Ask A Buddhist

[patrick457]

Theravada does not have any version of the Lotus Sutra, Amitabaha Sutra, Infinite Life Sutra, or the Heart Sutra. Those sutras are unique to the Northern forms of Buddhism.

Theravada is the only remaining school of the early Southern schools. Theravada dates to around 250 BCE when the King Ashoka sent his son and daughter to Sri Lanka to spread the Dhamma. They were both fully ordained. Theravada doesn’t have any sectarian angst. There are different lineages but they all seem to get along except when it comes to the recent re-establishment of the Bhikkhunis. This has caused some tension. But, I expect in a few years everyone will adjust.

It’s kind of interesting isn’t it? Now that you mention it, why is it that later Hinduism seems to have more of an influence in Mahayana? There’s the so-called Nilakantha dharani, which in essence comprises of various epithets of the gods Vishnu and Shiva (Harihara). Part of it goes like:

To the siddha, svaha (= Shiva)
To the great siddha, svaha (= Shiva)
To the lord of siddha yogis, svaha (= Shiva)
To Nilakantha (the blue-necked), svaha (= Shiva)
To the boar-faced one, svaha (= Varaha = Vishnu)
To the man-lion-faced one, svaha (= Narasimha = Vishnu)
To the holder of the mace, svaha (= Vishnu)
To the holder of the discus, svaha (= Vishnu)
To the holder of the lotus, svaha (= Vishnu)
To Nilakantha the tiger, svaha (= Shiva)
To the mighty Shankara, svaha (= Shiva)

 

[patrick457]

Not really. There are a lot of important suttas in the Theravadin Canon, but I don’t really think you could base an entire sect or tradition off of just one or a few like you can in Mahayana Buddhism because the message is expressed very similarly in the various suttas and each sutta only really touches on a single facet or aspect of the teaching.

It is really interesting that the Theravada sect never formed sub-sects like the different Mahayana groups have. Instead, you might have a teacher that arises with a specific understanding and emphasis, and his followers form a distinct tradition within Theravada Buddhism, but without any sort of organization beyond similarities in teaching. So for example, out of Burma there is the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition, the U Ba Khin tradition, the Pa Auk Sayadaw tradition, and many others, but they have never considered themselves to be distinct sects from one another. I have always wondered why this is so.

Highly interesting isn’t it. For the record, Japanese Buddhist clergy are really the only ones I know of who actually marry. Is celibacy among the sangha a requirement in ‘regular’ Buddhism in general and Theravada in particular?

 

[rossum]

Highly interesting isn’t it. For the record, Japanese Buddhist clergy are really the only ones I know of who actually marry. Is celibacy among the sangha a requirement in ‘regular’ Buddhism in general and Theravada in particular?

Celibacy is required among all Tibetan sects, except possibly some of the wilder branches of the rNying-ma-pa looking at left hand Tantra. I am not sure about all Chinese or Korean monks, though the majority of the sects do insist on celibacy.

The Theravada certainly require celibacy.

rossum

 

[patrick457]

Celibacy is required among all Tibetan sects, except possibly some of the wilder branches of the rNying-ma-pa looking at left hand Tantra. I am not sure about all Chinese or Korean monks, though the majority of the sects do insist on celibacy.

The Theravada certainly require celibacy.

rossum

Hmm. I think Shinran (Jōdo Shinshū) is the person to ‘blame’ for the married monks. Shinran’s idea is expressed in the paradoxical maxim 悪人正機 (akunin shōki): evildoers and sinners are exactly the ones in need of salvation. To give a public example of this idea he violated taboos by taking a wife. Shinran is very much like a Japanese Martin Luther: he believed that attaining enlightenment solely through one’s own efforts (自力 jiriki ‘self-power’) is highly difficult, if not impossible. The higher path one must take - and the authentic Buddhism for him - is to have faith in the power of Amitabha’s compassion made manifest in his vows (the ‘other-power’ or tariki, 他力).

 

[notself]

Hmm. I think Shinran (Jōdo Shinshū) is the person to ‘blame’ for the married monks. Shinran’s idea is expressed in the paradoxical maxim 悪人正機 (akunin shōki): evildoers and sinners are exactly the ones in need of salvation. To give a public example of this idea he violated taboos by taking a wife. Shinran is very much like a Japanese Martin Luther: he believed that attaining enlightenment solely through one’s own efforts (自力 jiriki ‘self-power’) is highly difficult, if not impossible. The higher path one must take - and the authentic Buddhism for him - is to have faith in the power of Amitabha’s compassion made manifest in his vows (the ‘other-power’ or tariki, 他力).

