Christian Mindfulness & Emptiness

[Detales]

Tybourne, Sarpedon was a son of Zeus and Europa who became king of Lycia and was killed by Patroclus in the Trojan War. That reference came right after a post from him, “Sarpedon,” so I thought it was a clear reference to him. As for Chesterton and Buddhism, no, he did not know the “heart” of the matter. Whatever nihilism filtered through to him through Schopenhauer, if it came from Buddhism at all, necessarily came from one system of Buddhism, Sankhya, that seems nihilistic or atheistic but isn’t really. And his cave experience that you refer to, if you state it exactly, is correct, but if he actually understood it and its ramifications, he could not have said what he did about Buddhism. Or, alternately, what he said was not about Buddhism, but his imaginations of it.

My bad, Sarpedon, I’m in the habit of reading several posts back and including material from posts ahead of mine. I assumed you did the same thing in order to keep on thread. Post #9 by Tybourne contained a quote from Chesterton that demonstrated that author’s ignorance of Buddhism in general. And yes, your statement is incomplete and misinformed because if you had a working knowledge of Buddhism you could not have said what you did, q.e.d. I guess that saying that "central goal of Buddhism is the cessation of desire and the (supposed) release from suffering and rebirth that goes along with it. But the way it is stated there is very misleading. “Cessation” of desire is impossible. Freedom from being ruled by it is possible, the result being the cessation of the dominance of desire over will. And in Vedanta, that is an effect, not a goal. In my understanding working at the cessation of desire only promotes it as an object of attention.

And there may be “stepping stones” or a 'scaffolding" useful in attaining “Nirvana,” but what is that? And of what use is it to attain? Do you have an articulable understanding of that? And again, the alleged “loss” of desire does not mean that it does not appear, it means one is not swayed by it. And even the “nothing” that might be the object of desire is in this case vastly misunderstood, as are such other words relative to Eastern Teachings such as “I”, “Self,” “Father,” and others. The “a perfection of desire, and the ordering of desire to its proper object.” is yet a practice not yet fulfilled, as the end of that practice is inclusion of desire in a transcendent mode, a mode which gives it radically different characteristics, as distinct from what you understand it as as a butterfly is from its caterpillar.

Further the “illusoriness” of things does not deny their existence, beauty, utility, or any other quality. It refers to their dependent and partial existence as pointing to the incomplete and misleading ordinary state of subject/object awareness that the vast a majority of humans are immersed in. It is the experience of Nirvana that can inform the ordinary subject/object as to its fuller Nature. Given that balance, perceptions about the Nature of God and Reality otherwise unavailable can be had. That is neither Catholic nor Buddhist, It is just how it works, though Saints of both “ways” describe it, necessarily, in their own terms. The Catholic Saint is forced into the metaphor of that religion’s ascending/exoteric structure, while the Buddhist Saint has to invest in the descending/esoteric mode of expression of that system and its sub-sects.

All of this is very brief and cursory. For a diary of an experience of transformation and its consequent exegesis, you might enjoy and profit by reading two books by Franklin Merrell-Wolff. He was an electrical engineer who lived in California, so his usage and terminology doesn’t have all the obscurantism that many sincere, though misleading, explanations might have. In my reading, as I said, even the Catholic encyclopedia is vastly mistaken about the actual nature of Buddhism, as, I must say, are many Buddhists, as in the same wise that many Catholics are deficient in knowledge and/or devotion.

But again, you will bring to your reading only the tools you have. May I recommend a preparatory exercise? find a very unfortunately titled book on comparative religion by Gina Cerminara called Insights for the Age of Aquarius. It has scholarly annotations and is a delightful read, which is why it is a much used text in religious programs. Also go to Amazon and read there the preface of a book called Basic Self Knowledge by Harry Benjamin. Both of these will give some perspective in reading further that, if you are a cradle Catholic, you may seriously lack. I found this to be the case in my own researches.

