Christ over zen

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlanFromWichita
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi, slinky1882,

From me to the “amateur” [re your post #40].
:clapping: :clapping:
Really, really excellent. You cannot imagine
the joy that fills my heart in seeing the workings
of the mind of a person much younger than I, *
20+ years from now [God willing], I’ll go to my
reward with peace in my heart, knowing that
you’ll be around, sharing your knowledge and
insights with a generation yet unborn.

“Before the Fall, mankind lived in harmony with the rest of creation and God. Intuitively individuals would have understood an apple and a pear were different yet still fruit. Words although troublesome at some point due to their inadequacies point to the attributes of their object.” quote slinky1882

Ah, now we’ve come to the heart of the matter,
I think. “…intuitively…”
It is this very step of perceiving “attributes” that immediately
causes the mind to take a step back and
‘separate’ itself from the ‘object.’ It is this ‘step’,
this separation, wherein I lose the sense of the
immediacy of the ‘object.’

You’ve given me a way to “see” why that occurred…
the Fall. I’ve puzzled for decades over Satre
talking about a ‘tree’ and how he felt removed
by lightyears ‘from’ the tree. [can’t remember the novel.]

You’ll never get an argument from me about the
necessity for 'order’liness. It would be difficult to
build a bridge, for instance, without ‘stepping back’
and considering the attributes of various building
materials, the forces that the bridge will be subject
to, etc.

Maybe that’s why I yearn for God and for heaven
[paradise.] The re-establishment of the intuitive…

Thank you for the birthday greetings!

God richly bless you, slinky1882,
reen
PS I consider your post a birthday present!:)*
 
40.png
Vimalakirti:
So the point of emptiness or non-soul is not to counter the plenum and the soul as concepts but to discourage clinging to concepts as such. The Buddhist assumption is that clinging even to the most subtle theology is a barrier to enlightenment. (Some have drawn the parallel with negative theology.)
Click to expand...
I would agree with what you seem to be saying here: that the idea of emptiness is not meant to deny what in Christian language is often referred to as the soul or spirit. I would further add that what Christians might call “soul”, Buddhism would not label “self”, in part because in Christianity, the soul is not eternally unchanging, and thus would not fit the definition of a self.
 
40.png
reen12:
Hi, Ahimsa,

It’s 11:37 PM on the East Coast, and my little
grey cells can’t get in gear to respond tonight.
I’ll read and reply tomorrow, OK?
Thanks for posting. I’m looking forward to
continuing the exchange.

Best,
reen

PS: tomorrow is my 59th birthday!! I’m going
to have a big party for my 60th, which I will
consider a triumph.:bounce:
Click to expand...
Hi Reen,

Happy Birthday!
 
40.png
reen12:
Hi, Ahimsa,

It’s 11:37 PM on the East Coast, and my little
grey cells can’t get in gear to respond tonight.
I’ll read and reply tomorrow, OK?
Thanks for posting. I’m looking forward to
continuing the exchange.

Best,
reen

PS: tomorrow is my 59th birthday!! I’m going
to have a big party for my 60th, which I will
consider a triumph.:bounce:
Click to expand...
Happy Birthday to you dear friend. May you enjoy many peaceful and joyful days ahead!

Peace…
 
Dear Ahimsa and Ahimsaman,

Thank you for the birthday greetings!
Most kind of you.

This morning, we have the electrician
and the gentelman who is renovating
the kitchen aboard. Will post reply
to your post as soon as possible,
Ahimsa. [there is nothing in this world
like kitchen renovation…arrrgggghhhh!]:crying:

reen
 
Dear Ahimsa,

“Uh oh… the dreaded “Void”.:D” quote, Ahimsa

That is *so *funny! 😃

Best,
reen
 
40.png
Ahimsa:
I would agree with what you seem to be saying here: that the idea of emptiness is not meant to deny what in Christian language is often referred to as the soul or spirit. I would further add that what Christians might call “soul”, Buddhism would not label “self”, in part because in Christianity, the soul is not eternally unchanging, and thus would not fit the definition of a self.

—That’s a very good point. I admit I don’t know what the official definition of the soul is from the Catholic side (I’ll be sure to put in my request!). But this whole soul business can be a mug’s game. I remember stumbling on a little book describing the Stoic conception of the soul, which is so purified, so empted of anything particularly human it really begs the question of the difference between the so-called substantial soul and Buddhist strategies like emptiness. But I guess that’s the philosopher’s soul which you find in east & west. On the other hand, you have this traditional and popular strand of the bodily ressurection, which as far as I can see really has very little to do with the soul as such, and in its cruder forms is not even particularly spiritual. Really the connotaions of the word “soul” that most readily come to my mind are the warm and human ones in phrases like “soul food” and “soul brother” and he’s a “good soul”. BTW, this is one of many points where translations from Buddhist writings really miss the boat, when they translate anatman by “soullessness”, throwing up an instant barrier to communication. (Although I suspect many practioners like the spiritual hardball, the implicit challange to true spiritual poverty that comes with these kinds of words.) But I think that if these translaters read more good fiction and less scripture they’d probably do a better job!
Click to expand...
 
