Christian Mindfulness & Emptiness

[Sarpedon]

What had the unborn children and newborns done that required them to die? For a Buddhist, God’s order to kill the Amalekite animals as well only adds to His bad karma.

Scriptural analysis is not my specialty, but in most of my reading the commands of God are not that explicit-. i.e. God may tell them to destroy the city, but in many cases it is not clear whether all of the action described is due to God or to the Israelites themselves. For example, it is clearly Moses that is angry that the soldiers spared the women in Numbers 31, but the role of God in the matter is fairly ambigous. Of course, Israel as a whole made many moral transgressions over her existence, which is part of the reason Christ came in human form to relive the history of Israel as it should have been.

It sems to me that the “universal” can change. During the Roman empire is was “universal” that slavery was allowed. Later that changed and it was determined that slavery wasn’t universal after all. Currently we seem to be going through a period when the “universal” that homosexual acts are wrong is coming under pressure and that it may also not turn out not to have been universal after all. You declare the existence of universals yet we can see that some universals are more universal than others. We are human so we may make a mistake when we declare something to be universal.

Universals are not measured in relation to man. Using reason, we can arrive at God’s existence and then discern which religion speaks for God. Once we have used reason in that preliminary sense, we can then place stock in the moral commands of the religion we have decided to rationally embrace. That’s why ethics always comes after metaphysics and epistemology.

 

[rossum]

Human reason is permanently capable of arriving at the true nature of things.

Humanity is impermanent so human reason is also impermanent. We cannot arrive the the true nature of things unless and until we know absolutely that we have examined all things - there may be a black swan lurking somewhere or somewhen that we have not yet observed. Since there are things in the future we have not yet examined we cannot be sure that we have arrived at the true nature of things rather than a reasonably good approximation thereto.

Is there any guideline in Buddhism for how long things exist in one form before changing into another? Is that guideline changing as well?

Some things change quickly, other things change slowly, yet other things change very slowly indeed. The guideline is to look and see for yourself.

What type of poison did he put on the barb?

Curare, that is a useful question.

If the temporary, changing nature of the world can change into a permanent nature, this has major implications for all of Buddhism.

How could we tell if the change was permanent, or just a long lasting change that would go away in 500,000,000 billion years? A very slow change would have none of the implications you are drawing.

We need to know the details so we can evaluate whether it is true or not in the first place.

You are asking “what if…” questions about absolutes that are not answerable within human knowledge or within the lifespan of the human race.

God has given man the capacity to know truth through reason, and reason concludes that a world of contingency must have a non-contingent foundation for anything to make sense (this isn’t the same as the first cause argument exactly).

That is not a Buddhist argument. Any foundation cannot be a foundation unless there is something built on top of it. Being a foundation is contingent on having a superstructure. Being a creator is contingent on there being a creation - before the first day God could not have been a creator since He had created nothing at that point. Everything is contingent.

That non-contingent thing must be self existent and infinite in perfection, which means that there cannot be an increase of decrease of perfection. This means that there cannot be change within God.

Which brings us back to the problem of an unchanging God acting. An unchanging God cannot act. A creator God is contingent.

Because reason is capable of taking the particular and reasoning upwards toward a universal.

That is inductive reasoning. You can say “all swans are white” until you get to Australia and see black swans. We can never take all particulars into account so we can never be sure that there is a particular we have missed that will force us to change our reasoning.

For example, we can observe gravity and reason upwards to a rule that applies universally in the world. It is not necessary to measure gravity everywhere in the world to conclude with a reasonable degree of confidence that gravity is a physical constant.

You have picked a very bad example. Newton looked at some of the particulars of gravity and came up with a gravity that covered those particulars. Einstein looked at some more particulars and showed that Newton’s gravity did not apply to Einstein’s particulars so he developed General Relativity which covered both Newton’s and Einstein’s particulars. Modern astronomers came up with yet more particulars which neither Einstein not Newton had examined. Both Newton’s and Einstein’s theories break down for Black Holes. We need a new quantum gravity to encompass Newton’s particulars, Einstein’s particulars and Black Holes. Who knows what other particulars we will find in future.

We can experience and examine the activities of God and the nature of the universe, and arrive at reasonable conclusions about the principals behind those observations.

Reasonable but provisional, pending the sighting of a black swan.

Because if God were ever to introduce such an arbitrary commandment, maybe that’s a sign that Catholicism isn’t real.

Are you trying to limit the power of an omnipotent God? How can you determine what God may or may not do?

I am not asking you whether Nazi-like regimes will become justified in the future under Buddhism. I am asking whether they can be justified under any circumstances.

YHWH speaks directly to a Hitler-figure and orders him to kill all the left handers in the world.

God may tell them to destroy the city, but in many cases it is not clear whether all of the action described is due to God or to the Israelites themselves.

Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and .’"

• 1 Samuel 15:2-3
  What part of "do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and " do you have a problem with? What had the infants, sucklings, oxen, sheep, camels and done that deserved death? Am I supposed to regard this God as loving and just?

Universals are not measured in relation to man.

How can we know anything if not in relation to man? If something is not known to man then we cannot reason about it. Can you tell me about the incidence of florginax in the tweel forests of the planet skyron?

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

Humanity is impermanent so human reason is also impermanent. We cannot arrive the the true nature of things unless and until we know absolutely that we have examined all things - there may be a black swan lurking somewhere or somewhen that we have not yet observed. Since there are things in the future we have not yet examined we cannot be sure that we have arrived at the true nature of things rather than a reasonably good approximation thereto.

But such a lack of absolute certainty does not mean that we cannot use our reason to approach a reasonable level of knowledge. Merely pointing out that humans can make error does not mean that we should not try to do things. For example, suppose I cannot be 100% sure that my girlfriend loves me.

Under the Buddhist system, since I do not have 100% assurance, my desire for love cannot be satisfied 100%. Since my desire to love cannot be satisfied 100%, it makes sense to eliminate this unfulfillible desire for love as a consequence of that lack of certainty.

Under the Christian system, such a limitation would be recognized as a potential problem, but it would still not warrant a complete withdrawal from the problem. While I cannot be 100% sure that I am loved, I can still make a rational decision based on good judgment and get on with my life. It is not necessary to give up on my desire for love because I am not 100% sure that I have it. Furthermore, I can continually move closer and closer to complete certainty until I have it. That’s why purgatory exists. God does not expect us to achieve perfect holiness in this life, so we can continue to work towards perfection after death as long as we have not outright rejected the pursuit of perfection.