Blessings and Best,

Bindar Doondat, FZPC

 

[Tybourne]

even the Catholic encyclopedia is vastly mistaken about the actual nature of Buddhism, as, I must say, are many Buddhists, as in the same wise that many Catholics are deficient in knowledge and/or devotion.

Detales, it seems that Chesterton, the Catholic Encyclopedia, many Buddhists and all posters on this thread other than you yourself are misinformed about the true nature of Buddhism and its account of desire and its contrast (nothingness, cessation or freedom from illusion). As you clearly argue, there are many different forms of Buddhism. It seems that you subscribe to Vedanta more than any school of Buddhism. Please then, enlighten us as to the Vedantic take on these questions…

Fr J. López-Gáy, SJ, Professor of Missiology at the Pontifical Gregorian University points to this essential difference:

in Buddhist meditation faith is not its basis nor the meeting with the Other its aim. Individuals want to be themselves without any mediation

 

[Detales]

That quote is neither descriptive of Buddhism nor in line with Vedanta, not even nearly.

 

[Tybourne]

That quote is neither descriptive of Buddhism nor in line with Vedanta, not even nearly.

So, again, please give us an accurate description. Thanks.

 

[Detales]

If I told you what it was, I would be misleading you. If I said I couldn’t, I would be lying. I recommended a course of action to Sarpedon in the last paragraph of post #21. You could as well follow it.

 

[Tybourne]

If I told you what it was, I would be misleading you.

Ah, I see that that what Fr López-Gáy says is true, namely that:

For Buddhists, however, the “word” is not so much a means for communicating a message or a teaching, but it often becomes an obstacle.

If we cannot agree that agree that language can be used, even negatively or elliptically, to convey certain spiritual phenomena, then the conversation is at an end. Time to stop typing and start meditating or praying for each other. Merry Christmas. :christmastree1:

 

[rossum]

Everything I have read about Buddhism says that the central goal of Buddhism is the cessation of desire and the supposed release from suffering and rebirth that goes along with it.

The central goal of Buddhism is the cessation of suffering: “Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.”

Since suffering is caused by desire, the way to eliminate suffering is to eliminate desire. The elimination of desire is the method, not the goal.

I have heard Buddhists argue that we can desire good things in life as a temporary stepping stone to full Nirvana. I believe it was Rossum who brought up an analogy of a boat, where Buddha said that desire for Nirvana can be used as a temporary means to achieve the loss of all desire, like using a boat to cross an ocean and then discarding it.

You do me far too much honour. The Parable of the Raft was given by the Buddha:One of the most famous parables told by the Buddha is the Parable of the Raft. In this he likened his teachings to a raft for crossing a fast-flowing river.

The parable narrates how a man is trapped on one side of a river. On this side, there is great danger and uncertainty and on the far side of the river is safety. However there is no bridge spanning the river nor is there a ferry to cross over. What to do? The man gathers together logs, leaves, and creepers and by his wit fashions a raft from these materials. By lying on the raft and using his hands and feet as paddles he manages to cross the river from the dangerous side to the side of safety.

The Buddha then asks the listeners a question. What would you think if the man, having crossed over the river thought to himself – That raft has served me well I will carry it on my back over the land now? The monks replied that it would not be a very sensible idea to cling to the raft in such a way. The Buddha went on – What if he lay the raft down gratefully thinking that this raft has served him well but is no longer of use and can thus be laid down upon the shore? The monks replied that this would be the proper attitude. The Buddha concluded by saying – So it is with my teachings which are like a raft and are for crossing over with not for seizing hold of.

Source: thebuddhistsociety.org/resources/previous_stories/Map.htm

The problem with this argument is that it ignores the teleology. If the end goal of Buddhism is the cessation of desire, then ultimately desiring even good things is subservient to desiring nothing.

The end goal of Buddhism is the cessation of suffering. The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism are framed as an Ancient Indian medical diagnosis for the disease of suffering:

1. *]suffering is pervasive.
   *]suffering is caused by desire.
   *]the extinction of desire will result in the cessation of suffering.
   *]the Eight-fold Path will lead to the extinction of desire.
   
