the same basic systems; therefore, in seeking out the Truth, one must first look outward, than inward.

chrisb:

I see that you greatly desire to know with certanity that which does not change. The idea that change is bad and non-change is good is what a Buddhist would call a fettish. It illuminates a fear buried deep within which surfaces regardless of ones desires over it. They would say that it is caused by an imbalance which is not been addressed. Clearly change is all around us and it brings about a certain among of uncertanity but in also brings about oportunity. It is something said that we project our own personal fettishes into our metaphysics. What is your insight on this?

I would take the Taoist approach; change what can be changed, and do not changed that which can not be changed. The further an entity is removed from physicality, the more “resistant” to change it is - God, the ultimate non-physical entity, undergoes no change.

chrisb:

Who “conclude” my thought process? Was what was “concluded” mine or yours?

I followed it to what i believed to be its logical conclusion. I apologize if this was an error.

chrisb:

Yes, and yet we are still ourselves. If Truth had not a resting place within, we would not recognize it when we encounter it and yet we do.

Truth, as we relate to it, must have some element of subjectivity; but it must be acknowledged that it is unchanging, in its perfect form.

chrisb:

Well, from what you have said God does have somekind of a relationship with Man because He interacts with the Universe and thus Man via prophecy. I state anything with certanity one must have personal experience with it. I will only say that I hope you experience more.

A relationship is built upon commonality between to entities; what does God have in common with Man?

chrisb:

I have greatly enjoyed this discussion as well. You are a very articulate individual and I am both impressed and excited to encounter you.

I am interested in the Catholic philosophy (hence my presence). Hopefully we will be able to have many more discussions.

Shalom!

Gil

 

[chrisb]

GilKobrin:

I would not recognize this, although it is a common error many people make. Logic is merely a though process, nothing more; in fact, it’s how people naturally think. The validity of a logical argument has nothing to do with the truth of its premises.

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace GilKobrin,

Yes, it’s how people normally thing about things ina physical reality where there assertions can be tested and proved. Clearly, we are unable to do such proof-testing with that which is unknown personally or encounter personally. Prove your premise and you cease to conjecture. If no proof is possible, then conjecture is all you do. I caution is not toward the “use” of logic, it only makes sense that we are “reasonable” with our conjecture but we should not assume “our ways are God’s ways” if you follow me.

Actually, it is by the very process of logic that one is able to validate religion and construct a true belief system. The invalid assumptions and assertions of which you speak are the result of faulty premises, not logic; it is valid logic - and true premises - which I maintain set the soul free from such things.

I agree with you here but I don’t think it is necessary to elaborate when we are in the dark. Eventhough I am not a Buddhist I respect the fact the Buddha refused to elaborate past that which he could prove personally through his own experience, that being the 4 Noble Truths.

We are able to perceive some of it, although no true philosopher-logician would claim that we can perceive all of it. Our imaginative capacity - that is, the ability to countenance abstractions - is what sets us apart from the animals. I believe it is our God-given tool to perceive Truth - the truth that exists separate from the physical universe.

I agree with you here, although Gandhi spoke of this “God-given tool to perceive Truth” with:** There is an inmost center in us all, where truth abides in fullness. **I would posit that what you suggest here is what Gandhi was suggesting. Sure samatics and assertions are crafted to fit each individuals cultural outlook but the “kernel” of truth in each are the same, in my opinion.

After exploring the outside Universe, one must turn inward, and explore the Universe within one’s self. However, the two work under the same basic systems; therefore, in seeking out the Truth, one must first look outward, than inward.

Ah, you are familiar with the “Golden Rule” (i.e. what is found above is found below.) This is good because if it is true then Gandhi is valid in seeking within to understand without just as you are valid in seeking without to understand within. Ultimately, it is two paths that lead to the same source (i.e. universal truth).

I would take the Taoist approach; change what can be changed, and do not changed that which can not be changed. The further an entity is removed from physicality, the more “resistant” to change it is - God, the ultimate non-physical entity, undergoes no change.

I completely agree with you here. This is remarkably similiar to Buddha’s teachings.