Perhaps in Japan, Buddhism mixed with Taoism and Shinto beliefs to form the systems that exist today. Tibetan Buddhism is influenced by the ancient animist beliefs.

Sri Lanka, the first location of Theravada, held Hindu beliefs before the arrival of Theravada around 300-250BCE. For that reason the influence on Theravada were much the same as the original influence of Hinduism on Buddhism in India.

 

[patrick457]

Perhaps in Japan, Buddhism mixed with Taoism and Shinto beliefs to form the systems that exist today. Tibetan Buddhism is influenced by the ancient animist beliefs.

Sri Lanka, the first location of Theravada, held Hindu beliefs before the arrival of Theravada around 300-250BCE. For that reason the influence on Theravada were much the same as the original influence of Hinduism on Buddhism in India.

It did, actually. Buddhism was first introduced to Japan as the religion of ‘the civilized world’ (i.e. China), and the Buddha was seen as a foreign kami (god, spirit). The Japanese have a view of religion which may strike us as rather materialistic and this-worldly: emphasis is placed more on possible benefits in this life than any afterlife or future rebirths. So Buddhism was advertised as the civilized faith, one that could benefit and protect the nation from any threat.

There were at first clashes between Buddhism and the native religion (Shinto) in the imperial court: the more liberal Soga clan were all for going with the flow as other nations and welcomed Buddhism and Confucianism, while other conservative families like the Nakatomi (which was responsible for performing Shinto rituals at court) and the Mononobe opposed them: the Nakatomi mainly for religious and political reasons with the Mononobe out of pure xenophobia and prejudice against anything ‘foreign’. Prince Umayado, aka Prince Shotoku (related to the Soga) was instrumental in cementing the status of Buddhism.

But what really sealed the deal was the gradual syncretism of the two beliefs: the traditional kami were rehabilitated into a Buddhist setting. First they were seen like the Vedic devas in traditional Buddhism: higher beings also bound in the cycle of samsara like the rest of us, then they began to be venerated as bodhisattvas (the native warrior god Hachiman for example was widely touted in the Middle Ages as a mahabodhisattva and a protector of the Law - seriously, there were some war standards from the period emblazoned with 南無八幡大菩薩 Namu Hachiman Daibosatsu ‘Namo Hachiman Mahabodhisattva’ on them, and statues portraying Hachiman as, rather oddly, a Buddhist monk, exist: the use of idols as goshintai was due to Buddhist influence BTW), then finally under the theory of honji-suijaku the kami were considered to be different buddhas, bodhisattvas or devas manifesting themselves in another form to lead humans to the truth. This move made Buddhism gain popularity and lasting influence in Japanese culture and history. With the establishment of state Shinto during the Meiji period, however, officially came a violent end to this syncretism, although vestiges of it still remain today.

 

[Typist]

What an interesting thread! Thank you Bakmoon and all others.

:If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

It appears I am anathema and I would be interested to learn more about if or how my view point might be expressed in some flavor of Buddhism.

I see thought as the primary obstacle to the experience of “Whatever It Is”. For me, thought is inherently divisive by nature, and thus any thought based approach serves to enhance a perceived division between “me” and “everything else”.

For me, the faster I peddle any religion or philosophy bicycle, the behinder I get. Which is a bit of a problem as…

I enjoy thought very much, including and especially conversations of this nature. They are for me, a sort of guilty pleasure, like eating a huge box of chocolates, when I know I’d be wiser to be going a more serious thought diet.

For me, the job is not to build something, but to dismantle all the so very very many words, thoughts and theories which I’ve already built.

Am I a Buddhist? Or just an anathema?

Thank you.

 

[Gods_Peace]

Where did buddhism originate?
Why did it originate?
How did it originate?
When did it originate?

 

[Vouthon]

My dear brother and sister Buddhists

May the memory of the Lord Buddha (Siddartha Gautama) be blessed!

I am wondering what you think of the words of Catholic mystics such as Angelus Silesius and Saint John of the Cross. Do you perceive any ‘overlaps’ with Buddhist insights?

