Christian Mindfulness & Emptiness

[rossum]

as i understand the Buddha attainted Pari-Nirvana as he died, at about age 80.

Correct.

this is, essentially, the spiritual goal of every Buddhist, to be set free from the illusion of a seperate self or ego, and hence to become free of desire, suffering, samsara, and ignorance.

Correct.

does this state last forever? can one lose Nirvana, or is it permanent?

All questions about parinirvana are unanswerable. All descriptions of parinirvana are false. How can you determine “forever” if there is no time? How can parinirvana be permanent if it has to change from parinirvana-without-rossum to parinirvana-with-rossum? Whatever changes cannot be permanent.

The question you ask is unanswerable:Then King Pasenadi Kosala went to the bhikkhuni Khema and, on arrival, having bowed down to her, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to her, “Now then, lady, does the Tathagata [Buddha] exist after death?”

“That, great king, has not been declared by the Blessed One: ‘The Tathagata exists after death.’”

“Well then, lady, does the Tathagata not exist after death?”

“Great king, that too has not been declared by the Blessed One: ‘The Tathagata does not exist after death.’”

“Then does the Tathagata both exist and not exist after death?”

“That has not been declared by the Blessed One: ‘The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death.’”

“Well then, does the Tathagata neither exist nor not exist after death?”

“That too has not been declared by the Blessed One: ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’”

“Now, lady, when asked if the Tathagata exists after death, you say, ‘That has not been declared by the Blessed One: “The Tathagata exists after death.”’ When asked if the Tathagata does not exist after death… both exists and does not exist after death… neither exists nor does not exist after death, you say, ‘That too has not been declared by the Blessed One: “The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.”’ Now, what is the cause, what is the reason, why that has not been declared by the Blessed One?”

“Very well, then, great king, I will question you in return about this very same matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think great king: Do you have an accountant or actuary or mathematician who can count the grains of sand in the river Ganges as ‘so many grains of sand’ or ‘so many hundreds of grains of sand’ or ‘so many thousands of grains of sand’ or ‘so many hundreds of thousands of grains of sand’?”

“No, lady.”

“Then do you have an accountant or calculator or mathematician who can count the water in the great ocean as ‘so many buckets of water’ or ‘so many hundreds of buckets of water’ or ‘so many thousands of buckets of water’ or ‘so many hundreds of thousands of buckets of water’?”

“No, lady. Why is that? The great ocean is deep, boundless, hard to fathom.”

"Even so, great king, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, great king, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the ocean. ‘The Tathagata exists after death’ doesn’t apply. 'The Tathagata doesn’t exist after death doesn’t apply. ‘The Tathagata both exists and doesn’t exist after death’ doesn’t apply. ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death’ doesn’t apply.

"Any feeling… Any perception… Any mental fabrication…

“Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, great king, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the ocean. ‘The Tathagata exists after death’ doesn’t apply. 'The Tathagata doesn’t exist after death doesn’t apply. ‘The Tathagata both exists and doesn’t exist after death’ doesn’t apply. ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death’ doesn’t apply.”

Then King Pasenadi Kosala, delighting in and approving of the bhikkhuni Khema’s words, got up from his seat, bowed down to her and — keeping her to his right — departed.

• Khema sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 44.1

rossum

 

[Fran65]

Head covering is not one of the 10 commandments.

The sabbath day is one day after six days. Whether that is a Sunday or a Saturday is not material - it is the principle that the seventh day should be kept holy that is important. In addition, as I’m sure that you know, just as the Thai Lunar calendar and other Buddhist calenders differ from the calendar in common use, so our current Gregorian calender differs from its predecessor(s). I’m sorry, but Sarpedon’s point stands.

 

[Detales]

Fhansen,

Very good questions. Thank you.

~“That’s an interesting statement. It reminds me of how a person who’s experienced God in some capacity must then go on to balance –and act upon-that awareness while here on earth, where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, i.e. to live or be the “perfection” one has come to know amidst the challenges inherent in this life.” Yes, very much so.