How could we tell if the change was permanent, or just a long lasting change that would go away in 500,000,000 billion years? A very slow change would have none of the implications you are drawing.

Suppose that everything is temporary and changing. Suppose that due to that changing nature, the universe changed into something permanent. How could it change back?
There are three sides to this question. One the one hand, saying that the universe could change into something permanent means that the universe is not necessarily completely temporary and thus we could potentially permanently fulfill our desires. If the universe cannot change into something temporary, then we have a permanent “law” that does not change. Lastly, if both of neither of these things are possible, then logic must be rejected outright by implication.

That is not a Buddhist argument. Any foundation cannot be a foundation unless there is something built on top of it. Being a foundation is contingent on having a superstructure. Being a creator is contingent on there being a creation - before the first day God could not have been a creator since He had created nothing at that point. Everything is contingent.

Of course it’s not a Buddhist argument. It’s part of the Catholic understanding of God.
Christ is only a foundation and only a creator in relation to us, and not in relation to His own nature. God did not have to create us. God is not a creator by essence, but only by choice. God’s nature is in no way contingent on our existence.

God does not exist in linear time. God was not around before and after the first day. God exists simply, and all of his actions are timeless. There is not a before and after to creation, only the act of creation in timeless totality along with all His other actions.

That is inductive reasoning. You can say “all swans are white” until you get to Australia and see black swans. We can never take all particulars into account so we can never be sure that there is a particular we have missed that will force us to change our reasoning.
You have picked a very bad example. Newton looked at some of the particulars of gravity and came up with a gravity that covered those particulars. Einstein looked at some more particulars and showed that Newton’s gravity did not apply to Einstein’s particulars so he developed General Relativity which covered both Newton’s and Einstein’s particulars. Modern astronomers came up with yet more particulars which neither Einstein not Newton had examined. Both Newton’s and Einstein’s theories break down for Black Holes. We need a new quantum gravity to encompass Newton’s particulars, Einstein’s particulars and Black Holes. Who knows what other particulars we will find in future.

I never said that human reason is infallible in its application, only that human reason is intrinsically reliable. In other words, if something is logically true, then it is true. Whether something is logically true is the thing we need to consider. While we cannot arrive at a perfect knowledge in this life, we do not have to. The reason purgatory exists is to provide a chance to eliminate any remaining imperfections within ourselves and achieve perfection. Very few people can achieve perfection in this life, and that is why God allows us to continue our pursuit of perfection after death.

 

[Sarpedon]

Are you trying to limit the power of an omnipotent God? How can you determine what God may or may not do?

I’m not limiting the power of God. Reason itself is capable of arriving at the true nature of things, and I did not create reason. By applying my mind to the nature of God, I am participating in something beyond myself.

YHWH speaks directly to a Hitler-figure and orders him to kill all the left handers in the world.

So the Buddhist morality allows for such a potential. We will examine whether the same holds for Christianity.

Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and .’"

• 1 Samuel 15:2-3
  What part of "do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and " do you have a problem with? What had the infants, sucklings, oxen, sheep, camels and done that deserved death? Am I supposed to regard this God as loving and just?

Here are some possibilities off the top of my head:

1. Perhaps the Amalekites were legitimately in the wrong and had to be punished to prevent their wrong from spreading.
2. Perhaps the women and children would have met a worse fate if they had been left all alone in the world with Israelite soldiers
3. Perhaps the immorality of the Amalekites would have persisted if any were allowed to survive.
4. Animals do not have souls, so their killing does not prevent a serious moral concern.

These passages can be difficult to understand, mainly because we lack the whole context. Nevertheless, it is important to keep the underlying issue in mind.

A Catholic can speak of universals and permanence. As such, he can speak of universal moral principals which do not change. For example, the principal of loving thy neighbor can be viewed as a permanent principal that cannot be affected by the whims of people. While it can be difficult to understand the application of these principals- such as in the Old Testament- the underlying reality of there being an objective moral reality that does not change remains in Catholicism.

In contrast, Buddhism lacks both universals and permanence. As such, the Buddhist cannot speak of a universal behind the difficult to understand particular. As such, while the Christian can rationally consider how OT wars are in line with justice, the Buddhist cannot even consider justice as a real permanent thing. While the Catholic can examine the complicated nature of historical events in the Bible to discover how and whether they are in line with objective morality, the Buddhist cannot do the same simply because he rejects objective morality.

Given that human reason is temporary, on what basis can you say that what the Nazis did was wrong when they did it? What if your reasoning right now is fundamentally flawed?

How can we know anything if not in relation to man? If something is not known to man then we cannot reason about it. Can you tell me about the incidence of florginax in the tweel forests of the planet skyron?

God is known to man, in both direct revelation and revelation through the world of the particular. Therefore, we can know the universal in relation to God and not to man. I do not mean that the use of reason by man does not play a part in this knowledge, only that human understanding does not affect the nature of the object of knowledge.

 

[rossum]

But such a lack of absolute certainty does not mean that we cannot use our reason to approach a reasonable level of knowledge.

I agree. We can know things with a reasonable degree of certainty. We cannot know things absolutely.

Under the Buddhist system, since I do not have 100% assurance, my desire for love cannot be satisfied 100%. Since my desire to love cannot be satisfied 100%, it makes sense to eliminate this unfulfillible desire for love as a consequence of that lack of certainty.

You have misunderstood the Buddhist approach to suffering. Your love for your girlfriend is an attachment that will lead to suffering when it ends, either by separation or death. Because it is impermanent it cannot be a permanent source of happiness. When the happiness comes to an end suffering results.

Suppose that everything is temporary and changing. Suppose that due to that changing nature, the universe changed into something permanent.

Then it would go against the initial premise of your statement, “everything is temporary”. Your question is unanswerable: suppose a triangle had four sides…

God did not have to create us. God is not a creator by essence, but only by choice. God’s nature is in no way contingent on our existence.

God cannot claim the title “Creator” unless there is a creation that He created. No creation implies no creator. How can someone be a parent if they have no children? How can God be a creator if He has never created anything? If God is not contingent then God cannot be the Creator, since being a Creator is contingent.