First of all I am curious as to what you think of the modern Catholic theologian Dom Cyrprian Smith of the Benedictine Order, commenting on the thought of Meister Eckhart (a famous Catholic mystic who first used the term “Ground”), when he wrote:

“…I am not who I think I am, and ‘You’ are not who you think ‘You’ are. What we call ‘I’ and ‘You’ is indeed a projection, and if we go far enough in withdrawing the projections and in piercing the veils, we shall reach a point at which there is no longer any ‘I’ or ‘You’. We shall reach a point at which we realize that our true self has nothing to do with ‘function’…a lawyer, a chimney-sweep, a doctor, a dustman, a priest…These are only functions, things we do; they are not us…These roles and functions are real projections…they give us a sense of security, a sense of identity and belonging. They prevent us from glimpsing the awful void and emptiness within ourselves: they make us feel solid, needed, valued and permanent…But it is not only our external, social personalities that are a tissue of projections and illusions. The same is true of much of our inner, private world, which we may well be tempted to regard as our ‘self’…We are not our social functions or roles; but neither are we our private thoughts or emotions…If we watch our emotions and thoughts long enough, we may eventually become aware of something which is not not these emotions or thoughts…There is something within me which is at all times perfectly detached, tranquil and serene. It is never excited about anything, never downcast or depressed by anything. It is like a deep, perhaps, bottomless lake; my various thoughts and emotions are like ripples or waves upon the surface. But below the surface, in the depths, there are no ripples; everything is still…We are a different ‘self’ depending on the moods or activities of the moment…There is nothing to give any unity or continiuity to my identity…I am not one self but a sequence of different or even conflicting selves…We are not real, unified ‘selves’, we are not capable of true action, until we learn to enter the Ground…It transcends place and time. Anyone who enters the Ground no longer cares about the past or the future: he is aware only of the present moment, and the present moment is shot through with Divine Light, because it is in the present, and in the present alone, that the world of time touches the world of eternity. Standing within this impregnable citadel, we are troubled neither by the thought of our past experiences nor of possible troubles and preoccupations still to come…”

- Cyrprian Smith OSB, Catholic theologian and mystic

The transcedent, immeasurable Ground beyond time and place is a staple element of Catholic mysticism. It is, essentially, the Image of God within us - infinite, inexpressible and divine just as God is, although not identical with him in Essence (we aren’t pantheists).

Is there anything similar to the “Ground” in Buddhism?

Here are two mystics experiences of the “Ground” also known as “the Desert” or the “Abyss”:

"…Do not compute eternity
as light-year after year
One step across that line called Time:
Eternity is here

How fleeting is this world
yet it survives.
It is ourselves that fade from it
and our ephemeral lives.

Were I to lose myself in the God
I’d find again the Ground
that held and nurtured me
before this earthly round

I have known wealth and fame
poverty and utter shame
Yet all was transitory
Beyond time I found bliss and glory

Timelessness
Is so much a part of you, of me -
We cannot hope to find
the Ground
until aware of our eternity

Time is of your own making,
its clock ticks in your head.
The moment you stop thought
time too stops dead.

Just one step out of time
I enter God’s eternity
and I am wholly freed
from human transciency

Until you lose your Me
you cannot see God’s face -
The moment you recover it
you fall from grace

How short our span!
If you once realized how brief,
you would refrain
from causing any beast or man
the smallest grief, the slightest pain.

I am God’s alter ego
He is my counterpart
In timelessness we merge -
in time we seem apart

Most sacred:
The Void’s immobility
that makes all move,
retaining its tranquility.

He has not lived in vain
who learns to be unruffled
by loss, by gain,
by, joy, by pain.

You are not real, Death,
for I die every minute
and am reborn in the next
into life infinite

The sage does not fear death.
To often has he died
to ego and its vanities,
to all that keeps man tied.

At the end of that
which we call history
God is who IS:
for Him there is no past
nor future yet to be

Where is my dewelling place? Where I can never stand.
Where is my final goal, toward which I should ascend?
It is beyond all place. What should my quest then be?
I must, transcending God, into the desert flee…"

- Angelus Silesius (1624 – 1677), Catholic mystic

---

"…I entered where there is no knowing,

and unknowing I remained,

all knowledge there transcending.

Where no knowing is I entered,

yet when I my own self saw there

without knowing where I rested

great things I understood there,

yet cannot say what I felt there,

since I rested in unknowing,

all knowledge there transcending.

Of peace and of holy good

there was perfect knowing,

in profoundest solitude

the only true way seeing,

yet so secret is the thing

that I was left here stammering,

all knowledge there transcending.

I was left there so absorbed,

so entranced, and so removed,

that my senses were abroad,

robbed of all sensation proved,

and my spirit then was moved

with an unknown knowing,

all knowledge there transcending.