~“But I don’t know why the awareness of a separate, “Ultimate Object”, who I am not, but who, to the extent that I’m true to self, am part of and an expression of, interferes with my correct understanding of the nature of reality.” Designating “it” as an "Ultimate Object is the very preventative factor in this kind of perception. Such an objective assessment keeps one form the shift in Identity that is actually the point of the exercise, because “object” goes with subject object with is itself the veil between “this” and “Nirvana or the Beatific Vision.” I would speak further on this, but it is my concern that it would raise emotional and habitual hackles that would interfere with any rightful consideration of this matter. I wish that those who have questioned me on this would do the simple and rewarding reading of something like Merrell-Wolff’s Pathways through to Space, which is his diary of transformation in this manner. It deals with many of the considerations you yourself have surrounding this point. It would be far simper for someone to just read that instead of doing these interminable and misleading quizzes that happen on here. I’ve done both sides of this research, so how about some reciprocation so that a more intelligent dialog could happen? EG, I don’t know what happened with Fran, but it is pretty clear to me that she was mistaught as to the essence of her study, or she could not say the things she so freely levies on the Buddhists.

How is the fall an ascent if it led to the situation of non-nirvana-or is it conceived as a necessary component of attaining it, for whatever reason? Simple. An infant in its blank undifferentiated state is in a Nirvanic state and must learn by sensory expereinece how to navigate in the three dimension. So it is not really a fall, it is a cover up where one might say that the identification moves from primarily one of the hemispheres of the brain which deals with wholeness to the other which is primarliy subject/object and has as part of it the very spectacular emotional states that fix things in memory. We have a propensity in this s.o identity to make the past meaningful and to an extent that is useful, again as a navigational mode. But it is not the complete reality of the possibility of human awareness. We have to come full circle and re-incorporate by effort. Then ther is a meaning inherent in being that has both value as self and as an experiential understanding of what constitutes the “other” or “objects.” It is all the same, yet radically different.

~"Does this mean that, in Buddhism, ”perfection” is found in what we lose rather than what we gain-man doesn’t need to improve so much as he needs to shed himself of what’s been added? I don’t know from the kind of training that R and S have had if that applies to their system of understanding. Remember, that after Buddha, even while He walked, all of the parameters mentioned in that book on religious sanity I told you about are at work in the listeners, recorders, compilers, passers-on and recievers of those teachings, each according to their abilities along so many different dimensions of experience and interpretation. I am speaking about the Nature of an Original Revelation that has not been systematized, yet is recognizably identical through time, culture, intellect, gender, and other factors. That is why the root realization of this kind is deemed in line with what is called The Perennial Philosophy, and certainly Buddha was in that category, if that word applies.

But your perception is essentially correct, insofar as the “shedding” is an informing of the contents of the mind as to, lets say, “who’s driving” and the relative and absolute values of the contents of the mind as distinct from what lights the mind and we call awareness in its localized manifestation. The contents of the mind is then re-prioritized to reflect the new Pattern of Understanding. That takes work, and often carries the need for very subtle distinctions. That, again, is why I recommend the books I do, because in linguistic and other terms the average person is not aware of the possibilities of the dynamics inherent in the “search” for Reality through the dimensions of human awareness. We are also habituated to patterns we are not aware of as operating in our perceptions and decisions in these matters. This is the reason why the descending/esoteric ways attempt first to clear the perceptions, whereas in christianism those only get a nod from Paul in his acknowledgment that “now we see as through a glass, darkly.” That is neither necessary nor useful in this matter, and the result is the necessity for blind faith.

I am sorry to be brief, but I have an appointment to get to. Thank you for your attention.

 

[Sarpedon]

Take the commandment to “Keep holy the Sabbath day”. The Church has changed the day from Saturday to Sunday and has changed the rules for what can and cannot be done on that day. It has changed the rules about men uncovering their heads in Church; Jews don’t Christian men do. Despite all these changes you are claiming that the Commandments are permanent? You have a very strange idea of permanent.

No, I’m not claiming that at all. I’m pointing out that there are different sets of instruction with different natures. Yes, the day of the Sabbath changed. The exact day is part of the particular and thus something that can be changed. The moral imperative of communicating with God does not change, whether that communication is on Saturday, Sunday, or any other day of the week.

All scientists, even YEC scientists, agree that there was a time when there were no humans. If humans had a start then there was a time without humans therefore humans are temporary. Remember the Kalaam argument, “Everything that has a beginning also has an end”? Humans individually and collectively had a beginning.

I’m not standing by the Kalaam argument. It is entirely possible for something to have a beginning and never end.

Complete and utter rubbish. Please look up all the immaterial beings proposed by Buddhism: mahoragas, pretas, kinnaras, gandharvas, devas/gods, Mara, Yama and all the Bodhisattvas: Maitreya/Mettaya, Manjushri, Avalokita and so forth. There are immaterial Buddhist heavens and hells. Your ignorance of Buddhism is leading you into error. Buddhism is not a metaphysical naturalism.

