Christian Mindfulness & Emptiness

[Sarpedon]

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.

By “faith” I mean the rational acceptance of something as true in the absence of absolute certainty. We need both reason, prudent judgement, and faith because each of these things deals with a different aspect of knowledge. Reason provides the basic foundation to think about things, while prudent judgement keeps this thought on track and keeps it from getting corrupted by bad passions. Faith serves as the bridge to action in the absence of complete knowledge, which is the normal state of affairs. For example, we should not sit around moping about whether what we see is real or not, because it is better to have faith that our perception is real and then get out to live a productive life.

 

[Yggdrasil]

For example, we should not sit around moping about whether what we see is real or not, because it is better to have faith that our perception is real and then get out to live a productive life.

I’m not aware that Buddhism really “mopes” about the unreality of things perceived. To the extent that it is concerned with the illusion, it asks only for a serene acceptance of the scheme.

What is a “productive life,” anyway? Surely not making widgets. There’s an interesting bit in the gospels about Martha and Mary—it applies, essentially, regardless of whether one thinks the world is maya or an absolute certainty.

 

[Yggdrasil]

While a discussion ensues concerning the alleged deficiencies of Buddhism (with contributing views akin to G.K. Chesterton writing in 1908), I wonder if anyone would be interested in a passage from the first chapter of The Mystical Theology of Dionysius:

Leave behind both sensible perceptions and intellectual efforts, and all objects of sense and intelligence, and all things not being and being, and be raised aloft unknowingly to the union, as far as attainable, with Him Who is above every essence and knowledge. For by the resistless and absolute ecstasy in all purity, from thyself and all, thou wilt be carried on high, to the superessential ray of the Divine darkness, when thou hast cast away all, and become free from all.

 

[Fran65]

Thank you for your explanations. I’m particularly struck by this point which makes a great deal of sense.

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.

I think that part of this is dealt with by the Catholic teaching of purgatory - which is finite. As for the infinite suffering of Hell - I make no assumptions about who is to be condemned there. I try to trust in the mercy and grace of God.

 

[tonyrey]

There is finite suffering for finite wrong actions.

You are presupposing that human decisions are finite - in the sense that they come to an end…

 

[Fran65]

Hello Tony,

Could you explain how or why human decisions are not finite? Thank you

 

[rossum]

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.

How can you know that it is permanent? It has indeed been present for all of human history, but that does not make it permanent. There is no obvious distinction in Leviticus between the rules that were temporary and the ones later determined to be permanent. What evidence do you have that the longer lasting rules are actually permanent rather than just longer lasting. There was a time when there were no humans, there will be a time when there are no humans. How can a rule about humans be permanent?

A case in point is the current discussions about the treatment of gays. Are the rules about homosexuality just temporary, like the one about not shaving beards, or are they still in force? Already Christianity has dropped the bit about killing homosexuals so at least part of the rules on homosexuality was temporary, not 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.

The absence of an unchanging standard is not a problem either. We have discussed this at great length.

Are the Nazis permanently wrong in their treatment of Jews?

Since neither Nazis nor Jews are permanent, how can there be anything permanent? Millions of years ago neither existed. Billions of years in the future neither will exist. How can there be permanence? What the Nazis did was wrong at the time and will result in the perpetrators suffering.

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.

My answer would be the same as yours - here and now our moralities overlap to a large degree.

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.

What caste was the man who shot the poisoned arrow? I am not interested in answering endless what if’s. We know enough about what we have to do here and now, so it is up to us to get out and do it.

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

The five are present in all humans, and there is no part of any human that does not fall under one of them. Once you have the five aggregates you have a human. None of the aggregates is permanent and none of them is unchanging. None of them, nor any combination of them, is a soul. The word “human” is a designation for a group of the five aggregates. When we see a certain assembly of parts we say “car”, when we see an assembly of the five aggregates we say “human”.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I think that part of this is dealt with by the Catholic teaching of purgatory - which is finite. As for the infinite suffering of Hell - I make no assumptions about who is to be condemned there. I try to trust in the mercy and grace of God.

All of the Buddhist hells are temporary so in some sense they are more correctly described as purgatories.

The bad news is that all the heavens are temporary as well. Impermanence cuts both ways.

rossum

 

[rossum]

You are presupposing that human decisions are finite - in the sense that they come to an end…

I am Buddhist, of course everything comes to an end. Impermanence is one of the Three Marks.

