Zen and The Bible

[adgloriam]

adgloriam:

(…)

Sorry, I didn’t notice this. The Buddha was a prince and the wife he “abandoned” was a princess. She and his son continued to enjoy the luxuries of palace life together with the Buddha’s father and stepmother. Eventually they became his disciples.

Help me out here. It’s been 15 years since I read about the Buddha’s life and I can’t recall the exact chronology. My main source was actually “Bodhisattva” by Herman Hesse (with some wikipedia, and a few assorted commenters added to that.) I also read several missionary accounts from the 16th and 17th century.

Now, the Buddha at one point abandoned everything to go sit by the river in poverty. Eventually he became fed up with the river returned to a life of wealth that wasn’t of his family but of his own gains. After that he abandoned wife and child to continue his enlightenment endeavors.

Now. If I’m not mistaken it’s during that second phase of wealth of his own making that he fathered that child. And, in the catholic sense of things, he abandoned his family nevertheless. I’m unaware of the family joining him latter.

 

[Magnanimity]

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 .

The most coherent version of God I’ve ever been exposed to is the Thomistic one. According to him, God is ipsum esse subsistens (substantial being itself) -or- God is pure actuality (with no potentiality whatsoever) -or- God is the sheer act of to be itself. In God, essence and existence are united… These are just so many variant ways of expressing the Thomistic theology proper.

Since God is existence, in the creative act, God conjoins existence to whatever essence exists in the divine mind. If you’re balking at the idea of a self-caused being, I think that’s quite right—it’s incoherent. God, as understood as substantial existence itself, would entail that the causal question would not apply. Thomists insist God is uncaused, as he necessarily exists. To be God is to be.

I understand your claim that positing God is a reification. But I think the Aristotelian/Thomists have it right when they observe change and contingency and work backwards from that. As in, what would have to obtain in Reality for changing and contingent beings to exist at all? Why is something here when it doesn’t have to be? If the non-existence of any being is possible, this question must be answered. What are the prior conditions that would make all this change and contingency actual? The absolute, unchanging, necessary being grounds all else besides. God is the terminus in the essentially ordered series of causes.

If one doesn’t follow change and contingency all the way down the metaphysical road, then the best you can do is just shrug your shoulders at the question “why is there something rather than nothing?”

 

[adgloriam]

adgloriam:

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.

Scripture defines parental obligations in other versicles. (versicles aren’t taken alone, you know?)

So there you go…Have one on me

 

[adgloriam]

But in fact, these words mean something different

Indeed !! I’m still trying to understand the latter part of your username - after one year looking at it. And I am, still, trying to come up with a meaningful and well humored expression rhyming with it. In my linguistics inability, I just take your username as is - synonymous with good humor.

 

[Shakuhachi]

The most coherent version of God I’ve ever been exposed to is the Thomistic one. According to him, God is ipsum esse subsistens (substantial being itself) -or- God is pure actuality (with no potentiality whatsoever) -or- God is the sheer act of to be itself. In God, essence and existence are united… These are just so many variant ways of expressing the Thomistic theology proper.

It is kind of hard to imagine that as a person.

 

[mythbuster1]

We are all descendants of Noah, and the Ten Commandments merely codify Natural Law. Even though their knowledge of God was corrupted over the centuries on account of various sins, they still retained some memory of the God of Noah.

 

[Magnanimity]

Definitely. If not for Christ, it might be nearly impossible to imagine the “personhood.”

 

[Shakuhachi]

Does that include Sidhartha the Buddha?

 

[mythbuster1]

Somewhat. He attacked the idolatry of Hinduism, though he was himself an atheist. The Buddhist idea of salvation is oblivion.

 

[rossum]

Somewhat. He attacked the idolatry of Hinduism, though he was himself an atheist. The Buddhist idea of salvation is oblivion.

The Buddha was not an atheist. How could he be when he preached sermons to various gods?

In Buddhism the gods exist, but are not particularly important. If you want to win the lottery, then pray to a god. If you want to attain nirvana then you have to do it for yourself; no god can do it for you.

If you want to ignore the gods, then you can. That is the approach most Western Buddhists seem to take.

 

[anon99031074]

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

There is a textual variant there, as noted in a footnote in the NIV. Some biblical manuscripts contain wife, others do not. In my opinion, it is more likely that people removed it because it was a hard saying, so “Jesus couldn’t have said it”, rather than someone adding it, but ultimately it is impossible to prove one way or the other. The original hasn’t been preserved.

Nothing in the text in any variant suggests anything about the age of the children. Also, if we are discussing ethics, abandoning one’s parents would be pretty unethical, if they are elderly and in need of one’s care. My parents gave me life. By that act alone I am indebted to them in a way I can never repay.

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.

Exactly. People have a sense of self. Even enlighetened Zen-masters have a sense of self, which is constructed by dynamically distinguishing the empty name/form from the rest of empty experiential world. But the sense of self is not an actual self, it never was and it never could be.