I will admit I was wrong on that point, but the underlying lack of a teleology is common to both Buddhism and naturalism. Namely, neither system proposes an ultimate purpose or direction which controls or guides everything else.

You will suffer the consequences of your actions. Karma is as real as gravity.

I thought gravity was temporary?

So, is karma always real? Does it come and go, and does it morph into other things? If so, how can you say I will suffer consequences for my actions? What if I outlive karma?

I do no such thing. It is you who keep harping on about the Nazis. What the Nazis did was wrong at the time they did it.

Whenever I ask you, you always add the disclaimer “when they did it” to the end. When I ask whether their actions would be moral at some future time when the particular world has changed, you then respond by repeating the disclaimer that it was immoral “when they did it.” I am not asking whether the Nazis were right when they did it. I am asking whether they could be moral in some different set of circumstances. You still are avoiding this question. Is it possible for a Nazi-like regime to be moral in some different set of particulars?

God changes along with everything else. An unchanging God cannot either create or sustain a changing world: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 …
If God says different things on different days then God is changing and cannot be permanent.

Scripture is written from the human perspective. Scripture is not the direct words of God, but the words of men under the influence of God. Thus, such references are merely the human perception of the way that God timelessly choose to manifest Himself to man in a way that is easily understandable. See newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

No. We cannot kill what does not exist. We can realise that what we thought existed actually does not and that we have been mistaken. Realising the truth after a time spent in error is not euthanasia of any kind.

Is it the euthanasia of our false idea of self?

 

[Detales]

Fhansen, a small clarification more specific to what you asked: Yes, it would be construed a “fall” in a sense, or into sense, to become awake to the appearance of duality made possible by the subject/object mode of awareness which is common to humans. The s/o awareness brings with it the feeling of separation and a sense of need for a remedy for that. Therein lies history and psychology, among other things. the dawn of s/o awareness was for the “race” and for each who experiences it an ascent in that it enables all of the activities that we call “human” as distinct from the animal. Similarly, it is a victory over sense identification to experience the meaning and value of Nirvanic awareness as stabilized in the sense realm of experience. My Mentor actually said that he had found only one author who accurately described wherefrom he spoke, which was at the fulcrum of that balance.

 

[Yggdrasil]

It wasn’t directed toward Buddhism directly, but rather it was an example of why we sometimes should make rational judgements for the sake of action in the absence of unobtainable absolute certainty.

Then I misunderstood. I thought you were specifically referring to the notion of maya when you indicated “whether what we see is real or not.” Both the Buddhist and the Christian pretty much accept their respective cosmologies as a matter of course—neither one is really moping too much over the issue.

Can you elaborate?

The question of whether the perceptible world is real or illusory is secondary to the “one thing necessary” that Mary chose, which is contemplation.

Universities and technologies are all well and good, but they are peripheral to religion. A truly productive life would be a life of love or devotion or contemplation. Not for nothing has Saint Francis of Assisi been one of the most provocative figures in Christian history. Perhaps what makes him so compelling, especially to those of us in the West, is that his witness went against the grain: it required neither scholarship nor luxury.

 

[Sarpedon]

Then I misunderstood. I thought you were specifically referring to the notion of maya when you indicated “whether what we see is real or not.” Both the Buddhist and the Christian pretty much accept their respective cosmologies as a matter of course—neither one is really moping too much over the issue.

On a basic level yes, but the implications of their different approaches to the matter run fairly deep.

Universities and technologies are all well and good, but they are peripheral to religion. A truly productive life would be a life of love or devotion or contemplation. Not for nothing has Saint Francis of Assisi been one of the most provocative figures in Christian history. Perhaps what makes him so compelling, especially to those of us in the West, is that his witness went against the grain: it required neither scholarship nor luxury.

While his approach was good, it is not self sufficient. While St. Francis used simple contemplation, St. Benedict used rigorous philosophy against the Cathars. The examples could go on an on. Such a diversity of approaches is good, because situations change all the time. Nevertheless, all of the different and changing approaches used by the saints are all oriented towards the same thing, which is not changing- namely God Himself.