There is not a before and after to creation, only the act of creation in timeless totality along with all His other actions.

Without that “act of creation”, whatever the timing, there is no Creator. There is a contingent relationship here.

Whether something is logically true is the thing we need to consider. While we cannot arrive at a perfect knowledge in this life, we do not have to.

For a Buddhist, “this life” is very similar to our next life and the life after that. We cannot arrive at absolute knowledge because we have no reliable sources of absolute knowledge.

I’m not limiting the power of God.

But you were claiming that He would never add a new eleventh commandment. How can you absolutely know that?

1. Perhaps the Amalekites were legitimately in the wrong and had to be punished to prevent their wrong from spreading.

How could an newborn baby spread those wrong views if its parents had been slaughtered before they were able to teach it anything?

1. Perhaps the women and children would have met a worse fate if they had been left all alone in the world with Israelite soldiers

You will kill babies and pregnant mothers on the basis of a “perhaps”? I am glad that I do not agree with you.

1. Perhaps the immorality of the Amalekites would have persisted if any were allowed to survive.

How? With all the adults dead, who would have taught immorality to the newborn babies? Even the Argentine Junta allowed pregnant mothers to give birth and then put the babies out for adoption to right-wing parents before killing the mothers. If the Argentine Junta could do it, why not your “loving and merciful” God?

1. Animals do not have souls, so their killing does not prevent a serious moral concern.

To a Buddhist is does, and it is me you are trying to convince.

As an experiment, go through the Old Testament and count every killing that God either orders or does directly. Then go through Buddhist scriptures and count every killing that the Buddha either orders or does directly. Who do you think would have the higher body count?

A Catholic can speak of universals and permanence.

You can speak of anything you want, but without real knowledge that speech is not worth a great deal. How can you know if something is permanent if you have not been around forever to check? Maybe it is only around for 500,000,000 million years and so is not permanent.

If I had asked a medieval Catholic he might have said that it was a universal that heretics should be burned. A modern Catholic would deny that burning heretics was ever a universal. Humans can make mistakes about what is and what is not universal. Would a medieval Catholic be expected to confess the sin of burning a heretic? Would a modern Catholic be expected to confess the sin of burning a heretic?

Given that human reason is temporary, on what basis can you say that what the Nazis did was wrong when they did it? What if your reasoning right now is fundamentally flawed?

On the basis of the laws of karma as currently operating. As I have said I do not need to know what moral rules may or may not apply in the far future, all I need to know is the moral rules that apply here and now.

Happy new year,

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

You have misunderstood the Buddhist approach to suffering. Your love for your girlfriend is an attachment that will lead to suffering when it ends, either by separation or death. Because it is impermanent it cannot be a permanent source of happiness. When the happiness comes to an end suffering results.

So nothing can be a permanent source of happiness and therefore fulfill desire permanently. Is not the Buddhist response to this an elimination of desire so that we do not feel the absence?

Then it would go against the initial premise of your statement, “everything is temporary”. Your question is unanswerable: suppose a triangle had four sides…

Precisely. Are you saying here that logic is some sort of governing principal that cannot change or contradict itself? Is it possible for logic to change to the point where we can have a triangle with four sides? If logic is some inviolable rule governing the universe, then there is at least one thing that does not change. If it can be violated and it can change, then there is no reason we could not have a 4-sided triangle in some situation.

God cannot claim the title “Creator” unless there is a creation that He created. No creation implies no creator. How can someone be a parent if they have no children? How can God be a creator if He has never created anything? If God is not contingent then God cannot be the Creator, since being a Creator is contingent.

God is our creator, but being a creator is no way implies contingency on a creation. I can create a work of art without being the slightest bit contingent on the art. My existence does not depend on my painting. My nature does not change because of the painting. I am a painter by choice, but I am not obligated to paint by nature and therefore my own nature and existence is not contingent on something I never had to do.

But you were claiming that He would never add a new eleventh commandment. How can you absolutely know that?

I don’t, but I am making a rational judgement that a wise God would not make such an arbitrary commandment without good reason. This is all about making rational judgments, which we do all the time. Suppose someone proposed that Santa and Buddha are actually the same being seen through different lenses. How seriously would you take that view? You can’t have absolutely certain knowledge, certainly, but you can still make a rational judgement.

How could an newborn baby spread those wrong views if its parents had been slaughtered before they were able to teach it anything?

No, I mean that the Amalekites may have done something to justify warfare on the part of the Israelites.

You will kill babies and pregnant mothers on the basis of a “perhaps”? I am glad that I do not agree with you.

I have a limited historical vision. God has a much wider vision and knows far more about the potential consequences of different actions than I do.

How? With all the adults dead, who would have taught immorality to the newborn babies? Even the Argentine Junta allowed pregnant mothers to give birth and then put the babies out for adoption to right-wing parents before killing the mothers. If the Argentine Junta could do it, why not your “loving and merciful” God?

Perhaps there was no way to care for the babies, even though there was a legitimate need to stop the transgressions of their parents. There are many possible situations here.

The point is that such killings in the Bible are historical examples and not moral commands. As such, the circumstances surrounding them and the proper appraisal of the historical conduct of various people can be very complicated. For example, I could truthfully tell you that the United States invaded Iraq, crushed its defenses, and killed thousands of innocent civilians during a massive occupation. That’s completely true, but to condemn the United States on that history alone would not do it justice. We know very few details about Biblical wars, so we should be very cautious in making broad assumptions about them.

 

[Sarpedon]

As an experiment, go through the Old Testament and count every killing that God either orders or does directly. Then go through Buddhist scriptures and count every killing that the Buddha either orders or does directly. Who do you think would have the higher body count?

Here’s a different example. Go throughout all of history and count up the number of people whose bodies have physically died. God is the ultimate reason we transition from this life to the next, that much is obvious. Now go through Buddhist history and count the number of people who have realized the illusions of their own humanity and lost their desires and personalities in the process.

You can speak of anything you want, but without real knowledge that speech is not worth a great deal. How can you know if something is permanent if you have not been around forever to check? Maybe it is only around for 500,000,000 million years and so is not permanent.

How do you know it is temporary? If you reply using an empirical maxim, remember that any maxim you use is temporary. Furthermore, we can only guess how long that maxim will hold based on other maxims that are temporary, and so on and so on. The Buddhist system of thought breaks down because there isn’t anything permanent to justify anything else on.