   Cessation of desire is a means to the end, it is not the end itself.
   

   So, my argument in #13 and #15 still stands. The Catholic can cultivate a desire for good and holy things in this life because the teleology of Catholicism is (partly) a perfection of desire, and the ordering of desire to its proper object.

   Desire for any temporary object can only lead to suffering; temporary objects will eventually disappear, leaving one bereft and suffering. Temporary happiness is not a cure for suffering. Remember that in Buddhism all gods and heavens are temporary.
   

   In contrast, the Buddhist cannot cultivate a desire or even appreciation (of the things themselves) of good things, because in the teleology of Buddhism such things are illusory and something to be overcome in the path to eventual release from all desire.

   It is better to say ‘deceptive’ rather than ‘illusory’. The real world exists, but we can never know it perfectly. All we can know is the model we build inside our head. That model is deceptive; we think it is accurate, but it is not.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.
   
   rossum

 

[Detales]

Tybourne~If we cannot agree that agree that language can be used, even negatively or elliptically, to convey certain spiritual phenomena, then the conversation is at an end. Time to stop typing and start meditating or praying for each other. Merry Christmas.

Yes, merry solistice or Saturnalia, to you , as well. In three days the Sun King rises again!

I am sorry, but would you please point out where I cannot agree that language can be used? I made no such agreement, and will not, as it is blatantly false, as language used correctly can clarify vision. In fact, did I not point you towards linguistic tools that would serve for you to understand an answer to your inquiry in a meaningful way? I did. Your statement quoted above is not an indication of any unwillingness on my part to use language–I’ve over 1100 posts on here which you are welcome to read by the appropriate links on my profile.

What your statement is symptomatic of is the anti-intellectual sound byte mentality prevalent in today’s emotionalized dearth of critical thinking. I am offering you a basis for intelligent conversation on a subject you are clearly ignorant of, and you expect me to give you a one-liner you can summarily reject by means of your habitual prejudices regarding faith and spirituality. My motive was sincere and inclusive, and in fact respects an ability to assimilate and use information that I ascribe to you, perhaps too hopefully.

For my part I have a rather good knowledge of Catholicism, having won prizes in the knowledge of that theology and having been able to stump even priests at the top of my “game.” I’m talking about decades of intimate working knowledge and other studies after that. Where is your similar study of Vedanta that you can so criticize my wish to give you valuable and useful sources for increased understanding? Am I casting pearls here? I think, in fact, that your reaction, I won’t call it a response, is dismissive and even rude, despite you kind seasonal wish. You certainly do yourself no service in terms of giving an impression of someone willing to learn and carry on an intelligent conversation.

 

[Detales]

Very well said, Rossum. Thank you. I might add that suffering is different from pain. Suffering is the attachment to thoughts about the consequences of pain and the feeling that “I” am the object of pain and that those consequences limit my sense of self. This limitation is one’s experience so long as the identity of self/Self is attached to the process of bodily change. The contrast between the innate and unexamined permanence of “I” and the vagaries of what is happening to “me” constitutes suffering. When the actual nature of what “I” is is known by a shift in identity>Identity, as distinct from the ever changing “me,” suffering diminishes or ceases even in the face of pain, and the door to Adoration is open.

 

[Tybourne]

You certainly do yourself no service in terms of giving an impression of someone willing to learn and carry on an intelligent conversation.

Detales, no amount of open mindedness on my part (a stance I certainly aspire to) would serve if your position cannot be stated verbally. Can I take it that you agree with Rossum’s position? We’d need to agree on first principles, for example, that rational language can be used to describe the ineffable, in short, that the Transcendent is also the True. I claim no expertise in Vedanta, but am open to being enlightened by you. Or do you hold, with Rossum, the position that the only truth is that there is no Truth? If so, we cannot continue our discussion. If not, I remain, openly, yours.

