Christian Mindfulness & Emptiness

[rossum]

Because it’s not enough to simply want to “fit in” and practice the commonly accepted morality of our culture.

Of course not, and the Buddha said as much:Now, look you Kalamas, do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea ‘this is our teacher’. Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them. … Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them."

• Kalama sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, 3.65
  You would do better to check what the Buddha actually said before telling us what you think that he said. We are specifically told not to follow the common morality around us just to “fit in”, but follow correct morality.

What happens in many, many years when the morality of Buddhism fails?

Buddhism will fail first, so the question is moot. Like everything else, Buddhism is impermanent.

What if, say, you lived your entire lifetime in Soviet Russia and grew up in the family of a KGB operative? The USSR was certainly around long enough for this.

See the Kalama sutta above. The KGB did not provide a valid reference point for morality - their actions failed the tests given above by the Buddha.

But that’s changing. What if it totally changes with time to where we treat everything, including ourselves, as we treat animals now? What’s to stop that? Would it be wrong if it happened?

I will deal with that if and when it happens in a far future lifetime. I have enough to work with here and now. See the parable of the Poisoned Arrow, which teaches against allowing useless speculation to get in the way of what has to be done here and now. There are an infinity of “what if…” questions. If you wait for all of them to be answered then you will never progress at all.

What if all the Jews are really just cockroaches reincarnated as humans?

If someone is born as a cockroach then they have a life as a cockroach. They do not have an inner cockroach-soul because such a thing does not exist, they are just a cockroach for that lifetime. If they are a good cockroach then their next life may be as a human, they are now human, just like and other human, they do not have any inner human-soul because such a thing does not exist, they are just a human for that lifetime. The next lifetime they may be an armadillo or an angel. In neither case will they have any armadillo-soul or angel-soul. They were what they were and they are what they are. They have changed, there is no inner unchanging essence or soul.

The Catholic acknowledges that even though your statement is correct, we nevertheless still have the assurance that God formed our human minds to be able to accurately apprehend truth. That’s why we can know truth, and why the pursuit of knowledge forms a central part of Catholic culture.

We have the Buddha’s assurance that we can accurately apprehend truth. That is why we can know truth and become enlightened.

There is a reason a Catholic culture invented the university and invented formal science. Catholicism leads to the intellectual life, while Buddhism leads to intellectual suicide.

As far as I am aware the oldest university in the world was founded in Nanjing, China in 258 CE. The second oldest was founded in Cairo, Egypt in 970 CE. It is true that the oldest universities in Europe were founded in Catholic countries. You would do better to check your facts more carefully before posting.

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

You would do better to check what the Buddha actually said before telling us what you think that he said. We are specifically told not to follow the common morality around us just to “fit in”, but follow correct morality.

See the Kalama sutta above. The KGB did not provide a valid reference point for morality - their actions failed the tests given above by the Buddha.

What is a “correct” reference point? What is a “valid” test? Here you are making an implied appeal to a standard to judge morality. Since you say everything is changing and nothing is permanent, there cannot be an absolutely “correct” reference point or a “valid” reference point. In response to this you say that the reference point must be valid “for that temporary context” in a changing world. I then provide an example where the “context” is not good, and you then make an appeal to a “correct” reference point.

How is morality measured? If correct morality is possible, then in what way is it “correct”? If that standard is only temporarily valid in a changing world, what happens when the changing world changes into something like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany?

I will deal with that if and when it happens in a far future lifetime. I have enough to work with here and now. See the parable of the Poisoned Arrow, which teaches against allowing useless speculation to get in the way of what has to be done here and now.

But the person in that “far future lifetime” will not deal with it for the same reason you accept our current morality now. For some reason, you accept a certain morality in this current time based on temporary criteria that will change. Once those criteria change, the next person or your next life will not compare that current morality with our morality because those criteria will have passed away.

You say you will “deal with it” when it comes. Why? For some reason you judge the future potential for a certain morality wrong and that’s why you say you would deal with it. However, when your only justification for your current morality (and rejection of that future morality) is based on criteria here and now, then your justification will be gone when the here and now ceases to be. Let’s say you accept gay marriage due to our modern sense of equality. How do you know that you didn’t plan to “deal with gay marriage” back in your past life, when you formed your morality around the then valid notion of natural order? Once our modern notion of equality passes away, what will you do in the next life?