If I had asked a medieval Catholic he might have said that it was a universal that heretics should be burned. A modern Catholic would deny that burning heretics was ever a universal. Humans can make mistakes about what is and what is not universal. Would a medieval Catholic be expected to confess the sin of burning a heretic? Would a modern Catholic be expected to confess the sin of burning a heretic?

Yes, although God considers the degree of knowledge we have in this life. Actions done through ignorance can be excused given that they are not culpable for their ignorance. This is complex and I can explain more if you want.

Happy new year,

Same to you!

 

[Yggdrasil]

I mean actions in terms of using the will to pursue good. While contemplation and philosophy and both good and necessary, it is also necessary to put those things into practical action through good works.

Certainly. But whether they are Buddhists or Christians, contemplatives are still human. Do Buddhists spend their entire lives in the lotus position? The eightfold path compels good works.

This is about surrending your bad desires and retaining your good desires- namely desire for internal peace, desire for freedom from darkness, freedom from vain imaginations and freedom from wicked disturbances.

Indeed, but the author is unambiguous in insisting one must “die to self,” not merely to bad desires.

Between the self and the soul, we have the same distinction that Saint Paul made between the “outward man” and the “inward man”—of the inward man, the Apostle says it is “renewed.” The soul cannot renew itself; only by grace is it done. It is worth noting that most Christian contemplatives place a strong emphasis on the passivity of the soul. Union with God is not necessarily said to be attained by desire (for such a notion flirts with a kind of “spiritual greed”—as the Cloud author says, “the devil has his contemplatives as God has his”). Mystical union is absolutely a gift: something realized, not gotten. “Be still, and know that I am God.”

A Buddhist would not want to retain desires for even these things. Both Buddhism and Christianity seek the elimination of bad desires, but Buddhism goes one step further by seeking the elimination of “good” desires as well.

A total surrender of the will does not mean a total surrender of desire, for they are different faculties. A total surrender of the will means that you are directing all your actions towards God Who is love, which is the ultimate telos of man. At no point does such obedience to perfection negate the desire for perfection.

We can agree that the “desire for perfection” is never negated in Christianity. But in terms of mystical experience, “desire for perfection” is entirely consumed and dissolved in the union with the Godhead, which admits of no imperfection.

The Christian mystics are almost unanimous in insisting on the notion of “dying to self.” One must purge one’s self entirely of “I”. If there is no “self” or “I” in the equation, who or what may we suppose is doing the desiring? The obvious answer is the soul. But according to Saint John of the Cross, the soul is like a “log of wood that is continually assailed by the fire [of love].” In The Living Flame of Love, Saint John says of this fiery log:

The more intense the fire of union, the more vehemently does its flame issue forth. In the flame the acts of the will are united and rise upward, being carried away and absorbed in the flame of the Holy Spirit, as the angel rose upward to God in the flame of the sacrifice of Manue. In this state, therefore, the soul can perform no acts, but it is the Holy Spirit that moves it to perform them; wherefore all its acts are Divine, since it is impelled and moved to them by God.
The soul, in this state, is set so aflame with love that Saint John says it can “perform no acts” (presumably including the act of desiring). Thomas Merton concurs with this completely, saying that “the contemplative seeks to liberate his soul from all external control, to purify and detach it from material, sensual, and even spiritual compulsions, and to surrender it to the truth and creative freedom of the Holy Spirit.” So even desire is no longer—the difference is that for the Buddhist, desire is extinguished, whereas for the Christian it is fulfilled in union. The Christian mystics often take up the notion of kenosis (emptying) to illustrate the idea of self-abnegation.

 

[rossum]

So nothing can be a permanent source of happiness and therefore fulfill desire permanently. Is not the Buddhist response to this an elimination of desire so that we do not feel the absence?

The Buddhist response is that it is not sensible to expect permanent happiness from something impermanent. We need to change our expectations - enjoy it while it lasts and do not regret it once it has gone.

Are you saying here that logic is some sort of governing principal that cannot change or contradict itself?

I am merely referring to the context of your original question. I expect your question to be consistent within itself; since it was not self-consistent it was not a valid question.

Is it possible for logic to change to the point where we can have a triangle with four sides?

Nothing to do with logic, a triangle is defined as a three sided polygon. We can always redefine words if we want to, but then we are speaking Humpty Dumpty, not English.

God is our creator, but being a creator is no way implies contingency on a creation.

Complete rubbish. If there is no creation then how can there be a creator? Can I be a parent if I have never had any children? Can I be a composer if I have never written a note of music? A creator cannot be a creator unless He has actually created something.

I can create a work of art without being the slightest bit contingent on the art.

But your status as “artist” is contingent on the existence of that work of art. Without that work of art you are merely Sarpedon, with that work of art you are Sarpedon the artist. God may not require creation, but God the Creator does require creation.

My existence does not depend on my painting.

Agreed.

My nature does not change because of the painting.

I disagree. By acting to paint you have changed yourself. Of course I do not accept any internal unchanging ‘nature’.

I don’t, but I am making a rational judgement that a wise God would not make such an arbitrary commandment without good reason.

So you have the same problem as you assert that Buddhists have about changing morality in the future. Morality might change, and you cannot be sure that it will not. You have made a personal judgement, but you cannot be certain that your personal judgement is correct.

No, I mean that the Amalekites may have done something to justify warfare on the part of the Israelites.

In my question in post #162 I carefully omitted the adult Amalekites. It is perfectly possible that all of the adult Amalekites deserved death for their actions. I asked “What had the infants, sucklings, oxen, sheep, camels and done that deserved death?” Are infants and sucklings capable of committing a capital offence?

The point is that such killings in the Bible are historical examples and not moral commands.

Some of the killings are indeed just history, but in the case of the Amalekites we read: “Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel …” This is not history, this is God speaking directly and ordering genocide.

Here’s a different example. Go throughout all of history and count up the number of people whose bodies have physically died. God is the ultimate reason we transition from this life to the next, that much is obvious. Now go through Buddhist history and count the number of people who have realized the illusions of their own humanity and lost their desires and personalities in the process.