I followed it to what i believed to be its logical conclusion. I apologize if this was an error.

Understanding is it’s own apology. Peace.

Truth, as we relate to it, must have some element of subjectivity; but it must be acknowledged that it is unchanging, in its perfect form.

This is another very interesting point that you make and one that draws me back to discussions with Ahimsa and Ahimsaman72 concerning Nirvana and Buddha’s Teaching concerning the Five Aggregates which constitute “being”. The short of it is “as long as there is consciousness of “being-hood” we are unable to open to ultimate truth.”

A relationship is built upon commonality between to entities; what does God have in common with Man?

Yes, I see your point. I would say that we share a likeness with our creator if not “in essense” through “intimate contact” or “familiarity”. In this there is no duality, neither deism or atheism, for deism means a belief in a God far away in the heavens, and atheism means being without belief in God. I believe in God. In which God? In the God from whom we have become separated, the God within us, at that center of truth, and yet outside us; as it is said in the Bible, we live and move and have our being in God.

PS: Are you Jewish? What is your practice?

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[ahimsaman72]

chrisb:

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace GilKobrin,

Yes, it’s how people normally thing about things ina physical reality where there assertions can be tested and proved. Clearly, we are unable to do such proof-testing with that which is unknown personally or encounter personally. Prove your premise and you cease to conjecture. If no proof is possible, then conjecture is all you do. I caution is not toward the “use” of logic, it only makes sense that we are “reasonable” with our conjecture but we should not assume “our ways are God’s ways” if you follow me.

I agree with you here but I don’t think it is necessary to elaborate when we are in the dark. Eventhough I am not a Buddhist I respect the fact the Buddha refused to elaborate past that which he could prove personally through his own experience, that being the 4 Noble Truths.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

Here is a teaching from the Buddha on thoughts which are unseen and unobservable. It gives great insight into what we can test and know and what we cannot. We can only observe and test and use logic on what can be seen and felt and experienced. Even the Buddhas themselves cannot “see” thought - it is invisible. That’s what I sense from this passage. See what you think. Peace…

Contemplation of Thought (From Siksasamuccaya)

"He searches all around for his thoughts. But what thought? It is either passionate, or hateful, or confused. What about the past, future or present? What is past is extinct, what is future that has not yet arrived, and the present has no stability. For thought, Kasyapa, cannot be apprehended, inside, or outside, or in between both. For thought is immaterial, invisible, nonresisting, inconceivable, unsupported, and homeless. Thought has never been seen by any of the Buddhas, nor do they see it, nor will they see it. And what the Buddhas never see, how can that be an observable process, except in the sense that dharmas proceed by the way of mistaken perception? Thought is like a magical illusion; by an imagination of what is actually unreal it takes hold of a manifold variety of rebirths. A thought is like the stream of a river, without any staying power; as soon as it is produced it breaks up and disappears. A thought is like the flame of a lamp, and it proceeds through causes and conditions. A thought is like lightning, it breaks up in a moment and does not stay on…

Searching for thought all round, he does not see it within or without. He does not see it in the skandhas, or in the elements, or in the sense-fields. Unable to see thought, he seeks to find the trend of thought, and asks himself: Whence is the genesis of thought? And it occurs to him that “where there is an object, there thought arises.” Is then the thought one thing, and the object another? No, what is the object, just that is the thought.If the object were one thing, and the thought another, then there would be a double state of thought.So the object itself is just thought. Can then thought review thought? No, thought cannot review thought. As the blade of a sword cannot cut itself, so a thought cannot see itself. Moreover, vexed and pressed hard on all sides, thought proceeds, without any staying power, like a monkey or like the wind. It ranges far, bodiless, easily changing, agitated by the objects of sense, with the six sense-fields for its sphere, connected with one thing after another. The stability of thought, its one-pointedness, its immobility, its undistraughtness, its one-pointed calm, its nondistraction, that is on the other hand called mindfulness as to thought."

