Absolute morality question

[reggieM]

Not quite surer what you mean

By “human nature” I am referring to the same reality that Aristotle observed…a recognisable being who acts in specific ways within specific limits and with often recognisable inbuilt drives needs and teleologies as both an individual and in community.

Such is what we usually mean by “nature” I would think.

Ok, you talk about a reality which is a being.
Why does that being act in those specific ways and not others? What is the origin of those behaviors?
Why does that being have specific limits? What caused those limits?
What is the origin or cause of the drives and needs and purposes of that being?
How did those drives, needs and purposes get “inbuilt” into that being?

The answers to those questions will clarify your idea on what you meant that rational first principles are built into human nature.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Ok, you talk about a reality which is a being.
Why does that being act in those specific ways and not others? What is the origin of those behaviors?
Why does that being have specific limits? What caused those limits?
What is the origin or cause of the drives and needs and purposes of that being?
How did those drives, needs and purposes get “inbuilt” into that being?

The answers to those questions will clarify your idea on what you meant that rational first principles are built into human nature.

You might be overthinking this.

If we need to explain to each other what “nature” is and whether that structure has any identifiable teleology then language itself has failed I would think.
If the generalities of what I speak here are not fairly self-evident then of course what hope discussing common morality.

 

[rossum]

I’m sorry, I didn’t follow that. Catholics do not speak about the origin of God because God is eternally existent and origin of all created beings.

You treat the question of God’s origin as unanswerable, and so ignore it. I treat the question of karma’s origin as unimportant and so ignore it. Either way the question of origin is ignored. Just the way a materialist might ascribe the origin of our current universe to the multiverse and then ignore the question of the origin of the multiverse.

It solves it by bumping it to a level above which no one can go.

That is not a solution, it is just a convenience to avoid an infinite regress.

Interesting perspective. This is radically different than the Catholic view. God is not subject to anything external to Himself. He is the origin of all and therefore supreme over all other being (laws, forces, created things) that come from Him.

I find that “might makes right” is not a good basis for morality. I prefer the Dharmic approach where power does not overrule morality, but instead morality overrules power. In effect I give the opposite answer to the Euthyphro dilemma: God does not decide what is moral; what is moral decides itself, independent of God.

When you consider that a punishment is payment by pain of some sort, then your concern here might disappear. … I would think karma works the same way. Some bad action is offset by good.

Yes, offsets are possible. However this is more difficult in the Abrahamic religions where the only punishment is an eternal hell. The Buddhist hells are not eternal so the suffering is more variable. How can you get time off for good behaviour in an eternal hell?

A murder done for one reason will have a different punishment than one done for another.

How does one eternity in hell differ from another eternity in hell? Buddhism has sixteen hells (eight hot and eight cold) all for a finite time. There is much more possibility of variation in punishment. The Buddhist hells are more like the Catholic Purgatory: unpleasant but temporary.

The Catholic idea of heaven is a lot different also since it is oriented towards a union with God and represents the giving-choice of love to Him.

The heavens are nice, but they are temporary and are not the final goal; that is nirvana, which is not a heaven. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35 when he became enlightened. He died age 80. For 45 years he was living in the world and at the same time in nirvana.

[The Buddha said:] There is, monks, an unborn, an unbecome, an unmade, an unconditioned. If there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, no escape would be possible from the born, become, made, conditioned. But precisely because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, escape from the born, become, made, conditioned is possible.

– Udana 8.3

rossum

 

[reggieM]

You treat the question of God’s origin as unanswerable, and so ignore it.

We wouldn’t look at it that way. It’s not a question that is ignored. It is answered because of the nature of God. We would say in positive sense, God does not have an origin since, by His nature - not dependent on anything else for His existence - He is the eternal origin of all things. So, there’s a reason why the question “what created God?” is nonsense.

It is much different for the question of karma’s origin. The reason why the origin of karma is ignored is not because of the nature of karma, that it explains its own origin and has created all other things, but it’s because it is just unknown.

Just the way a materialist might ascribe the origin of our current universe to the multiverse and then ignore the question of the origin of the multiverse.

As above though, when we say God has no origin, it is because all Being comes from him. With an infinite regress of universes, no single one of them can be self-existing, and the entire collection itself depends on other things to explain it. So, in the Catholiic view, we don’t ignore the question of the supposed origin of God, and we don’t say we don’t know - we answer in the positive, that it is impossible for God to have an origin. The same is not true of karma or a multiverse. They could have been created. A god who has an origin is not the Catholic God. If God was created, it can’t be God. The law of karma could have been created by God (or gods) and still remain exactly as it is.