He who reaches there in truth

from himself is parted though,

and all that before he knew

seems to him but base below,

his knowledge increases so

that knowledge has an ending,

all knowledge there transcending.

The higher he climbs however

the less he’ll ever understand,

because the cloud grows darker

that lit the night on every hand:

whoever visits this dark land

rests forever in unknowing,

all knowledge there transcending.

This knowledge of unknowing

is of so profound a power

that no wise men arguing

will ever supersede its hour:

their wisdom cannot reach the tower

where knowing has an ending,

all knowledge there transcending.

It is of such true excellence

this highest understanding,

no science, no human sense,

has it in its grasping,

yet he who, by self-conquering

grasps knowing in unknowing,

goes evermore transcending

And in the deepest sense,

this highest knowledge lies,

of the divine essence,

if you would be wise:

his mercy so it does comprise,

each one leaving in unknowing,

all knowledge there transcending.

Its source I do not know because it has none.

And yet from this, I know, all sources come,

Although by night.

I know that no created thing could be so fair

And that both earth and heaven drink from there,

Although by night.

Its radiance is never clouded and in this

I know that all light has its genesis,

Although by night.

…

The current welling from this fountain’s source

I know to be as mighty as its force,

Although by night…"

***- Saint John of the Cross (1542 – 1591),
Verses on the Ecstasy of Deep Contemplation,
Catholic mystic and Doctor of the Church ***

 

[rossum]

Where did buddhism originate?

The current iteration of Buddhism began in what is now North India at Sarnath, where he preached his first sermon.

Why did it originate?

The Buddha attained full enlightenment, and decided to teach others.

How did it originate?

Through the teaching of the Buddha over the 45 years of his ministry.

When did it originate?

The usual date for the Buddha’s enlightenment is year 1 in the Buddhist era, equivalent to 530 BCE.

rossum

 

[Bakmoon]

The usual date for the Buddha’s enlightenment is year 1 in the Buddhist era, equivalent to 530 BCE.

rossum

Technically it would be 45 B.B.E (Before the Buddhist Era) because the Buddhist Calendar uses the Death of the Buddha as its epoch.

 

[rossum]

Technically it would be 45 B.B.E (Before the Buddhist Era) because the Buddhist Calendar uses the Death of the Buddha as its epoch.

Whoops, my mistake. (Shows how much I use the Buddhist era!)

Thanks for the correction.

rossum

 

[notself]

My dear brother and sister Buddhists

May the memory of the Lord Buddha (Siddartha Gautama) be blessed!

I am wondering what you think of the words of Catholic mystics such as Angelus Silesius and Saint John of the Cross. Do you perceive any ‘overlaps’ with Buddhist insights?

First of all I am curious as to what you think of the modern Catholic theologian Dom Cyrprian Smith of the Benedictine Order, commenting on the thought of Meister Eckhart (a famous Catholic mystic who first used the term “Ground”), - Cyrprian Smith OSB, Catholic theologian and mystic

Here are two mystics experiences of the “Ground” also known as “the Desert” or the “Abyss”:
- Angelus Silesius (1624 – 1677), Catholic mystic
***- Saint John of the Cross (1542 – 1591),
Verses on the Ecstasy of Deep Contemplation,
Catholic mystic and Doctor of the Church ***

Wow, these verses could have come from the Tipitaka. They are 99% the same as the teachings of the Buddha. The 1% difference could be simple defining “God” and Nibbana/Nirvana.

Are these verses accepted by the Church as being an accurate reflection of Church Dogma? If so why do the not receive more emphasis in the sermons read during the Mass? Teaching the understanding that “self” gets in the way of “divine” peace and equanimity would really help a lot of people,

I’m going to copy your post and try to find corresponding Suttas from the Tipitaka. It may take some time, but I think you will understand what I’m getting at.

 

[Vouthon]

Wow, these verses could have come from the Tipitaka. They are 99% the same as the teachings of the Buddha. The 1% difference could be simple defining “God” and Nibbana/Nirvana.

Are these verses accepted by the Church as being an accurate reflection of Church Dogma? If so why do the not receive more emphasis in the sermons read during the Mass? Teaching the understanding that “self” gets in the way of “divine” peace and equanimity would really help a lot of people,

I’m going to copy your post and try to find corresponding Suttas from the Tipitaka. It may take some time, but I think you will understand what I’m getting at.

My dear brother/sister Notself

Blessings and peace to you!