In neither case will they have any armadillo-soul or angel-soul. They were what they were and they are what they are. They have changed, there is no inner unchanging essence or soul.

So would you say that if I “am what I am” and my Jewish friend “is what he is” in our current lives, then we both have some sort of nature in this life that is temporarily unchanging?

Furthermore, you say that “they have changed.” What is “they”? Does this change?

We have the Buddha’s assurance that we can accurately apprehend truth. That is why we can know truth and become enlightened.

So we can know things as more than a simple mental model?

As far as I am aware the oldest university in the world was founded in Nanjing, China in 258 CE. The second oldest was founded in Cairo, Egypt in 970 CE. It is true that the oldest universities in Europe were founded in Catholic countries. You would do better to check your facts more carefully before posting.

Plato founded the Academy around 387 BCE and Aristotle founded the Lyceum around 335 BCE. While these men were not Catholic, they nevertheless shared the same basic view of epistemology as Catholicism- namely that we can know truth through reason.

 

[Siddhartha]

Does the fully enlightened being, having gone “as far as he can go,” so to speak, experience this chanda?

There’s a Buddhist Sutta that addresses this question. Buddhist practice is compared to walking to the park. When you walk to the park, you walk with intention and effort and desire. Let’s say that the park is a good park, so your desire is good, or Dhamma chanda. Once you’re at the park, what happens to your Dhamma chanda? It is satisfied. Likewise, when you reach the “goal”, the desire for the goal is satisfied.

 

[Detales]

Reason applies to truth that is reason-able. Sarpedon, you are both un-reasonable and simply obstreperous when it comes to the ideas of Buddhism, which in an other way of speaking you at least partially accept. The reason of Aristotle and Plato are applicable in a very limited sphere of cognition. They do not speak of Knowledge, only of knowledge pertinent to logic and its limits. Knowledge pertinent to God is by Intuition, Insight, and Wisdom, but mostly by Identity. The very statements attributed to Jesus point to this. It is likely, in fact, that if Jesus was to meet Buddha, they would recognize each other, and you would recognize neither one and just call them names, or worse. It is not that you are not giving Rossum, Siddhartha, or Buddhism a chance, you are just not giving yourself a chance. That is the actuality of the matter as I see it. The Buddha was a Christ as much as Jesus was, if He actually existed as a person. At least we know that Buddha walked the Earth.

 

[Sarpedon]

There’s a Buddhist Sutta that addresses this question. Buddhist practice is compared to walking to the park. When you walk to the park, you walk with intention and effort and desire. Let’s say that the park is a good park, so your desire is good, or Dhamma chanda. Once you’re at the park, what happens to your Dhamma chanda? It is satisfied. Likewise, when you reach the “goal”, the desire for the goal is satisfied.

Does the “satisfaction” of desire necessarily equal elimination?

The Catholic would say that in reference to the teleology of man (i.e. being able to love perfectly), the desire to love and be loved can be satisfied, but not eliminated. The desire to reach the park is not just eliminated when we reach the park, but rather transformed into a desire to appreciate the park. In a like manner, perfection in a Catholic sense involves the transformation of all desire towards perfect love, which is something that our desire can never “tire” of, since it fulfilles our purpose.

 

[Siddhartha]

Does the “satisfaction” of desire necessarily equal elimination?

The Catholic would say that in reference to the teleology of man (i.e. being able to love perfectly), the desire to love and be loved can be satisfied, but not eliminated. The desire to reach the park is not just eliminated when we reach the park, but rather transformed into a desire to appreciate the park. In a like manner, perfection in a Catholic sense involves the transformation of all desire towards perfect love, which is something that our desire can never “tire” of, since it fulfilles our purpose.

Once you’re at the park, the desire to go to the park is “allayed” rather than “eliminated” because the desire is “fulfilled”. Nibbana is, negatively speaking, the cessation of greed, hatred, and delusion. Positively speaking, Nibbana is the fulfillment of humanity’s greatest desire.

 

[Sarpedon]

Once you’re at the park, the desire to go to the park is “allayed” rather than “eliminated” because the desire is “fulfilled”. Nibbana is, negatively speaking, the cessation of greed, hatred, and delusion. Positively speaking, Nibbana is the fulfillment of humanity’s greatest desire.

So, does the perfect state in Buddhism involve the “gratification,” so to speak, of the noblest desires within humanity?