I note that you do not answer my question about the respective body counts. To help you I am aware of a body count of one in the Buddhist scriptures, it comes in the Suvarnaprabhasa sutra. There may be a few more, there are many sutras I have not read.

We are losing desires and personalities all through our lives. When I was young I desired certain toys; now I no longer desire those toys and I am not even dead yet. When I was young my personality was not what it is now. I went through a monosyllabic phase as a teenager, that personality is now gone. Both desires and personalities are impermanent so we are constantly losing old ones and gaining new ones.

The Buddhist system of thought breaks down because there isn’t anything permanent to justify anything else on.

Why? Buddhism explicitly states that Buddhism is temporary - it will disappear from earth. There is no problem with a temporary justification for a temporary system of thought. After Buddhism has disappeared the Maitreya Buddha will be born and will re-found Buddhism, temporarily. The process will repeat. Each Buddhism will be adjusted for its particular time and place. We can see that the Buddhisms of Tibet, Japan and Sri Lanka are all different; just so the future Buddhism of Maitreya will be different again.

Yes, although God considers the degree of knowledge we have in this life. Actions done through ignorance can be excused given that they are not culpable for their ignorance.

My point was not about culpability, my point was that in medieval times Christians would sincerely have believed that burning heretics was one of the universal unchanging laws, while contemporary Christians do not. Since I only have contemporary Christians to talk to I have no assurance that what they assure me now are universal and unchanging laws are actually so or if they are sincerely mistaken. I have no guaranteed error-free way of determining what your supposed universals actually are.

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

Indeed, but the author is unambiguous in insisting one must “die to self,” not merely to bad desires.

We can agree that the “desire for perfection” is never negated in Christianity. But in terms of mystical experience, “desire for perfection” is entirely consumed and dissolved in the union with the Godhead, which admits of no imperfection.

The Godhead is perfect, so I don’t see how desire to be in union with the Godhead does not involve a desire for the perfection of the Godhead. If you mean a union with the Godhead where you become one with the Godhead, that is not in line with orthodoxy. Catholicism is clear on the distinction between creator and creation, and that love is an intimacy between beings, not the dissolution of all beings into one being or anything like that.

The soul, in this state, is set so aflame with love that Saint John says it can “perform no acts” (presumably including the act of desiring). Thomas Merton concurs with this completely, saying that “the contemplative seeks to liberate his soul from all external control, to purify and detach it from material, sensual, and even spiritual compulsions, and to surrender it to the truth and creative freedom of the Holy Spirit.” So even desire is no longer—the difference is that for the Buddhist, desire is extinguished, whereas for the Christian it is fulfilled in union. The Christian mystics often take up the notion of kenosis (emptying) to illustrate the idea of self-abnegation.

Ultimately the experiences and views of the mystics are not part of the deposit of faith and therefore are not a part of the universal revelation of God. I’m not saying that they are necessarily wrong, but it’s not as though mystics and mystical saints are infallible. Honestly I would have to study their writings more to judge them in relation to the deposit of faith, but the fundamental distinction between Christianity and Buddhism (and why Buddhist practices are not compatible with Christianity) is part of the deposit of faith.

 

[Sarpedon]

Nothing to do with logic, a triangle is defined as a three sided polygon. We can always redefine words if we want to, but then we are speaking Humpty Dumpty, not English.

Here you are making the logical claim that physical laws define words. I am asking whether those physical laws themselves can change. Is it possible for the structure of the universe to change to the point where a truly four sided triangle can exist? Is yes, then logic is pretty much out the window. If such a thing cannot happen, then we have a universal.

Complete rubbish. If there is no creation then how can there be a creator? Can I be a parent if I have never had any children? Can I be a composer if I have never written a note of music? A creator cannot be a creator unless He has actually created something.

“Creator” is a term, not an essence. God is not a creator by essence, only choice. We call Him a creator since He created us, but He did not have to do so. God is not contingent on us, and He is not contingent on us calling Him “creator.”

But your status as “artist” is contingent on the existence of that work of art. Without that work of art you are merely Sarpedon, with that work of art you are Sarpedon the artist. God may not require creation, but God the Creator does require creation.

Right, but “artist” is only a term describing someone who chooses to do something they do not have to. I am human by nature, which I did not choose, but I am an artist by choice, which I did choose. .

So you have the same problem as you assert that Buddhists have about changing morality in the future. Morality might change, and you cannot be sure that it will not. You have made a personal judgement, but you cannot be certain that your personal judgement is correct.

I make the judgement about a system, and you make a judgement about a system. These judgements both involve a degree of uncertainty, and we are on equal footing here. The difference is that I judge a system that allows internal certainty, while you judge a system that does not allow internal certainty. I may be wrong in my initial judgement about the system, but within the system I can have certainty. You may be wrong in your intial judgement about the system, but in addition you lack certainty within your system. You are double deep in uncertainty becuase you judge a system that does not allow internal certainty.

 

[Fran65]

Yggdrasil,

Are you aware that Thomas Merton was very interetsed in Buddhism, regularly met with Buddhists and read a great deal of Buddhist writing? Of course his mysticism will be influenced by Buddhist concepts and practice - he sought interfaith dailogue between the two traditions.

His example therefor demonstrates influence, not similarity! Whole different thread there.

 

[Sarpedon]

In my question in post #162 I carefully omitted the adult Amalekites. It is perfectly possible that all of the adult Amalekites deserved death for their actions. I asked “What had the infants, sucklings, oxen, sheep, camels and done that deserved death?” Are infants and sucklings capable of committing a capital offence?

The adults may have deserved death, and there may not have been a way to care for the babies in their absence. Therefore, the babies may have been pragmatically put to death as the unfortunate collateral victims of the Amalekites’ immorality. Animals have no souls so they could have been killed simply as food.

Some of the killings are indeed just history, but in the case of the Amalekites we read: “Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel …” This is not history, this is God speaking directly and ordering genocide.

“Genocide” refers to killing mass numbers of people on race alone, We should not make the assumption that the enemy nations in the Bible were morally innocent, just as we should not assume the Iraqi government was morally innocent.

I note that you do not answer my question about the respective body counts. To help you I am aware of a body count of one in the Buddhist scriptures, it comes in the Suvarnaprabhasa sutra. There may be a few more, there are many sutras I have not read.