I am so glad that you appreciated those quotations! I really look forward to seeing links between them and teachings of the Buddha from the Pali Canon. I have read the Dhammapada - its one of my all time favourite spiritual texts - and have some knowledge of other Buddhist sutras and texts both in the Theravada and Mahayana traditions, although not all that much since the Buddhist texts are so broad! I could safely comment really only on the Dhammapada or else I would probably be out of my depth. So I really welcome all your thoughts!

Saint John of the Cross is a Doctor of the Church and indeed he is the Mystical Doctor so his “Verses on the Ecstasy of Deep Contemplation” are about as accurate and legit a reflection of Church teaching on mysticism as one can get.

Angelus Silesius is also a fully approved Catholic mystic. In fact the work of literature which his verses (or “epigrams”) quoted above are derived from is considered to be a “major” work of Catholic mysticism and is called “The Cherubinic Wanderer”:

“…Angelus Silesius, original name Johannes Scheffler (born December 1624, Breslau, Silesia [now Wrocław, Pol.]—died July 9, 1677, Breslau), religious poet remembered primarily as the author of Der Cherubinischer Wandersmann (1674; “The Cherubic Wanderer”), a major work of Roman Catholic mysticism…”

- Encyclopedia Britannica

The Cherubic Wanderer was published with an imprimatur as the old catholic encyclopedia tells us:

“…Angelus published, in 1657, the two poetical works on which his fame rests. “The Soul’s Spiritual Delight” (Heilige Seelenlust) is a collection of more than two hundred religious songs, many of them of great beauty, which have found their way not only into Catholic, but even into Protestant hymn books. “The Cherubic Pilgrim” (Der Cherubinische Wandersmann) is a collection of over sixteen hundred rhymed couplets, full of deep religious thought expressed in epigrammatic form …] His prose writings are orthodox; “The Cherubic Pilgrim” was published with the ecclesiastical Imprimatur, and, in his preface, the author himself explains his “paradoxes” in an orthodox sense…”

- Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907

So Angelus Silesius is an important Orthodox mystic

Dom Cyprian Smith is a member of the Benedictine Order and an emininent Eckhart scholar, so again he is completely Orthodox.

As to why these kinds of mystical teachings are not taught in sermons - I’m not sure its really “feasible”. One usually needs an intimate spiritual director. There are reatreats held by the Carmelites for Lay Catholics who want to explore mysticism. Typically though, it has traditionally been done in a monastic setting ie monks and nuns. Most laity seem to “go it alone”, as I have done reading the Catholic mystical texts for myself.

Meister Eckhart and Saint Francois de Sales are examples, nonetheless, of two Catholic mystics who wrote sermons on such subjects for the benefit of laity. Other examples are Johannes Tauler and Blessed Henry Suso.

I welcome more priests to do it in the future, I agree it would be highly beneficial!

 

[Bakmoon]

My dear brother and sister Buddhists

May the memory of the Lord Buddha (Siddartha Gautama) be blessed!

I am wondering what you think of the words of Catholic mystics such as Angelus Silesius and Saint John of the Cross. Do you perceive any ‘overlaps’ with Buddhist insights?

First of all I am curious as to what you think of the modern Catholic theologian Dom Cyrprian Smith of the Benedictine Order, commenting on the thought of Meister Eckhart

I read your posting very thoroughly, and I must say, it was exquisite! The only thing I can really find as a point of Doctrinal divergence between this and Theravadin orthodoxy (besides the belief in God) is the concept that one finds one’s true self by entering the ground. This is because the Theravada holds that ‘self’ is conceptual, so you never really find your ‘self’. Many forms of Mahayana Buddhism would agree with the idea that attaining enlightenment is synonymous with finding the true self, though, so that is quite fascinating.

It’s fascinating that you brought up St. John of the Cross, because some Theravadins who follow the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition of meditation refer to a specific stage of their meditation practice as “The Dark Night of the Soul” and many have drawn various similarities between the two traditions. I personally think that the big area where Buddhism and Catholicism will have the most significant things to learn from each other are in the areas of mystical theology, and one of my great desires in this lifetime is for me to do a comparative study of different types of mysticism worldwide, such as the Spanish mystics, the Hesychasts, the Sufis, etc… and see what the similar techniques and states are in them.

Peace be with you, and May the Holy Catholic Church continue to flourish and blossom forever!

 

[Vouthon]

My dear brother/sister Bakmoon

Much peace and many blessings to you!

Thank you so much for your kind words about the Catholic Church!

This is all so very fascinating. And I never knew that some Therevadists had experiences akin to the Dark Night of the Soul!