 

[chrisb]

ahimsaman72:

Here is a teaching from the Buddha on thoughts which are unseen and unobservable. It gives great insight into what we can test and know and what we cannot. We can only observe and test and use logic on what can be seen and felt and experienced. Even the Buddhas themselves cannot “see” thought - it is invisible. That’s what I sense from this passage. See what you think. Peace…

Contemplation of Thought (From Siksasamuccaya)

"He searches all around for his thoughts. But what thought? It is either passionate, or hateful, or confused. What about the past, future or present? What is past is extinct, what is future that has not yet arrived, and the present has no stability. For thought, Kasyapa, cannot be apprehended, inside, or outside, or in between both. For thought is immaterial, invisible, nonresisting, inconceivable, unsupported, and homeless. Thought has never been seen by any of the Buddhas, nor do they see it, nor will they see it. And what the Buddhas never see, how can that be an observable process, except in the sense that dharmas proceed by the way of mistaken perception? Thought is like a magical illusion; by an imagination of what is actually unreal it takes hold of a manifold variety of rebirths. A thought is like the stream of a river, without any staying power; as soon as it is produced it breaks up and disappears. A thought is like the flame of a lamp, and it proceeds through causes and conditions. A thought is like lightning, it breaks up in a moment and does not stay on…

Searching for thought all round, he does not see it within or without. He does not see it in the skandhas, or in the elements, or in the sense-fields. Unable to see thought, he seeks to find the trend of thought, and asks himself: Whence is the genesis of thought? And it occurs to him that “where there is an object, there thought arises.” Is then the thought one thing, and the object another? No, what is the object, just that is the thought.If the object were one thing, and the thought another, then there would be a double state of thought.So the object itself is just thought. Can then thought review thought? No, thought cannot review thought. As the blade of a sword cannot cut itself, so a thought cannot see itself. Moreover, vexed and pressed hard on all sides, thought proceeds, without any staying power, like a monkey or like the wind. It ranges far, bodiless, easily changing, agitated by the objects of sense, with the six sense-fields for its sphere, connected with one thing after another. The stability of thought, its one-pointedness, its immobility, its undistraughtness, its one-pointed calm, its nondistraction, that is on the other hand called mindfulness as to thought."

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace Ahimsaman72,

Once again, my friend, you have offered words that cause one to pause and reflect and give ponder to them.

Have you ever read any of the works of Hazrat Inayat Khan? I highly suggest that you take a look at him. He is a Sufi Mystic but I dare say you would find his writings very edifying.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[ahimsaman72]

chrisb:

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace Ahimsaman72,

Once again, my friend, you have offered words that cause one to pause and reflect and give ponder to them.

Have you ever read any of the works of Hazrat Inayat Khan? I highly suggest that you take a look at him. He is a Sufi Mystic but I dare say you would find his writings very edifying.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

Peace to you friend…

I am simply amazed at the Buddha’s insight and wisdom. When I ponder his writings they make so much sense. There is truth in his words.

I haven’t read his works, no. I will see what I can dig up on him. Thanks for the reference!!!

 

[oat_soda]

Hazrat Inayat Khan

this guy is a total loser, everyone knows that he was gay.

Buddha’s insight and wisdom

give me a break, buddha would get his but kicked by a bunch of nerds. this thread makes me want to puke.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Here is an article that I found interesting concerning Kuan Yin and Mary:

interfaithmarianpilgrimages.com/pages/mary_Buddha.html

There are some similarities. There was another article I found that spoke of Buddhists, Muslims and others who are visiting Marian shrines all over the world. I will try to find it again and post a link there.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

oat soda:

this guy is a total loser, everyone knows that he was gay. give me a break, buddha would get his but kicked by a bunch of nerds. this thread makes me want to puke.

As always, you speak your mind and show the fallacies of your heart. I suggest a heart of love and compassion to rid yourself of your anger and hostility.

Peace…

 

[chrisb]

oat soda:

this guy is a total loser, everyone knows that he was gay.

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace oat soda,

I have read both the Biography of Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan published by The Hague: East West Publications, 1979 as well as Inayat Khan: A Biography by Elizabeth De Jong-Keesing and both articulate his deep love for his wife and children and mention nothing of an alternative (homosexual lifestyle). What works have you read which asserts this I’m very interested?

give me a break, buddha would get his but kicked by a bunch of nerds. this thread makes me want to puke.