Furthermore, contemplation alone is not enough. Contemplation is only fruitful if we are contemplating the right things. That’s why Aristotle said that the moral and intellectual virtues are a prerequisite to the best life possible, which is the contemplative life. Moral virtue makes our intellectual virtue clear, which then makes the proper course of contemplation clear. All of these different things cannot be separated from each other.

 

[Yggdrasil]

While his approach was good, it is not self sufficient. While St. Francis used simple contemplation, St. Benedict used rigorous philosophy against the Cathars. The examples could go on an on. Such a diversity of approaches is good, because situations change all the time. Nevertheless, all of the different and changing approaches used by the saints are all oriented towards the same thing, which is not changing- namely God Himself.

Was it Saint Benedict or Saint Dominic who preached against the Cathars? In either case, it was a laudable enterprise. Eckhart was a preacher as well. Had his audience been Cathars, he probably would’ve converted them first. After which, however, he would’ve taught devotion and contemplation.

The difference between the two can be likened to the difference between evangelization and receiving Holy Communion. Martha, in the story of the two sisters, is not lacking in righteousness. But Mary chose the “better part.”

Furthermore, contemplation alone is not enough. Contemplation is only fruitful if we are contemplating the right things. That’s why Aristotle said that the moral and intellectual virtues are a prerequisite to the best life possible, which is the contemplative life. Moral virtue makes our intellectual virtue clear, which then makes the proper course of contemplation clear. All of these different things cannot be separated from each other.

Certainly. And this is also why one rarely finds contemplation outside of religion, with its firm emphasis on virtue. Sitting on your duff and navel-gazing is fairly fruitless without a purpose. Buddhism is a religion. There is, of course, slightly less festoonery surrounding contemplation in Buddhism than there is in our system. Buddhists are keen on removing all conceptual labels from what in Christianity is called the Godhead. Our own mystics follow such a trend, frequently having to resort to apophatic theology. I think that’s the kind of commonality alluded to in the OP.

 

[grace_singh]

Rossum ~

thank you for the reply, but i don’t quite understand what you are saying.

are you basically saying that nothing concrete can be said about the state of Nirvana? or that Nirvana is an impermanent state, a permanant one, or neither?

does Nirvana last forever? or can one “fall” from a state of Nirvana and back into Samsara? based upon exerpts Buddhist texts and from Buddhist books i have read and studied, it would seem that the classical understanding is that Nirvana is indeed a permanent, a state of freedom from ignorance and suffering, from which a “person” can not fall or backslide. that when the Buddha entered his Pari-Nirvana, his “self” was extinguished for good, and his release from samsara was final.

 

[rossum]

Head covering is not one of the 10 commandments.

But it is one of the rules in the Bible that was changed. The rules on homosexuality are also not part of the Ten Commandments. Are they permanent or changeable?

The sabbath day is one day after six days. Whether that is a Sunday or a Saturday is not material - it is the principle that the seventh day should be kept holy that is important.

Seventh Day Adventists will say that the Sabbath is a Saturday and hence that is one of the unmodifiable rules. Most other Christians say that the Sabbath has changed to fall on a Sunday. Both sides will claim that the Bible supports their position.

My point is that we cannot tell here and now which rules are permanent and which are not. There is no specific indication in the Bible as to which rules are modifiable. We can decide after the event that “Oh, that rule must have been a modifiable one”, but we cannot tell before the event.

rossum

 

[rossum]

No, I’m not claiming that at all. I’m pointing out that there are different sets of instruction with different natures. Yes, the day of the Sabbath changed. The exact day is part of the particular and thus something that can be changed. The moral imperative of communicating with God does not change, whether that communication is on Saturday, Sunday, or any other day of the week.

Parts of the rules change while other parts do not. I can see nothing preventing the other parts changing later. Nor can I see anything preventing God saying: “Number eleven, You shall not eat butter on a Wednesday.”

I will admit I was wrong on that point, but the underlying lack of a teleology is common to both Buddhism and naturalism. Namely, neither system proposes an ultimate purpose or direction which controls or guides everything else.

I do not need an ultimate purpose for everything, I just need a purpose for me - to attain enlightenment.

I thought gravity was temporary?

It is, when there is no more matter there will be no more gravity. When everyone has attained nirvana then there will be no more karma. For the moment we have both karma and gravity. Acting as if there is no gravity now, just because there will be no gravity in future, is not a wise thing to do. Acting as if there is no karma now is also unwise.

So, is karma always real? Does it come and go, and does it morph into other things?