That would be a very rewarding and incredible endeavour, to find the common roots in the world’s diverse mystical traditions.

Hesychasm is wonderful. Its of course the other side of the Catholic coin - Eastern Catholicism no less important than the Western mystics. Eastern Orthodox mystics say that one should never trust thoughts. According to the Hesychasts thoughts are not really you that is your deepest being. They are a distraction from your true self. In Orthodoxy the goal is to become aware of thoughts and then let them go and focus on your breathing. This way you begin to see thought-patterns that are pulling you in certain directions and keeping you from stillness within.

Thats the goal of Hesychasm That stillness is the Ground beyond time and place.

The Ground is the deepest reality of every human person. It is the Image of God in man. Beneath our surface personalities, which differ according to our natural aptitudes, life experiences, thoughts, emotions and other conditions - our Ground is one, as Blessed Jan Van Ruysbroeck explained:

“…The image of God is found essentially and personally in all mankind. Each possesses it whole, entire and undivided, and all together not more than one alone. In this way we are all one, intimately united in our eternal image, which is the image of God and the source in us of all our life. Our created essence and our life are attached to it without mediation as to their eternal cause…”

***- Blessed John Ruysbroeck (1294-1381) ***

So when we enter the Ground we discover that our Ground is the very same Ground which every person has, beneath the surface emotions and thoughts which we wrongly identify as the “self”. To harm another is to harm ourself, since our deepest reality is one.

There was a truly wonderful Catholic mystic called Blessed Juliana of Norwich (ca. 1342 – ca. 1416) who lived in England. She is regarded as one of the most important Catholic mystics and is even quoted as an authority in the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the current Pope, Benedict XVI, dedicated a whole Sunday morning sermon to talk about her just over a year ago. You can read this talk of the Pope on her here: vatican.va/holy_father/be…101201_en.html

Through Blessed Juliana I learned about the distinction between what she calls the sensuality and substance within man - which corresponds roughly to the surface personality we wrongly identify as “me” and the deeper, genuine reality.

The substance is the Ground that is directed towards and lifts itself up to God at all times; as distinct from the self (the sensuality) which is our ordinary physical and psychological life.

Our essential reality, our substance, our Ground is eternally united with God though we are not always aware of it. Our sensuality is different, indeed it is very far from always being united with God.

The sad truth is that most people identify themselves with their “thoughts” and surface personalities and are not aware of their innate Ground. They think that their thoughts, emotions, roles etc. are “them”.

On the opposite end of the spectrum in Catholicism we have had in the past a heresy called Quietism where people enter their Ground but don’t come back out again - they stay below the surface and don’t “pop” back up so as to share their experiences with otherr people so as to help them reach their Ground. We consider this to be just as bad as people who never enter the Ground and are caught up in attachments.

The ultimate goal is to “remain within, while going without” - which means that we remain eternally below the surface personality in our Ground but also go back out into multiplicity and share our experiences with others.

When one attains to the Ground as John of the Cross explains, “he is parted from himself”, he dies to self completely.

*(continued…) *

 

[Vouthon]

Here are some descriptions of the “Ground” from Church Fathers and mystics:

St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–394), Church Father

Gregory of Nyssa, an early Christian theologian, was one of the four great fathers of the Eastern Church and served as Bishop of Nyssa, in the center of modern-day Turkey.

[The mind] leaves all surface appearances, not only those that can be grasped by the senses but also those which the mind itself seems to see, and it keeps on going deeper until by the operation of the spirit it penetrates the invisible and incomprehensible, and it is there that it sees God. The true vision and the true knowledge of what we seek consists precisely in not seeing, in an awareness that our goal transcends all knowledge. . . . [1]

**St. Augustine (354–430), Church Father **

St. Augustine, regarded as one of the towering intellectual geniuses in history, wrote more than a thousand works on philosophy, psychology, theology, history, political theory, and other subjects. His Confessions, from which the following passage is taken, has remained a popular and influential work for almost 1,600 years.

*I entered into the innermost part of myself. . . . I entered and I saw with my soul’s eye (such as it was) an unchangeable light shining above this eye of my soul and above my mind. . . . He who knows truth knows that light, and he who knows that light knows eternity. Love knows it. O eternal truth and true love and beloved eternity! [2]

And I often do this. I find a delight in it, and whenever I can relax from my necessary duties I have recourse to this pleasure. {I experience] a state of feeling which is quite unlike anything to which I am used — a kind of sweet delight which, if I could only remain permanently in that state, would be something not of this world, not of this life. But my sad weight makes me fall back again; I am swallowed up by normality. [3]*

St. Gregory the Great (540–604 • Italy)

Born into an eminent Roman family and heir to a large fortune, Gregory decided to become a monk. After he became Pope at the age of 50, he devoted himself to social causes, the first pope especially known for doing so. He reformed the mass and introduced the ritual plainsong known today as the Gregorian chant. He was also a noted theologian. His book, Morals on Job, from which the following passage is taken, influenced religious thought for centuries.

