Much ado about nothingness.

[Lissla_Lissar]

Thank you for answering my questions. One more quick one: if everything, including moral law, is changeful, is the cyclic nature of the universe also changeful? Or is that the sort of question which doesn’t make sense in Buddhism?

I find the contrast between Eastern and Western philosophies and religions very interesting- it seem to me that Eastern ones are inward-looking and concerned with knowledge only as it pertains to one’s immediate situation; Western ones are outward-looking, and concerned with all knowledge.

 

[Ahimsa]

Lissla Lissar:

Thank you for answering my questions. One more quick one: if everything, including moral law, is changeful, is the cyclic nature of the universe also changeful? Or is that the sort of question which doesn’t make sense in Buddhism?

Buddhism doesn’t posit the idea that the moral law changes – and by ‘moral law’ I mean the notion that one should engage in what is good, abandon what is deleterious, and develop one’s spirit. That sort of moral law will be true forever.

Likewise, the truths that the Buddha discovered – that all things change, that ordinary human life is ultimately unsatisfactory because of selfish attachment, and that there is nothing you can really and truly call “I” or “mine” – were true before Gautama lived and will be true for all time.

 

[rossum]

FelixBlue:

I have much respect for Buddhism and have done a fair amount of reading. Personally, though, I have never been able to remotely accept the Buddhist cosmology (as you have partially indicated above). Do you personally accept it? (I know, by the way, that one is not required to accept it to be Buddhist…but I’m just curious.)

I only accept specific points from Buddhist cosmology. Primarily the existence of planetary systems round other stars and the existence of life, and Buddhas, on some of those other planets. The heavens and hells I see as mental states rather than physical places. Mount Meru and the rest of the geography are just the particular beliefs of ancient North India and do not reflect scientific reality. The Buddha was always practical, concentrating on the attainment of peace, happiness and nirvana. Cosmology was irrelevant so he didn’t really bother with it, as indicated in the Malunkyaputta sutta I quoted in post #18.

UnknownCloud:

Christianity and Buddhism embrace many things together. But as you pointed out (by inferrence), Christianity establishes ‘absolutes’ about realities that we have not or even cannot experience - which places us on a razor’s edge - should they be accepted or not? There is no middle ground.

One of the things that irritates me about Christianity is the tendancy to make dogmatic statements about irrelevancies, thus creating needless arguments about things that are not essential for salvation. The Indian religions in general, and Buddhism in particular, are much more laid back about irrelevant details and generally concentrate more on the essentials. For example the in Bhagavad Gita, a Hindu scripture, Krishna says:

To this or that form devotees
present their worship having faith,
yet I myself will allocate
to everyone unswerving faith.

And disciplined with such a faith,
when seeking his desires to gain
whatever he propitiate
that is what I myself ordain. (Bhagavad Gita 7:21-22)

Krishna does not mind which god (form) you worship, he will hear your prayers and answer them anyway. All to often Christianity uses different beliefs as a reason to exclude. I am much happier with the Indian idea that the external forms of God are irrelevant and different beliefs are generally included rather than excluded. (You can insert the story of the Blind Men and the Elephant here.)

rossum

 

[UnknownCloud]

rossum, you are headed into dangerous territory now. You have no real reason at all to be ‘irritated’ at Christianity. Since you accept that the universe is too vast for our complete apprehension, that always leaves the possibility for higher and higher knowledge.

You may say that certain doctines of Christianity are not relevent, but how would you actually know that? You couldn’t unless you investigated them as intently as you do Hinduism or other scriptures.

I’m really not impressed with your understanding of Christianity rossum, and I don’t mean that as an insult, I only mean to point out that you’re showing an unnecessary prejudice by your contrast. The doctrine of the Trinity for example, is probably the most complex, most stunningly beautiful revelation I have ever studied and contemplated. Meditating on this doctrine alone has enriched my entire outlook on life…how could such a thing be ‘irrelevent’? If it ‘enlightens’ me to the point of accepting sacrifices I used to reject and become much more harmonious with dealing with others, where is the loss?

Living a Christian life is a very practical and realistic life. I already know such a statement causes opponents to fume with emotion - but I have experienced it, and this is my impression.

 

[rossum]

UnknownCloud:

rossum, you are headed into dangerous territory now. You have no real reason at all to be ‘irritated’ at Christianity.

My apologies for not making myself clearer, I was not criticising all of Christian doctrine, just those apparently minor points that seem to crop up at different places, often in doctrinal disputes.

You may say that certain doctines of Christianity are not relevent, but how would you actually know that? You couldn’t unless you investigated them as intently as you do Hinduism or other scriptures.

The kind of thing I meant when I talked about “irrelevancies” were:

• The original “iota of difference” between homoousion and homoiousion at the Council of Nicaea.
• The argument in 1054 over the use of leavened or unleavened bread at the Eucharist which was part of the split between the Eastern and Western churches.
• The argument between the Russian Orthodox and the Old Believers about whether to use two fingers or three fingers when making the sign of the cross.

