Christ over zen

[ahimsaman72]

Ahimsa:

I didn’t want to go into the concept of “emptiness” unless someone else jumped in first. So, thanks, Ahimsaman.

Aww…, you’re welcome. I love to help muddy the waters…good to see you as always.

Peace…

 

[reen12]

Hi, ahimsaman72

Are we all having fun yet?

Good to see you, as always!

I love this type of discussion and it’s great to have
Ahimsa to speak with about the concepts of
emptiness, nothingness…and I’m about to
add…the Void !! heh heh

God bless you, dear friend,
Maureen

 

[reen12]

Hi, Ahimsa,

Thanks for your response. I added the bit about
having familiarity with Eastern thought so that
you’d be aware that we didn’t have to begin the
discussion from scratch. I find it very difficult to
speak with those trained solely in Western philosophy
on these topics. It often evokes irritation, which I
find frustrating.

I get the thought that you can’t *have *form without
emptiness. Also, the word “nothingness” is,
in reality, no-thing-ness, right? [the coffee cup
has no value as a cup without the empty space.]

I need your thought on the following two observations:

If, by definition, God “needs” nothing [no-thing],
how can we say that God “needed” emptiness?
[that is, that His actions would be *contingent upon
the existence of nothingness?] The construct
God/need is a contradiction in terms, in logic-
which is so dear to the Western mind.

How does the concept of the* void* fit into all of
this * I’ve got to think this
one through myself to a greater extent than
previously.

These exchanges do get “dense”, don’t they?
But, when I consider the nature of the subject
at hand, I think that’s unavoidable. [no pun
intended. ]

Looking forward to your thoughts, and thanks
for the patience required to wade through these
“bogs and fens” of metaphysics.

Best,
reen*

 

[slinky1882]

Ahimsa:

Hi Reen,

I’ll give it a shot.

God is not Creation.
Emptiness is Creation.
Thus, God is not Emptiness.

Hey could you humor an amateur??? I have another observation about your second line. Above in your definition of emptiness, you choose an atom to explain creation. You said 90% emptiness and 10% matter (protons, electrons, neutrons, etc.). If the explanation of Creation is true, the syllogism should read:

God is not Creation.
Emptiness and Matter are Creation.
Thus, God is not Matter nor Emptiness.

Does this leave “Being” as the only option then that is not Material nor Emptiness??? Please correct me if I butchered the Logic. Thanks and God Bless.

 

[Vimalakirti]

Ahimsa:

Welcome, Vimalakirti.

Hmm…what level what that be, exactly?

----Well, I mean to say on the level of not just misunderstanding a concept (or strategy as I have here) but in holding that there’s some literal correspondance between language and reality. i.e., as the Buddhists say mistaking the finger for the moon it’s pointing at. But I admit I’m not a philosopher, so I wouldn’t claim to be able to defintively argue this point or vanquish anyone holding a contrary view on the subject. My personal leanings are toward a pragmatic, pluralist and non-essentialist view of reality - no doubt a result of poor toilet training!

Are you saying this from direct experience?

----Well, I’m not going to fall into a spiritual pissing match, as in my spirit is bigger/more authentic than yours; and it follows from my conviction that there is a fundamental unity to human experience, that we don’t inhabit alternative universes, and that it’s very possible and even likely that the major traditions very largely are talking about the same or at least over-lapping experiences in different terms.

It seems the key word here is “genuine”. How would you know if a tradition is genuine, or genuine and deep?

----Jesus said it best: you’ll know them by their fruits. The evidence is there in word & deed, sacred writings and human action. And no I don’t have the sanction of a Pope to assure myself that my judgements are correct when I detect in such evidence genuine experience.

If ultimate reality were really beyond description, how would you even be able to say that it was “beyond description”?

