Zen and The Bible

[Shakuhachi]

There is a sense in which all religions are there to help the individuals and communities to come into contact with the Absolute. In this way, these two religions are alike.

But in Buddhism is “the absolute” permanent? And does the Buddha still exist in a higher dimension of consciousness?

It seems to me that Buddhism and especially Zen view all this as inappropriate questions, not fitting the case.

 

[anon99031074]

A father leaves his family to work away from home for six years. He earns much wealth while away, and returns to share that wealth with his family. Has he ‘abandoned’ his family?

I didn’t make the claim. I responded to it. Your response is better

 

[Magnanimity]

The thrust of my reply was to note various lines of convergence between theistic Christianity and Buddhism. So I don’t want to miss the forest of that convergence for the tree of atheism. However, that being said, when I was an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, I took a senior seminar on Buddhism. We read original translated writings from what might be called a Buddhist canon as well as a text called The Vision of Buddhism by Roger Corless. It was made clear to us by the lecturer of that course that an atheistic understanding of Buddhism is possible in the sense that there is no ultimate Being that grounds the existence of all other finite, contingent beings. What you have noted here would be more akin to finite godism (or polytheism) than to deism, theism or anything else.

 

[anon99031074]

But in Buddhism is “the absolute” permanent? And does the Buddha still exist in a higher dimension of consciousness?

It seems to me that Buddhism and especially Zen view all this as inappropriate questions, not fitting the case.

The question of whether a perfected one exists after death or not is one of several questions that the Buddha did not answer. Other such questions being whether or not the universe is eternal or if the soul is the same as the body or different. It is not considered helpful on the Buddhist path. As for the absolute, that is a term that to me is quite foreign, and if it is used in the early Buddhist texts at all, it can’t be used often. The word “unconditioned” is used often, however. All Buddhist paths, whether Zen or something else, are conditioned, but they are oriented towards the unconditioned.

 

[Magnanimity]

But in Buddhism is “the absolute” permanent? And does the Buddha still exist in a higher dimension of consciousness?

What would be impermanent about Nirvana? Nirvana itself would be the closest thing to an absolute, correct? And merging yourself, so as to dissolve oneself, into nirvana is the ultimate goal, correct? And even here there is a deep analogy with theism, especially that of Saint Thomas Aquinas. According to him, the only “being” which has its essence United to its existence is the ultimate, is God. Every other being that exists in the universe as a part of the created order, has being only by what might be called an improper share in the divine existence. That is, existence is not proper to me, though it is proper to the absolute, to God. And in the beatific vision, an individual being like me is reunited with the source of its being, is reunited with God. I don’t know to what extent my consciousness would remain separate from that of the divine consciousness at this reunion. Or, to what extent a merging would take place—as in, I’m not fully certain what the divinization of the human looks like and how similar it is to Enlightenment.

 

[anon99031074]

It was made clear to us by the lecturer of that course that an atheistic understanding of Buddhism is possible in the sense that there is no ultimate Being that grounds the existence of all other finite, contingent beings. What you have noted here would be more akin to finite godism (or polytheism) than to deism, theism or anything else.

I agree. But polytheism and finite godism is not atheism. The kind of nihilistic materialism/atheism that is popular in the west is considered a wrong view in Buddhism, and is harmful if one lives in accordance with it. That is the view that there is no afterlife, no consequences of actions whether good or bad, no obligation towards mother or father, and no spiritually realized humans. One indian teacher said you could go along one side of the Ganges river and murder countless sentient beings, and ground them all up to meat, and it would count for nothing. A saint could walk along the other side of the Ganges and continually practice loving kindness towards all beings they encountered, and that would also count for nothing. Buddhism denies that reality is like that, and if one believes and lives in accordance with such a view, one will reap terrible suffering as result.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Nirvana itself would be the closest thing to an absolute, correct?

Absolute Extinguishment?

 

[anon99031074]

What would be impermanent about Nirvana? Nirvana itself would be the closest thing to an absolute, correct?

No. It is not an absolute, which would make it a kind of a self. It isn’t even an it. It is comparable to blowing out the flame of a candle, without thereby signifying annihilation. Ultimately, the answer to the question is see for yourself what it means. The proof is in the pudding, or more specifically, in eating it.

 

[Shakuhachi]

So when Merton and Habito explore ZEN, I think they are mostly dealing with the practical benefits when relating to the world of change and impermanence and not really give full appreciation to the “end game”.

 

[rossum]

What would be impermanent about Nirvana?

Nirvana changes. It will change from nirvana-without-rossum to nirvana-with-rossum, and anything which changes has to be impermanent.

If it cannot change then there is no possibility of enlightenment.

The same applies to the Christian heaven; if if cannot change then anyone not already there has to find some other place to go.

 

[Magnanimity]

Yes, definitely, the western, materialistic atheism borne out of the scientific revolution bears little resemblance to eastern atheism. What I mean by Buddhist atheism is no ultimate ground for the contingency of being. As Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz and many others in the West have argued, all contingent beings (whether humans, rocks or gods) need a ground for their existence. They need something beyond themselves to explain why they’re here when they don’t have to be. And such a metaphysical ground would need to be absolute (necessary) Being itself. Without a necessary being to ground the existence of all contingencies, one’s system is fundamentally atheistic (whether you’re a Buddhist or a scientistic materialist).