That is not a solution, it is just a convenience to avoid an infinite regress.

An infinite regress has problems. The idea of a self-existing creator could provide problems also. In our view, explaining the origin of things (that contain partial, changing, incomplete, perfections, powers, purposes - with a being that possesses all fullness of powers, perfections, purpose and completeness, is the best explanation for what we observe.

I find that “might makes right” is not a good basis for morality.

We wouldn’t consider God’s being as a question of “might” alone. In the Catholic view, God’s power is not separate from his wisdom, justice, mercy, love, goodness, knowledge. We might say “right makes right” in the moral view. God is rightness and justice.

 

[reggieM]

I prefer the Dharmic approach where power does not overrule morality, but instead morality overrules power. In effect I give the opposite answer to the Euthyphro dilemma: God does not decide what is moral; what is moral decides itself, independent of God.

I think this is relevant to this thread and a great opportunity to learn more (for me, anyway).

If we take a look, for example, at this Buddhist moral code

The Ten Precepts refer to the precepts or training rules for śrāmaṇeras (novice monks) and śrāmaṇerīs (novice nuns).[25] They are the same in most schools of Buddhism.

Refrain from killing living creatures.
Refrain from stealing.
Refrain from unchastity (sensuality, sexuality, lust).
Refrain from incorrect speech.
Refrain from taking intoxicants.
Refrain from taking food at inappropriate times (after noon).
Refrain from singing, dancing, playing music or attending entertainment programs (performances).
Refrain from wearing perfume, cosmetics and garlands (decorative accessories).
Refrain from sitting on high chairs and sleeping on luxurious, soft beds.
Refrain from accepting money.

These are rules that guide behavior so that the practitioner who follows them will gain greater enlightenment on the spiritual path.
Some questions though:

1. Would you say these rules are self-evident?
2. Karma is a response to the breaking or following of these kinds of rules - so are the rules themselves also of an eternal origin?
3. Would we say here that nobody decided on these rules (God didn’t decide them) but the rules decided themselves?

Yes, offsets are possible. However this is more difficult in the Abrahamic religions where the only punishment is an eternal hell. The Buddhist hells are not eternal so the suffering is more variable. How can you get time off for good behaviour in an eternal hell?

In the Catholic view there is a wider range of punishment available. The ultimate goal for the Catholic believer is “purity of desire”. So, we are judge on “what we want”. Heaven is for those who “desire God” (His love). Hell is for those who strongly desire something other than God. It’s a deliberate choice. What God does, however, is not force anyone to love Him. If a person chooses Hell for eternity, God grants that desire.
The reason for this is that the sin creates an unchangeable evil. A murder takes a person’s life - but also affects the families, children – and ultimately generations of people with the effect of evil. In fact, the evil of one murder could affect the entire world until the end of time (or eternally).

Things that you personally suffer now, could be caused (in a very concrete way, not mystical) by events that happened hundreds of years ago. If your family, for example, lost their estate due to crimes against them. You could still be suffering from that.
So, how does a sin that has eternal consequences, get paid back by temporary punishment?

How does one eternity in hell differ from another eternity in hell? Buddhism has sixteen hells (eight hot and eight cold) all for a finite time. There is much more possibility of variation in punishment. The Buddhist hells are more like the Catholic Purgatory: unpleasant but temporary.

Both eternities are the same in duration, but the punishment differs in severity.

The heavens are nice, but they are temporary and are not the final goal; that is nirvana, which is not a heaven. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35 when he became enlightened. He died age 80. For 45 years he was living in the world and at the same time in nirvana.

[The Buddha said:] There is, monks, an unborn, an unbecome, an unmade, an unconditioned. If there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, no escape would be possible from the born, become, made, conditioned. But precisely because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, escape from the born, become, made, conditioned is possible.

– Udana 8.3

It’s important to read what the Buddha said, and I appreciate the quote. At the same time, it’s not immediately clear on what he is saying,. To me, it seems to be a vague summary of a condition of sorts, and some kind of logic used (If there were not … etc) and some reference to possibility (among what potential in matter or spirit?) – but the quote does not seem to illustrate your comment that preceded it.