—This is the mere seizing on a phrase - I’m sure there’s an official term for it in formal logic, but again I’m not a philosopher. When I say “beyond description” I don’t mean to say there is absolutely no relation between words and the world. I take the pragmatic view that words justify themselves by their specific uses, the difference they make in the world or in the mind. “God” for example is a useful word in facilitating communication between people and groups who accept this term in their discussions of what is ultimately real. But all theistic traditions - Hindu, Islamic, and Catholic, if I’m not mistaken - tell you that a word and indeed an infinite list of words is not capable of providing a definitive, literal description of God as reality.

Perhaps these legitimate differences only apply to one particular religion.

—I’m not a scholar in religious adaptation across culture, but I am aware that both Buddhism and Christianity have historically been extraordinarally adept at adapting to different cultures. You know about Christianity and its original transformations in the European sphere and more recently in Africa. Buddhism has evolved distinctly different forms in Tibet, China, Japan, Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia. Both traditions have run into walls. Buddhism to the west; Christianity in India and most of Asia.

What metaphysical distinctions are you referring to?

—Quite directly, the various creeds that enforce adhesion to very specific assertions about the divinity of Christ, the idea of God and the last judgement. More broadly, the vast theological structures the church has erected over the centuries. We can agree to disagree here. As I’ve said, I’m a non-essentialist by constitution; I believe that the impulse to metaphysics is understandable in a metaphorical sense to help put us some distance from our everyday/ordinary/sinful/ignorant world, but that in the end it may only create more barriers to the experience we’re seeking.

Surely, you’re not equating Nirvana with God-union?

–Yes, I am. And I’m aware that both sides will object. Many Buddhists are resolute in maintaining that Nirvana is in effect beyond God, and historically many Christians have branded Nirvana as mere annihilation. But again, what are these words, who is using them, and what experience are they really referring to? Here your point about judging what is genuine is well taken. It’s not easy to sort the sheep from the goats. But again, on the evidence, both traditions speak of direct experience of ultimate reality in this life - though it’s true that the experiental approach is more central to Buddhism than to Christianity. Both cite examples of saintly characters who seem to have transcended the narrow ego. But yes, this is my take on things, not an absolute certainty. On the other hand, the equating of Nirvana with union with God is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, and to be shocked at it is to be tripped up in mere words.

 

[Vimalakirti]

slinky1882:

I would have to agree that the underlying Philosophical assumptions of zen differ from Catholicism (particularly in relation to words, Logic and the material world). I think that may be why Catholic Heirarchy are cautious in approaching the Eastern religions. But all religions have elements of Truth (ranging from next to nothing occult to really close say Orthodox), yet to equate Christ with a zen master is improper (I do not think anyone on this board has, but I have run into such people in my daily life ). Thanks and God Bless.

—I’ve just read “The Gospel According to Jesus” by Stephen Mitchell, where he does exactly that, extracting only those sayings that make the Jesus-as-Zen Master case. Although I’m not an orthodox believer and am sympathetic with these kinds of reconstructions, I agree that leaving out the urgency, as Mitchell does, of “the Kingdom of God is upon you” and related sayings does misrepresent Jesus, in that this sense of urgency and social engagmement is precisely what distinguishes the life of Jesus from the Zen tradition.

 

[slinky1882]

reen12:

Hi, Ahimsa,

Thanks for your response. I added the bit about
having familiarity with Eastern thought so that
you’d be aware that we didn’t have to begin the
discussion from scratch. I find it very difficult to
speak with those trained solely in Western philosophy
on these topics. It often evokes irritation, which I
find frustrating.

I get the thought that you can’t *have *form without
emptiness. Also, the word “nothingness” is,
in reality, no-thing-ness, right? [the coffee cup
has no value as a cup without the empty space.]

I need your thought on the following two observations:

If, by definition, God “needs” nothing [no-thing],
how can we say that God “needed” emptiness?
[that is, that His actions would be *contingent

upon
the existence of nothingness?] The construct
God/need is a contradiction in terms, in logic-
which is so dear to the Western mind.

How does the concept of the* void* fit into all of
this * I’ve got to think this
one through myself to a greater extent than
previously.

