Christian Mindfulness & Emptiness

[Sarpedon]

I never met Siddhartha Gautama myself. I have read only some stories attributed to Him. I found them wonderful and revelatory. My Standpoint, more than being from any stream of Buddhistic tradition, comes from what is sometimes called The Perennial Philosophy. It has other names, but none of them are accurate nor reflective of what it actually is, similar to what Rossum said about descriptions of Nirvana. So all I can say is that while traditional Buddhisms deal with interpretations of Teaching that have been adapted over time to the necessities of human motivations, The Perennial Philosophy deals with, and always has dealt with Original Revelations. Mathew 28:20 says “I am always with you, even to the end of the age” or “time” as some translations have it. But that is literally true, though it does not refer personally to Jesus. But that is why it is so crucially important, especially to speakers of English, to understand what is meant by “I” and some equally ambiguous words in Eastern Teachings. It is emphatically not what the Church attributes to Jesus as person.

So your philosophy is too vague to explain to me? That’s not very convincing. I find it curious that you emphatically know that the Church’s interpretation of that quote is flat out wrong, yet you simultaneously cannot proclaim a similar level of knowledge in regards to your own beliefs.

Also, if you read closely, my statement and Rossum’s about suffering are not mutually exclusive. I don’t read them that way, at least, and I would be interested on Rossum’s take on that.

I would like you to explain why you think saying that “cessation of desire is impossible” and “the elimination of desire is the method, not the goal” are compatible. You merely stating that they are compatible is not very convincing.

Ultimately here, I would hope we are considering Truth, and not parsing definitions of names of ways.

Defining terms is a prerequisite to any rational approach to truth. We need to know what we are talking about before we make any conclusions, no?

And you know this how? And you are certain of the definitions in Buddhist terminology of those words you use by what means?

Everything I have ever read about Buddhism explains Buddhist beliefs in the way I am describing them here. If my views on Buddhism are incorrect, you are welcome to cite some scholarly source on Buddhism to resolve my error.

But wait, didn’t you just say that you think “parsing the names of ways” is not desirable?

Buddhist “rejects” these things as being ultimately Real because they are only abstractions in mind from the All containing Nothingness which is nothingness only to the human mentality because Totality is beyond human mental comprehension. That Nothingness in Reality is ALL, and equatable to the synonyms of God that some so ignorantly use.

Can you describe to me the attributes of this Nothingness? Is it loving? Is it compassionate? Is it wise?

Yes, I think it would be good for you to get some books on original Buddhist Teaching and listen less to deteriorated understandings from those who interpret from christianist predilections obscured by ignorance of usage. Which, again, is why I am trying to point you to information that might clarify some of these points so you may read the originals with some greater clarity of vision and comprehension.

Honestly I am not inclined to place any stock in your books after looking at them on Amazon. They seem to be more New Age than a scholarly study of Buddhism. Do you have any established, scholarly sources to support your position?

 

[Sarpedon]

I am particularly interested in the Buddhist response to this question:

Once Buddha reached Nirvana, did he desire any of the following things?

• Love
• Peace on earth
• Friendship
• Joy
• Communion with others
• Teamwork
• A family
• Beautiful things of nature
• Beautiful things of art

I know that he did not desire their opposite- but did he desire these things?

 

[rossum]

I am particularly interested in the Buddhist response to this question:
Sarpedon;6084643:

Once Buddha reached Nirvana, did he desire any of the following things?

• Love
• Peace on earth
• Friendship
• Joy
• Communion with others
• Teamwork
• A family
• Beautiful things of nature
• Beautiful things of art

I know that he did not desire their opposite- but did he desire these things?

How can any of those things provide more than temporary relief from suffering? The Buddha was interested in permanent relief from suffering. Only the permanent cessation of desire can cause the permanent cessation of suffering. If a child desires to put its hand into a bright flame, would you advise it to do so? Desire causes suffering.

The four Buddhist virtues (brahmavihara) are love, compassion, sympathetic joy and detachment. All of those are to be followed without the idea of any object. Bodhisattvas delay their entry into nirvana in order to help other living beings attain nirvana, yet:[The Buddha said:] "This is how the Bodhisattvas master their thinking. ‘However many species of living beings there are … we must lead all these beings to the ultimate nirvana so that they can be liberated. And when this innumerable, immeasurable, infinite number of beings has become liberated, we do not, in truth, think that a single being has been liberated.’

“Why is this so? If, Subhuti, a Bodhisattva holds on to the idea that a self, a person, a living being, or a life span exists, that person is not an authentic Bodhisattva.”

• Diamond sutra
  How can we love a person, when that person is empty and does not truly exist? Attachment to such a person is like attachment to a mirage; how can we gain permanent relief from suffering by desire for a mirage? Will a mirage cure our thirst?

All our sensory perceptions are like mirages - they are not what they seem to be. That is the meaning of the term ‘emptiness’, sunyata:[Avalokita said:] "Here, Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form, the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness.

“Here, Sariputra, all dharmas [elements of reality] are marked with emptiness”

• Heart sutra
  The things we see are not what they appear to be.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Also, if you read closely, my statement and Rossum’s about suffering are not mutually exclusive. I don’t read them that way, at least, and I would be interested on Rossum’s take on that.