I think that the meaning or the significance of “stuff” is a big difference between the Christian and Zen outlook on things. As I understand their beliefs (and I’m happy to defer to the wisdom of those who know this field better than I do) the Christian (and especially the Catholic) view supports a sacramental view of the world, in which the material world (created deliberately by God) exists both as a visible sign of God’s love and as means toward salvation, whereas in Zen (and perhaps in Buddhism in general?) the material world (I’m not sure what they view the world as having been created for) is viewed as a distraction or an illusion that the practitioner is to rid himself of. Is this a correct summary? If so, I think this is a pretty fundamental difference and one which is hard to reconcile, even if there appear to be other similarities as discussed in the earlier posts.
 
40.png
SPQR:
I think that the meaning or the significance of “stuff” is a big difference between the Christian and Zen outlook on things. As I understand their beliefs (and I’m happy to defer to the wisdom of those who know this field better than I do) the Christian (and especially the Catholic) view supports a sacramental view of the world, in which the material world (created deliberately by God) exists both as a visible sign of God’s love and as means toward salvation, whereas in Zen (and perhaps in Buddhism in general?) the material world (I’m not sure what they view the world as having been created for) is viewed as a distraction or an illusion that the practitioner is to rid himself of. Is this a correct summary? If so, I think this is a pretty fundamental difference and one which is hard to reconcile, even if there appear to be other similarities as discussed in the earlier posts.
Click to expand...
—Earlier Indian Buddhism certainly emphasized detachment from the material world, as most monastic traditions tend to do. After Buddhism was brought to China, however, and transfromed into Zen (Ch’an) it was brought back down to Earth. The natural world reappeared as a sign of enlightenment, as illustrated by tons of traditional Chinese and Japanese poetry.
 
SPQR said:
[In Buddhism, is the]
material world (I’m not sure what they view the world as having been created for)…viewed as a distraction or an illusion that the practitioner is to rid himself of. Is this a correct summary? If so, I think this is a pretty fundamental difference and one which is hard to reconcile, even if there appear to be other similarities as discussed in the earlier posts.
Click to expand...

Senatus Populusque Romanus,

I think you raised an interesting point. Does the material world represent essentially a negative condition that has to be gotten ride of? In other words, is Nature evil?

If Nature is evil, then one would have to destroy Nature, or eliminate it, or at least hate it. But in Buddhism, the emotion of hatred is a form of limitation. So to hate Nature, or seek to destroy it, would prevent the very liberation (or Nirvana) a Buddhist seeks. Thus, to see Nature as evil would not be consistent with Buddhist practice.

Likewise, is Nature a distraction? Well, a distraction from what, exactly? From liberation (Nirvana), perhaps? But in Buddhism, Nirvana is not something you can point to; it’s not something that you can decide to “focus” on, or bear down on hard enough so that eventually you realize Nirvana by sheer force of will. In other words, it’s impossible to simply decide to eliminate the “distractions” of Nature, focus on Nirvana, and become enlightened. Nirvana appears when you’re ready for it, not when you desire it to appear.

By Nature, I mean everything that (1) you are able to experience and that (2) constantly changes. So, in the Buddhist formulation, Nature would include both matter, as well as mind (emotion, feelings, thoughts, ideas, etc). All these are able to be experienced, and all of these constantly change. Since Buddhism is all about becoming aware of both matter and mind, aware of Nature, it would seem strange to consider matter and mind, or Nature, as a distraction. The job of the Buddhist is to be aware of Nature; and to let Nirvana come when it will.
 
40.png
Ahimsa:
Senatus Populusque Romanus,

I think you raised an interesting point. Does the material world represent essentially a negative condition that has to be gotten ride of? In other words, is Nature evil?

If Nature is evil, then one would have to destroy Nature, or eliminate it, or at least hate it. But in Buddhism, the emotion of hatred is a form of limitation. So to hate Nature, or seek to destroy it, would prevent the very liberation (or Nirvana) a Buddhist seeks. Thus, to see Nature as evil would not be consistent with Buddhist practice.

Likewise, is Nature a distraction? Well, a distraction from what, exactly? From liberation (Nirvana), perhaps? But in Buddhism, Nirvana is not something you can point to; it’s not something that you can decide to “focus” on, or bear down on hard enough so that eventually you realize Nirvana by sheer force of will. In other words, it’s impossible to simply decide to eliminate the “distractions” of Nature, focus on Nirvana, and become enlightened. Nirvana appears when you’re ready for it, not when you desire it to appear.