 

[Siddhartha]

So, does the perfect state in Buddhism involve the “gratification,” so to speak, of the noblest desires within humanity?

So to speak, yes.

 

[rossum]

What is a “correct” reference point? What is a “valid” test?

There is very little point in me posting here if you do not read what I post. To repeat what the Buddha said:“Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”
That gives four tests:* these things are good.

• these things are not blamable.
• these things are praised by the wise.
• undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness.

Here you are making an implied appeal to a standard to judge morality. Since you say everything is changing and nothing is permanent, there cannot be an absolutely “correct” reference point or a “valid” reference point.

I do not need an “absolutely” correct reference point. I only need a currently valid reference point. I only need a ticket valid for my current journey, I do not need a perpetual season ticket. As long as my ticket is valid for my current journey then it is fine. Merely because my ticket may not be valid tomorrow does not mean that it is not valid today.

How is morality measured? If correct morality is possible, then in what way is it “correct”? If that standard is only temporarily valid in a changing world, what happens when the changing world changes into something like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany?

Another “what if” question. The Buddha has given us a morality that is valid for here and now. That is good enough for me. Even a cursory examination of the Bible shows that morality has changed since Old Testament times, witness all those rules that the Christians dropped.

But the person in that “far future lifetime” will not deal with it for the same reason you accept our current morality now. For some reason, you accept a certain morality in this current time based on temporary criteria that will change. Once those criteria change, the next person or your next life will not compare that current morality with our morality because those criteria will have passed away.

Just as the Biblical attitude to slavery is not longer current and many of the Mosaic laws are no longer enforced. Morality changes over time.

Let’s say you accept gay marriage due to our modern sense of equality. How do you know that you didn’t plan to “deal with gay marriage” back in your past life, when you formed your morality around the then valid notion of natural order? Once our modern notion of equality passes away, what will you do in the next life?

See the criteria given in the Kalama sutta.

So would you say that if I “am what I am” and my Jewish friend “is what he is” in our current lives, then we both have some sort of nature in this life that is temporarily unchanging?

No, we are all constantly changing. Cells die, thoughts change, hairs grow, hairs fall out ]; all the five constituent parts of a human being are changing.

So we can know things as more than a simple mental model?

Do you have a way to get information that does not consist of nerve impulses coming down sensory nerves into your brain? We can improve our model and we can adopt the correct attitude to our model.

Plato founded the Academy around 387 BCE and Aristotle founded the Lyceum around 335 BCE. While these men were not Catholic, they nevertheless shared the same basic view of epistemology as Catholicism- namely that we can know truth through reason.

If they counted as universities then your statement that “a Catholic culture invented the university” in post #76 is still false and should be withdrawn. Ancient Greece was not a “Catholic culture”.

rossum

 

[Fran65]

The problem with the tests that you refer to as given by the Kalama Sutra is that they are relativistic. There is nothing in your system as you have explained it to prevent someone concluding that rape, murder and theft are good. Indeed there are those who conclude that muh good and happiness arises from them - for themselves and for others who enjoy watching the videos and/or hearing about them and who benefit materially from the acts. Some Nazis were sincere in their belief that what they were doing to the Jews, the Gypsies, the sick and disabled was good because they were cleansing the homeland and establishing a master race that would live in peace and prosperity. There is nothing in the Kalama Sutra to dispute this, other than another’s ‘feeling’ that it was not ‘good’. As for karma, there are methods for ‘burning up’ negative karma - such as particular rituals and gifts to monasteries. Even the negative consequences of actions can be avoided with some effort by the individual. There are therefore no restraints in Buddhism.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it also the case that in some Buddhist thought there are no innocent victims and that whatever we experience is the result of past actions of our own, possibly in previous lifetimes - this includes victims (and I use the term deliberately) of child sex abuse, other sexual crimes and violent crimes? I find that abhorrent. Please don’t explain to me that when I’ve generated enough karma I’ll be fortunate enough to be born in future life capable of understanding the subtleties and wisdom of Buddhism. I find that as patronising as if I were to say to you that I’m praying for your soul and that you may be saved from judgment

 

[rossum]

The problem with the tests that you refer to as given by the Kalama Sutra is that they are relativistic. There is nothing in your system as you have explained it to prevent someone concluding that rape, murder and theft are good.

How can rape lead to either good or to happiness for the victim? Theft may be justified in extreme circumstances - stealing a minimum to enable you to feed a starving child. This was allowed IIRC in New Orleans and I think I have seen this justified in Christian terms as well.