If you say that “cessation of desire is impossible” then I disagree with you. The Buddhist methods are designed towards that precise end, the cessation of desire.

“But in Buddhism, there is no love behind things. There is nothingness behind things.” And you know this how? And you are certain of the definitions in Buddhist terminology of those words you use by what means? And again your statement that “The Catholic enjoys these things as the come and go because they all point towards the source, which is not transient” makes you more of a Buddhist than you would care to believe. The Buddhist “rejects” these things as being ultimately Real because they are only abstractions in mind from the All containing Nothingness which is nothingness only to the human mentality because Totality is beyond human mental comprehension. That Nothingness in Reality is ALL, and equatable to the synonyms of God that some so ignorantly use.

Be very careful in Buddhist philosophy with the words “nothingness” and “emptiness”. To hold to nothingness is an error, to step off the Middle Way into the error of annihilationism. Reality is not based on nothingness. Reality does exist, it is just that our minds and senses give us a false impression of it, as with a mirage. A mirage looks like water, but that is a false impression - it is not actually water. However, a mirage is actually something, it is not nothingness since nothingness would not look like water. We see deceptive appearances everywhere; the problem is to cut through those deceptive appearances, both in our senses and in our minds.

Emptiness is a hard concept to grasp, and is often confused with nothingness - many western interpreters of Mahayana Buddhism have made this mistake:If their view of emptiness is wrong,
those of little intelligence will be hurt.
Like handling a snake incorrectly,
or casting a spell in the wrong way.

• Nagarjuna, Madhyamakakarika 24:11

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

How can any of those things provide more than temporary relief from suffering? The Buddha was interested in permanent relief from suffering. Only the permanent cessation of desire can cause the permanent cessation of suffering. If a child desires to put its hand into a bright flame, would you advise it to do so? Desire causes suffering.

Desire itself is not the cause of suffering. If someone has the desire to help a crippled person, would you advise him not to do it? Desire causes either suffering or happiness depending on how it is directed- which is why we need to allow our rational principal to rule.

A permanent cessation of desire does eliminate any potential for suffering, but it also eliminates any potential for love. In condemning all desire as being the root of suffering, Buddha condemned all desire- even for things like love, generosity, and communion.

Transient things on earth can bring us more than a temporary release from suffering because they all participate in the same nature. Beautiful sunsets come and go, but they all participate in beauty itself. By appreciating and loving the transient particular, we can love the intransient universal.

This is the fundamental divide between Christianity and Buddhism, and why the two philosophies can never be reconciled. Christians love the temporary particulars in order to love the permanent universal behind them. Buddhists disdain the temporary particulars because there is no universal behind them. By eliminating desire for nonexistent things, the Buddhist no longer suffers, but he also doesn’t have anything in its place. That’s why Buddhism is akin to spiritual euthanasia. The illusion of things is shattered, but there is nothing at all to replace the illusion. In contrast, the Catholic loves the universal through the world of the particular, which allows him to to appreciate both the universal and and the particular.

“Why is this so? If, Subhuti, a Bodhisattva holds on to the idea that a self, a person, a living being, or a life span exists, that person is not an authentic Bodhisattva.”

How can we love a person, when that person is empty and does not truly exist?

We can’t. That’s why the Buddhist cannot love. For the Buddhist, there is nothing to love and nothing to do the loving. For the Catholic, there is something to love and we are here to do the loving. For the Buddhist “salvation” is eliminating suffering and having nothing in its place, while for the Catholic “salvation” is transforming suffering into love. In the end the Buddhist has nothing, while the Catholic has love.

 

[Detales]

Thank you, Rossum.

 

[rossum]

Desire itself is not the cause of suffering.

Here we disagree.

If someone has the desire to help a crippled person, would you advise him not to do it? Desire causes either suffering or happiness depending on how it is directed- which is why we need to allow our rational principal to rule.

Of course they should help the cripple, but the desire is dangerous. What do we do when all the cripples are healed? Do we deliberately make more cripples so we can heal them? Do we feel miserable because there are no more cripples to heal? The point is to do the action without the desire or attachment.Moreover, Subhuti, when a Bodhisattva practices giving, he does not rely on any object - that is to say he does not rely on any form, sound, smell, taste, tactile object, or dharma - to practice giving. That, Subhuti, is the spirit in which a Bodhisattva should practice giving, not relying on signs. Why? If a Bodhisattva practices giving without relying on signs, the happiness that results cannot be conceived of or measured.

• Diamond sutra 4
  A Bodhisattva gives a gift without the idea of a giver, without the idea of a gift and without the idea of a recipient. There is no object for the desire to attach to. Detachment is a Buddhist virtue.

A permanent cessation of desire does eliminate any potential for suffering, but it also eliminates any potential for love. In condemning all desire as being the root of suffering, Buddha condemned all desire- even for things like love, generosity, and communion.

All desire is attachment to the impermanent. Attachment to the impermanent must eventually lead to suffering. The Buddha told a story of a woman who wanted many grandchildren. She said that she wanted as many grandchildren as there were people in the nearby city. The Buddha asked how many funerals where were each day in that city. Did she really want to see that many of her grandchildren dying?

Transient things on earth can bring us more than a temporary release from suffering because they all participate in the same nature. Beautiful sunsets come and go, but they all participate in beauty itself. By appreciating and loving the transient particular, we can love the intransient universal.