*The mind of the elect . . . is frequently carried away into the sweetness of heavenly contemplation; already it sees something of the inmost realities as it were through the mist . . . it feeds on the taste of the unencompassed Light, and being carried beyond self, disdains to sink back again into self. . . .

Sometimes the soul is admitted to some unwonted sweetness of interior relish, and is suddenly in some way refreshed when breathed on by the glowing spirit. . . .

When this is in any way seen, the mind is absorbed in a sort of rapturous security; and carried beyond itself, as though the present life had ceased to be, it is in a way remade in a certain newness [it is refreshed in a manner by a kind of new being . . . ]. There the mind is besprinkled with the infusion of heavenly dew from an inexhaustible fountain. [4]*

Johannes Tauler (1300–1361)

Johannes Tauler was one of the most influential German Catholic spiritual writers of the 1300s. Even Martin Luther honored Tauler as a primary influence, and Tauler has exerted a profound influence on religious thought ever since. As one scholar remarked, “Tauler presents the Christian tradition in its purest form.” [5]

The soul has a hidden abyss, untouched by time and space, which is far superior to anything that gives life and movement to the body. Into this noble and wondrous ground, this secret realm, there descends that bliss of which we have spoken. Here the soul has its eternal abode. Here a man becomes so still and essential, so single-minded and withdrawn, so raised up in purity, and more and more removed from all things. . . . This state of the soul cannot be compared to what it has been before, for now it is granted to share in the divine life itself. [6]

The key to all of this is: Detachment

“…The soul that is attached to anything however much good there may be in it, will not arrive at the liberty of divine union. For whether it be a strong wire or a slender and delicate thread that holds the bird, it matters not. Until the cord is broken the bird cannot fly…”

- Saint John of the Cross (1542 – 1591), Catholic mystic and Doctor of the Church

“…What happens to a drunken man happens to him, though it cannot really be described, that he so forgets his self that he is not at all his self and consequently has got rid of his self completely and lost himself entirely…just as a small drop of water does which has been dropped into a large amount of wine. Just as the drop of water loses itself, drawing the taste and colour of the wine to and into itself, so it happens that those who are in full possession of blessedness lose all human desires in an inexpressible manner, and they ebb away from themselves and are immersed completely…Otherwise, if something of the individual were to remain of which he or she were not completely emptied, scripture could not be true in stating that God shall become all things in all things. Certainly one’s being remains, but in a different form, in a different resplendence, and in a different power. This is all the result of total detachment from self…”

- Blessed Henry Suso (c. 1300 - 1366), Catholic mystic

"…Spiritual poverty, deepest wisdom, you are slave to nothing,
And in your detachment you possess all things.

To live as myself and yet not I,
My being no longer my being,
This is a paradox
We cannot pretend to understand!

Spiritual poverty is being attached to nothing, wanting nothing,
And possessing all things in the spirit of freedom…"

***- Blessed Jacopone Da Todi (c.1230-1306), Italian Catholic mystic ***

“…There is a point of rapture where the human spirit forgets itself . . . and passes wholly into God…To lose yourself, as if you no longer existed, to cease completely to experience yourself, to reduce yourself to nothing is not a human sentiment but a divine experience….It is deifying to go through such an experience…How will God be all in all if something human survives in man?..To experience this state is to be deified…”

***- Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153), Catholic mystic and Doctor of the Church ***

“…The surest and quickest way is to renounce oneself, forget oneself, abandon oneself, and to take no further thought of oneself… The whole of religion consists simply in leaving oneself…”

- Archbishop Francois Fenelon (1651 – 1715), Catholic mystic

 

[notself]

The term “the ground” can be compared to bhavanga-sota. Bhavangha-sota can be defined as the undercurrent forming the condition of being. In the Abhidhamma commentaries it is defined as the foundation or condition of existence having the nature of a process, literally a flux or stream. It certainly isn’t identical to “the ground” as described by Angelus Silesius but there are similarities.

Could “the ground” be defined as the divine process of existence?