Karma is as real as anything else. It changes as you act and as you experience the results of your past actions.

If so, how can you say I will suffer consequences for my actions? What if I outlive karma?

You won’t. One of the Five Aggregates, impulses, includes your current karma. If you are alive then you have your karma.

Is it possible for a Nazi-like regime to be moral in some different set of particulars?

Read Numbers 31 with respect to the treatment of the captured Midianite women and children. Read 1 Samuel 15 with respect to the treatment of the Amalekites.

Scripture is written from the human perspective. Scripture is not the direct words of God, but the words of men under the influence of God. Thus, such references are merely the human perception of the way that God timelessly choose to manifest Himself to man in a way that is easily understandable. See newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

If God does different things at different times then God is changing. That is the definition of change - difference within time.

Is it the euthanasia of our false idea of self?

Nothing is being killed, unless you think that a mirage can be killed.

rossum

 

[rossum]

are you basically saying that nothing concrete can be said about the state of Nirvana?

Anything I say about nirvana, and especially about parinirvana, will be said with words. Words are human, changing, contingent etc. Any description using words cannot encompass that which cannot be described with words. A description of the taste of an orange can never match the actual taste of an orange. All descriptions of nirvana are false simply because they are descriptions, not the actual thing itself.

or that Nirvana is an impermanent state, a permanant one, or neither?

It is incorrect to say that nirvana is permanent.
It is incorrect to say that nirvana is impermanent.
It is incorrect to say that nirvana is both permanent and impermanent.
It is incorrect to say that nirvana is neither permanent nor impermanent.

based upon exerpts Buddhist texts and from Buddhist books i have read and studied, it would seem that the classical understanding is that Nirvana is indeed a permanent, a state of freedom from ignorance and suffering, from which a “person” can not fall or backslide. that when the Buddha entered his Pari-Nirvana, his “self” was extinguished for good, and his release from samsara was final.

That is indeed the standard understanding of the Buddhist texts. Other texts have other understandings:Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana.
Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara.

Whatever is the end of Nirvana, that is the end of Samsara.
There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.

• Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 25:19-20

rossum

 

[Fran65]

But rossum, you were talking about the ten commandments that Sarpedon told you were absolute and therefore permanent. Sarpedon also told you how rules (not including the 10 commandments remember ) change as we develop our knowledge and understanding. It seems quite clear to me.

The other thing is that the Christian God exists outside time and space - your definition of change does not therefore apply to Him. It is exceptionally difficult for human minds to conceive of the attributes of God - unchanging being one of them. For God is there no time - no before, no after - He is eternal.

You still haven’t answered how the question on relativism that Sarpedon asked you. Following Buddhism, what is to stop the Nazi ideology being viewed as not blameworthy and therefore good for example? The concept of ‘blameworthy’ amongst others, including ‘good’ is a relative one if it is without an objective and absolute underpinning.

 

[rossum]

But rossum, you were talking about the ten commandments that Sarpedon told you were absolute and therefore permanent.

So God cannot add an eleventh if He wishes? Is the prohibition on homosexual acts temporary, as it is in the rules and not in the commandments? Since the interpretation of the commandments has changed in time then effectively, as far as my current actions are concerned I am following a set of temporary interpretations.

Sarpedon also told you how rules (not including the 10 commandments remember ) change as we develop our knowledge and understanding. It seems quite clear to me.

When, as we commonly do, we see a mixture of change and stasis like this a Buddhist will emphasise the change over the stasis. Other religions tend to emphasise the stasis over the change.

The other thing is that the Christian God exists outside time and space - your definition of change does not therefore apply to Him.

Then neither can the definition of unchanging. All descriptions of God are false.

It is exceptionally difficult for human minds to conceive of the attributes of God - unchanging being one of them. For God is there no time - no before, no after - He is eternal.

You cannot use the word “eternal” without also involving time. If you involve time then we are back to a changing God who does different things at different times.

You still haven’t answered how the question on relativism that Sarpedon asked you. Following Buddhism, what is to stop the Nazi ideology being viewed as not blameworthy and therefore good for example? The concept of ‘blameworthy’ amongst others, including ‘good’ is a relative one if it is without an objective and absolute underpinning.

As I said to Sarpedon, read Numbers 31 and 1 Samuel 15 for examples of Nazi-style genocide. Was that conduct “blameworthy”?