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

How can you know that it is permanent? It has indeed been present for all of human history, but that does not make it permanent. There is no obvious distinction in Leviticus between the rules that were temporary and the ones later determined to be permanent.

It must be noted that the 10 commandments are distinct from the Levitical laws. We know the difference between temporary disciplines and permanent moral commandments based on the revelation of God through the Church. That’s why the Church exists in the first place. Some moral instruction is beneficial, but only for certain times and places. This is why, for example, fasting rules have changed over time. Other commandments are based on universals, and do not change from situation to situation- such as respecting human dignity. For an explanation of how this works, see newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

What evidence do you have that the longer lasting rules are actually permanent rather than just longer lasting. There was a time when there were no humans, there will be a time when there are no humans. How can a rule about humans be permanent?

First of all, you have no positive evidence that humans are temporary. Secondly, this boils down a a division between teleology and metaphysical naturalism. Buddhism does not propose anything beyond the material particular, and is almost exactly the same as atheism in this respect. Under this system, morality has no real nature, only being a convention. In a teleological system, the particular has a purpose which usually entails a universal.

So, the question is not so much whether morality is short lived or permanent, but rather between whether morality is objectively real or whether it is just convention.

So, what evidence do I have? Looking at the overall philosophical position, you acknowledge that the war crimes of the Nazis could be morally justified in some different set of particulars, perhaps far in the future. Using the Kalama sutta, I find that Buddhism fails because it potentially legitimizes anything given the proper circumstances, even if those circumstances are not in the here and now.

A case in point is the current discussions about the treatment of gays. Are the rules about homosexuality just temporary, like the one about not shaving beards, or are they still in force? Already Christianity has dropped the bit about killing homosexuals so at least part of the rules on homosexuality was temporary, not permanent.

The fundamentally disordered nature of homosexuality is a permanent teaching, because it has been settled as per the link I provided. Note the “disorder” in this sense does not mean that gays are evil or all going to hell. It just means that they have some flawed desires (as we all do, in different ways). What they do with those desires is up to them.

Since neither Nazis nor Jews are permanent, how can there be anything permanent? Millions of years ago neither existed. Billions of years in the future neither will exist. How can there be permanence? What the Nazis did was wrong at the time and will result in the perpetrators suffering.

Because God’s nature is permanent, and that is the source of everything. That’s why we can say that brutally murdering millions of people based on race is always wrong and never justified. You cannot say the same.

My answer would be the same as yours - here and now our moralities overlap to a large degree.

That’s not what I asked. I asked what would happen if the future particulars involved something like Soviet Russia. I’m not asking about the here and now. I am asking about the possible future.

What caste was the man who shot the poisoned arrow? I am not interested in answering endless what if’s. We know enough about what we have to do here and now, so it is up to us to get out and do it.

Many (but not all) things change with time. Therefore, to refuse to consider possible future problems is not conducive to human well-being at all. Merely acting in the present is not enough, for we need to plan for the future.

Do you think “spiritual euthanasia” is an apt term for Buddhism, given its teleological end?

 

[Sarpedon]

I’m not aware that Buddhism really “mopes” about the unreality of things perceived. To the extent that it is concerned with the illusion, it asks only for a serene acceptance of the scheme.

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.

What is a “productive life,” anyway? Surely not making widgets. There’s an interesting bit in the gospels about Martha and Mary—it applies, essentially, regardless of whether one thinks the world is maya or an absolute certainty.

Can you elaborate?

 

[rossum]

It must be noted that the 10 commandments are distinct from the Levitical laws. We know the difference between temporary disciplines and permanent moral commandments based on the revelation of God through the Church.

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.

First of all, you have no positive evidence that humans are temporary.

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.

Secondly, this boils down a a division between teleology and metaphysical naturalism. Buddhism does not propose anything beyond the material particular, and is almost exactly the same as atheism in this respect.

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.

Under this system, morality has no real nature, only being a convention. In a teleological system, the particular has a purpose which usually entails a universal.

You are misunderstanding karma. It does not have a purpose, but it is more than a convention. You will suffer the consequences of your actions. Karma is as real as gravity. There is no purpose to gravity, yet it exists and is more than a convention. Similarly for karma.

So, the question is not so much whether morality is short lived or permanent, but rather between whether morality is objectively real or whether it is just convention.

This is a false dichotomy. The answer lies between the two. It is not objectively real in the sense which I suspect you mean. It is more than convention. It is as real as the force of gravity.

Looking at the overall philosophical position, you acknowledge that the war crimes of the Nazis could be morally justified in some different set of particulars, perhaps far in the future.