I’d just add, would Buddhists generally speak in these kind of terms (unmade,unbecome, unborn) when describing aspects of their spiritual journey to non-Buddhists and expect an understanding of the same?

 

[reggieM]

If we need to explain to each other what “nature” is and whether that structure has any identifiable teleology then language itself has failed I would think.

Ok, I was just inviting you to try to answer some or all of those questions, as best you can.

If the generalities of what I speak here are not fairly self-evident then of course what hope discussing common morality.

I think the hope of discussing morality comes from an understanding of the elements that comprise it. I’d just disagree that what you are speaking of is self-evident. In fact, the idea that there is such a thing as “human nature” is widely rejected.
That’s why I challenged you to explain where you think human nature (or humanness) came from.
This is the challenge we have, as believers (I assume you are one).
Yes, we confidently assert that the idea that true is different from false is imbedded in our nature but we need to take that a step farther.

 

[rossum]

God does not have an origin since, by His nature - not dependent on anything else for His existence

Some aspects of His existence are dependent on other things, for example His aspect as “creator” is dependent on the existence of creation. He cannot have been “creator of the universe” 200 billion years ago because there was no universe back then.

He is the eternal origin of all things.

This is a very common and careless error. He is the origin of all things except Himself. Since God is not created then there is at least one existing thing that God did not create: Himself.

As above though, when we say God has no origin, it is because all Being comes from him.

You capitalised “Being”. Such capitalisation usually indicates reification. You are reifying “being”, the property of existence, into a thing in itself: “Being”. In order to justify that, please show me some “Being” on its own, not attached as a property to something else.

We do seem to have drifted away from the question of absolute morality somewhat.

We wouldn’t consider God’s being as a question of “might” alone. In the Catholic view, God’s power is not separate from his wisdom, justice, mercy, love, goodness, knowledge. We might say “right makes right” in the moral view. God is rightness and justice.

A syllogism:

1. God created all that exists except Himself.
2. Evil exists.
3. Evil is not God.
4. Therefore God created evil.

This is confirmed by Isaiah 45:7 - “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

God is more than just love, goodness, knowledge etc. As Monty Python put it:

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.

rossum

 

[rossum]

If we take a look, for example, at this Buddhist moral code

The Ten Precepts refer to the precepts or training rules for śrāmaṇeras (novice monks) and śrāmaṇerīs (novice nuns).[25] They are the same in most schools of Buddhism.

The Ten Precepts are for Monks and Nuns. Buddhist lay people only undertake the first five, and the third is relaxed: monks and nuns are celibate, not so for lay people.

I am used to a slightly different translation, where to first rule is “to avoid injuring living things.” Both injury and death are to be avoided, and “creatures” is not a good translation given its implication of a creator.

For the third rule I use “to avoid sensual misconduct.” As well as lust etc, that also includes things like gluttony, which is a misuse of the sense of taste.

1. Would you say these rules are self-evident?

Mostly, yes. There have always been arguments about the details.

1. Karma is a response to the breaking or following of these kinds of rules - so are the rules themselves also of an eternal origin?

No. Depending on what school of Buddhism you follow, either nothing is eternal or only a few things are eternal. Karma is not one of them.

1. Would we say here that nobody decided on these rules (God didn’t decide them) but the rules decided themselves?

Neither. The rules exist; their origin is not a useful question.

The reason for this is that the sin creates an unchangeable evil.

If the evil is unchangeable, then God is not omnipotent. How can He change something that is unchangeable? Does this render the forgiveness of sin void as well?

So, how does a sin that has eternal consequences, get paid back by temporary punishment?

All consequences are temporary, not eternal. Eventually the human race will go extinct and the earth be destroyed. A temporary result is the consequence of a temporary cause.

It’s important to read what the Buddha said, and I appreciate the quote. At the same time, it’s not immediately clear on what he is saying,. To me, it seems to be a vague summary of a condition of sorts, and some kind of logic used (If there were not … etc) and some reference to possibility (among what potential in matter or spirit?) – but the quote does not seem to illustrate your comment that preceded it.

The Buddha is describing nirvana. Unfortunately is is difficult to describe something which cannot be described. Most descriptions of nirvana are negative, as with the quote from the Udana. Nirvana is not easily described; all descriptions are fingers pointing at the moon. It is far too common for people to mistake the finger for the moon, hence the reliance on mainly negative descriptions to try and reduce the problem.