By Nature, I mean everything that (1) you are able to experience and that (2) constantly changes. So, in the Buddhist formulation, Nature would include both matter, as well as mind (emotion, feelings, thoughts, ideas, etc). All these are able to be experienced, and all of these constantly change. Since Buddhism is all about becoming aware of both matter and mind, aware of Nature, it would seem strange to consider matter and mind, or Nature, as a distraction. The job of the Buddhist is to be aware of Nature; and to let Nirvana come when it will.
Click to expand...
—That’s really an excellent summary of the problem and very much more to the point than my little post above. I think the confusion comes in for two reasons. First, the Noble Truth of Suffering in effect posits a kind of fallen or problematic nature, and the oldest Buddhist practice consisted precisely in the systematic detachment from both matter and mind, i.e., nature as you’ve just described it. Superficial reading of some of the suttas would therefore leave the impression that Buddhism holds a kind of gnostic belief in the evil of creation, where in fact as you’ve suggested the problem is not in the evil of nature as such but in our flawed, ego-driven experience of it. My other point is about the natural world as used symbolically, as a correspondance to God or enlightenment. And I think this may reside as much in the character of different cultures as it does in doctrine or belief. Indian Buddhism, like other Indian religions, for the most part favoured transcendent, elaborate, other-worldly imagery to represent religious ideas, whereas in Zen, following the guiding genius of the down-to-earth Chinese, the natural world reappeared. Does that mean that Indians inherently distrust nature more than the Chinese? I think that would be an over-simplification. You could just as well see this as different levels of rhetoric and different assumptions on what it takes to reach an audience and to express religious ideas.
 
40.png
Vimalakirti:
First, the Noble Truth of Suffering in effect posits a kind of fallen or problematic nature
Click to expand...
Your point here is well-taken. I think the traditional formulation of the First Noble Truth does not do full justice to the Buddha’s point. The First Noble Truth (“the truth of suffering”, often said to be “life is suffering”) might need “unpacking” in order to be understood in a useful manner. For instance, “dukkha”, usually translated simply as “suffering”, actually includes all the various types of pleasure a person might experience – the pleasure of contemplating nature, of reading a good book, or of a morning run on the beach. So the First Noble Truth is the truth that all these pleasures are part of the human experience. And I would wager that, for most people, the pursuit of pleasure (whether purely physical, or more emotional, or highly intellectual) is a positive goad for living. And the pursuit of pleasure did form part of the Buddha’s message – do morally good actions, and you will experience pleasurable experiences as a result. This message was especially given to lay people working in the everyday world, who had businesses, spouses, and children; and who needed inspiration for doing the right thing. For them, the Buddha offered the hope of heaven after death, of re-uniting with their family members in a future world, as well as beneficial results in this world.

For monks and nuns, though, or for those lay people who were unsatisfied with the pleasures of worldy life, the Buddha offered the full meaning of these pleasures: these pleasures never lasted forever, they were impermanent. And the fact that pleasure is impermanent makes pleasure “dukkha” – or not totally satisfying, not complete, not fulfilling. In other words, dukkha could be alternatively translated not simply as “suffering” (“How depressing! Life is suffering? Sheesh! Might as well kill myself now and get it over with!”); nor simply as “not complete” or “not fulfilling”; but rather “pleasure that comes and goes”, or “the cycle of joy and loss”. Then it becomes easier to envision what Nirvana is: the joy that does not suffer loss.
 
40.png
Ahimsa:
Your point here is well-taken. I think the traditional formulation of the First Noble Truth does not do full justice to the Buddha’s point. The First Noble Truth (“the truth of suffering”, often said to be “life is suffering”) might need “unpacking” in order to be understood in a useful manner. For instance, “dukkha”, usually translated simply as “suffering”, actually includes all the various types of pleasure a person might experience – the pleasure of contemplating nature, of reading a good book, or of a morning run on the beach. So the First Noble Truth is the truth that all these pleasures are part of the human experience. And I would wager that, for most people, the pursuit of pleasure (whether purely physical, or more emotional, or highly intellectual) is a positive goad for living. And the pursuit of pleasure did form part of the Buddha’s message – do morally good actions, and you will experience pleasurable experiences as a result. This message was especially given to lay people working in the everyday world, who had businesses, spouses, and children; and who needed inspiration for doing the right thing. For them, the Buddha offered the hope of heaven after death, of re-uniting with their family members in a future world, as well as beneficial results in this world.