I did not answer it directly because it is not a fair question. The body count of Catholicism involves every person who has ever died. God causes everyone to die at some point as the transition into new life. Some He calls sooner, some later. There is nothing shocking here.

We are losing desires and personalities all through our lives. When I was young I desired certain toys; now I no longer desire those toys and I am not even dead yet. When I was young my personality was not what it is now. I went through a monosyllabic phase as a teenager, that personality is now gone. Both desires and personalities are impermanent so we are constantly losing old ones and gaining new ones.

But there are still certain things that define us as make us human. For example, healthy people rarely change from extroversion to introversion. While our personality does change to some extent, it is nevertheless rooted in our individual nature which does not change. Again, this boils down to universals. The fact remains that Buddhism seeks the annihilation of individual personality and desire.

 

[Sarpedon]

Why? Buddhism explicitly states that Buddhism is temporary - it will disappear from earth. There is no problem with a temporary justification for a temporary system of thought. After Buddhism has disappeared the Maitreya Buddha will be born and will re-found Buddhism, temporarily. The process will repeat. Each Buddhism will be adjusted for its particular time and place. We can see that the Buddhisms of Tibet, Japan and Sri Lanka are all different; just so the future Buddhism of Maitreya will be different again.

You say that Maitreya Buddha will appear, but based on temporary knowledge you have right now. You have no way to know whether that knowledge will apply in the future, so you cannot know whether Maitreya Buddha will actually come at a future time.

It is absolutely crucial that any method of aquiring knowledge transcend place and time. For example, it does us little good to observe that gravity applies now if we do not know whether it will apply next year. It does us little good to consider the Maitreya Buddha if we have no way to know whether our current knowledge will still apply then.

A temporary justification means that we can only use it for as long as it applies. Split time up into the smallest possible units and consider how you can know whether that justification will apply at the next future unit. If a certain justification is only reliable in the here and now, then we can know nothing about the future. A large part of knowledge is knowing the future nature of things so we can order our life appropriately.

My point was not about culpability, my point was that in medieval times Christians would sincerely have believed that burning heretics was one of the universal unchanging laws, while contemporary Christians do not. Since I only have contemporary Christians to talk to I have no assurance that what they assure me now are universal and unchanging laws are actually so or if they are sincerely mistaken. I have no guaranteed error-free way of determining what your supposed universals actually are.

The Church acts the voice of God that proclaims the universals, even if different people do not listen to her (happens quite often, unfortunately). For an explanation of this, and what teachings constitute the infallible revelation of the universals, look at this link:

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

“It is only in connection with doctrinal authority as such that, practically speaking, this question of infallibility arises; that is to say, when we speak of the Church’s infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility. We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church’s teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility. Such consent indeed, when it can be verified as apart, is of the highest value as a proof of what has been, or may be, defined by the teaching authority, but, except in so far as it is thus the subjective counterpart and complement of objective authoritative teaching, it cannot be said to possess an absolutely decisive dogmatic value. It will be best therefore to confine our attention to active infallibility as such, as by so doing we shall avoid the confusion which is the sole basis of many of the objections that are most persistently and most plausibly urged against the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility.”

 

[rossum]

Here you are making the logical claim that physical laws define words.

I am making no such claim. I am talking about the question you asked and how it changed the definition half way through the question. That is all.

“Creator” is a term, not an essence. God is not a creator by essence, only choice. We call Him a creator since He created us, but He did not have to do so. God is not contingent on us, and He is not contingent on us calling Him “creator.”

Then the ‘Creator’ is separate from the essence of God and we are back to a God separate from a Creator. God may not be contingent, but then He cannot be the Creator.

The difference is that I judge a system that allows internal certainty, while you judge a system that does not allow internal certainty.

How does your system allow internal certainty. If your God can act, and you claim that He can, then you have no certainty about what God may do, for His own reasons, at any time in the future. You can only have certainty if your God is incapable of acting.

The adults may have deserved death, and there may not have been a way to care for the babies in their absence.

Very weak. This is an omnipotent loving God you are talking about here - can He really find no way, using His omnipotent power, to keep those babies alive long enough for the Israelites to look after them normally? Is he incapable of performing miracles?

“Genocide” refers to killing mass numbers of people on race alone, We should not make the assumption that the enemy nations in the Bible were morally innocent, just as we should not assume the Iraqi government was morally innocent.

That is my point. The young children, babies and sucklings were killed on the basis of race alone - they were too young to be guilty of anything. That fits the description of genocide.

But there are still certain things that define us as make us human. For example, healthy people rarely change from extroversion to introversion.

You said “rarely” so you are not talking about an unchangeable here - this is something rare but not impossible. You cannot argue for an absolute in this way. Even if you found something that had never been observed we are back to the problem of black swans. We can only know what has been observed; we have no knowledge of what has not been observed.

While our personality does change to some extent, it is nevertheless rooted in our individual nature which does not change. Again, this boils down to universals.

That is indeed where the bulk of our disagreement seems to be.

You say that Maitreya Buddha will appear, but based on temporary knowledge you have right now. You have no way to know whether that knowledge will apply in the future, so you cannot know whether Maitreya Buddha will actually come at a future time.

You say that Jesus will return, but based on temporary knowledge you have right now. You have no way to know whether that knowledge will apply in the future, so you cannot know whether Jesus will actually return at a future time.

For example, it does us little good to observe that gravity applies now if we do not know whether it will apply next year.

How so? It allows us to build a temporary bridge that will stand for a year. Temporary knowledge is useful. Is it useful knowing that the President of the United States is Barack Obama? That is temporary knowledge.

A temporary justification means that we can only use it for as long as it applies.

Yes. While Buddhism works for me I will continue to use it. Buddhists ‘really are happier’.

The Church acts the voice of God that proclaims the universals, even if different people do not listen to her (happens quite often, unfortunately).

The Eastern Orthodox Church also proclaims some slightly different universals. The Al Azhar Mosque proclaims some significantly different universals. A lot of groups proclaim many different universals. What absolute way do we have to tell between them?

All I claim for Buddhism is that it works for me here and now. It may change, I may change but for the moment it suits me. My approach has change, and the possibility of change built in. To me your approach seems very rigid, denying the obvious presence of change in the world.

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

I am making no such claim. I am talking about the question you asked and how it changed the definition half way through the question. That is all.

Is that a problem from your perspective?