 

[Sarpedon]

“Cessation” of desire is impossible. Freedom from being ruled by it is possible, the result being the cessation of the dominance of desire over will. And in Vedanta, that is an effect, not a goal. In my understanding working at the cessation of desire only promotes it as an object of attention.

In that respect, your version of Buddhism is scarcely different than Aristotelian philosophy. Aristotle said that (in brief) emotions and desires ought to be ruled by our rational aspect. At the same time, however, this does not denigrate desire. A desire that is molded in accordance with reason is actually good and necessary for virtue.

Nevertheless, I am not sure that your position on Buddhism is mainstream. Would you say that Nirvana is achieving harmony between your desires and your reason? If so, your version of Buddhism is radically different than any other I have encountered in my studies, and it seems to be in conflict with the Buddhism of Rossum.

But again, you will bring to your reading only the tools you have. May I recommend a preparatory exercise? find a very unfortunately titled book on comparative religion by Gina Cerminara called Insights for the Age of Aquarius. It has scholarly annotations and is a delightful read, which is why it is a much used text in religious programs. Also go to Amazon and read there the preface of a book called Basic Self Knowledge by Harry Benjamin.

Due to the reference to the “Age of Aquarius” may I ask if these books were written in the 60s? Are the authors qualified to speak on mainstream, traditional Buddhism?

 

[Sarpedon]

Since suffering is caused by desire, the way to eliminate suffering is to eliminate desire. The elimination of desire is the method, not the goal.

While I concede that you are correct, this does nothing to challenge my underlying argument. The goal of Buddhism is to eliminate suffering. Eliminating desire is a means to achieve this goal. Desire is still something to be eliminated, whether for its own sake or for the sake of some end goal. It is my contention that such an position does not make a distinction between good and bad desire (only the worst and less worse), and therefore condemns even desire for things like love, community, friendship, compassion, etc. Is this central point correct?

Desire for any temporary object can only lead to suffering; temporary objects will eventually disappear, leaving one bereft and suffering. Temporary happiness is not a cure for suffering. Remember that in Buddhism all gods and heavens are temporary.

Exactly. Buddhism condemns everything as temporary. A fresh snowfall, a crystal-clear mountain stream, joyful dinners with family and friends, and all those things are temporary and transient, and therefore we should not desire them. When this belief is carried to its logical conclusion, we should not desire anything.

This is in stark contrast to Catholicism, where the Catholic rejoices in the physical creation and uses it to grow in holiness. The Catholic takes joy in the gifts of the earth because they are ultimately a sign that points toward the underlying reality and the source of all things, which is Love. While physical things come and go, we nevertheless can love the fruits of the source in order to love the source. The physical world and its gifts act as a sign that points us toward Love, which is the reason God created a physical world in the first place.

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.

Exactly. The Buddhist rejects the world because there is nothing behind the world. The Buddhist rejects the world and finds nothing in its place. He no longer suffers, but neither does he love. He is spiritually euthanized.

The Catholic loves the world because Love is behind the world and he can come into contact with that love by using the physical world as a sign. The Catholic embraces the world and finds the love that is behind it. That’s why physical sacraments exist (like the Eucharist) and why Catholics make art and love the good things in life. Catholicism is all about loving the world in order to love the source of the world.

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?

 

[Detales]

Tybourne, what part of my using words in sentences to form ideas are you construing as not stating my position verbally? And so far you have demonstrated a position of not being open to anyone, including yourself. Intellectualizations will not serve in this matter in the way you desire, which is why I have referred you to the recommended reading matter. If you don’t have the expertise, on what basis are you wishing to carry on your argument? I mean, how “junior” a member are you?

 

[Detales]

Sarpedon~ This is not about ruling the emotions by the imposition of will. The reference to ruling in my statement you quoted is to the rule of emotions and was not meant to align with the Aristotelian dynamic you describe. And in “A desire that is molded in accordance with reason is actually good and necessary for virtue.” the virtue might more be in the ability to disengage and mold according to an ideal.