I do not think that there are many among the wise who would support the Nazis. Do you think that their actions were not blamable? The Nazis failed the test of the Kalama sutta.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it also the case that in some Buddhist thought there are no innocent victims and that whatever we experience is the result of past actions of our own, possibly in previous lifetimes

If you accept that actions have moral consequences then this is unavoidable. The alternatives include both extreme Calvinism where actions have no moral effect or atheism where actions also have no moral effect. Wrong actions eventually have unpleasant consequences whether in this lifetime or in a future lifetime. If you throw a rock straight up into the air then it will eventually fall down and hit you on the head.

rossum

 

[Yggdrasil]

The problem with the tests that you refer to as given by the Kalama Sutra is that they are relativistic. There is nothing in your system as you have explained it to prevent someone concluding that rape, murder and theft are good.

Isn’t there, in the Buddhist system, a pronounced emphasis on compassion and “loving kindness”?

A Buddhist is prevented from concluding that rape, murder, and theft are “good” because these are acts that cause suffering. Even the slightest stirring of empathy goes a long way towards prevention.

Some Nazis were sincere in their belief that what they were doing to the Jews, the Gypsies, the sick and disabled was good because they were cleansing the homeland and establishing a master race that would live in peace and prosperity. There is nothing in the Kalama Sutra to dispute this, other than another’s ‘feeling’ that it was not ‘good’.

This seems like a preposterously harsh accusation, doesn’t it—that the Buddhist system of morality somehow allows for genocide? Surely Buddhism doesn’t contradict the Golden Rule.

I apologize for coming late to the thread and suddenly giving a critique, but the continued accusations here that Buddhism is nihilistic or amoral are entirely tangential to the OP, which is about currents in the mystical traditions and meditative practices of Buddhism and Christianity. Is there a commonality? Forcing the Buddhists to give a laborious catechesis on their morality doctrines before a proper discussion can even begin betrays a certain religious chauvinism IMO.

 

[Detales]

Thanks, Yaggdrasil. I agree. In our community there is a Buddhist group that gives out bumper stickers that say “DO NO HARM.” That is far more in tune with what their morality is about than such accusations based on ignorance as have appeared here. I would in that regard remind Fran and others of such dead horses as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the horrors of christianist missionaryism, witch hunts, etc. Buddhists carried out none of the transgressions easily attributed even today to Catholicism, as evidenced by the recent resignation of bishops in Ireland and scandals in our own country. Fran, as much as I have admired your level headedness, I sense you are just throwing back stones that have rightfully landed at the feet of your own faith. You are all squirming in the face of a system that is, in fact, more Christ like than your own.

 

[Fran65]

Are you saying now that the test of goodness is in the effects for the recepient of one’s actions rather than the effects for the actor?

I rather see a system that attributes ultimate responsibility to the victim as being a harsh one. In this system, if there are no innocent victims (we are the recipients of our own kamma) doesn’t this mean that the person carrying out the abuse is also a victim of the abused’s kamma. If I have brought down a violent assault on my own head then aren’t I also the one responsible for the abuser assaulting me? Someone has to carry out the consequences of my actions - and I can’t always assault myself. Or are these questions to be likened to a poisoned arrow and not enquired into?

I would hope that my posts would be seen as raising points for discussion rather than as being accusatory and harsh. However, I sincerely regret any harshness in my posts.

 

[Sarpedon]

That gives four tests:* these things are good.

• these things are not blamable.
• these things are praised by the wise.
• undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness.

Number 1 is says "these things are good. Both things and goodness change in Buddhism. Therefore, to say “the action must be correctly good, but good changes all the time, and therefore the criterion for determining a good action is that it is correct” does not resolve the issue.

Number 2 merely concerns human praise. People can praise whatever they want. If you mean “blameworthy” as being judged in accordance with some underlying standard, then you run into the same problem that I mentioned in number 1

Number 3 uses the criteria of “the wise” as the standard to judge morality. Of course, the “wise” and “wisdom” changes over time. Therefore, what is wise changes over time too. You still haven’t explained why the morality of the Nazi’s can’t become wise given enough time, and that was the original question I posed.

Number 4 involves empirical observations about “happiness”. However, happiness and benefit changes as well. You still haven’t explained why Nazi crimes cannot become good actions.