We have agreed that the Sabbath has changed from Saturday to Sunday. It is possible that in future it might change again. Does that possibility mean that here and now you do not worship on a Sunday? What might happen in future is irrelevant to what you should do here and now.

rossum

 

[Siddhartha]

All descriptions of God are false.

…which, interestingly enough, is what Dionysius the Areopagite also says:

CHAPTER V

…[T]he pre-eminent Cause of all things intelligibly perceived is not itself any of those things.

Again, ascending yet higher, we maintain that it [that is, the pre-eminent Cause of all things] is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion reason or understanding; nor can it be expressed or conceived, since it is neither number nor order; nor greatness nor smallness; nor equality nor inequality; nor similarity nor dissimilarity; neither is it standing, nor moving, nor at rest; neither has it power nor is power, nor is light; neither does it live nor is it life; neither is it essence, nor eternity nor time; nor is it subject to intelligible contact; nor is it science nor truth, nor kingship nor wisdom; neither one nor oneness, nor godhead nor goodness; nor is it spirit according to our understanding, nor filiation, nor paternity; nor anything else known to us or to any other beings of the things that are or the things that are not; neither does anything that is know it as it is; nor does it know existing things according to existing knowledge; neither can the reason attain to it, nor name it, nor know it; neither is it darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all.

 

[fhansen]

…which, interestingly enough, is what Dionysius the Areopagite also says:

CHAPTER V

…[T]he pre-eminent Cause of all things intelligibly perceived is not itself any of those things.

Again, ascending yet higher, we maintain that it [that is, the pre-eminent Cause of all things] is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion reason or understanding; nor can it be expressed or conceived, since it is neither number nor order; nor greatness nor smallness; nor equality nor inequality; nor similarity nor dissimilarity; neither is it standing, nor moving, nor at rest; neither has it power nor is power, nor is light; neither does it live nor is it life; neither is it essence, nor eternity nor time; nor is it subject to intelligible contact; nor is it science nor truth, nor kingship nor wisdom; neither one nor oneness, nor godhead nor goodness; nor is it spirit according to our understanding, nor filiation, nor paternity; nor anything else known to us or to any other beings of the things that are or the things that are not; neither does anything that is know it as it is; nor does it know existing things according to existing knowledge; neither can the reason attain to it, nor name it, nor know it; neither is it darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all.

But the difference apparently remains that, in Christianity, God is knowable, to the extent we’re able, but the direct experience of God is simply inexpressible, ineffable. This in no way makes Gods existence questionable-it still makes sense to state positively that God exists, attributes and all. There’s a time to stand silent before this mystery and a time to speak of it but, God IS, nonetheless.

 

[Siddhartha]

But the difference apparently remains that, in Christianity, God is knowable, to the extent we’re able, but the direct experience of God is simply inexpressible, ineffable. This in no way makes Gods existence questionable-it still makes sense to state positively that God exists, attributes and all. There’s a time to stand silent before this mystery and a time to speak of it but, God IS, nonetheless.

Similar words could be said regarding Nibbana/Nirvana: it “is” (which is why Buddhism is not “nihilistic”), and words can be used to describe it (the Mahayana are great at such positive, cataphatic, descriptions of Nirvana), but all these words fail to do full justice, ultimately.

 

[Sarpedon]

Was it Saint Benedict or Saint Dominic who preached against the Cathars? In either case, it was a laudable enterprise. Eckhart was a preacher as well. Had his audience been Cathars, he probably would’ve converted them first. After which, however, he would’ve taught devotion and contemplation.

It was Dominic, my bad.

The difference between the two can be likened to the difference between evangelization and receiving Holy Communion. Martha, in the story of the two sisters, is not lacking in righteousness. But Mary chose the “better part.”

I’m not sure I understand how you are relating Martha and Mary to this current discussion. I would not necessarily equate Martha with philosophical and intellectual endeavor. After all, it is Mary who is willing to listen to Jesus and contemplate his words, which is more philosophical than just pursuing a limited pragmatic aim like entertaining a guest.

Certainly. And this is also why one rarely finds contemplation outside of religion, with its firm emphasis on virtue. Sitting on your duff and navel-gazing is fairly fruitless without a purpose. Buddhism is a religion. There is, of course, slightly less festoonery surrounding contemplation in Buddhism than there is in our system. Buddhists are keen on removing all conceptual labels from what in Christianity is called the Godhead. Our own mystics follow such a trend, frequently having to resort to apophatic theology. I think that’s the kind of commonality alluded to in the OP.