These exchanges do get “dense”, don’t they?
But, when I consider the nature of the subject
at hand, I think that’s unavoidable. [no pun
intended. ]

Looking forward to your thoughts, and thanks
for the patience required to wade through these
“bogs and fens” of metaphysics.

Best,
reen*

Maureen,
I have a question related to “nothing” and “no thing”. Are they really the same??? Take the paper cup example. The paper cup needs empty space. The paper cup presupposes the existence of empty space (at which point it ceases to be “nothing”). Empty Space does not equate to nothing. “No thing” can be coneptualized whereas “nothing” cannot. Here I have to disagree with Wittgenstein’s statement in *Tractatus: *“For in order to be able to draw a limit to thought, we should have to find both sides thinkable.” I think there is a fence to our reasoning capabilties, and we are are not able to “think both sides” becuase humans didn’t “place” the fence. What do you think??? Thanks for humoring the amateur again. God Bless.

 

[slinky1882]

Out of curiosity does anyone else think there should be a Philosophy of Religion forum??? I am finding posts scattered in all of the forums that really deal with the philosophical underpinnings not so much Church Teaching. Philosophy paves the road to Theology.

I have another observation on zen and Buddhism in general. From what I have studied, it does not appear that Buddhism ever intended to be Theology. Take the sayins of the zen masters, almost always the sayings strike at philosophical underpinnings. Whereas Christ went beyond Philosophy and entered the Divine realm. Chirst never discarded Philosophy but pointed out that Philosophy and wise sayings can only take one so far, and then, Faith is needed to be a PhiloTheos (Lover of God, pardon my Greek, I am not sure that is right). Thanks and God Bless.

 

[reen12]

Hi, slinky1882,

“I have a question related to “nothing” and “no thing”. Are they really the same??? Take the paper cup example. The paper cup needs empty space. The paper cup presupposes the existence of empty space (at which point it ceases to be “nothing”). Empty Space does not equate to nothing. “No thing” can be coneptualized whereas “nothing” cannot. Here I have to disagree with Wittgenstein’s statement in *Tractatus: *“For in order to be able to draw a limit to thought, we should have to find both sides thinkable.” I think there is a fence to our reasoning capabilties, and we are are not able to “think both sides” becuase humans didn’t “place” the fence. What do you think??? Thanks for humoring the amateur again. God Bless.” quote, slinky1882

You may consider yourself an “amateur”, but
I sure don’t! Look at your paragraph that I
quoted.

To me, trying to discuss the concepts of either
Christianity or Buddhism without a grasp of
both Western philosophy and the basic ground
rules of logic makes for a tower of Babel.
That is, everybody involved employs the
same word, while holding a different “meaning”
for that word.
Pseudo-disagreements then pop up, generated
by this lack of definition of terms.
Does that make sense?

Secondly, I studied philosophy because I wanted
to know, as a young person, what could a
human being “know” by reason alone, unaided
by revelation. My conclusion, 35 years ago?
Not much.

Buddhism is a philosophy that has elements
of rite and precepts for behavior. It has it’s own
metaphysics, ie. nature of being, what can we
know and what is the quality of that knowledge,
etc.

Finally, philosopy is the language of theology,
as calculus is the language of physics.

---

So, if someone says to me: Nothing does not
mean “no-thing”, I’m then required, intellectually,
to reply: OK, you “define” nothing. Then we’ll
have a go at agreeing or disagreeing on you
definiton.
Logic is tedious. My instinct is to leap over
it’s requirements. Whenever I do, I find myself
“babbling” incoherently.

---

How about: Since there is no-thing in the center
of that ceramic object, we can see it is an object
capable of holding a liquid. It’s current configuration
makes it "use"ful. Let’s call it a “cup.”
The following is a real mind game:
Ceramic object. Empty center space.
Handle=cup. No handle=vase, candy holder etc.
Arggghhhhh!