Now, the Buddha at one point abandoned everything to go sit by the river in poverty. Eventually he became fed up with the river returned to a life of wealth that wasn’t of his family but of his own gains. After that he abandoned wife and child to continue his enlightenment endeavors.

This account is not found in the earliest Buddhist texts, which would be the four major collections of sutras common to all schools of Buddhism (Agamas in chinese, Nikayas in pali), at least, it is the first time I have heard of it, and I have read them.

Many scholars doubt elements of the traditional account as well, but detailing why will get us sidetracked. The Buddha got the consent of his parents to leave (he says they cried and pulled their hair when he wanted to abandon royal life), and presumably also talked to his wife who was well taken care of at the palace. Both his wife and his son became his disciples after his awakening, and it would have been very unlikely for them to have done so if they felt wronged by him in any way.

 

[anon99031074]

Somewhat. He attacked the idolatry of Hinduism, though he was himself an atheist. The Buddhist idea of salvation is oblivion.

I don’t know where people get this idea that the Buddha was an atheist. Anyone who has spent just a little time reading the pali sutras, which are the oldest sources of knowledge about the Buddha, will see that he was pretty far from an atheist. He even taught theists how to go to heaven and be with God, if they asked him to. It is true that many Buddhists, especially western Buddhists, today are atheists, and that Buddhism is a path that works perfectly well without a belief in gods, but historically it isn’t an atheistic religion.

EDIT, as an example, in MN 41, the Buddha says:

“A person of principled and moral conduct might wish: ‘If only, when my body breaks up,
after death, I would be reborn in the company of well-to-do brahmins … well-to-do
householders …
the Gods of the Four Great Kings …
the Gods of the Thirty-Three … the Gods of Yama … the Joyful Gods … the Gods Who
Love to Create … the Gods Who Control the Creations of Others … the Gods of Brahmā’s
Group …
the Radiant Gods …
the Gods of Limited Radiance … the Gods of Limitless Radiance … the Gods of Streaming
Radiance … the Gods of Limited Glory … the Gods of Limitless Glory … the Gods Replete
with Glory … the Gods of Abundant Fruit … the Gods of Aviha … the Gods of Atappa … the
Gods Fair to See … the Fair Seeing Gods … the Gods of Akaniṭṭha … the gods of the
dimension of infinite space … the gods of the dimension of infinite consciousness … the
gods of the dimension of nothingness … the gods of the dimension of neither perception
nor non-perception.’ It’s possible that this might happen. Why is that? Because they have
principled and moral conduct.”

Does that sound atheistic to you?

 

[adgloriam]

Does that sound atheistic to you?

Sounds brutally polytheistic,

 

[anon99031074]

Sounds brutally polytheistic,

It certainly is. There may be a highest God among all of these, but there are many gods. This is not much different from theism in the ancient near east at the same period in history. The modern sophisticated monotheistic dogmas took a long time to develop (whether or not that development was aided by the Holy Spirit, doesn’t change the fact that the modern dogmas did not fall from the sky). In judeo/christianity, the lesser gods were renamed angels as time passed, but originally they were called gods as well.

The point is, it isn’t atheism, and the Buddha wasn’t an atheist according to any ancient source I am aware of.

 

[adgloriam]

The point is, it isn’t atheism, and the Buddha wasn’t an atheist according to any ancient source I am aware of.

This is a good point I also make. (against the common misconception that Buddhism doesn’t have a deity.)

The modern sophisticated monetheistic dogmas took a long time to develop

Now here it gets really interesting. Since the first versicle of the bible there is only 1 God. And how far back can we date the 5 books of Moses? Pretty far back, because like Buddhism oral tradition preceded written crystallization of the texts. However, the first written books of the bible we do predate the birth of Buddha. And the central core of what makes Monotheism in the bible seems, to me, as having little -if any- change. And, what is more, seems without contradiction.

In judeo/christianity, the lesser gods were renamed angels as time passed, but originally they were called gods as well.

I don’t think this is correct by any stretch.

Time to call an expert: @Rabbi . If you could be so kind as to give us an approximate dating on the oldest books of the bible that we know of?? Also, please, dating of first reference to the Messiah?

 

[anon99031074]

Now here it gets really interesting. Since the first versicle of the bible there is only 1 God. And how far back can we date the 5 books of Moses? Pretty far back, because like Buddhism oral tradition preceded written crystallization of the texts. However, the first written books of the bible we do predate the birth of Buddha. And the central core of what makes Monotheism in the bible seems, to me, as having little -if any- change. And, what is more, seems without contradiction.

It is a very long discussion that cannot be done justice in a thread like this. My short answer would be that the 5 books of Moses were not written at the same time. They contain elements that are very ancient and also elements that are comparatively recent. The oldest fragments do not say there is only one God, but it says that the Israelites should have "no other God before me".