For monks and nuns, though, or for those lay people who were unsatisfied with the pleasures of worldy life, the Buddha offered the full meaning of these pleasures: these pleasures never lasted forever, they were impermanent. And the fact that pleasure is impermanent makes pleasure “dukkha” – or not totally satisfying, not complete, not fulfilling. In other words, dukkha could be alternatively translated not simply as “suffering” (“How depressing! Life is suffering? Sheesh! Might as well kill myself now and get it over with!”); nor simply as “not complete” or “not fulfilling”; but rather “pleasure that comes and goes”, or “the cycle of joy and loss”. Then it becomes easier to envision what Nirvana is: the joy that does not suffer loss.
Click to expand...
–Spot on. I think as well that what is generally ignored is that Buddhism parallells Chistianity in that it’s accomplished in two moves, a move of renunciation - of the fallen or tainted world of ordinary experience - and a move of transformation of that world through new understanding. Both Jesus and Gautama point to a fallen world contingent on our own corrupted will or ignorance; niether claim that the world or creation is inherently evil.

That said, I would like to put out another less positive parallel between the two traditions, and root cause of misunderstanding, and that is a kind of fervor found in the texts that can be misleading. The foundational works of Buddhism, as represented by the suttas of the Pali Canon may minister to laypeople as well as monks, but they were kept, compiled and edited by the monastic community and are therefore dominated by the mentality and needs of that community. We’ll perhaps never know all the exact phrasing and nuance of what the Buddha actually taught, but what I get from the suttas is the record of an urgency, of a community that felt the dukkha of ordinary existence so problematic that their whole focus was on escape. Certainly, the goal of nibbana is given positive attributes, but only rarely. The overwhelming focus is on disengagement from dukkha. That’s why a superficial reading of these texts can be so misleading. You really have to reflect on what they’re saying, what the logical implications are, and what nibbana might really mean. (Of course, into these gaps stepped later tradition, especially with its emphasis on the bodhisattva, enlightenment and a more penetrating analysis of the core concepts.)

The parallel fervor of the Christian side is that around eschatology, the end times, millenialism, etc., which threatens at times to overwhelm the gentler, and to my mind more fundamental message that the “kingdom of God is within you”. Again, it’s a question of the urgencies of the people who shaped the canon, and as in Buddhism that urgency is essential to the power of the tradition. But when that urgency takes over, when it falls into excessive otherworldlyness and the metaphysical, then it can be misleading and even dangerous.

BTW, have your received a copy of This Rock? They’ve run a story on Buddhism which could stand some significant correction.
 
Vimalakirti said:
–Spot on. I think as well that what is generally ignored is that Buddhism parallells Chistianity in that it’s accomplished in two moves, a move of renunciation - of the fallen or tainted world of ordinary experience - and a move of transformation of that world through new understanding. Both Jesus and Gautama point to a fallen world contingent on our own corrupted will or ignorance; niether claim that the world or creation is inherently evil.

That said, I would like to put out another less positive parallel between the two traditions, and root cause of misunderstanding, and that is a kind of fervor found in the texts that can be misleading. The foundational works of Buddhism, as represented by the suttas of the Pali Canon may minister to laypeople as well as monks, but they were kept, compiled and edited by the monastic community and are therefore dominated by the mentality and needs of that community. We’ll perhaps never know all the exact phrasing and nuance of what the Buddha actually taught, but what I get from the suttas is the record of an urgency, of a community that felt the dukkha of ordinary existence so problematic that their whole focus was on escape. Certainly, the goal of nibbana is given positive attributes, but only rarely. The overwhelming focus is on disengagement from dukkha. That’s why a superficial reading of these texts can be so misleading. You really have to reflect on what they’re saying, what the logical implications are, and what nibbana might really mean. (Of course, into these gaps stepped later tradition, especially with its emphasis on the bodhisattva, enlightenment and a more penetrating analysis of the core concepts.)

The parallel fervor of the Christian side is that around eschatology, the end times, millenialism, etc., which threatens at times to overwhelm the gentler, and to my mind more fundamental message that the “kingdom of God is within you”. Again, it’s a question of the urgencies of the people who shaped the canon, and as in Buddhism that urgency is essential to the power of the tradition. But when that urgency takes over, when it falls into excessive otherworldlyness and the metaphysical, then it can be misleading and even dangerous.

BTW, have your received a copy of This Rock? They’ve run a story on Buddhism which could stand some significant correction.
Click to expand...

I agree. The fact that the oral and written traditions were maintained by the monastic community would definitely shape which part of the Buddha’s teachings were deemed relevant to be passed on by those same monastics. So in some ways one could argue that the later devotional and tantric movements within Buddhism sought to recover and stress practices for the non-monastic. Of course, the lay-person is not ignored in the early Buddhist texts, but the bulk of those texts deal with monastic issues (or issues that are not specifically for lay Buddhists only).

I don’t subscribe to The Rock. I can imagine what such a magazine would say concerning Buddhism: “negative”, “pessimistic”, “atheistic”, etc. (though I could be mistaken).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top