I think, based on what you wrote, that you have
an instinct for metaphysics.
More later,
Best,
reen

 

[reen12]

Part II

I think human beings got in trouble when they
started “naming” things. Adam kicked it all off
in the garden, naming the animals. [This idea
is not original to me, and I may be unwittingly
presenting it verbatim from its source.]

That’s where I have found zen of interest. The term
“mere words” pops up constantly [it seems almost a mantra
among some modern Taoists] but, there is a vantage point
from which this term is gratifying.

By "naming’ a thing/ no-thing, we lose the
ability to “see” the thing/no-thing. [This idea is
not original to me.] We also lose, to a certain
degree, the ability to “experience” the thing/no-thing.

That’s the reason you’ll find me railing against
“systematic theology.”

reen

 

[reen12]

Observe a small child handling a plastic mug for
the first time. The interest! The joy! The sticking of
a little hand into the empty space, and the wonder at
the* marvel* of the thing.

The child *has *to be taught the name of the thing.
But something is lost, in the knowing.

“Mere words” ?

reen

 

[ahimsaman72]

reen12:

Hi, ahimsaman72

Are we all having fun yet?

Good to see you, as always!

I love this type of discussion and it’s great to have
Ahimsa to speak with about the concepts of
emptiness, nothingness…and I’m about to
add…the Void !! heh heh

God bless you, dear friend,
Maureen

Hey Maureen!
Yes. Although, like I said, you two get over my head after a while . It’s kind of like opera music and poetry. I love to hear and read them - respectively, whether or not I understand them is a different thing altogether.

May God bless you dear friend.
Peace…

 

[Ahimsa]

reen12:

I get the thought that you can’t *have *form without
emptiness. Also, the word “nothingness” is,
in reality, no-thing-ness, right? [the coffee cup
has no value as a cup without the empty space.]

Hi Reen,

Perhaps I should clarify here what I mean by “emptiness”. Usually, Buddhist emptiness refers to the idea that form is “empty of self”. And what is self? Self (as understood by many Buddhists) is something that is (1) completely unchanging; (2) totally pleasurable; and (3) absolutely able to be clung to. The Buddha, of course, argued that such a “self” did not exist anywhere in the universe. Thus, everything (animals, humans, chairs, cups, planets, stars, etc.) is empty of “self”. Emptiness is being empty of such a “self”.

The defintion of emptiness I’m using here is not the above definition, but my definition does derive from Buddhist physics. In Buddhism, matter and mind are constantly coming into and going out of existence. Roughly speaking, matter comes into and goes out of existence about, lets say, a thousand times a second. Mind, on the other hand, changes much more rapidly, coming into and going out of existence about a million times a second. But what about the very tiny bit of time during which matter or mind does not exist? It would seem that that tiny bit of time is literally “empty” of matter or mind. [One could visualize a movie reel with frames – each frame is distinct, and separated from the other frame by some sort of empty space. When you look at the movie, the frames move very quickly, and seem to create a continuous motion, but if you slow it down, you can see that each frame “comes into and goes out of existence”, so to speak.]

It’s this latter definition of “emptiness” that I’m intuiting to be similar somehow to the Christian idea of “nothingness”.

But that leads to the question: what is the Christian idea of “nothingess”?

If, by definition, God “needs” nothing [no-thing],
how can we say that God “needed” emptiness?
[that is, that His actions would be *contingent

upon
the existence of nothingness?] The construct
God/need is a contradiction in terms, in logic-
which is so dear to the Western mind.

Hmmm…I’m not sure if God (the biblical God, as opposed to the philosophical God) is really free of need (or love, or desire). I would hope that God desires the best for Creation.

How does the concept of the* void* fit into all of
this * I’ve got to think this
one through myself to a greater extent than
previously.*

Uh oh… the dreaded “Void”. Well, “voidness” could simply be a synonym for “emptiness”, I reckon.