Here we disagree strongly. There are no “intransient universals”; Buddhism rejects all such universals - see my sig. This is the point of the Buddhist concept of emptiness - we think that ordinary things have these universals: Love, Beauty etc. sitting behind them. Things do not, there are no universals, they are just a mirage. I have quoted this before, I shall quote it again because it is relevant to this crucial point:The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

This is the fundamental divide between Christianity and Buddhism, and why the two philosophies can never be reconciled. Christians love the temporary particulars in order to love the permanent universal behind them. Buddhists disdain the temporary particulars because there is no universal behind them.

Mostly I agree. I would prefer to say “are detached from” rather than “disdain” - disdain is another way to generate suffering: “to be joined with what is unloved is suffering”. Other than that you are correct, there is no Platonic “more real” reality sitting behind what we can sense here and now. Here and now is all that there is.

By eliminating desire for nonexistent things, the Buddhist no longer suffers, but he also doesn’t have anything in its place.

See Buddhists ‘really are happier’. Buddhism works.

We can’t. That’s why the Buddhist cannot love. For the Buddhist, there is nothing to love and nothing to do the loving. For the Catholic, there is something to love and we are here to do the loving. For the Buddhist “salvation” is eliminating suffering and having nothing in its place, while for the Catholic “salvation” is transforming suffering into love. In the end the Buddhist has nothing, while the Catholic has love.

Enlightenment is not nothing. It is not what you probably think it is:Some people come to Zen expecting that Enlightenment will be the Ultimate Peak Experience. The Mother of All Peak Experiences. But real enlightenment is the most ordinary of the ordinary. Once I had an amazing vision. I saw myself transported through time and space. Millions, no, billions, trillions, Godzillions of years passed. Not figuratively, but literally. Whizzed by. I found myself at the very rim of time and space, a vast giant being composed of the living minds and bodies of every thing that ever was. It was an incredibly moving experience. Exhilarating. I was high for weeks. Finally I told Nishijima Sensei about it . He said it was nonsense. Just my imagination. I can’t tell you how that made me feel. Imagination? This was as real an experience as any I’ve ever had. I just about cried. Later on that day I was eating a tangerine. I noticed how incredibly lovely a thing it was. So delicate. So amazingly orange. So very tasty. So I told Nishijima about that. That experience, he said, was enlightenment.

Source: Zen is Boring!
It is a fundamental error to mistake nothing for emptiness.

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

Of course they should help the cripple, but the desire is dangerous. What do we do when all the cripples are healed? Do we deliberately make more cripples so we can heal them?

Of course not, because we desire the cripples to be healed. That’s why we healed him in the first place, and why we make sure to keep them healed. If we lose all desire, then we would not desire to keep the cripples healthy at all.

Why? If a Bodhisattva practices giving without relying on signs, the happiness that results cannot be conceived of or measured.

But the Bodhisattva is temporary, and his happiness is temporary. Thus, what the Bodhisattva does or feels is irrelevant, because I am talking about the teleological ends of Buddhism and Catholicism, respectively. Does the Buddha do the same one he has reached Nirvana?

A Bodhisattva gives a gift without the idea of a giver, without the idea of a gift and without the idea of a recipient. There is no object for the desire to attach to. Detachment is a Buddhist virtue.

Again, does the elightened Buddha do this?

All desire is attachment to the impermanent. Attachment to the impermanent must eventually lead to suffering. The Buddha told a story of a woman who wanted many grandchildren. She said that she wanted as many grandchildren as there were people in the nearby city. The Buddha asked how many funerals where were each day in that city. Did she really want to see that many of her grandchildren dying?

No, because she desires them to be alive. What if there is a way to overcome suffering and death without committing spiritual euthanasia? What if we can overcome death and keep our desire for good things, rather than overcoming death and then no longer caring either way any more?

Here we disagree strongly. There are no “intransient universals”; Buddhism rejects all such universals - see my sig. This is the point of the Buddhist concept of emptiness - we think that ordinary things have these universals: Love, Beauty etc. sitting behind them. Things do not, there are no universals, they are just a mirage. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

I know. That’s what I said. You aren’t disagreeing with my assessment of Buddhism. The Catholic loves the things of the world because they point to the universals behind them. The Buddhist rejects all the things in the world, even good things and the desire for them, because there isn’t anything behind them. That’s why Buddhism is spiritual euthanasia. It isn’t a perfection of desire, a perfection of love, or a perfection of anything. It’s simply realizing that there isn’t anything and overcoming your desire for anything at all.

See Buddhists ‘really are happier’. Buddhism works.

But I no longer desire health, right? If health is only a temporary boat, then this is news article is of only temporary worth and not a factor in the teleological consideration we are doing here.

Anyway, observing positive effects from mediation in no way proves Buddhism. It may be that the practice of meditation calms the brain, but that is not necessarily linked to Buddhism as a whole. The physical act of meditation can occur without all the other Buddhist beliefs, and meditation is not contingent on those other beliefs.

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

But in Buddhism the tangerine isn’t any of those things. Furthermore, why should I desire to appreciate orangeness, tastiness, or delicateness? This quote is exactly what the Catholic sacramental imagination is about- appreciating the beauty in the things of the world and using them as a bridge to the universals behind them. In your system, how can you appreciate the tangerine in light of your teleologial end to extinguish all desire for all tangerines?