Then the ‘Creator’ is separate from the essence of God and we are back to a God separate from a Creator. God may not be contingent, but then He cannot be the Creator.

Exactly, but He can be a creator by choice, which is not the same as essence. He can be self-existent by nature but creator by choice, which does not make His nature contingent on creation. His description as a creator is indeed contingent on creation, but that description does not have to be.

How does your system allow internal certainty. If your God can act, and you claim that He can, then you have no certainty about what God may do, for His own reasons, at any time in the future. You can only have certainty if your God is incapable of acting.

Reason corresponds to God, and human beings are by nature capable of using reason correctly. Therefore, we can know the future insofar as those things are predictable by reason. It is true that we cannot know every reasonable thing that God can do, but what we can know we can know with a high degree of certainty. This is quite a lot, and certainly sufficient for making pragmatic decisions.

The Catholic system judges that human reason is reliable and capable of knowing universal truths. That judgement allows Catholics to seek internal certainty. In you system, reason is not viewed as being reliable in that way. Therefore, you cannot seek a similar degree of certainty within your internal system. It’s a difference between judging that human reason is reliable and judging that human reason is not reliable.

Very weak. This is an omnipotent loving God you are talking about here - can He really find no way, using His omnipotent power, to keep those babies alive long enough for the Israelites to look after them normally? Is he incapable of performing miracles?

He is capable of performing miracles, but the ultimate end of such miracles is not to simply preserve life. There are any number of reasons why allowing the children of the Amalekites to survive would have led to worse problems, and we don’t have the whole picture. I know that this seems like a weak argument, but the fundamental fact is that this whole affair is history and not philosophy that we can evaluate using reason alone. We can evaluate the epistemology of Catholicism or Buddhism using just our brains. Nothing else is needed. In contrast, the examination of history relies on historical records and contextual analysis, both of which can be lacking. We don’t know the whole story of the isolated incident, but we know that whatever went on in that incident only applied to the incident itself and does not carry over to other situations.

That is my point. The young children, babies and sucklings were killed on the basis of race alone - they were too young to be guilty of anything. That fits the description of genocide.

They were killed at the command of God, and you do not know that God’s decision to kill them was based on race.

You said “rarely” so you are not talking about an unchangeable here - this is something rare but not impossible. You cannot argue for an absolute in this way. Even if you found something that had never been observed we are back to the problem of black swans. We can only know what has been observed; we have no knowledge of what has not been observed.

The fundamental point is that due to universals, Catholicism can value both the universal and the particular. Even though personality can change, we nevertheless have the backbone of human nature behind it which does not change. This allows us to appreciate the transient nature of our personalities, since we also have to universal behind it to back up such an appreciation. Whereas Buddhism rejects everything as being incapable of fulfilling us ultimately, Catholicism accepts that the universals can fullfill us ultimately while the particular can fulfill us particularly. This allows a dual appreciation of both the universal and particular. In contrast, Buddhism does not accept universals and therefore says that the particular can only fullfil us particularly, which will not ultimately satisfy us. Spiritual euthanasia of our self-perception is then proposed as the way to escape this lack of fulfillment. This is why the Catholic can appreciate the particular satisfaction from the particular in a full sense and the Buddhist cannot.

 

[Sarpedon]

You say that Jesus will return, but based on temporary knowledge you have right now. You have no way to know whether that knowledge will apply in the future, so you cannot know whether Jesus will actually return at a future time.

My knowledge is based on human reason, which in of itself is a universal.

It is true that I may be unreasonable in my thought, perhaps due to vice. Neverthless, this is not the same as your uncertainty. I may be uncertain whether I am reasonable, but reason itself is reliable as per the operational judgement I make initially. This allows me to pursue certain reason as an actual goal. In contrast, you do not accept that reason itself is intrinsically reliable. Even if you are perfectly reasonable, you still do not know that such reason is reliable as per your intial operation judgement. This means that you cannot pursue reason as a means to certain knowledge. I may wonder whether I am reasonable, but you wonder whether a reasonable person actually knows anything. Your position leads further away from knowledge than mine does.

How so? It allows us to build a temporary bridge that will stand for a year. Temporary knowledge is useful. Is it useful knowing that the President of the United States is Barack Obama? That is temporary knowledge.

But it is knowledge based on reason, which is undercut by the complete transient nature of things. You may “know” that Obama is the president, but your knowledge is based on your reason and your perception, which is in turn based on other things, which is in turn based on further things, and so on and so on. Since everything is temporary, you cannot have a foundation point to base knowledge on.

You can say “I know Obama is president right now.” I can say “How do you know that your perception of that is reliable?” You can say “Because to say otherwise would be a contradiction.” I can then say “How do you know that the law of non-contradiction applies?” We can keep going on and on. Since everything is temporary, there is no way to justify any knowledge in terms of anything else and end this progression. I suppose temporary knowledge could of limited use, but you can’t even have temporary knowledge because you can’t frame your epistemology in terms of any actual, certainly real ability to know.

Furthermore, you have not addressed my thought experiment. Divide time up into the smallest possible units, and how do you know that your temporary “knowledge” you have now will apply at the next time unit?

Yes. While Buddhism works for me I will continue to use it. Buddhists ‘really are happier’

There is a difference between saying “meditation leads to calmness” and saying “Meditation leads to calmness, and Maitreya Buddha will eventually come, and everything is temporary (including this study), and there are intermediate heavens and hells, and the only way to escape suffering ultimately is to ultimately eliminate all desire.”

All your link supports is that meditation promotes brain health. An atheist can physiologically meditate without accepting all the rest of Buddhism.

The Eastern Orthodox Church also proclaims some slightly different universals. The Al Azhar Mosque proclaims some significantly different universals. A lot of groups proclaim many different universals. What absolute way do we have to tell between them?

Human reason itself can evaluate the legitimacy of each claim. For example, Islam lacks any central dogmatic authority to reveal the will of Allah, which leads to massive ambigouity over the meaning of the Koran. Reason tells me that a wise God would not use such an ineffective method to communicate knowledge of the universals. Same goes for Protestantism.