I am not sure what “mainstream” Buddhism is. Whatever it might be perceived as, I have no doubt that it in its many forms has suffered much from dialogic process. So “mainstream Buddhism” may be anything but Original Revelation, as most of it is interpretation by men of lesser stature than Gautama Himself.

I am not sure how you construe my “Buddhism” as different than Rossum’s. I mean, you are right, we are two different perceivers of Buddhism, but I see no flaw in what Rossum stated and even gave him a “well said.” So I don’t get what you are saying here. Are you or Tybourne actually reading these posts, or like the average person just pasting your perceptions on them?

A result of experiencing Nirvana might be a ground for harmonizing your emotions and reason in Conscious awareness. Or it may not. Many people can have a Nirvanic experience and fail to stabilize it in their life, thus having a simple “flash in the pan” experience. And Nirvana is far less an achievement than a realization with a possible accompanying shift in Identity, that depending on a number of factors.

IAA was copyrighted in 1973. The author, Gina Cerminara, from who’s work’s title your concern seems to arise, wrote that text based on the work of Alfred Korzybski’s *Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics *which was published in 1933. She applied his principles of critical thinking, including his structural differential, to religious thought, though she said that it would as easily apply to scientific thought, (yes!) but that religions seemed more in need of a commonality in approach and understanding. As I said, the title to the book is unfortunate, as it triggers an emotional package in many such as yourself. But in the end it is about the applications of certain kinds of critique to how we perceive and acquire religious, or any sort of beliefs.

The second author’s work, published in 1989, is an explication of esoteric Catholicism, if you will. It simply introduces the reader to ideas found in Eastern Teachings that are not commonly perceived or understood by Catholics for a number of unfortunate reasons we won’t go in to here. A wonderful compamion vlume is Maurice Nicoll’s The New Man: an interpretation of some miracles and parables of Christ.

A third author, Franklin Merell-Wolff, might serve you well in addition to the first two. His books were published in 1973 as well. He was an American philosopher, mathematician, and sage who combined an extraordinary intellect with profound mystical insight and authenticity. His first book is a diary of his transformation, and the second an exegesis of that experience. He treats deeply of the nature and effects of experiencing Nirvana.

But what do you think traditional mainstream Buddhism is? It is the timed result of associations made by many people who modified an Original Revelation. There was One Buddha. Now there are tow main divisions andsix major “ways” of Buddhism addapted to as amny temperaments. That is similar to what happened in the christianist churches. The reason I am recommending the above books because they might be suitable as an introduction to someone wishing to evaluate an Original Revelation from its own perspective as distinct from its distortin through time and many mouths and hands. If the authors above do not suit your taste, I can supply you with a brief litany of others.

BTW, your statement that Buddhism “condemns” everything as temprary is, again, your superimposition of your assessment on a dynamic you don’t clearly understand. There is no condemnation in evaluating something as temporary. It is calling it what it is as a mater of discriminatory awareness. You are putting an emotional spin on that. and there is no “stark contrast” to Catholicism there. You yourself say that "…physical things come and go. That makes you the beginning of a good Buddhist from your own experience, not faith. And you also agree that the physical world points to Love, while not itself as percieved discreet form being Love. You are making excellent progress. In fact you prove your progress when you say: "The Catholic loves the world because Love is behind the world and he can come into contact with that love by using the physical world as a sign. The Catholic embraces the world and finds the love that is behind it. That’s why physical sacraments exist (like the Eucharist) and why Catholics make art and love the good things in life. Catholicism is all about loving the world in order to love the source of the world. Good work, so far. Now experience Nirvana, and see how that modifies your understanding of these dynamics. You have the boat, now paddle.

 

[Tybourne]

Quick recap of one line in this thread:

Siddhartha #6: Truth is One [implying that Catholic asceticism and Buddhist meditation are paths to the same goal]

Tybourne #9: [citing Chesterton] “No two ideals could be more opposite than a Christian saint in a Gothic cathedral and a Buddhist saint in a Chinese temple.”