Nirvana is attained through meditation, and it is very difficult to describe that level of meditative state.

I’d just add, would Buddhists generally speak in these kind of terms (unmade, unbecome, unborn) when describing aspects of their spiritual journey to non-Buddhists and expect an understanding of the same?

Not generally. This is the philosophy forum, so I adjust my language appropriately. On a more general forum I would usually point to the Third Noble Truth: the cessation of suffering. That is also nirvana.

Some people come to Zen expecting that Enlightenment will be the Ultimate Peak Experience. The Mother of All Peak Experiences. But real enlightenment is the most ordinary of the ordinary. Once I had an amazing vision. I saw myself transported through time and space. Millions, no, billions, trillions, Godzillions of years passed. Not figuratively, but literally. Whizzed by. I found myself at the very rim of time and space, a vast giant being composed of the living minds and bodies of every thing that ever was. It was an incredibly moving experience. Exhilarating. I was high for weeks. Finally I told Nishijima Sensei about it. He said it was nonsense. Just my imagination. I can’t tell you how that made me feel. Imagination? This was as real an experience as any I’ve ever had. I just about cried. Later on that day I was eating a tangerine. I noticed how incredibly lovely a thing it was. So delicate. So amazingly orange. So very tasty. So I told Nishijima about that. That experience, he said, was enlightenment.

Source: Zen is Boring, Brad Warner.

rossum

 

[goout]

…
A syllogism:

1. God created all that exists except Himself.
2. Evil exists.
3. Evil is not God.
4. Therefore God created evil.

This is confirmed by Isaiah 45:7 - “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

rossum

Evil does not exist in the same sense as God exists. Or more accurately, God is “To Be”, or the essence of existence. God is not just another existing thing.

It’s been said on this or another thread recently by another Catholic poster that evil gives meaning by contrast to the good, and so evil is necessary to know what good is.
That is not Catholic thought, it tends toward Manicheaism which sees good and evil as equally powerful and meaningful poles.

We use human words to describe evil as a lack in God’s loving creativity. Evil is “nothing” in comparison with God’s “To Be”. Scripture like Isaiah is expressing a profound truth in human words. We don’t (catholics don’t) read scripture with fundamentalist eyes, so Isaiah is not proof that God created evil anymore than Genesis proves 6 day creation. Take scripture in full context.

God creates through love. Human beings reject the fullness of existence. We call that evil, but evil is not “of God” in any way.

Evil is the freely chosen “NO”, and it’s consequences, that rejects the fullness of life and being. It is to say “I freely choose nothing rather than live in the fullness of existence”.

 

[goout]

I didn’t intend on that as a response. I thought I was clear there that I am open to what everyone’s take on this issue is. It’s already assumed that many responses would be filtered through the catholic church’s teaching since this is a catholic church site. But since I don’t play in that pool, I don’t know how people take the CC stance on the CC’s official ruling on this and then implement it in their lives. I’m wanting people to start from the point of how they are applying this idea in real time and where they have gone with it regardless of the CC official position. If that made since. I’ll try to clarify that if it doesn’t.

Apologies for the rash and irritable tone of that post.

 

[goout]

The best analogy to understand good/evil is marriage. Scripture frequently uses the context of spousal love to describe God’s relationship with humanity.

Marriage is a good that points human beings to existence itself.

Two people pursue that good, and to the extent they pursue that relationship their love is fruitful (creative).
As persons say NO to that relationship dysfunction results. But marriage itself does not create dysfunction. A marriage relationship pursued in -mutual- (not unilateral) truth and love has a meaning and purpose leading to good.

It leads to some-thing. NO leads to no thing.

 

[reggieM]

Some aspects of His existence are dependent on other things, for example His aspect as “creator” is dependent on the existence of creation. He cannot have been “creator of the universe” 200 billion years ago because there was no universe back then.

We don’t view it that way. God is eternally the creator. There is no past in Him, no sequence. He is eternal present.

This is a very common and careless error. He is the origin of all things except Himself. Since God is not created then there is at least one existing thing that God did not create: Himself.

God is not a thing in that regard. He is existence and cannot be circumscribed.

You capitalised “Being”. Such capitalisation usually indicates reification. You are reifying “being”, the property of existence, into a thing in itself: “Being”. In order to justify that, please show me some “Being” on its own, not attached as a property to something else.