 

[Vimalakirti]

Ahimsa:

Hi Reen,

Perhaps I should clarify here what I mean by “emptiness”. Usually, Buddhist emptiness refers to the idea that form is “empty of self”. And what is self? Self (as understood by many Buddhists) is something that is (1) completely unchanging; (2) totally pleasurable; and (3) absolutely able to be clung to. The Buddha, of course, argued that such a “self” did not exist anywhere in the universe. Thus, everything (animals, humans, chairs, cups, planets, stars, etc.) is empty of “self”. Emptiness is being empty of such a “self”.

–I believe what you’re referring to here is the view of self as set out by the earlier so-called realistic school of Buddhism as found in the abhidhamma of the Theravadins. Here the preoccumpation is the denial of contemporary notions of the Atman (soul) as found for example in the Upanishads. The later Mahayana schools, especially as pioneered by Nagarjuna extend this notion and the notion of dependent origination to cover all elements of existence. All elements are empty of inherent existence in that they are mutually dependent, i.e., can not be understood or exist in isolation as self-determinant entities. From this Nagarjuna posits his two truths, conventional and absolute. On the absolute level no thing can be said to exist (hence the luminous void), on the conventional level everything does exist in a state of interdependence. In Western terms Nagarjuna has been compared to philosophers like David Hume. However, I think we should remember that Buddhist doctrine is conceived in quite another spirit than Christian or Western. In the west, we’ve in general looked to establish formulations with the aim of approaching as closely as possible to abstract truth. In the Buddhist tradition all scriptures are provisional, a raft as one of their parables goes to get to the other side, there to be discarded. 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.) That’s their methodology, or skillful means as they call it, and it stands or falls in how it works in practice, what fruit it bears.

 

[Vimalakirti]

AlanFromWichita:

I heard some audio recordings about zen master methods, but it was quite some time ago. If I am totally wrong about zen here, then someone please correct me. I don’t claim any authority other than what you make of it, because I may have not remembered this perfectly.

It sounds like zen, like Christ, both attempt to transform one’s way of thinking.

–No expert here, but I’ve read a lot in Buddhism over the years and it seems to me there’s a very simply distinction that isn’t mentioned nearly often enough between the Indian tradition (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) and the Abrahamic (Judaism, Chistianity and Islam). And that’s the core concepts of each, yoga for the Indian tradition and the Kingdom of God for the Abrahamic. The idea of salvation entailing a whole people or kingdom just doesn’t figure in Indian religions as originally conceived. They certainly encouraged their rulers to be moral, and the road to salvation certainly led through moral relations with others, but in essence salvation was an individual affair. On the Abrahamic side, while there are certainly mystical, gnostic, and invidualistic strands, the tradition overwhelmingly has favoured the Kingdom of God model and has rejected or downplayed salvation as individual achievement. While Jesus, for example, may have been zen-like in certain respects, he can’t really be understood outside the urgency of his context: “the Kingdom of God is upon you”.

 

[edwinG]

urquhart:

Zen is a reform movement within Buddhism. Since it is a branch of Buddhism, there is a definite moral code. The key precepts are to become conscious and aware and to live your life in a way that causes no harm to other living beings, and to do what you can to alleviate suffering. This is roughly comparable to the Golden Rule. But Buddhism is more of a philosophy of life than a religion; for example, they take no position on the existence of God.

Hi urquhart,
Please remember that not having a position on God is not leading us to Jesus so it is against Him. Buddhism is now a practising religion and spirits are invoked. These are not the Spirit of Jesus.
walk in love
edwinG

 

[ahimsaman72]

urquhart:

Zen is a reform movement within Buddhism. Since it is a branch of Buddhism, there is a definite moral code. The key precepts are to become conscious and aware and to live your life in a way that causes no harm to other living beings, and to do what you can to alleviate suffering. This is roughly comparable to the Golden Rule. But Buddhism is more of a philosophy of life than a religion; for example, they take no position on the existence of God.