The basic problem in all of this is that nothing is permanent in Buddhism. You can appeal to wisdom, happiness, blamelessness, and benefit all you want, but you are still appealing to transient things. Therefore, you still have not addressed the fundamental question of what happens if those criteria change to accomodate things like Nazism? Given enough time, can it happen? If it can’t happen, is it permanent? If it can happen, does that mean that future Nazis could be moral?

I do not need an “absolutely” correct reference point. I only need a currently valid reference point. I only need a ticket valid for my current journey, I do not need a perpetual season ticket. As long as my ticket is valid for my current journey then it is fine. Merely because my ticket may not be valid tomorrow does not mean that it is not valid today.

Suppose I grow up in the family of a KGB operative and live my whole life in Soviet Russia. I look to my wise leaders for guidance, and I learn all about praisworthy actions in school. Furthermore, I am sincerely devoted to the ideal of bringing people into collective harmony through Communism. Is that a “currently valid” reference point? Does it pass the Sutra?

Just as the Biblical attitude to slavery is not longer current and many of the Mosaic laws are no longer enforced. Morality changes over time.

You are uncorrectly linking the human perception of morality with the morality present in God’s nature. My link explains this more in depth.

No, we are all constantly changing. Cells die, thoughts change, hairs grow, hairs fall out ]; all the five constituent parts of a human being are changing.

So then there isn’t any firm basis that allows me to relate to the Jew as a fellow human, just as a collection of humanlike parts that may or may not be complete.

Do you have a way to get information that does not consist of nerve impulses coming down sensory nerves into your brain? We can improve our model and we can adopt the correct attitude to our model.

No, your statement is correct in stating the problem. Nevertheless, Buddhism takes this to mean that no true knowledge of nature is possible, while Catholicism makes the decision to accept our reason for what it is in the grand scheme of things. Your statement illustrates why mere rationality is not enough, and why we need prudent judgement and faith in addition.

If they counted as universities then your statement that “a Catholic culture invented the university” in post #76 is still false and should be withdrawn. Ancient Greece was not a “Catholic culture”.

True, but both the ancient Greek culture and the later Catholic culture shared a common epistemology that lead to intellectualism and science. As such, they both share credit for the advances made. I am mainly talking about that shared epistemology rather than just the Catholic or just the Greek culture.

 

[Sarpedon]

So to speak, yes.

Do you share the same Buddhism as Rossum?

 

[rossum]

Are you saying now that the test of goodness is in the effects for the recipient of one’s actions rather than the effects for the actor?

Part of the test is in the effects of the actions. The “lead to benefit and happiness” part applies to all living beings, not just to ourselves. Selfishness is not a virtue in either Buddhism or Christianity.

I rather see a system that attributes ultimate responsibility to the victim as being a harsh one. In this system, if there are no innocent victims (we are the recipients of our own kamma) doesn’t this mean that the person carrying out the abuse is also a victim of the abused’s kamma. If I have brought down a violent assault on my own head then aren’t I also the one responsible for the abuser assaulting me? Someone has to carry out the consequences of my actions - and I can’t always assault myself. Or are these questions to be likened to a poisoned arrow and not enquired into?

We are all responsible for our own actions. If karma does not get you one way then it will get you another:Neither in the sky nor in mid-ocean,
nor in a cave in the mountains,
is there a place where a man
can escape his evil deed.

Dhammapada 9:12
Any attacker can decide not to attack and avoid the consequences of that attack. If the karma is not fulfilled in that way then it will be fulfilled in another way. For myself I prefer the Buddhist system. There is finite suffering for finite wrong actions. I find that preferable for infinite suffering for finite wrong actions. Just because the suffering is out of sight in hell, rather than on the TV news every day does not change the moral position.

I would hope that my posts would be seen as raising points for discussion rather than as being accusatory and harsh. However, I sincerely regret any harshness in my posts.

Not a problem. You raise some difficult and interesting problems.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Number 1 is says "these things are good. Both things and goodness change in Buddhism. Therefore, to say “the action must be correctly good, but good changes all the time, and therefore the criterion for determining a good action is that it is correct” does not resolve the issue.

We have been here before. I am acting here and now. I need to know if what I am doing is good here and now. It is of no use for me to know that in Old Testament times it was wrong for a male follower of YHWH to shave his beard. All I need to know now is that it is not wrong for a Christian follower of YHWH to shave his beard. The rules for following YHWH have changed over time. All I need to know is the currently applicable set.