 

[grace_singh]

well, here is how i practice mindfulness and emptiness as a Christian.

i am mindful hourly of the great blessings God has given me in my life. of His infinate mercy, grace, love, profound holiness, and righteousness.

i am mindful of and deeply thankful for what Christ made possible for us on the cross- a personal, relational walk with the God who made us, forgiveness, and peace between us, and our Creator. not because we deserve it or have earned it, but because He first loved us, and gave Himself entirely so that we could have eternal life, and salvation.

as to emptiness, i am reminded how, as a non-believer, i struggled to intellectualize Christianity, and puzzle out the cross on my own, and hit brick wall after brick wall. just couldn’t do it. then, a Christian friend told me “grace, you won’t be able to get it. Christianity is the most illogical religion ever. you have to empty yourself, and let Him fill you with His wisdom”.

a few days later when i lay aside my ego long enough to sincerely ask God what was right from His perspective, He did.

i don’t try to empty myself of desires or passions- i confess these things to God, after i am made aware of the offending thought patterns and their wrongness, and ask for His help and grace to think the right things, have His perspective, and maintain the correct attitudes, even if i’m not sure what those would be, He does.

i did have to empty myself to recieve Christ, to ask if He really was more than just a good teacher or wise man or prophet, but the unique and holy Son of God, and Saviour. not that i ever thought that would be the case, but to get God’s perspective on an issue we really do have to lay self aside, and ask Him.

 

[grace_singh]

see, too many of us kind of imagine a God who is basically modeled after our own ego.

we are, for example, pro-life, there for God must be pro-life. or, we are pro-choice, therefor God is His wisdom and reasonabilty must also support “a woman’s right to chose”.

we are ok with gay marriage, so God must be, too. or, we believe that all ways are basically equally valid roads to “Truth”, therefor God must be “too big” to fit into one faith, one Man, or one way, as opposed to all others.

we basically model God after what we think, feel, believe, or reason to be true. rarely do we assume that perhaps God’s point of view is very different from our own reasoning, or outlook.

 

[rossum]

Of course not, because we desire the cripples to be healed. That’s why we healed him in the first place, and why we make sure to keep them healed. If we lose all desire, then we would not desire to keep the cripples healthy at all.

One way to get rid of a desire is to fulfill that desire. If I desire to travel to New York, then I can get rid of that desire by going to New York. Once I have reached New York then I have no more desire to go to New York. Your example of healing is just such a case, where the desire to do good can be removed by following that desire in a non-attached manner. This is one of the meanings of the Parable of the Raft; good actions, like curing the sick, can help us progress along the path. However there comes a point where an attachment to such actions becomes an impediment, like trying to carry the raft after we have crossed the river. We eventually have to leave the attachment behind with the raft.

But the Bodhisattva is temporary, and his happiness is temporary. Thus, what the Bodhisattva does or feels is irrelevant, because I am talking about the teleological ends of Buddhism and Catholicism, respectively.

Of course the Bodhisattva is temporary, she remains in this world only as long as there are other beings to help to enlightenment. Once all beings are enlightened then the Bodhisattva will attain nirvana.

Does the Buddha do the same one he has reached Nirvana?

Between enlightenment and death, yes. This was about 45 years for Shakyamuni Buddha. The status of the Buddha after his final death is not ascertainable - all statements about that state are false.

What if there is a way to overcome suffering and death without committing spiritual euthanasia? What if we can overcome death and keep our desire for good things, rather than overcoming death and then no longer caring either way any more?

How many people do you know who have done this? Did they do it at age 35 and carry on preaching until age 80? Do their methods still work today? Are there people who have done this alive today?

It isn’t a perfection of desire, a perfection of love, or a perfection of anything.

There are Six Perfections (paramita) in Mahayana Buddhism: Charity, Morality, Patience, Energy, Meditation and Wisdom. There is a whole group of sutras covering the Perfection of Wisdom, the prajnaparamita sutras. I have quoted from two of them here, the Diamond sutra - vajracchedika prajnaparamita sutra and the Heart sutra - hrdya prajnaparamita sutra. Shantideva’s Bodhicaryavatara is a good introduction to the Perfections.

It’s simply realizing that there isn’t anything

This is incorrect; it is realising that all that we can sense is deceptive - it is not what it appears to be. To think of it as nothing is a cardinal error, as Nagarjuna said it is like grasping a snake by the tail rather than by the head.

But I no longer desire health, right? If health is only a temporary boat, then this is news article is of only temporary worth and not a factor in the teleological consideration we are doing here.

Everything is only of temporary worth since everything here is temporary. I do need a method that works here and now. I do not need a method that works in 100,000 years time because I won’t be around to use it. Buddhism itself will eventually disappear until is is restored by the next Buddha, Maitreya.

But in Buddhism the tangerine isn’t any of those things. Furthermore, why should I desire to appreciate orangeness, tastiness, or delicateness? This quote is exactly what the Catholic sacramental imagination is about- appreciating the beauty in the things of the world and using them as a bridge to the universals behind them. In your system, how can you appreciate the tangerine in light of your teleologial end to extinguish all desire for all tangerines?