At any rate, it makes little difference when it comes to Buddhism, as it is not a path where one relies on either one or several gods for salvation. I just object to people calling the Buddha an atheist. His criticism of the nihilistic views comparable to certain forms of modern atheism was harsh, and clearly his worldview incorporated both heavens, gods and an afterlife/rebirth.

I don’t think this is correct by any stretch.

I am too lazy to look them up now, but there are examples of texts which say “angels” in the septuagint and masoretic text, but says “gods” in older fragments. Judaism became strictly monotheistic some time after Babylonian captivity, before that it wasn’t. You even find little statues of God and his wife in archeological digs (“Yahweh and his Asherah”). I don’t know if Mormon apologists have noticed this, but I suspect they might have

 

[adgloriam]

adgloriam:

(…)

Nothing in the text in any variant suggests anything about the age of the children.

A bit more complicated than might seem. First, Scripture is taken as a whole. And Mosaic-law, or jurisprudence, defined parental obligations - no way around that.

adgloriam:

(…)

Some biblical manuscripts contain wife, others do not. In my opinion, it is more likely that people removed it because it was a hard saying, so “Jesus couldn’t have said it”, rather than someone adding it, but ultimately it is impossible to prove one way or the other. The original hasn’t been preserved.

Marriage, in its complete form, was given by Jesus himself. That man not separate what God united. So, that part of doctrine was reserved to be given -in its full form- by Jesus.

Here it gets interesting -again !! Imagine, in the 20th century, a person in a polygamous marriage (2 or more “wives”), decides to convert to Christianity (not strictly to the catholic church). The matter is, off course, delicate; because the person converting holds responsibilities towards both his “wives” and their children. In this instance, he can only contract matrimony to one of the wives, being however morally bound to fulfill his material obligations to his former wife (who then becomes, in fact, free to contract matrimony).

Thus, you can see the instance of “leaving one wife” to whom he had not contracted matrimony in a sacramental way (because, there are plenty of cultures/religions where marriage is simply a transient form of convenience - not entailing “until death do them part” or “to love and respect”).

 

[adgloriam]

adgloriam:

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

There is a textual variant there, as noted in a footnote in the NIV. Some biblical manuscripts contain wife, others do not. In my opinion, it is more likely that people removed it because it was a hard saying, so “Jesus couldn’t have said it”, rather than someone adding it, but ultimately it is impossible to prove one way or the other. The original hasn’t been preserved.

In terms of “scholarship” and “authoritative texts” the Institute of Bible Studies in Rome takes authority. Not only for holding most of the original texts and variants, but for concentrating the most scholars and the most dedicated scholars. Now, there wasn’t any “subtraction” with ulterior motives - that’s not how it works.

All known sources were compared&contrasted. Both NIV you quote and NAB are distanced from the originals -translation “as close as possible to the originals” would be “Jerusalem Bible” compilation - and it isn’t practical for modern understanding, I could read the “Jerusalem Bible” but would get lost in the phrasing.

 

[anon99031074]

A bit more complicated than might seem. First, Scripture is taken as a whole. And Mosaic-law, or jurisprudence, defined parental obligations - no way around that.

Shunyata:

adgloriam:

Ok.

Thus, you can see the instance of “leaving one wife” to whom he had not contracted matrimony in a sacramental way (because, there are plenty of cultures/religions where marriage is simply a transient form of convenience - not entailing “until death do them part” or “to love and respect”).

I am not quite sure what the argument here is with reference to the Buddha. Given the traditional narrative, he left a wife and child in the care of his larger royal family while he went out in search of a resolution to the problem of suffering he saw pervaded life. After he became a revered spiritual teacher, his wife and son became his disciples, suggesting no ill will because of what he did. References to sacramental marriage are at best anachronistic, since the Buddha probably lived from around 480 - 400 BC, long before anybody claimed there is such a thing as a sacramental marriage, and even if such a thing had existed, he did not divorce her and remarry.

In terms of “scholarship” and “authoritative texts” the Institute of Bible Studies in Rome takes authority.

When it comes to the textual variants, scholars disagree on which reading is the more original, and it would be impossible to prove either way. I have never heard that the Institute of Bible Studies in Rome claim special spiritual autority to discern which of the textual variants of the NT are the more original ones. They use the same scholarly methods everyone else does, to my knowledge anyway.

You may feel confident that Jesus did not say “wife” due to theological views about the Bible being divinely inspired with one primary author, etc., and you are certainly welcome to such a view. I thought the text is interesting given your objection to the Buddha leaving his royal wife and son at their palace while searching for a solution to the problem of suffering.

 

[anon99031074]

Interestingly, there seems to be no doubt about the parallel text in Luke 18:29-30 containing the word “wife”. As far as I can see from Biblegateway.com, all versions contain the word. Here I quote Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition:

“And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”