The doctrine of the Trinity for example, is probably the most complex, most stunningly beautiful revelation I have ever studied and contemplated.

The Trinity is obviously not irrelevant to Christianity; my fault for not expressing myself more clearly.

Living a Christian life is a very practical and realistic life. I already know such a statement causes opponents to fume with emotion - but I have experienced it, and this is my impression.

Of course Christianity is practical and realistic. No belief which spreads to have worldwide influence, such as Christianity, is impractical, unrealistic or lacking in underlying truth. All of the major world religions have large elements of practicality, realism and truth in them. If they didn’t then they would not have spread to become major world religions.

rossum

 

[UnknownCloud]

On that note, I would have to agree. Every major division in Christianity seems to be over things quite irrelevent if not miscommunicated, at least on a doctrinal level. But it’s common to see this type of arguing in any social structure. I’m suddenly reminded of the Buddhists sects in Japan that had very similar ‘differences in approach’ that often led to division (Zen, Shinto, Omata, etc). Politics of course, like in Christianity, seemed to be a very relevent factor in instigation as well.

 

[RobedWithLight]

Ahimsa:

What do you mean by “compatible”? You mean Buddhists and Christians can’t live in the same town? Or that they can’t visit each others’ communities? Or that if Jesus and Buddha met they would have duked it out? Or that you can’t synthesize the two traditions?

While a comparison of the teachings of the two religions is a very broad topic to discuss in this thread, your last statement [which I highlighted] is what I was referring to. Buddhism and Christianity simply cannot be synthesized without diluting or watering down Christianity. How would for instance, the teaching on the Resurrection be reconciled with Reincarnation? Even if that were possible, what would be produced would neither be one or the other. I really doubt if Catholics here would even accept such an unrecognizable creature.

Gerry

 

[Ahimsa]

RobedWithLight:

While a comparison of the teachings of the two religions is a very broad topic to discuss in this thread, your last statement [which I highlighted] is what I was referring to. Buddhism and Christianity simply cannot be synthesized without diluting or watering down Christianity. How would for instance, the teaching on the Resurrection be reconciled with Reincarnation? Even if that were possible, what would be produced would neither be one or the other. I really doubt if Catholics here would even accept such an unrecognizable creature.

Gerry

Well, I agree that it doesn’t make much sense to synthesize the two. Buddhists have enough of a hard time being Buddhists, and Christians being Christians, without having to be both at the same time.

 

[Cherubino]

Explaining the Zen mind in denotative terms is sort of like trying to cut water with a knife. It’s about being able access that ephemeral and tacit dimension of the mind that’s behind your word-by-word stream of consciousness and stay there a while. No one is a stranger to this, though it’s an exercise in which organized religion not only places little or no value, and some Catholic teaching actually denounces it as dangerous.

But imagine this. It’s late afternoon and you suddenly become aware of a low angled sunbeam lighting up a previosly dark corner of the room, and you simultaneously become aware for the first time all day of the clock ticking on the mantel and find yourself inexplicably at peace. Or let’s say you’re walking along on a busy sidewalk when a fold of rich cloth in a shop window catches your eye and reminds you of something you just can’t put your finger on, but for some reason you recognize it and for a few seconds you feel acutely homesick and puzzled why.

That “something” is the tacit dimension of your mind, and when you become open to it, life takes on another dimension too. The “enlightenment” is literally like shining a flashlight into a dark corner, and then you simply see things as they are, not as nouns and verbs in a sentence. Thomas Merton spoke of this in Christian metaphors quite eloquently when he wrote, “Words stand between silence and silence: between the silence of things and the silence of our own being. Between the silence of the world and the silence of God. When we have really met and known the world in silence, words do not separate us from the world nor form other men, nor from God, nor from ourselves because we no longer trust entirely in language to contain reality.” Nevertheless, Christianity relies almost entirely on a denotative vocabulary for its articulation, and even when a rare theologian might say he agrees with Merton in principle, what he’ll ususally do next is start explaining it in concrete terms-- to which a Zen master can only reply, “Arrrggghhh!!!”

 

[Ahimsa]

Interesting excerpt from an interview with a Zen Catholic who spent some time in Japan practicing Zen:

33.31. Q: How can we relate our mystical tradition to this other tradition which is so similar and yet doesn’t always seem to coincide?
Zen Catholic: I met a Japanese Sunday School teacher in the early 70s who became a good family friend. She shared with me aspects of her own faith journey and how she was helped by a lot of missionaries who came from the West. She said that if she was with these missionaries looking at a sunset, they would always say, "Ah, what a beautiful sunset. Thanks be to God who created that sunset." But for us, she said, that second sentence is entirely redundant. While we are there beholding the beauty of the sunset, that already speaks to us of that dimension, and we don’t have to verbalize it, and when we do verbalize it, it somehow cheapens that reality that we are experiencing. So maybe that’s the difference between the Japanese intuitive approach to reality, and a Western approach that has to verbalize certain things in that way. Otherwise it is not satisfied with the way things are. From a different context, the very act of verbalization somehow puts the awareness on a different level, so just to be able to stand and behold the sunset together, then perhaps have some tea together, and just be basking in that presence. To say, "Now I am in the presence of God" already puts the awareness on a second level of reflection that separates you from that primal experience. Words in many ways can be masks for things that are not clear in us, so we use words to muddle up things. We have to try to continue purifying our experience. For example, when we look at a flower, the very next moment when we are able to say, "I am looking at a flower," we are no longer looking at the flower. We have to continue to treasure those precious moments when we are really looking at the flower."