The tangerine may or may not be any of those things. Our sensations of the tangerine are all of those things. Our sensations of the tangerine are not the tangerine. The problems arise when we mistake the one for the other, when there is a mismatch between our model of the world in our heads and the actual external world. Those universals you refer to are part of our internal model, not of the actual world. Suffering arises when the mismatch becomes obvious.

rossum

 

[RobNY]

If you say that “cessation of desire is impossible” then I disagree with you. The Buddhist methods are designed towards that precise end, the cessation of desire.

rossum,

From what I can tell about Buddhism, its aim is primarily therapeutic. One practices Buddhism in order to eliminate desire and suffering. This makes sense to me. And it reminds me very much of the Western philosophical systems embodied by the Epicureans (both Epicurus and Lucretius) and the Stoics (for instance, in Epictetus’s Handbook).

It seems to me from your discussion that Buddhism is based on these princples:

1. The ethical imperative is to avoid suffering.
2. Elimination of desire is the elimination of suffering.

Do you have any discussion or reasoning in favor of these principles?

All desire is attachment to the impermanent. Attachment to the impermanent must eventually lead to suffering.

I think this might help to clarify your discussion about whether desire is the cause of suffering.

It seems to me that your words here say something slightly different. Namely, that the cause of suffering is frustration of desires. It is not desire itself which causes suffering, but desire inasmuch as it is frustrated with regard to its object that causes suffering.

It follows from this, as you note, that it is not irrational to desire simply, but to desire impermanent things. Conversely, it is rational to desire permanent things.

This seems to be the key on which the Augustinian system turns. There is a fine distinction in Bk. XI of the Confessions on Time and Eternity between distention and extension. Augustine characterizes himself as spread thin, and scattered among the objects of his desire. He says, “I have been divided amid times, the order of which I know not; and my thoughts, even the inmost bowels of my soul, are mangled with tumultuous varieties.” Ecce distentio est vita mea. But his solution to this problem is not to distend himself among many impermanent and passing objects, but rather to concentrate himself and direct himself, extending himself in hope toward the fullness of the One. He quotes St. Paul here: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead (Phil 3:13). Straining “until I flow together unto You, purged and molten in the fire of Your love.”

Because the Christian believes firmly that the future holds the disclosure of complete being at the ‘eschaton,’ he may rationally desire. But without such a linear view of time, and holding that there are no permanent things, the Buddhist seems to rightly conclude that desire is irrational.

And so the Buddhist system and the Christian system seem to differ based on their answers to this question:

1. Whether anything exists which is permanent?

Any thoughts on this?

Sincerely,
Rob

 

[rossum]

From what I can tell about Buddhism, its aim is primarily therapeutic. One practices Buddhism in order to eliminate desire and suffering.

This is correct. The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism are framed as a medical diagnosis and cure for the disease of suffering.

It seems to me from your discussion that Buddhism is based on these princples:

1. The ethical imperative is to avoid suffering.

1. Elimination of desire is the elimination of suffering.

Do you have any discussion or reasoning in favor of these principles?

Your first point is an underlying assumption, that all living beings wish to avoid suffering. Your second point is the third Noble Truth.

It seems to me that your words here say something slightly different. Namely, that the cause of suffering is frustration of desires. It is not desire itself which causes suffering, but desire inasmuch as it is frustrated with regard to its object that causes suffering.

It follows from this, as you note, that it is not irrational to desire simply, but to desire impermanent things. Conversely, it is rational to desire permanent things.

In Buddhism everything has three marks: suffering, change and soullessness. Because of change there can be nothing permanent; everything changes and whatever changes cannot be permanent. If there were something permanent then it might be possible to avoid suffering by attachment to that permanent thing. Since there is nothing permanent then it is not possible to avoid suffering via that route.

This seems to be the key on which the Augustinian system turns. There is a fine distinction in Bk. XI of the Confessions on Time and Eternity between distention and extension. Augustine characterizes himself as spread thin, and scattered among the objects of his desire. He says, “I have been divided amid times, the order of which I know not; and my thoughts, even the inmost bowels of my soul, are mangled with tumultuous varieties.” Ecce distentio est vita mea. But his solution to this problem is not to distend himself among many impermanent and passing objects, but rather to concentrate himself and direct himself, extending himself in hope toward the fullness of the One. He quotes St. Paul here: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead (Phil 3:13). Straining “until I flow together unto You, purged and molten in the fire of Your love.”

From a Buddhist point of view the first part of Saint Augustine’s analysis is excellent. I have mentioned the Parable of the Raft - Augustine’s words are an excellent raft for many people. His words will carry them across a large part of the river. All that remains is to leave the raft behind and continue on the way, rather than be held back by clinging to the raft. The second part of his analysis would be considered faulty.

And so the Buddhist system and the Christian system seem to differ based on their answers to this question:

1. Whether anything exists which is permanent?

I agree with you. There is nothing permanent in Buddhism; the world changes, the gods change, even the possibility of enlightenment requires change. If I am to have any hope of enlightenment then it must be possible for nirvana to change from nirvana-without-rossum, which is its current state, to nirvana-with-rossum, which will hopefully be its future state. In the absence of change there can be no hope for enlightenment.