You’re reading too much into a capital letter. I can make it lower case if you prefer. But beyond that, I don’t know what you would like me to show you. God?

A syllogism:

1. God created all that exists except Himself.

1. Evil exists.

1. Evil is not God.

1. Therefore God created evil.

This is confirmed by Isaiah 45:7 - “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

The book of Wisdom, chapter 1 says this.

Do not court death* by your erring way of life nor draw to yourselves destruction by the works of your hands.
Because God did not make death,
norr does he rejoice in the destruction of the living.
…For righteousness is undying.
It was the wicked who with hands and words invited death,
considered it a friend, and pined for it,
and made a covenant with it,
Because they deserve to be allied with it.

God is more than just love, goodness, knowledge etc. As Monty Python put it:

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.

Ok, that’s satirical and intended as a mockery of Christian belief.
If you’re using Monty Python for your growth in theological understanding of the Catholic Faith, I’ll suggest that you can do much better than that.

I’m not going to resort to ridicule of Buddhist belief in return.

But back to your syllogism, Premise 2, “Evil exists” is what we would not accept in Catholic thought. That is, that evil is has a positive existence as a thing.

 

[reggieM]

RM 1. Would you say these rules are self-evident?

Mostly, yes. There have always been arguments about the details.

Ok, I don’t know how to respond really, except to just wonder how you would think that these things:

Refrain from taking intoxicants.
Refrain from taking food at inappropriate times (after noon).
Refrain from singing, dancing, playing music or attending entertainment programs (performances).
Refrain from wearing perfume, cosmetics and garlands (decorative accessories).
Refrain from sitting on high chairs and sleeping on luxurious, soft beds.
Refrain from accepting money.

Are self-evident moral laws that are just embedded into the universe, and we should just ignore the origin of them since nobody knows.

No. Depending on what school of Buddhism you follow, either nothing is eternal or only a few things are eternal. Karma is not one of them.

Ok, I meant eternal in the past - without beginning. But it seems you’re saying nobody can know what or when the origin of karma is, but we do know it will end some time, right? Beyond that, karma is acting on those moral norms posted above, and those are also unknown in origin, but are self-evident. Beyond this, these norms would bound God and not be created by Him (if we applied your view). Right?

If the evil is unchangeable, then God is not omnipotent. How can He change something that is unchangeable? Does this render the forgiveness of sin void as well?

With forgiveness and let’s say total absolution and removal of sin - God removes guilt, punishment and evil of the sin. However, the person who has been forgiven, remains grateful to be a forgiven sinner. We could say this is not “unchangeable” because God could wipe out a person’s existence as if it never occurred. But God has reverence for His creation, preserves it and harmonizes sin and redemption.

The Buddha is describing nirvana. Unfortunately is is difficult to describe something which cannot be described. Most descriptions of nirvana are negative, as with the quote from the Udana. Nirvana is not easily described; all descriptions are fingers pointing at the moon. It is far too common for people to mistake the finger for the moon, hence the reliance on mainly negative descriptions to try and reduce the problem.

That’s certainly understandable. I didn’t gain much understanding from that quote, but I have limited experience, etc.

Later on that day I was eating a tangerine. I noticed how incredibly lovely a thing it was. So delicate. So amazingly orange. So very tasty. So I told Nishijima about that. That experience, he said, was enlightenment.

Yes, I’ve read things like that before. It’s like a concept going around in American culture now - “mindfulness”. Awareness. There are all sorts of meditation techniques to focus the mind, avoid distraction and discursive thought. There are Catholic spiritual teachers that use the same thing - however the focal point of the meditation is not absence or nothingness, but on God as the fullness of perfection and as a person. The Jesus prayer is one way for that. Emptying the mind – but the purpose is that it is filled by God.

So, the Catholic Faith is oriented to that relationship with God, who we believe, reaches us in a community of divine persons. So, we are drawn into that union.
Englightenment for us, would not be an awareness of things, but an emptying of self and filling of divine presence, ultimately transformed into God’s own perfection.

 

[reggieM]

A syllogism:

1. God created all that exists except Himself.
2. Evil exists.
3. Evil is not God.
4. Therefore God created evil.

We could start with your conclusion.

1. God created evil
2. Some acts that I do are evil.
3. Therefore, God did my evil acts, not me.

From that.