 

[UnknownCloud]

Oh I couldn’t agree more. Even though I am a lover of theology, I am a much greater lover of silence. Christian doctrine is not the end of Christianity, Christ is…truth is not a set of principles or a ruler (canon) or a mountain of doctrines…truth is a person. Christian doctrine is to Christianity as Discipline is to Zen…they are ‘footholds’ for our mind and body. But I have to take it further and say that Doctrine is revealed truth and that if it wasn’t, Christianity wouldn’t mean much at all. If I were ever somehow convinced that Christianity was simply made up, even with ‘good intentions’ to guide one in wisdom - I wouldn’t be Christian.
Westerners love language and the ability to explain. But Christianity really doesn’t depend on Doctrinal Theology and Catechism and etc…all these things are for us idiots who live in a barbaric and cruel culture, amost void of real appreaciation for beauty and silence.
But so many saints and even theologians have reminded us that the end of doctrine is ‘silence of the mind’…and the begining of living with your heart.
I truly admire Zen and Eastern thought. As far as I’m concerned, their westernization (economic assimilation) is destroying probably the most advanced form of human culture ever…it is very sad.

 

[Vimalakirti]

As I quoted above, all compound things are impermanent so eternal life is not possible in Buddhism. Even if it were possible, it would not be desirable - the ocean of tears would just be even larger.

–I’m a reader not a practitioner so in that sense lacking in all credibiltity. But I have read a lot in Buddhism over the years and I commend the good job you’ve done here of explaining the orthodox teachings. I would like to throw a couple of things at you (gently). First the question of nibbana as expressed in the Pali Canon. It’s treated as an existant in what’s sometimes called the “realist” school of abhidhamma and to the non-enlightened that begs the question. It would seem to be either one of two things an interior, more or less psychological change as later described for example by the mind-only school, or some unimaginable metaphysical state. If it’s the first, than it’s simply very good psychotherapy; it it’s the second, then it contradicts the pragmatic, non-essentialist basis of the dharma, which is fundamentally anti-metaphysical. The standard answer I know is that this all clears up with proper meditation, but I take the later schools of Buddhist philosophy as arising partially from this difficulty.
My second point is about the notion of skilful means, or upaya. The sense that I keep coming back to, reflecting I guess my mindset, is that nirvana and rebirth are no more literal in Buddhism than the virgin birth and the ressurrection in Christianity. Both sets of doctrines are consolatory and ultimately forms of upaya that mask the sheer paradox of human existence - which is most directly addressed by the so-called mystical strands of all the great traditions. This is a confession on my part of a fundamental ambivalence. The deep reality evoked by the best in the traditions has always attracted me; the literalism I find everywhere drives me bananas. Certainly, Buddhism goes farther than any other great tradition in divesting itself of dogma (stating the principle in the parable of the raft, etc.), but I would suggest even Buddhism is not immune to the problem. All doctrine of necessity steps away from the immediate, extraordinary reality we think we need to look for. There are good practical reasons for that - as they say 84,000 dharma doors for our 84,000 types of delusion. But ultimately I feel like the little boy in the fable of the emperor’s new clothes.

 

[Tmaque]

rossum:

This thread arises from an off topic discussion in this thread, see posts #51 to #55. The discussion was triggered by my sig: “The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.”

Nirvana, the ultimate goal of Buddhism, is also to some extent testable by science. The Buddha attained nirvana when he became enlightened at about age thirty-five. He died at about age eighty. You do not have to die to attain nirvana, so in principle it is possible to study someone who has attained nirvana to get some idea of what nirvana is like. Certainly some studies of Buddhist practitioners have been done, see Buddhists really are happier for an example.

The study proved that Buddhist meditation made people happier because they were calmer, less prone to anger. Is it really news that meditation is good for your mental health? If you studied people of any religion you would find the ones that meditated were happier than those who didn’t. It’s true that Buddhism stresses meditation more so than some other religions. It’s also true Catholicism stresses meditation in the form of the Holy Rosary. I can certainly say that I am a much happier, calmer person when I pray the rosary regularly and meditate on the mysteries of Jesus’ life and ministry. My point is that it’s the meditation that makes Buddhist’s happier, not the belief system.