If the expression of physical prowest equates to spiritual enlightenment to you then I would guess fundamental Islam would be more to you’re liking. Although many suggest that Sufism is the very “heart” of Islam, it has been rejected by many youths who would rather embrace a faith which allows for such bravado as you are expressing here. If you are interested, I could offer you a few forums which would fill this need?

If you find this thread distasteful to you then I would suggest you kindly avoid it, if you find this impossible, then I am guessing you have a issue with your masculinity, perhaps the Buddha would call it your fettish?

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[chrisb]

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace GilKobrin,

You spoke about an interest in Catholic Philosophy. Although I am by no means learned enough to shed much light on the subject I would offer to you Catholic Process Theology as a very logical and very respected metaphysical model in which to view our reality.

Christian Process Thought

After 1960, as the influence of neo-orthodoxy was waning, an increasing number of theologians turned to Whitehead and Hartshorne as new philosophical sources for a contemporary expression of Christian faith. Beginning with the doctrine of God, such theologians as John Cobb, Schubert Ogden, Daniel D. Williams, and Norman Pittenger sought to show that the process view of God is more in accord with the biblical view of God (as dynamically related to human history) than is the more traditional Christian view of classical theism. They argued that the monopolar conception of God as timeless, immutable, impassible, and in every sense independent was more hellenistic than biblical. Williams analyzed the biblical, Christian theme of love and argued that Whitehead’s metaphysics helps the theologian to explain God’s loving action in ways not possible with classical notions of God as being-itself or absolute predestinator.

Ogden argued that the “new theism” of process thought, with its world-affirming emphasis, expresses the relevance of Christian faith to secular man, who needs an ultimate ground for his “ineradicable confidence” in the final worth of human existence. Cobb showed how Whiteheadian philosophy can be the basis of a new Christian natural theology, a theology which by philosophical means demonstrates that the peculiar vision of the Christian community of faith illuminates the general experience of mankind.

Process theologians then began to concentrate on Christology, especially in the 70s, though Pittenger led the way by writing several works on the subject from a process view, the first in 1959. For Pittenger the uniqueness of Christ is seen in the way he actualized the divine aim for his life. Sin is “deviation of aim”; man in his subjective aim distorts or deviates from God’s initial aim. In his subjective aims Christ actualized the ideal aim of God (as the cosmic Lover) with such intensity that Christ became the supreme human embodiment of “love-in-action.” The deity of Jesus does not mean that he is an eternally preexistent person, but refers to God’s act in and through the life of Jesus, who incarnated and transformed the whole of Israel’s religion and became the eminent example of God’s creative love which is at work universally.

David Griffin has spoken similarly, suggesting that Jesus actualized God’s decisive revelation; i.e., the “vision of reality” shown in his words and actions was the supreme expression of God’s eternal character and purpose.

Cobb emphasizes a Logos Christology. The Logos as the primordial nature of God is present (incarnate) in all things in the form of initial aims for creatures. But Jesus is the fullest incarnation of the Logos because in him there was no tension between the divine initial aim and his own self-purposes of the past. Jesus so prehended God that God’s immanence was “coconstitutive” of Jesus’ selfhood. Cobb thus suggests (as opposed to other process thinkers) that Jesus was different from others in his “structure of existence” not merely by degree but in kind.

[continued]

 

[chrisb]

[continued from above post]

Lewis Ford places emphasis on the resurrection as the basis for a Christology. According to him, what the first disciples experienced was neither a bodily appearance of Christ nor merely a hallucination, but a vision, or an encounter with a “nonperceptual reality” made perceptual by “hallucinatory means.” Thus the resurrection is of a spiritual kind; it is a new emergent reality, the “body of Christ,” in which mankind is transformed into a new organic unity by the living spirit of Christ. Ford also suggests a process view of the Trinity; the Father is the transcendent unity of God, who by a creative “nontemporal act” generates the Logos (the primordial nature) as the eternal expression of divine wisdom and valuation, and the Spirit is the consequent nature in the sense of the immanent being and providential power of God.