1. Evil acts are blameworthy
2. God did my evil acts.
3. Therefore, God is to blame for anything evil I may have done.

Now, this works even better with materialism and evolutionism

1. Matter and natural law created all that exists except themselves
2. Evil exists.
3. Evil is not matter and natural law
4. Therefore matter and natural laws created evil.

As above

1. Evil acts are blameworthy
2. Matter and natural law determined my evil acts.
3. Therefore, matter and natural law is to blame for anything evil I may have done.

Finally

1. Evil exists
2. We don’t know the origin of evil so we ignore it
3. I do evil acts
4. Therefore, I don’t know why I do evil acts and I should ignore them

 

[Blue_Horizon]

the idea that there is such a thing as “human nature” is widely rejected.

You are unable to relatively easily identify individual human beings by the use of reason because you don’t believe there is anything universal in this particular set of sentient beings?

Would you also deny the ability of reason to identify the set of beings we call “sentient” (ie animals) also?

 

[rossum]

Evil does not exist in the same sense as God exists. Or more accurately, God is “To Be”, or the essence of existence. God is not just another existing thing.

Essences in that sense are just another reification. Show me an “essence” on its own, without a substrate. You are taking an internal mental concept/category and reifying it as if it had real external existence.

An illustrative quote from “Funes the Memorious” by Borges:
Borges:

Not only was it difficult for him to comprehend that the generic symbol dog embraces so many unlike individuals of diverse size and form; it bothered him that the dog at three fourteen (seen from the side) should have the same name as the dog at three fifteen (seen from the front).

rossum

 

[rossum]

We don’t view it that way. God is eternally the creator. There is no past in Him, no sequence. He is eternal present.

If God is eternally the creator, then creation is also eternal. Both creator and creation are mutually contingent, as are cause and effect. In effect you are saying that God (the Father") can be a Father at a time when He does not have any children. That is logically unsupportable.

The God described in the Bible changes over time. He did not part the Red Sea in the time of Abraham. He did part the Red Sea in the time of Moses. He did not part the Red Sea in the time of Jesus. Either God changes, or an unchanging God did not part the sea, but some other changing entity parted it.

God is not a thing in that regard. He is existence and cannot be circumscribed.

By very careful here. If God is not a thing, then God is a no-thing.

You’re reading too much into a capital letter. I can make it lower case if you prefer. But beyond that, I don’t know what you would like me to show you. God?

No, I want you to show me “being” existing separately on its own, not attached to any substrate. Reification is taking an internal mental category and, incorrectly, assigning it real external existence.

Ok, that’s satirical and intended as a mockery of Christian belief.

If God didn’t make poisonous snakes, the Black Death and malaria then who/what did? If God made the entire material universe, then everything material is down to God. Surely that is standard Christian theology. There was a serpent in the Garden of Eden, so imperfection was there from the start, before the Fall.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Ok, I don’t know how to respond really, except to just wonder how you would think that these things:

Refrain from taking intoxicants.

That applies to all Buddhists, monks, nuns and lay people. One saying goes that if you beak this rule then, being drunk, you will do a lot of stupid things and break the other four rules as well.

Refrain from taking food at inappropriate times (after noon).
Refrain from singing, dancing, playing music or attending entertainment programs (performances).
Refrain from wearing perfume, cosmetics and garlands (decorative accessories).
Refrain from sitting on high chairs and sleeping on luxurious, soft beds.
Refrain from accepting money. [/INDENT]

These are for monks and nuns only, not for lay people. Lay people only have the first five:

• to avoid injury to living things.
• to avoid taking what is not given.
• to avoid sensual misconduct.
• to avoid false and malicious speech.
• to avoid intoxicants.

Are self-evident moral laws that are just embedded into the universe, and we should just ignore the origin of them since nobody knows.

How many lifetimes do you have to waste looking for the answer?

Beyond this, these norms would bound God and not be created by Him (if we applied your view). Right?

Yes. All living beings, gods included, are subject to karma.

Yes, I’ve read things like that before. It’s like a concept going around in American culture now - “mindfulness”. Awareness. There are all sorts of meditation techniques to focus the mind, avoid distraction and discursive thought. There are Catholic spiritual teachers that use the same thing - however the focal point of the meditation is not absence or nothingness, but on God as the fullness of perfection and as a person. The Jesus prayer is one way for that. Emptying the mind – but the purpose is that it is filled by God.