Detales #16: GK Chesterton vastly mistook Buddhism of any kind…even the Catholic encyclopedia stumbles in describing the kernel of Buddhism [so, we await your exposition]

Tybourne #22: It seems that you subscribe to Vedanta more than any school of Buddhism. Please then, enlighten us as to the Vedantic take on these questions… desire, , cessation, freedom from illusion]

Detales #25: If I told you what it was, I would be misleading you [we still await]

Tybourne #28: If we cannot agree that agree that language can be used, even negatively or elliptically, to convey certain spiritual phenomena, then the conversation is at an end.

Detales #28: I am sorry, but would you please point out where I cannot agree that language can be used? [Er…#25]

Detales, with respect, you are using fallacious reasoning, specifically, Begging the Question rather than addressing it directly. You state that you cannot tell us what ‘it’ is, yet point us to books that purport to tell us what ‘it’ is (a red herring). When challenged about this evasive and circular reasoning you resort to ad hominem attacks. This will be my last on this thread. I genuinely hope you have a joyful Christmas.

 

[Tybourne]

Quick recap of one line in this thread:

Siddhartha #6: Truth is One [implying that Catholic asceticism and Buddhist meditation are paths to the same goal]

Tybourne #9: [citing Chesterton] “No two ideals could be more opposite than a Christian saint in a Gothic cathedral and a Buddhist saint in a Chinese temple.”

Detales #16: GK Chesterton vastly mistook Buddhism of any kind…even the Catholic encyclopedia stumbles in describing the kernel of Buddhism [so, we await your exposition]

Tybourne #22: It seems that you subscribe to Vedanta more than any school of Buddhism. Please then, enlighten us as to the Vedantic take on these questions… desire, cessation, freedom from illusion]

Detales #25: If I told you what it was, I would be misleading you [we still await]

Tybourne #26: If we cannot agree that agree that language can be used, even negatively or elliptically, to convey certain spiritual phenomena, then the conversation is at an end.

Detales #28: I am sorry, but would you please point out where I cannot agree that language can be used? [Er…#25]

Detales, with respect, you are using fallacious reasoning, specifically, Begging the Question rather than addressing it directly. You state that you cannot tell us what ‘it’ is, yet point us to books that purport to tell us what ‘it’ is (a red herring). When challenged about this evasive and circular reasoning you resort to ad hominem attacks. This will be my last on this thread. I genuinely hope you have a joyful Christmas.

 

[rossum]

Detales, no amount of open mindedness on my part (a stance I certainly aspire to) would serve if your position cannot be stated verbally. Can I take it that you agree with Rossum’s position? We’d need to agree on first principles, for example, that rational language can be used to describe the ineffable, in short, that the Transcendent is also the True. I claim no expertise in Vedanta, but am open to being enlightened by you. Or do you hold, with Rossum, the position that the only truth is that there is no Truth? If so, we cannot continue our discussion. If not, I remain, openly, yours.

My position is not that there is no truth. My position is that all descriptions of the truth made in human languages must fall short of the Ultimate Truth. I make a distinction between truth and Ultimate Truth; in Buddhism this is called the Two Truths - Conventional Truth and Ultimate Truth. We can get to some reasonable approximation but we cannot ever get to an absolute/ultimate truth simply through language. This problem is inherent in the fact that language is neither absolute nor ultimate. “All descriptions of nirvana are false.”

rossum

 

[Detales]

That is very true.

I very much enjoy your posts, Rossum. Thanks.

 

[Sarpedon]

I am not sure what “mainstream” Buddhism is. Whatever it might be perceived as, I have no doubt that it in its many forms has suffered much from dialogic process. So “mainstream Buddhism” may be anything but Original Revelation, as most of it is interpretation by men of lesser stature than Gautama Himself.