 

[notself]

I think this sutta has some correlation to “Verses on the Ecstasy of Deep Contemplation”. I have copied the entire sutta plus footnotes.

AN 9.42 PTS: A iv 448 **Pañcala Sutta: Pañcala’s Verse **
translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
© 2007–2012

On one occasion Ven. Ananda was staying in Kosambi at Ghosita’s Park. Then Ven. Udayin went to him and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Ananda, "This has been said by Pañcalacanda the deva’s son:

‘In a confining place, he found an opening —
the one of extensive wisdom,
the awakened one who awakened to jhana,[1]
the chief bull, withdrawn,
the sage.’

“Now which, my friend, is the confining place? And which opening in the confining place is the Blessed One said to have attained?”

[Ven. Ananda:] "The five strings of sensuality, my friend, are described by the Blessed One as a confining place. Which five? Forms cognizable via the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing; sounds cognizable via the ear… smells cognizable via the nose… tastes cognizable via the tongue… tactile sensations cognizable via the body — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. These five strings of sensuality are described by the Blessed One as a confining place.

"Now there is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality,[2] withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Even this much is described by the Blessed One as the attaining of an opening in a confining place, though followed by a sequel. For even there there’s a confining place. What is the confining place there? Just that directed thought & evaluation have not ceased. This is the confining place there.

"Then there is the case where a monk, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. Even this much is described by the Blessed One as the attaining of an opening in a confining place, though followed by a sequel. For even there there’s a confining place. What is the confining place there? Just that rapture has not ceased. This is the confining place there.

"Then there is the case where a monk, with the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, ‘Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.’ Even this much is described by the Blessed One as the attaining of an opening in a confining place, though followed by a sequel. For even there there’s a confining place. What is the confining place there? Just that the pleasure of equanimity has not ceased. This is the confining place there.

"Then there is the case where a monk, with the abandoning of pleasure & stress — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither-pleasure-nor-pain. Even this much is described by the Blessed One as the attaining of an opening in a confining place, though followed by a sequel. For even there there’s a confining place. What is the confining place there? Just that the perception of form has not ceased. This is the confining place there.

"Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of perceptions of form, with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding perceptions of diversity, [perceiving,] ‘Infinite space,’ enters & remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space. Even this much is described by the Blessed One as the attaining of an opening in a confining place, though followed by a sequel. For even there there’s a confining place. What is the confining place there? Just that the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of space has not ceased. This is the confining place there.

"Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, [perceiving,] ‘Infinite consciousness,’ enters & remains in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. Even this much is described by the Blessed One as the attaining of an opening in a confining place, though followed by a sequel. For even there there’s a confining place. What is the confining place there? Just that the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness has not ceased. This is the confining place there.

"Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, [perceiving,] ‘There is nothing,’ enters & remains in the dimension of nothingness. Even this much is described by the Blessed One as the attaining of an opening in a confining place, though followed by a sequel. For even there there’s a confining place. What is the confining place there? Just that the perception of the dimension of nothingness has not ceased. This is the confining place there.

"Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, enters & remains in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. Even this much is described by the Blessed One as the attaining of an opening in a confining place, though followed by a sequel. For even there there’s a confining place. What is the confining place there? Just that the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception has not ceased. This is the confining place there.

“Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And, having seen [that] with discernment, his mental fermentations are completely ended. Even this much is described by the Blessed One as the attaining of an opening in a confining place, without a sequel.”

Notes
1.In The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, this phrase is translated as “who discovered jhana,” but the verb is abuddhi: "awakened to."2.AN 6.63 defines sensuality (kaama) as follows:

"There are these five strings of sensuality. Which five? Forms cognizable via the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing; sounds cognizable via the ear… aromas cognizable via the nose… flavors cognizable via the tongue… tactile sensations cognizable via the body — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. But these are not sensuality. They are called strings of sensuality in the discipline of the noble ones.

The passion for his resolves is a man’s sensuality,
not the beautiful sensual pleasures
found in the world.
The passion for his resolves is a man’s sensuality.

The beauties remain as they are in the world,
while the wise, in this regard,
subdue their desire."

See also: MN 121; AN 9.34; SN 2.7

 

[Vouthon]

My dear brother/sister Notself

Thank you so very much! All I can say is - WOW! There is some seriously profound and meaningful insights contained in that Sutta.

I have it read it and will do so again, so as to have a deeper understanding of what it is expressing. I agree with you that it does seem to touch upon a similar reality to John of the Cross “Verses”

Wonderful!