A similar point applies to Christianity, heaven needs to be able to change from heaven-without-RobNY to heaven-with-RobNY if you are to have any hope at all. Also, if I understand original sin correctly, then all souls need to change from unsaved-with-original-sin to saved-without-original-sin at some point in their lifetimes if they are to avoid hell. A world without change is frozen into stasis and immediately negates all possibility of salvation/enlightenment for those not already saved/enlightened.

Even God requires change. Consider an unchanging God: “On the first day God said ‘let there be light’, and on the second day God said ‘let there be light’, and on the third day God said ‘let there be light’, and on the fourth day …”

The Thomist/Platonic world seems to me to see things as a veneer of apparent change laid over a base of permanence - the Platonic Ideals. Buddhism reverses this, the world is changing but some parts have a veneer of apparent stasis.

Thank you for some interesting points.

rossum

 

[fhansen]

How can any of those things provide more than temporary relief from suffering? The Buddha was interested in permanent relief from suffering. Only the permanent cessation of desire can cause the permanent cessation of suffering. If a child desires to put its hand into a bright flame, would you advise it to do so? Desire causes suffering.

OK, but if the flame, via an accident, comes to the child and causes suffering, desire had nothing to do with the pain that results. Would Buddhism say that pain in this case results from a desire to feel no pain. Would a lack of such desire alleviate the suffering? Or that suffering surrounding death results from too strong a desire to live? But how-or why- does one cease to desire existence?

 

[RobNY]

This is correct. The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism are framed as a medical diagnosis and cure for the disease of suffering.

Exactly. People don’t realize that such an approach is also well known in Western philosophy. I was hoping we could discuss Epicurus and Epictetus…

Your first point is an underlying assumption, that all living beings wish to avoid suffering. Your second point is the third Noble Truth.

The question is how strictly ought we to take (1)? Anything living surely wishes to avoid suffering, but it is not clear that we wish to do so at any cost. If this is to be foundational for the Buddhist system, I fear it may be very difficult to establish.

As to (2), it seems to have things a little bit backwards. My criticism is this. It seems to say that desire and suffering are co-extensive. That is, that all suffering is suffering from desire. But this seems to be rather counter-intuitive. There is, after all, much suffering which is not simply the result of a frustrated desire. Most diseases of the body are like this. If suffering due to frustrated desire is only one part of suffering, total, then how can Buddhism offer a therapeutic answer to the human condition? If you are familiar with the Epicurean tradition, Epicurus famously states that any pain can be endured for a moment, and thus that any pain can be endured, because it is strung out moment by moment-- even torture on the rack. Epicurus was a remarkable man. But how does Buddhism deal with this problem?

From a Buddhist point of view the first part of Saint Augustine’s analysis is excellent.

Indeed, this analysis is very deeply Platonic. If you’ve never read the Enneads, I highly recommend reading them. More on this later.

I have mentioned the Parable of the Raft - Augustine’s words are an excellent raft for many people. His words will carry them across a large part of the river. All that remains is to leave the raft behind and continue on the way, rather than be held back by clinging to the raft. The second part of his analysis would be considered faulty.

The funny thing is that the Platonist and the Buddhist both see similar problems when they look at the world. This world of appearance seems to consist only in change. The difference is in what judgment each makes as to the permanence of reality.

A similar point applies to Christianity, heaven needs to be able to change from heaven-without-RobNY to heaven-with-RobNY if you are to have any hope at all. Also, if I understand original sin correctly, then all souls need to change from unsaved-with-original-sin to saved-without-original-sin at some point in their lifetimes if they are to avoid hell. A world without change is frozen into stasis and immediately negates all possibility of salvation/enlightenment for those not already saved/enlightened.

Indeed, salvation is a transformation. Change is necessary to restore us to the patrimony which we lost.

Even God requires change. Consider an unchanging God: “On the first day God said ‘let there be light’, and on the second day God said ‘let there be light’, and on the third day God said ‘let there be light’, and on the fourth day …”

Only process theists would join with you here. Traditional theism is cognizant that the Scriptures speak of God with anthropomorphisms, God in “whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:17).

The Thomist/Platonic world seems to me to see things as a veneer of apparent change laid over a base of permanence - the Platonic Ideals. Buddhism reverses this, the world is changing but some parts have a veneer of apparent stasis.

Plato preferred Parmenides. The Buddha prefers Heraclitus, so to speak.

Have a merry Christmas,
Rob

 

[Sarpedon]

One way to get rid of a desire is to fulfill that desire. If I desire to travel to New York, then I can get rid of that desire by going to New York. Once I have reached New York then I have no more desire to go to New York.

Not necessarily. I may desire marriage, but marrying someone not decrease my desire for marriage. You’re assuming a desire is only to obtain an object of desire, rather than appreciate that object. When I am single I desire a wife as the object of my desire. Once I marry, I already have the object of my desire, but my desire does not disappear. Rather, it continues and makes my relationship stronger.