The text of the Bible has changed over time as new books were added. The interpretation of the Bible has changed over time as different interpretations were adopted. Why do you insist that morality is unchanging when manifestly the followers of YHWH have had different rules over time?

The basic problem in all of this is that nothing is permanent in Buddhism.

Nothing is permanent in the entire universe. If you look for permanence then you will be disappointed - another source of suffering.

You can appeal to wisdom, happiness, blamelessness, and benefit all you want, but you are still appealing to transient things. Therefore, you still have not addressed the fundamental question of what happens if those criteria change to accomodate things like Nazism? Given enough time, can it happen? If it can’t happen, is it permanent? If it can happen, does that mean that future Nazis could be moral?

Yet another “what if…”[The Buddha said:] 'It is as if, Malunkyaputta, a man is shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison, … and the wounded man were to say “I will not have the arrow taken out until I know the caste of the man who shot it, … his tribe … his clan … his village … his height etc.” [many questions omitted here] That man would die Malunkyaputta, before he learned all that he wanted to know.

• Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63
  You are shot with a poisoned arrow and you are asking questions instead of getting on with what you should be doing.

Suppose I grow up in the family…

‘What if…’ yet again.

You are uncorrectly linking the human perception of morality with the morality present in God’s nature.

How can I know that which I cannot perceive? If I can perceive it then what I have is a ‘human perception’.

So then there isn’t any firm basis that allows me to relate to the Jew as a fellow human, just as a collection of humanlike parts that may or may not be complete.

There is nothing special about the Jews, all human beings are a collection of parts - the Five Aggregates: form, feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness. Wanting to be more than that is just another road to suffering. When we relate to another human being we are relating to a collection of parts. When they relate to us they are also relating to a collection of parts.

Your statement illustrates why mere rationality is not enough, and why we need prudent judgement and faith in addition.

The Kalama sutta advised prudent judgement. How can I determine what is the correct faith without rationality and prudent judgement? There are many different faiths out there to pick from.

True, but both the ancient Greek culture and the later Catholic culture shared a common epistemology that lead to intellectualism and science. As such, they both share credit for the advances made. I am mainly talking about that shared epistemology rather than just the Catholic or just the Greek culture.

Why is it that some people cannot just say, “Sorry, I made a mistake”? You appear to be frantically shifting the goalposts in order to try to avoid the s-word. You forgot about universities outside Europe and now you are trying to turn Ancient Greece into a Catholic country because the Church later borrowed some pre-Christian ideas from the Greek philosophers. You are not doing well on this point. Better to cut your losses.

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

We have been here before. I am acting here and now. I need to know if what I am doing is good here and now. It is of no use for me to know that in Old Testament times it was wrong for a male follower of YHWH to shave his beard. All I need to know now is that it is not wrong for a Christian follower of YHWH to shave his beard. The rules for following YHWH have changed over time. All I need to know is the currently applicable set.

Customary rules change over time, (the particular) but the underlying premise of the morality (the universal) does not change. Yes, we no longer have the Levitical rules. That doesn’t change that moral fact that we ought to respect human life. At one point, respecting human life might involve one thing, and it might require something else at a different point. Despite this change in the particular, in the application of the principal, the universal itself is permanent.

I know that Buddhism rejects universals. It goes without saying that the world of the particular changes. Our bodies come and go, sunsets fade, and seasons change. That isn’t the problem. The problem is that Buddhism rejects anything beyond the particular, and therefore rejects any possibility of an unchanging standard. They therefore quite reasonably decide that nothing can be ultimately satisfied and that nothing at all can be permanent. In contrast, the Catholic is able to build a rational understanding of the world and a real morality because he acknowledges a permanent foundation in the universal which can be the foundation for knowledge and morality. The problem with Buddhism is that it rejects all universals, which eliminates any ultimate standard that makes, say, morality and knowledge self-standing. Under Buddhism, there is nothing to stop a Nazi from being moral in some different set of particulars. Buddha may not have lived under those particulars, but that does not mean that such particulars are impossible.

Nothing is permanent in the entire universe. If you look for permanence then you will be disappointed - another source of suffering.

Are the Nazis permanently wrong in their treatment of Jews?