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.

Using the Kalama sutta, I find that Buddhism fails because it potentially legitimizes anything given the proper circumstances, even if those circumstances are not in the here and now.

Irrelevant. Is the Bible wrong because in the past it was used to legitimize burning witches to death? I am using the Kalama sutta, and Buddhist scripture in general, to determine my morality here and now, that is all. There is a lot more in Buddhist scripture than just the Kalama sutta.

Because God’s nature is permanent, and that is the source of everything.

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.

That’s not what I asked. I asked what would happen if the future particulars involved something like Soviet Russia. I’m not asking about the here and now. I am asking about the possible future.

What is the name of the third cousin twice removed of the man who shot the poisoned arrow into you and what is that cousin’s shoe size?

Many (but not all) things change with time. Therefore, to refuse to consider possible future problems is not conducive to human well-being at all. Merely acting in the present is not enough, for we need to plan for the future.

We only need to plan for our current lifetime, one step at a time completes the journey.

Do you think “spiritual euthanasia” is an apt term for Buddhism, given its teleological end?

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.

rossum

 

[grace_singh]

Rossum ~

i have a question, if that is ok.

the term “Nirvana” actually means “extinguishing” or “snuffing out”.

what, then, if being snuffed out?

 

[rossum]

Rossum ~

i have a question, if that is ok.

the term “Nirvana” actually means “extinguishing” or “snuffing out”.

what, then, if being snuffed out?

It means the snuffing out of ignorance, of desire and of suffering. We attain nirvana upon becoming enlightened. That is what differentiates it from the heavens, which are only reachable after death’ nirvana is reachable while still living. The Buddha reached nirvana when he became enlightened at age 35. He died age 80.

rossum

 

[grace_singh]

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

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.

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

 

[Detales]

Though I feel that Rossum’ definition is accurate, it is not in my estimation, complete. Nirvana is the snuffing out of personal identification of the ego self with materiality. The work of one who has experienced Nirvana is to stabilize the balancing of Nirvanic awareness and subject/object awareness while still “in” the body. An excellent treatment of the meaning and form of this is found in The Philosophy of Consciousness Without and Object, by Franklin Merrell-Wolff.

 

[Detales]

Nirvana is permanent. Awareness of it is clouded by the illusion of the subject/object form of awareness made necessary by accepting the conditions of “the fall” which in fact is the ascent of man to the ability to distinguish between personal self and the “exterior” word of me/not me, or “the knowledge of good and evil” That ability is part and parcel of Man’s “superiority” over the world, his ability to manipulate it mentally and physically. That is why it takes “work” to “achieve” Nirvana. All those words are in quotes because they are provisional in terms of what actually takes place, which is the equivalent of the christianist idea of being “born again (out) of water and (into) the Holy Spirit.”

As I have pointed out before, christianisms and buddhisms are derived from the same Truth, but the christianist approach is an ascending/exoteric form, and the buddhistic is a descending/esoteric form, so they appear, to each other, to be contrary. The only contrariness is in the rejection by partisanship with either one of the wholeness of the dynamic.

 

[fhansen]

Nirvana is the snuffing out of personal identification of the ego self with materiality. The work of one who has experienced Nirvana is to stabilize the balancing of Nirvanic awareness and subject/object awareness while still “in” the body.

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. 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.

Nirvana is permanent. Awareness of it is clouded by the illusion of the subject/object form of awareness made necessary by accepting the conditions of “the fall” which in fact is the ascent of man to the ability to distinguish between personal self and the “exterior” word of me/not me, or “the knowledge of good and evil” That ability is part and parcel of Man’s “superiority” over the world, his ability to manipulate it mentally and physically.

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?

…the christianist approach is an ascending/exoteric form, and the buddhistic is a descending/esoteric form…

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?

 

[Siddhartha]

Do you share the same Buddhism as Rossum?

If by “the same”, you mean “identical”, then no, of course not. I think we both share significant Theravada influences, however.

 

[rossum]

If by “the same”, you mean “identical”, then no, of course not. I think we both share significant Theravada influences, however.

Much of my practice is Theravada; I was taught meditation by Theravada monks. Much of my theory is Mahayana, primarily Madhyamika. When discussing here I probably quote more Theravada suttas than Mahayana sutras. I have generally found that you need a reasonable understanding of the Theravada background before you can begin to fully appreciate the meaning of the Mahayana sutras. They assume a lot of background knowledge in the reader.

rossum