There are different kinds of desire. Some come and go, but others never leave us. If I desire cookies, I can satisfy that desire by eating cookies until I get sick of them. That kind of desire is transient and not part of my nature. In contrast, I never “get sick” of love. We may become frustrated by it, but no one positively desires true lonliness. That desire is part of my nature, and therefore it can’t be eliminated, nor should it be eliminated. To eliminate my desire for love would make me less that human. I know Buddhism rejects both the concept of nature and concept of a real humanity. This is another serious flaw within Buddhism. While Catholicism upholds human dignity by acknowleding a universal human nature that relates everyone to one another, as well as a real, permanent human desire for love, Buddhism makes everyone an illusion and makes them desire nothing, not even good things like love.

Between enlightenment and death, yes. The status of the Buddha after his final death is not ascertainable - all statements about that state are false.

So once the Buddha reached Nirvana, he still desired to help people? Is the ultimate goal of Buddhism to reach a state where we neither desire to neither hurt nor help people?

How many people do you know who have done this? Did they do it at age 35 and carry on preaching until age 80? Do their methods still work today? Are there people who have done this alive today?

There’s at least 20,000 saints who have done it. Their methods do work. When you devote your life to transforming all of your bad, destructive desires into desire for love and harmony between men, good things happen. Catholicism is a social philosophy. It says that human beings are made for communion with each other, and we ought to desire friendship and love. In contrast, Buddhism is a solitary philosophy where everyone melts into the same source and loses their identity.

This is incorrect; it is realising that all that we can sense is deceptive - it is not what it appears to be. To think of it as nothing is a cardinal error, as Nagarjuna said it is like grasping a snake by the tail rather than by the head.

You can substitute “emptiness” for “nothingness” in my argument and it works out the same. Regardless, the goal is to eliminate all desire because all things are transient. This means that we no longer desire anything, which means we no longer desire love, physical beauty, social harmony, or any of those things. This is the central point you seem to be skirting, in my opinion.

 

[Sarpedon]

The tangerine may or may not be any of those things. Our sensations of the tangerine are all of those things. Our sensations of the tangerine are not the tangerine. The problems arise when we mistake the one for the other, when there is a mismatch between our model of the world in our heads and the actual external world. Those universals you refer to are part of our internal model, not of the actual world. Suffering arises when the mismatch becomes obvious.

But the goal of Buddhism is to realize that our perception is an illusion and then not pay any heed to it, right? In this case, the goal of Buddhism is to realize that our perception of the beautiful tangerine is only in our heads (which means it is temporary and not reliable), and to eliminate any desire for it in order to cause a permanent cessation of suffering. The fact remains that the goal of Buddhism is to realize that the percieved beauty of the tangerine is not reliable and to eliminate any desire for that beauty as a result.

In contrast, the Catholic upholds that we are endowed with reason by our creator and that our reason can grasp the true nature of things. This means that we can know the true beauty of the tangerine. While the tangerine itself is transient, knowing the true transient beauty of the tangerine allows us to know the true permanent beauty that the tangerine partakes in. The end result of this is that Catholicism allows us to appreciate the beauty we observe in our world, both for its own sake as well as the sake of the source behind it. And that was my original point.

This Catholic view of human reason and the worth of appreciating the transient earthly forms of beauty is one of the main reasons the Christian world was able to dominate the world technologically. The Catholic can devote his life to studying the world because studying the world has moral value as a means to understand the whole of reality. This lends moral worth to the pursuit of science and technology. In contrast, the Buddhist has no strong justification for studying the world. The world he sees is just an illusion, and therefore there is little value in focusing your studies and efforts on an illusion. This is why science did not effectively develop in these eastern cultures.

So, the point is this- Catholicism upholds the ability of man to know the true nature of the world and the fact that such a world is good as a manifestation of the universal beauty behind it. This allows the Catholic to appreciate beautiful sunsets, jovial feasts with family and friends, warm fires on a winter night, and beautiful tangerines. The Catholic lives in a sacramental world where even the mundane things of life have beauty as part of a world that partakes in beauty itself.

In contrast, Buddhism denies the ability of man to know the true nature of the world and seeks spiritual euthanasia as a release from this depressing reality. For the Buddhist, all beautiful things are simply transient illusions that offer no hope of knowing true beauty. Since we cannot know beauty, we might as well just eliminate our basic desire for it in order to no longer miss it. The Buddhist concludes that he cannot know anything beautiful and true, and works to eliminate his desire for beauty and truth as his only consolation.

 

[rossum]

OK, but if the flame, via an accident, comes to the child and causes suffering, desire had nothing to do with the pain that results.

Correct, accidents do happen. In the case of the accidental burn, the desire was the desire in previous lives that caused the birth at the start of this life. Without birth all the rest of suffering cannot happen. The point of enlightenment is that you are not born again after dying.

But how-or why- does one cease to desire existence?

That is yet another desire we need to get rid of:[The Buddha said:] “And this, monks is the noble truth of the origination of suffering: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion and delight, relishing now here and now there — i.e., desire for sensual pleasure, desire for existence, desire for non-existence.”

— Samyutta Nikaya 56.11
To get rid of it we do the same as for all other desires, we follow the Eightfold Path:To avoid all evil,
to cultivate good,
and to cleanse one’s mind -
this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

Dhammapada 14:5

rossum

 

[rossum]

I was hoping we could discuss Epicurus and Epictetus…

I am afraid I do not know enough about either to have a satisfactory discussion.