Yet another “what if…”[The Buddha said:] 'It is as if, Malunkyaputta, a man is shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison, … and the wounded man were to say “I will not have the arrow taken out until I know the caste of the man who shot it, … his tribe … his clan … his village … his height etc.” [many questions omitted here] That man would die Malunkyaputta, before he learned all that he wanted to know.

• Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63
  You are shot with a poisoned arrow and you are asking questions instead of getting on with what you should be doing.

While there is some wisdom in that saying, you cannot say that we should not question our belief systems in order to merely act. Truth influences what the best action is, and that is why you cannot completely dismiss the intellectual pursuit of truth as a prerequisite to proper action. You correctly say:

“The Kalama sutta advised prudent judgement. How can I determine what is the correct faith without rationality and prudent judgement? There are many different faiths out there to pick from.”

My question then, is not just a pointless “what if” scenario, but rather a rational extrapolation of Buddhist ideas to their logical conclusion. The Buddhist says that nothing is permanent. He also says that we only need a morality that is “valid” in our current set of particulars. Therefore, I am simply asking what would happen if, say, our set of particulars involved something like Nazi Germany or USSR. That’s a completely fair question.

So, given enough change, is it possible for a Holocaust-type situation to be moral in some different set of particulars, perhaps far in the future? It does not matter how you would deal with it. I am only asking if it is possible, not what the implications of that answer is.

There is nothing special about the Jews, all human beings are a collection of parts - the Five Aggregates: form, feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness.

Are those Five Aggregates universally present in all of humanity? Why is that not a form a “human” nature?

 

[Sarpedon]

Why is it that some people cannot just say, “Sorry, I made a mistake”? You appear to be frantically shifting the goalposts in order to try to avoid the s-word. You forgot about universities outside Europe and now you are trying to turn Ancient Greece into a Catholic country because the Church later borrowed some pre-Christian ideas from the Greek philosophers. You are not doing well on this point. Better to cut your losses.
rossum

I am sorry I hastly attributed the epistemology to Catholic philosophy alone without crediting the Greeks. Allow me to explain what I meant.

Ancient man understood the world primarily through fairly “random” myths. These collections of stories rarely had any real rational basis for them.

These mythologies were shattered in ancient Greece with the creation of philosophy. The earliest philosophers were no longer content to just accept random stories about random gods (like Athena popping out of Zeus’ head one day) which did not have a rational basis to them. Foremost among these Greeks were Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. All three of these men accepted the legitimacy of human reason and viewed the human mind as being capable of apprehending truth. Naturally, this lead them to devote their lives to studying the world and teaching others about it.

In ancient Israel, the idea of there being a distinction between creation and the Creator broke the myths that lumped the world in with the random gods. Furthermore, the God of Israel was just, which then naturally lead to a view of justice and order in the creation.

The Roman empire allowed these two ideas to mingle, which would set the stage of the arrival of Christianity. When Christianity arose, these two ideas were harmonized. Catholic philosophy acknowledges the ability of human reason to approach truth, and it acknowledges that the physical world is goverened by natural laws which are distinct from God.

Because Catholic philosophy contained such a high view of reason, this lead to the development of education and study as the natural means to pursue the true nature of things. Furthermore, the Catholic view of the physical world as being separate from God while still ruled by rational principals directly lead to the formation of modern science (i.e. St. Albert the Great in the 1200s AD). To a large degree, the western world was able to dominate the rest of the world because of the Catholic view of reason and science that set the stage for the development of technology and learning.

In contrast, the philosophy that developed in most eastern cultures was focused on the idea of impermanence and the idea that all reality is an illusion. This has two main consequences. One is the general devaluement of reason, since we cannot know much more than an illusion. The other is the stunting of science, since the physical world is viewed as a temporary thing that cannot be expected to follow permanent (and thus predictable) natural laws.

This is not the whole story, and it should not be taken as a hard and fast rule. For example, China developed some degree of technology. Nevertheless, the basic idea still holds. Western philosophy places a high premium on reason and science, which leads to good pragmatic things, which benefit humanity. Eastern philosophies generally devalue reason and science, which hinders development.

I hope this explanation clarifies what I meant by the university comment. True, the very first universities were not founded in the western world. Nevertheless, the idea of a university as the place to pursue true knowledge of the world was much stronger in the western cultures than in the eastern cultures. Having addressed this, and acknowleding that the intial confusion is entirely my fault, what do you think of the meat of this historical perspective now? I will reemphasize here that I am speaking in terms of trends, not absolute categories.