 

[Magnanimity]

On this analogy with Christianity, a return to the source of all being (God) does not entail a change in God. Though it would entail a change in you. So, in the theistic understanding of creation it’s not that once upon a time there was just God. And when he decided to create, there was God plus something else standing alongside him. Rather, there is just God who is existence itself. All other beings exist by participation in the one Being.

From what I understand about Nirvana, it is similar. You do not add being to Nirvana. Rather Enlightenment comes about by a stripping away of things which seem real to you but are actually fundamentally unreal—all that brings you dukkha.

 

[Shakuhachi]

So, in the theistic understanding of creation it’s not that once upon a time there was just God. And when he decided to create, there was God plus something else standing alongside him. Rather, there is just God who is existence itself. All other beings exist by participation in the one Being.

This is where i have a beef with the Christian teaching that God creates out of nothing. God creates of himself.

 

[Magnanimity]

I sympathize with your “beef.” And, as I said, the more closely one looks at high scholastic theism (a la Thomas Aquinas) the closer it looks to pantheism. But, I suppose the distinction the scholastics wanted to draw in God’s creative act is that he doesn’t create from pre-existing matter (creation ex materia), nor is creation just an extension of himself (ex deo). But, the divine will gives rise to creation.
However, as I noted, when a Thomist claims that all things which exist do so contingently and only by an “improper share” in the divine existence, he’s teetering close to a pantheistic conception…

 

[rossum]

On this analogy with Christianity, a return to the source of all being (God) does not entail a change in God.

How can God be the source of all being? Does God have being, or is He ‘unbeing’? He cannot be the source of His own being; he can perhaps be the source of all being except His own.

Though it would entail a change in you.

From the Buddhist point of view, the change is realising that what you thought was you actually wasn’t. It was just another mental illusion.

From what I understand about Nirvana, it is similar. You do not add being to Nirvana. Rather Enlightenment comes about by a stripping away of things which seem real to you but are actually fundamentally unreal—all that brings you dukkha.

A very good description. However, the category “things which seem real” covers a very wide range:

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

The Thomist Ground of Being is just another illusion of ontological depth, a reification, lost in the void beneath the surface. It is something we project onto the world. It has no existence in the world, only inside our heads. It is like the water in a mirage.

 

[adgloriam]

adgloriam:

However, (here comes 1 strong argument !!) : The Buddha had fathered a child at one point in his life. And, on his path to enlightenment, abandoned that child and the child’s mother . Here, I, personally, find an incompatibility with the catholic faith that can’t be harmonized or the Buddha’s example reconciled with the Holy Spirit, this casts reexamination of what enlightenment the Buddha had drawn at that point. -So, too, because I lack any example of a catholic mystic having done so.

St Augustine of Hippo
Ss Perpetua and Felicity (who are praised for abandoning their children)
I wonder about Ss Peter, James, and John when they abandoned their boats. Who did they leave behind?
I am sure there are more…

You mention 2 instances, that are NOT COMPARABLE:

St’s Perpetua and Felicity were forcefully martyred - they didn’t abandon their children.

St. Augustin converted in 386 being baptized in 387, he had abandoned his son in 385. The boy died the next year in 388. It’s unclear if Augustin returned to his family during his conversion or was in the process of returning to his family. However he didn’t abandon them willfully to “pursue enlightenment.”

I wonder about Ss Peter, James, and John

Jhon was said to be very young. As for Peter it’s also unclear but it’s likely he was a widower, for apparently his mother-in-law met Jesus personally.

 

[adgloriam]

From the Buddhist point of view, the change is realising that what you thought was you actually wasn’t. It was just another mental illusion.

You were ,who you were - at that point in your personal history. And you were, what you were - with all your mistakes and errors and shortcomings. That fancy wording has no effect on me.

The Thomist Ground of Being is just another illusion of ontological depth, a reification, lost in the void beneath the surface. It is something we project onto the world. It has no existence in the world, only inside our heads. It is like the water in a mirage.

This wording (as you use it) is, again, unbecoming of anything.

In a mirage, there is water, there is atmosphere, there is light, there is a ground, and there is an agent. Nothing ontological about it.

 

[adgloriam]

“And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.” - Matthew 19:29

From NAB (I could include reference translation in other languages

And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life.

You see, nowhere does it say to abandon wife !!! And children would refer to adult children - not children underage.

 

[rossum]

You were ,who you were - at that point in your personal history. And you were, what you were - with all your mistakes and errors and shortcomings.

And one of my mistakes, as with many people, was to think I had a real Self. I am beginning to see that I don’t. That my concept of “Self” is just a reification.

Many of the techniques in Buddhism help us to separate what is actually out there in the world from what we project out onto that world. A very useful exercise. It is the mismatch between the real world, and our projections which is one of the causes of suffering. Reducing the mismatch reduces suffering.

 

[rossum]

You see, nowhere does it say to abandon wife !!! And children would refer to adult children - not children underage.

You see, nowhere does it say adult children !!!

You can add words to the text, but others can’t? Not very convincing I’m afraid.