At present, process works continue to abound, dealing with various Christian concepts and concerns: sin and evil, a theodicy, the church, pastoral care, ecology, liberation, and the relation of theology to science, philosophy, and culture. Though process theology has not yet become a major force in the church pew, it is very influential in the intellectual world of the seminaries and graduate schools, and no doubts is the most viable form of neoliberal theology now in the United States.

Some other writers of Christian theology from a process perspective are Bernard Meland, Ian Barbour, Peter Hamilton, Eugene Peters, Delwin Brown, William Beardslee, Walter Stokes, Ewert Cousins, E. Baltazar, and Bernard Lee. Though process theology developed mainly within Protestantism, it now has influence also with Roman Catholic thinkers (as is evident from the last four names just mentioned). Catholic process thinkers have been coming to grips not only with Whitehead but also with Teilhard de Chardin, whose thought is historically separate from, but has some philosophical affinity with, the Whiteheadian tradition.

Evaluation

By philosophical or rational standards process theology has several commendable points. First, it emphasizes metaphysical coherence; i.e., it seeks to express a vision of God and the world by a coherent and clearly defined set of metaphysical concept. Second, it integrates science and theology, and vice versa; they are together in the same universal sphere of discourse, namely, process metaphysics. Consequently, and in the third place, process theology provides a tenable answer to the charge that theological language is meaningless.

The process theologian contends that if metaphysics describes those general concepts or principles by which all particulars are to be explained, and if God is the chief exemplification of those principles, then talk about God is eminently meaningful and basic to the meaningfulness of everything else. Fourth, process theology eloquently champions natural theology. Fifth, process theology gives clear and plausible form to a dynamic, personal view of God. Personal qualities such as self-consciousness, creatively, knowledge, and social relatedness are attributed to God in the most literal sense.

By rational standards process theology also has its weaknesses or questionable features. First, one may question whether the process model does justice to the self-identity of an individual person in process. Second, process theology has some problems concerning the finitude and temporality of God, e.g., the problem of relating God’s infinite, nontemporal, primordial nature of God’s finite, temporal, growing, and consequent nature, or the problem of seeing unity of experience in each moment of God’s omnipresent existence in view of the teaching of relativity physics that there is no simultaneous present throughout the universe. Third, there is the question of the religious adequacy of panentheism. Is the most worthy object of worship of God who needs the world in order to be a complete personal being or a God who is a complete personal being prior to the world?

In addition to these philosophical problems, there are some characteristics of process theology which, from the viewpoint of evangelical theology, are contrary to Scripture. These include a nontripersonal view of the Trinity, a Nestorian or Ebionite tendency in Christology, a nonsupernaturalistic view of the Bible and of Christ’s works, the denial of divine foreknowledge and predestination, and a weak view of human depravity.

D W Diehl​

You can “google” Catholic Process Theology and generate several good internet source for your study which I think would set a framework in which we can begin to speak on a whole scope of rich topics including the inclusion of alternative metaphysical models that offer insight to our own understanding.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[RBushlow]

chrisb:

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace RBushlow,

Although I agree that truth is objective and external, I assert that it is never-the-less accessable through the human heart.

How did the Prophets speak the Words of God? I dare say through the work of the Holy Spirit. How does one come to recognize truth? Again I dare say through the work of the Holy Spirit. Wisdom is the gift of God to whom seeks it and it is given freely without concern of labels or memberships. It’s only concern is one’s openness to recieve her.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

Peace to you in the name of Yeshua, chrisb.

Truth is indeed accessible to those who seek it. There is however the all too human tendancy to slant the Truth to ones own understanding. One must have a means (the Church) by which to gauge what one believes the truth to be.

BTW, that is a beautiful greeting. What is your faith tradition?

May the peace of Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.

.

 

[chrisb]

RBushlow:

Peace to you in the name of Yeshua, chrisb.

Truth is indeed accessible to those who seek it. There is however the all too human tendancy to slant the Truth to ones own understanding. One must have a means (the Church) by which to gauge what one believes the truth to be.