The Catholic Church has the structure necessary to effectively communicate the universals accurately. The Orthodox Church does have a structure for communicating such knowledge, but it is weaker than in Catholicism. Furthermore, the historical record shows that they separated from the Catholic Church rather than the other way around, which lends credence to the Catholic Church’s claim to be founded by Jesus. In addition, the historical record of Catholicism goes back to a few centuries after Christ, closer than any other Christian Church. These are only a few examples of the application of reason to find the true revelation of the universals.

All I claim for Buddhism is that it works for me here and now. It may change, I may change but for the moment it suits me. My approach has change, and the possibility of change built in. To me your approach seems very rigid, denying the obvious presence of change in the world.

Does meditation work for you, or do all the other aspects of Buddhism play an equally important role?

 

[soma]

I feel meditation can help and make us better, happier people and Catholics. . I like the zen story of the professor who visited the zen master. The master poured him tea, but didn’t stop pouring, just kept pouring until the cup overflowed. The professor objected and responded to the master’s actions. The master said, “The cup can’t take any more it is full. In the same way there is nothing I can teach you until you are empty.”

Meditation is a way to empty our mind so we can go to the altar of our soul. There are people wandering around in the dark yelling religious slogans about the light, but they only know definitions. They don’t know the value or experience of the light. Meditation is one way to gain spiritual experience.

It seems you have a firm grasp of Christian and Catholic fundamentals of the Truth so you see the Truth in other disciplines as well. You are blessed, may the Truth guide you on your journey as Christ walks with you.

 

[rossum]

Is that a problem from your perspective?

Yes it is a problem. Essentially your question read: “Given that X is always changing, what happens if X stops changing.” That question is not answerable.

Exactly, but He can be a creator by choice, which is not the same as essence.

We are agreed. The essence of God does not include the Creator. The Creator is separate from God. God is separate from the Creator.

Reason corresponds to God, and human beings are by nature capable of using reason correctly.

And they are also capable of using reason incorrectly. There in no guarantee that any particular piece of human reasoning is correct. Your reasoning tells you that God will not change moral law. You reasoning may not be correct.

The Catholic system judges that human reason is reliable and capable of knowing universal truths.

We can know truths, we can never be certain that any of the truths we know are universal. All our sources of knowledge are contingent so we can never be certain.

They were killed at the command of God, and you do not know that God’s decision to kill them was based on race.

They had committed exactly as many crimes as the Israelite babies yet only the Amalekite babies were killed and the Israelite babies left alive. How am I not to think that the decision was based on race?

My knowledge is based on human reason, which in of itself is a universal.

How can human reason be a universal if there was a time when it did not exist? There was no human reason before the origin of the human race. Further, human reason can err, so it is not a sound basis for declaring the existence of a universal.

But it is knowledge based on reason, which is undercut by the complete transient nature of things.

Do you still claim that human reason is not transient?

You may “know” that Obama is the president, but your knowledge is based on your reason and your perception, which is in turn based on other things, which is in turn based on further things, and so on and so on. Since everything is temporary, you cannot have a foundation point to base knowledge on.

Do you deny that Obama is President? Do you deny that Obama will no longer be President eight years from now? Transient things can be both true and useful.

Furthermore, you have not addressed my thought experiment. Divide time up into the smallest possible units, and how do you know that your temporary “knowledge” you have now will apply at the next time unit?

Cause and effect. Future time units have their causes in past time units. I observe you today so I know that at some time in the past you were born, even though I was not present. I know that at some time in the future we will both die. All of that is derivable from cause and effect.

All your link supports is that meditation promotes brain health. An atheist can physiologically meditate without accepting all the rest of Buddhism.

Agreed. Buddhism has spent a long time assembling a large collection of effective techniques. There is a virtue called upaya, skilful means, whereby Buddhas and Bodhisattvas teach what is appropriate to each listener. Buddhist upaya has resulted in many effective techniques.

For example, Islam lacks any central dogmatic authority to reveal the will of Allah, which leads to massive ambigouity over the meaning of the Koran. Reason tells me that a wise God would not use such an ineffective method to communicate knowledge of the universals. Same goes for Protestantism.

I notice how you carefully treat Islam as a single religion, while Christianity, to which your remarks equally apply, is reduced to “Protestantism”.

The Catholic Church has the structure necessary to effectively communicate the universals accurately.

It is run by humans who can make mistakes. How can we rely on it? Humans make mistakes, and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is not immune.

Furthermore, the historical record shows that they separated from the Catholic Church rather than the other way around,

You will get a lot of argument about that from your Eastern bretheren. From what I have seen the “filioque” was added by the West after the Council of Toledo; it was never agreed by the East.

In addition, the historical record of Catholicism goes back to a few centuries after Christ, closer than any other Christian Church.

As do the records of the Eastern Church. Your rhetoric is carrying you to far here. The Eastern and Western Churches were the same Church up until 1054. In 1053 the Pope and the Patriarch recognised each other as members of the same church, albeit with some disagreements.

Does meditation work for you, or do all the other aspects of Buddhism play an equally important role?

Morality and charity are important as a base from which to build. Meditation works for me, though I only use simple meditations; I tried some of the more complex Tibetan methods of visualisation but they did not work for me. Mindfulness of Breathing and Observation of Feelings are my main methods.

rossum

 

[Yggdrasil]

Yggdrasil,

Are you aware that Thomas Merton was very interetsed in Buddhism, regularly met with Buddhists and read a great deal of Buddhist writing? Of course his mysticism will be influenced by Buddhist concepts and practice - he sought interfaith dailogue between the two traditions.

His example therefor demonstrates influence, not similarity! Whole different thread there.

Greetings, Fran.

I’m aware of Fr. Merton’s keen interest in Buddhism, but I don’t think I can agree that his understanding of mysticism was “influenced by Buddhist concepts and practice.” Merton was a Catholic first and foremost, and his knowledge of Christian mysticism was virtually nonpareil among 20th century writers. It was only after he was already a Trappist monk that he began studying comparative mysticism in depth, and he was struck by the particular similarities (among the obvious external differences) shared by the contemplative traditions in the East and the West. It’s not so much influence as it is an honest admission of commonality.

Surely the Merton passage that I quoted in my post to Sarpedon doesn’t misrepresent Christian mysticism or the contemplative scheme. Do you think it does?

The contemplative seeks to liberate his soul from all external control, to purify and detach it from material, sensual, and even spiritual compulsions, and to surrender it to the truth and creative freedom of the Holy Spirit.