Although both involve similar meditation, the ends of each religion are vastly different. The goal of Buddhism is primarily to eliminate pain, while the goal of Christianity is to cultivate virtue. Buddhism is about losing something, while Christianity is about gaining something.

 

[Sarpedon]

Parts of the rules change while other parts do not. I can see nothing preventing the other parts changing later. Nor can I see anything preventing God saying: “Number eleven, You shall not eat butter on a Wednesday.”

God’s nature is unchanging, as my link explains. His nature is love and we are created to learn to love in the same way (i.e., we are made in God’s image). As such, certain things are moral based on the unchanging love that is God’s nature. For example, part of this unchanging nature is self-gift.

God exists independent of the creation. Our physical world did not have to be the way it is. The life we observe is based on carbon, but God could have based it on silicon just as easily. As a carbon-based lifeform, certain activities reflect the universal of self-gift. Kneeling out of respect upholds this universal because of our physical nature and our social order (i.e. lowering yourself as a sign of goodwill toward the other).

If our bodies had been based on silicon, our entire physiology could have been different. Perhaps we would have been unable to kneel, or maybe kneeling would be akin to standing for us carbon-based lifeforms. Perhaps lying on our back would have been the proper sign of respect in relation to our silicon-based bodies, or some other physical position that takes into account our physical and social nature.

The universal of self-gift is part of God’s nature, and therefore not changing. However, God did not have to create the world any particular way. He chose to base life on carbon, but it could just as easily be based on silicon. We observe certain physical laws, but they did not have to be. The same goes for social conventions and any other part of the world that changes or could be otherwise. Although self-gift is not changing, the expression of self gift depends on a lot of things, such as our physical world and social custom. As these things change, the expression of the universal changes- but the universal remains the same.

It is, when there is no more matter there will be no more gravity. When everyone has attained nirvana then there will be no more karma. For the moment we have both karma and gravity. Acting as if there is no gravity now, just because there will be no gravity in future, is not a wise thing to do. Acting as if there is no karma now is also unwise.

Here you are extending karma and gravity to other things, namely matter and the lack of Karma. This doesn’t resolve the problem. I ask whether gravity is temporary, and if so, how I can know it applies. You respond by saying that gravity is real for now because matter is real. I can then ask whether matter is temporary, and if so, how I can know it applies. We can keep going and going. In your system, everything is temporary, and therefore you cannot say that anything must hold for the current instant. If gravity is real right now because of matter, why is matter real right now? Whatever you say in response to this, why is that real right now?

You won’t. One of the Five Aggregates, impulses, includes your current karma. If you are alive then you have your karma.

But the five aggregates are temporary, so what happens if humanity outlives the five aggregrates? If the five aggregrates are a necessary prerequisite to humanity, what happens when that prerequisite changes?

Read Numbers 31 with respect to the treatment of the captured Midianite women and children. Read 1 Samuel 15 with respect to the treatment of the Amalekites.

You refuse to answer my question. I am not talking about Christianity. We can discuss Christian ethics in some other thread if you want. I am specifically asking about Buddhist philosophy. You have not yet clearly answered this question from the Buddhist perspective:

Is it possible for a Nazi-like regime to be moral in some different set of particulars?

Switching the topic to Christian philosophy is not going to answer my question.

If God does different things at different times then God is changing. That is the definition of change - difference within time.

I don’t think you read my post at all. God can act timelessly even when we within time percieve His actions within time- since we are within time. Outside of time they are eternal, but we observe them through the lense of our own perception of time.

Nothing is being killed, unless you think that a mirage can be killed.

Of course a mirage can be killed- when you realize that in reality there is no lake in your desert of thirst. Realizing that you are actually an illusion like a lake in a desert is not a happy experience.

 

[rossum]

Similar words could be said regarding Nibbana/Nirvana: it “is” (which is why Buddhism is not “nihilistic”), and words can be used to describe it (the Mahayana are great at such positive, cataphatic, descriptions of Nirvana), but all these words fail to do full justice, ultimately.

Agreed. Nirvana can be experienced but not described. The Theravada tend not to describe it, though when they do they tend to use few negative words. The Mahayana tend to use a lot more words, often positive and often paradoxical to undescribe the same thing. Zen Buddhists hit you with a stick and tell you to carry on meditating.[The Buddha said:] There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.

• Udana 8.3
  Buddhism is not nihilism, “there is an unborn…”

rossum