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace RBushlow,

Truly, friend this is the danger on the paths we walk. Each of us is a child of God. We are born of His spirit, in all its purity and glory and joy. That heritage is unassailable. To condemn oneself as a sinner, committed to the path of error, is the greatest of all sins. The Bible says: “Know ye not that ye are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dewelleth in you?”

Deep sincerity is necessary in the spiritual path. In guilelessness comes the birth of Spirit. Jesus said: “Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” Before God our human wisdom is nothing. The only way we can coax HIm to surrender Himself to us is by offering to Him the same unconditional love that He gives to us.

I am moved to suggest that Salvation can be found by all, but those who tarry on the way fall into the ditch of indifference. Indifference pervents man from realizing how important it is to find God now, in this moment. OUr great whirling planet, our human individuality, were not given to us merely that we might exist for a time and then vanish into nothingness, but that we might question what it is all about. To live without understanding the purpose of life is foolish, a waste of time. The mystery of life surrounds us, we were given intelligence in order to solve it.

BTW, that is a beautiful greeting. What is your faith tradition?

I am Irish Catholic but I must admit that I am versed in Buddhism, Taoism, Saivite Hinduism and Sufism as well as Sunni Islam. Although I am preparing to accept Third Order Carmelite vows in a few more years (the full process typically take six years).

May the peace of Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.

And to you as well. Thank you very much.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[Ahimsa]

Hi Chrisb,

My familial tradition centers on the Baptist church, and I was Baptist while growing up, but I no longer view myself “Christian” in the traditional sense. I consider myself a practitioner of Sanatana Dharma (otherwise known as “Hinduism”), with much influence from Buddhism, Taoism, and the contemplative Abrahamic traditions.

I don’t know how you are defining “syncretism” here. I read both the Upanishads, on the Dharmic side, as well as classics of Abrahamic literature (e.g., The Imitation of Christ). Would that be considered “syncretic”? I consider Jesus as an avatar, one among many avatars, and I am inspired by his teachings, along with those of Krishna. If syncretism means the selective practice of teachings from different traditions, then I would say that I’m syncretic. If syncretism means no commitment to any one tradition, then I would say that I’m not syncretic.

Shanti

 

[chrisb]

Ahimsa:

Hi Chrisb,

My familial tradition centers on the Baptist church, and I was Baptist while growing up, but I no longer view myself “Christian” in the traditional sense. I consider myself a practitioner of Sanatana Dharma (otherwise known as “Hinduism”), with much influence from Buddhism, Taoism, and the contemplative Abrahamic traditions.

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace Ahimsa,

Ah, we have walked on each others steps in the past, friend, I too grew up Baptist and for a long time wandered from my “western” faith when I studied the other ways. I found my understanding of Catholicism while studying Savite Hinduism and later Sufism.

I don’t know how you are defining “syncretism” here. I read both the Upanishads, on the Dharmic side, as well as classics of Abrahamic literature (e.g., The Imitation of Christ). Would that be considered “syncretic”?

It would appear so but I would hold my opinion till I understood deeper you way, friend.

I consider Jesus as an avatar, one among many avatars, and I am inspired by his teachings, along with those of Krishna. If syncretism means the selective practice of teachings from different traditions, then I would say that I’m syncretic. If syncretism means no commitment to any one tradition, then I would say that I’m not syncretic.

Thinking of Jesus as an avatar is in line with Hindu and somewhat close to the Sufic notion of Saints but to be selective in your practice of your way is a very modern convention. Great mystics would offer caution to you for walking in this manner places one at risk of deluding oneself but again I hold back any criticism until I know more your way. It is not my place to offer you criticism unfounded or confused with half-undersandings. You are a particularly bright child and I would only judge you by your fruit. Surely may we judge by one’s fruit.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[ahimsaman72]

How odd it is that we are all from Baptist backgrounds and all are studying or have studied one or more of these Eastern philosophies/religions (chrisb, ahimsa and me).

And the stranger fact that we are all 3 on a Catholic forum discussing this!

Just thought I would perhaps bring a smile to someone’s face.

Peace to all…