Mindfulness meditation (satipatthana) has been imported from Buddhism to the west. Partly it is something new and different, partly because it can be detached from any religious context and so can be used in many contexts where explicitly religious (name removed by moderator)ut would not be wanted. At its simplest, satipatthana is just counting breaths, which is more difficult than it appears to be.

When a Christian asks about meditation I often suggest the Jesus Prayer as a Christian approach to the subject.

So, the Catholic Faith is oriented to that relationship with God, who we believe, reaches us in a community of divine persons. So, we are drawn into that union.
Englightenment for us, would not be an awareness of things, but an emptying of self and filling of divine presence, ultimately transformed into God’s own perfection.

A longish quote from Thomas Merton:

[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything – without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya … everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton

rossum

 

[reggieM]

You are unable to relatively easily identify individual human beings by the use of reason because you don’t believe there is anything universal in this particular set of sentient beings?

You used the term “human nature”. Yes, I can see things that look like squirrels. Is there a “squirrel nature”?

Would you also deny the ability of reason to identify the set of beings we call “sentient” (ie animals) also?

I don’t know where you’re going with this.
I asked you to tell me what the origin of what you call “human nature” is. Where did it come from? It seems you didn’t want to answer that or try to understand it?

 

[reggieM]

How many lifetimes do you have to waste looking for the answer?

It’s more than obvious to me that the universe does not have embedded in it a set of moral laws for monks and a different one for laypeople. Those are human creations built off of universal moral principles that are, indeed, imbedded into human nature by God.

Yes. All living beings, gods included, are subject to karma.

The idea that gods are bound by a moral norm that forbids them from dancing or drinking coffee doesn’t seem to me to be coherent or reasonable. If monks have a different code that lay persons, shouldn’t gods have a different code than monks?

A longish quote from Thomas Merton:

I consider Fr. Merton a dilettante from the West who read a few books on Zen and then went to Asia to teach Buddhism to people. It’s easy to forget that he was a Catholic monk whose expertise was supposed to be Catholicism, but that’s as it was in the’60s. He wrote an anti-war song for Joan Baez also so I guess he was an expert folk-song writer also. A man of many talents and I guess he had some skill at being a Trappist monk also, at least at one point in his life.

[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything – without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.
​

Aside from the incoherence of that (which is supposed to be a Zen thing, I know), he argues against the doctrinaire by pointing out that the statue of Buddah is “knowing everything” and doesn’t need to argue. This is all merely backlash from early 1960s Catholicism that was, admittedly, too linked up with Aristotelean philosophy so Fr. Merton represented an escape and liberation from that - during an era when liberation was the thing to do.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree

Ok, he has some thankfulness for the figures. For the artists? Thankfulness is an expression outwards towards someone. It is relational. It’s Fr. Merton’s Christianity that he unknowingly mixes with his supposed expertise in Buddhism.

. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

I guess he’d be a pretty good art critic also. Clarity is exploding from the rocks. One of them looks like the Mona Lisa.

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya … everything is emptiness and everything is compassion.

He summarizes it well here:

everything is emptiness

I realize, we’re not supposed to have a mind that “needs well established positions” or has “arguments” but the idea that everything is nothing is pretty classic and standard in Buddhist thought as I have understood it, and Fr. Merton says it explicitly.

That’s the radical difference with Christianity. In the Catholic view, everything comes from the fullness of being, which is God. Love is the union of persons. Nothingness is absence, nihilism and meaninglessness. Its an annihilation of the person, whereas in the Catholic view, the person is perfected, fulfilled and shares in the glory of God.

I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

He spent 25 years in a Catholic monastery praying before the Blessed Sacrament and in a visit to Thailand looking at a statue of the Buddah he had his greatest “spiritual validity” and finally found “what he was looking for”. That statue showed him what was beyond the disguise that he had never found in the Catholic sacraments.

That tells us more about what his life as a Trappist was than it does as his life as a Buddhist, in my view. If he was not able to recognize the presence of God in his Benedictine life, then he really was communicating just emptiness.

There’s a long essay on the web called The Tragedy of Thomas Merton that goes into his life along those lines.

But in any case, I appreciate the insights from your perspective and my digression into Thomas Merton is not totally relevant except to say that we do see that fundamental difference in the Catholic and Buddhist views in his writing you posted there.​