While there are different forms of Buddhism, all traditional forms I have encountered view desire as something to be eliminated in order to eliminate suffering. While you say that your Buddhism involves harmonizing your desire to your will, your philosophical position is much different from the commonly accepted form of Buddhism. Can you provide any original sources, from Buddha himself, which support your view of Buddhism as the original and correct one?

I am not sure how you construe my “Buddhism” as different than Rossum’s. I mean, you are right, we are two different perceivers of Buddhism, but I see no flaw in what Rossum stated and even gave him a “well said.” So I don’t get what you are saying here. Are you or Tybourne actually reading these posts, or like the average person just pasting your perceptions on them?

I am reading them closely. You say:

“Cessation” of desire is impossible. Freedom from being ruled by it is possible, the result being the cessation of the dominance of desire over will. "

Rossum says:

“Since suffering is caused by desire, the way to eliminate suffering is to eliminate desire. The elimination of desire is the method, not the goal.”

You say that elimination of desire is not possible, while Rossum says that elimination from desire is the means to eliminate suffering.

IAA was copyrighted in 1973. The author, Gina Cerminara, from who’s work’s title your concern seems to arise, wrote that text based on the work of Alfred Korzybski’s *Science and Sanity:

The second author’s work, published in 1989, is an explication of esoteric Catholicism, if you will.

A third author, Franklin Merell-Wolff, might serve you well in addition to the first two. His books were published in 1973 as well. He was an American philosopher, mathematician, and sage who combined an extraordinary intellect with profound mystical insight and authenticity. His first book is a diary of his transformation, and the second an exegesis of that experience. He treats deeply of the nature and effects of experiencing Nirvana.*

After viewing your books on Amazon, they seem to be clearly in the New Age spectrum rather than the spectrum of traditional, Eastern Buddhism. I once watched a talk by a professor of Eastern Religions at the University of Alabama and he said that the New Age perspective on Buddhism is not in line with the original philosophy. He said that while the New Age version was all about finding the “Christ-conciousness” within, traditional Buddhism is about finding nothing within. These two views are diametrically opposed. From the structure of your arguments, you seem to be taking a New Age approach, while Rossum seems to be taking the traditional approach.

The reason I am recommending the above books because they might be suitable as an introduction to someone wishing to evaluate an Original Revelation from its own perspective as distinct from its distortin through time and many mouths and hands.

In that case, you should provide me with the original historical texts written by Buddha (or his early followers), rather than little known books written in the 60s and 70s in the western world.

And you also agree that the physical world points to Love, while not itself as percieved discreet form

being Love. You are making excellent progress.

But in Buddhism, there is no love behind things. There is nothingness behind things. That’s the difference. The things of this world is transient. The Catholic enjoys these things as the come and go because they all point towards the source, which is not transient. The Buddhist rejects these things as they come or go, because there is nothing behind them.

 

[Detales]

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.

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.

Your assessment that “new age” philosophy is not in line with traditional Buddhism is very likely correct. I’m myself not clear what all that “new age " stuff is, though I was kind of in the midst of it, being in my late teens and early twenties during the sixties and living in the San Francisco Bay Areas near Berkeley. I just know that at that time anyone who thought they had a glimpse of something vaguely “psycho-spiritual” could and would hang out a shingle and start something. In my opinion, most of that was more psycho than spiritual. And yet, finding Christ-consciousness” within (wherever the heck that is!) and finding “nothing” are very much akin. But again, Sarpedon, I cannot emphasise enough that what you mean by nothingness and what a genuine realized “Buddhist” means by Nothingness have nothing to do with each other, and in fact are diametrically opposed.

So, in the case of the books I recommended, which do not have anything to do with what I perceive your definition of “new age” to be, warning you ahead of time, in fact, that the book in question was unfortunately titled, you would, I hope, understand that they are intended to introduce perspective into your considerations. Ultimately here, I would hope we are considering Truth, and not parsing definitions of names of ways. And if you got on to these fora, I have no doubt that you are as well competent to find the many well known books available on traditional paths of any kind. I was only pointing to some tools for dealing with those other books you may rightly be interested in.

“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.

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.