I agree with your post, but was worried about the last sentence here. I believe some Zen masters take a position on God. My favorite, Thich Nhat Hanh (Zen master) has written many books. In two of them, ‘Living Buddha, Living Christ’ and ‘Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as brothers’ he speaks at length about Buddhism and God. He likens ‘God’ to the ‘ground of being’ for existence. Paul Tillich describes God as such and TNH readily agrees. An interesting analogy is the ocean and waves. In simplified terms - we humans are the waves while ‘God’ is the ocean - the ground of the waves. So, he doesn’t consider ‘God’ as a person, but not less than a person. Look into his works. They are fascinating.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

edwinG:

Hi urquhart,
Please remember that not having a position on God is not leading us to Jesus so it is against Him. Buddhism is now a practising religion and spirits are invoked. These are not the Spirit of Jesus.
walk in love
edwinG

The theology of Buddhism and the theology of Christianity are obviously very different in alot of ways. However, there are many schools of Buddhism and “spirits being invoked” is not really an accurate statement. Please help me in your definition of the Spirit of Jesus.
Thanks.

Peace…

 

[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:

 

[slinky1882]

reen12:

Part II

I think human beings got in trouble when they
started “naming” things. Adam kicked it all off
in the garden, naming the animals. [This idea
is not original to me, and I may be unwittingly
presenting it verbatim from its source.]

That’s where I have found zen of interest. The term
“mere words” pops up constantly [it seems almost a mantra
among some modern Taoists] but, there is a vantage point
from which this term is gratifying.

By "naming’ a thing/ no-thing, we lose the
ability to “see” the thing/no-thing. [This idea is
not original to me.] We also lose, to a certain
degree, the ability to “experience” the thing/no-thing.

That’s the reason you’ll find me railing against
“systematic theology.”

reen

reen,
First I want to say happy birthday :clapping: . Congratualtions and I hope you enjoy your day. I typically am on late at night (i.e. PST) so I may reply after you get to sleep (if it says I am on, I often leave the browser window running :whacky: ). I read your reponses earlier before going on a beautiful walk to see the mountains with ym fiance and then to Mass.

Second, I ask that you spare me for this, but I am going to give a VERY unitellectual answer to given a definition to “nothing”. I can’t, and I don’t think that it can be done. Here’s why. Once we define or coneptualize a definition, the thought ceases to be nothing and becomes some “thing”. And as related, I am not sure humans have the capacity to experience nothing. Whereas “no thing” is the negation of “thing”, nothing can never be adequately defined. (Example: If we equate “not thing” with “nothing”, questions arise like: If nothing is no thing, is that all nothing is or what about non-being??? If nothing is also non-being, is non-being the same as no thing???) I believe “nothing” is beyong the fence not of our making. At this point, I want to distinguish between my definition and Kant’s “things in themselves” to prevent being bombed out by Hegel. By stating that “nothing” is beyond our defineable and knowable grasp, I avoid Kant’s contradiction in “things of themselves” pointed out by Hegel.

Third, I have a idea related to the quote above related to naming. True this one on for size. Could God have “seen” in His Omnipotent Present the Fall and that’s why wordS come into play??? 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. Some words are constant problems like “nothing”, “void”, “Being” to our finite fallen minds. But it is wrong to take the nominalist stand that all words exist only in name. Perhaps, words, grammar, and Logic point back to the intuitive knowledge and the true nature of the reference and ultimately God. That is why Nietzche said “We have not gotten rid of God until we have gotten rid of grammar.” This would address the child story you brought up. The child after Baptism is the purest they probably will ever be. Children may be able to experience intuitively in ways adults cannot, and when the child learns to speak, words instead of simplifying often complex. Something is lost, but another is gained in the form of order. But ironically, Christ says we must become like children.

To add to that last thought, in my copy of G.K. Chesterton’s St. Francis of Assisi, the introductor makes an intersting observation. What right do adults have to tell children that their world is make believe and the adult live in the “real world”??? Often the children’s world if full of virtue and adults so full of voice. Does vice or virtue better reflect reality??? Some food for thought. Again Happy Birthday. Thanks and God Bless.