The question is how strictly ought we to take (1)? Anything living surely wishes to avoid suffering, but it is not clear that we wish to do so at any cost. If this is to be foundational for the Buddhist system, I fear it may be very difficult to establish.

There is more than one source of suffering; life may put us in situations where we have to choose between different forms of suffering. A parent may accept the suffering of burns in order to rescue their child and avoid the suffering of losing their child in a fire. Even a newborn baby will react badly to pain, so the avoidance of suffering is built into us before we can even speak.

As to (2), it seems to have things a little bit backwards. My criticism is this. It seems to say that desire and suffering are co-extensive. That is, that all suffering is suffering from desire. But this seems to be rather counter-intuitive. There is, after all, much suffering which is not simply the result of a frustrated desire.

In Buddhist philosophy birth is caused by a failure to attain enlightenment in your previous life. Since birth is caused by desire in that previous life, anything that happens in this life can be traced back to birth and the desire in the previous life.

Most diseases of the body are like this. If suffering due to frustrated desire is only one part of suffering, total, then how can Buddhism offer a therapeutic answer to the human condition?

The Buddha offers a way to prevent rebirth and another loop round the cycle:[The Buddha said:] “What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?”

“As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.”

“Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.”

• Assu sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 15.3

The funny thing is that the Platonist and the Buddhist both see similar problems when they look at the world. This world of appearance seems to consist only in change. The difference is in what judgment each makes as to the permanence of reality.

Agreed.

Only process theists would join with you here. Traditional theism is cognizant that the Scriptures speak of God with anthropomorphisms, God in “whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:17).

A Buddhist could never accept an unchanging God. The God described in the Bible does different things at different times, and so must be changing - change is difference in time.

Plato preferred Parmenides. The Buddha prefers Heraclitus, so to speak.

You can never step in the same river twice. It is not the same river and it is not the same you.

Have a merry Christmas,

And yourself.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Once I marry, I already have the object of my desire, but my desire does not disappear.

The original desire, to marry, has disappeared. It has been replaced by the desire to continue and strengthen this particular marriage. Like everything else desire is impermanent and changing.

I know Buddhism rejects both the concept of nature and concept of a real humanity.

You are correct that Buddhism rejects all concept of a permanent nature for anything. That does not mean that Buddhism rejects the concept of humanity, it is just that the Buddhist idea is changing and impermanent rather than the Platonic-style permanent and unchanging Ideal.

Buddhism makes everyone an illusion and makes them desire nothing, not even good things like love.

To desire nothing is as bad as to desire something and leads to suffering as well. The four Buddhist virtues (brahmavihara) are love, compassion, sympathetic joy and detachment. This love is ideally detached from desire. When a Bodhisattva helps innumerable beings to enlightenment he has no attachment or desire for those beings because he can see no real beings to desire.

So once the Buddha reached Nirvana, he still desired to help people? Is the ultimate goal of Buddhism to reach a state where we neither desire to neither hurt nor help people?

All questions about the state of the Buddha after death are unanswerable. During his lifetime he helped many others through love and with detachment.

In contrast, Buddhism is a solitary philosophy where everyone melts into the same source and loses their identity.

We do not lose our identity, we come to realise that what we, incorrectly, thought was our identity actually was no such thing. We cannot lose what we never really had in the first place. We were mistaken when we thought we had it.

You can substitute “emptiness” for “nothingness” in my argument and it works out the same. Regardless, the goal is to eliminate all desire because all things are transient. This means that we no longer desire anything, which means we no longer desire love, physical beauty, social harmony, or any of those things. This is the central point you seem to be skirting, in my opinion.

We can eliminate the desire for X without eliminating X. I can eliminate the desire for cookies, that does not mean that all cookies are also eliminated. Love, compassion etc. will continue to exist after the desire for love, the desire for compassion etc. are eliminated. The desire for an object is not the object. The object will remain after the desire has been eliminated.

But the goal of Buddhism is to realize that our perception is an illusion and then not pay any heed to it, right?

We need to realise that our perceptions are deceptive and to treat them appropriately. That is not to ignore them but to treat them correctly. We may perceive a mountain as permanent; we can still perceive the mountain but we need to treat it as impermanent rather than permanent.

The fact remains that the goal of Buddhism is to realize that the percieved beauty of the tangerine is not reliable and to eliminate any desire for that beauty as a result.

We can eliminate the desire without eliminating the beauty.

In contrast, Buddhism denies the ability of man to know the true nature of the world and seeks spiritual euthanasia as a release from this depressing reality. For the Buddhist, all beautiful things are simply transient illusions that offer no hope of knowing true beauty. Since we cannot know beauty, we might as well just eliminate our basic desire for it in order to no longer miss it. The Buddhist concludes that he cannot know anything beautiful and true, and works to eliminate his desire for beauty and truth as his only consolation.

Buddhists can appreciate beauty as much as anyone, witness the numbers of beautiful artworks produced by Buddhists. It is just that the appreciation should not include desire. It is not the beauty, transient though it is, that is a problem. It is the attachment to the beauty that is the problem. Because the beauty is transient then any attachment to it will result in suffering when the beauty is gone.

We can all appreciate a beautiful sunset. If we desire the sunset to last forever then we will be disappointed when the sunset ends. Without that desire we can appreciate the sunset for its transient beauty and move forward without looking back once it is over.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

rossum