Christianity is a dead religion. It's a vestige of a world now gone. It's absurd stories and ridiculous requirements have been superseded by secular authority and science. Good riddance.
This statement needs some unpacking. Christianity is dead in the sense that its symbols no longer resonate for Western man - that much is true. And Christianity has been "dying" in this sense ever since Nietzsche proclaimed that "God is dead, and we have killed him". Christianity has lost its authenticity in other words. The symbols used by the Christian religion no longer "make sense" to the way of being of the average Joe in the Western world. Christianity has lost its vitality.
Christianity has become legalistic. The meaning behind the words is lost. All we have left are the words, and without the meaning, the words are, of course, empty and absurd. To revive Christianity we have to recover the meaning, we have to re-invent the meaning. We have to re-paint the white fence white again, since it has darkened with the passage of time.
Although as a side note, Christianity is doing great in Latin America and China.
It's absurd stories and ridiculous requirements have been superseded by secular authority and science.
But it's not because the stories are absurd, or the requirements are ridiculous. They are absolutely not. It's because "secular man" does not have the openness required to understand them. The social environment is inimical to Christianity, and as such, Christianity cannot but be misunderstood by the masses. To talk of a hedonistic AND Christian age at one and the same time is indeed a contradiction in terms. They are two parallel worlds. The evils currently seen in the world are interpreted, by science and secular authority, as necessary. As the nature of existence. Hence the prevailing acceptance of a (misunderstood) nihilistic religion like Buddhism.
The evils currently seen in the world are interpreted, by science and secular authority, as necessary. As the nature of existence. Hence the prevailing acceptance of a (misunderstood) nihilistic religion like Buddhism.
Sorry... I realize this is the Shoutbox, but this statement might also need to be unpacked if you don’t mind. Are you perhaps saying that Buddhism is accepted only or mostly because it is misunderstood? If so, what does that mean? If not, what did you mean?
And as I understand it, Buddhism is mostly (though not always) non-theistic. But that doesn’t necessarily make it “nihilistic”. And as you probably know, Buddhism can function as a religion, a philosophy, or both.
I would agree with most of the rest of your post though. :up: Christianity (maybe just in the West) has lost vitality or at least something important (if difficult) to define. What the cause might be is up for debate. In my opinion and for whatever it may be worth, the long history of those in power using Christian beliefs as a pure white robe to parade around in is a large factor.
In my opinion and for whatever it may be worth, the long history of those in power using Christian beliefs as a pure white robe to parade around in is a large factor.
You might be surprised to discover how long ago the Pope was first identified as Antichrist. And of of course To Mega Therion has always been lurking. :)
God became flesh. He had himself crucified in order to redeem his own creation. It's the ravings of a lunatic.
Ah no, its sublime. Especially if you throw in a twist of christ forgetting he is God, or doubting it. Its a beautiful myth. Not saying I believe it (tho I kinda do, just allegorically) but either way its pretty good.
Reply to frank I don't see it in terms of propitiation, otherwise it would be insane (propitiating oneself.)
It's more like: If the universe were created intentionally, then any olive branch(or rainbow) from the force that created it, while remaining outside it, would be meaningless. Any communication from outside-the-world to people inside-the-world would be condescending at best. But, if that force were to voluntarily enter the world (and if he forgets he made that choice, or at least occasionally doubts that he really is God, and so has to live out his days like the rest of us, its even better) then there is some actual connection established. It's not propitiation, its solidarity.
Reply to frank Never read him, but I did like Scorsese's Last Temptation. But - I don't know about the book - the movie focused primarily on the subjective experience of Christ, Christ-as-existential-hero. That's only one half.
In any case, even without Kazantzakis, you have Christ throwing out psalms 22:1 on the cross.
yeah! I'm more inclined to approach these themes in eastern terms, or at least western mystical ones (I like gnosticism a lot) - I feel like the christ drama is like a satisfying 'pageant' or something dramatizing a less tangible thing.
Reply to csalisbury I really love The Last Temptation of Christ -- I was reading Hegel at the time, and that in conjunction with Hegel was the closest thing I came to a conversion experience.
It was dispelled the moment I asked myself, "But who believes this?"
Are you perhaps saying that Buddhism is accepted only or mostly because it is misunderstood? If so, what does that mean? If not, what did you mean?
I am saying that Buddhism is accepted as it is accepted mostly because it is misunderstood through the lens of our hedonistic/consumerist culture. Buddhism is a palliative against pain and suffering. But the issue lies with the way it is used. It's used in order to mask resolvable pains as unresolvable ones, in order to maintain a diseased state of the soul, in order to prevent the pain from waking one up to one's own conditioning. Buddhism is a way of avoiding the need to look at your own face and to actually do something that can bring about a resolution.
For example, an alcoholic may resort to Buddhism and the tenet that life is suffering as a palliative for accepting his condition. He suffers because, oh well, suffering is unavoidable. It's the nature of life. There is no urgency to remedy his condition, nor is there anything morally wrong with his actions.
It is nihilistic not because it is a-theistic, but rather because it leads one towards being irresponsible for one's own condition, AND, more importantly, for the condition of the world. And somewhat paradoxically, Buddhism also engenders this same self-concern which plagues the West today - because it turns the focus inward, on one's self, as it becomes of prime importance to pay attention to yourself, and only secondarily to others. If your son smokes and you don't like that, for example, it teaches you to accept it, because life is suffering, it is in the nature of life to have our desires disappointed. And thus, you don't do anything about it. These are all manifestations of nihilism.
So while Buddhism is misunderstood in the West, it is also true that Buddhism is, amongst the religions, the most nihilistic and world-denying. That is why it can be misunderstood in the first place. It is for this reason that it can be used as it is being used.
For example, an alcoholic may resort to Buddhism and the tenet that life is suffering as a palliative for accepting his condition. He suffers because, oh well, suffering is unavoidable. It's the nature of life. There is no urgency to remedy his condition, nor is there anything morally wrong with his actions.
You sure this isn't a misrepresentation of Buddhism? Going off memory, as well as an admittedly superficial acquaintance with the "religion", I recall it being distilled down to some fairly simple truths: acknowledge suffering, identify its cause, recognize that it can be minimized, and follow certain practices (Eight Fold Path) as a means of eliminating as much of it as humanly possible. That sounds like the exact opposite of your description.
It's actually Christianity - at least in its Protestant forms - which rejects the individual's power to do anything about his or her situation, with salvation coming strictly through God's grace. This obviously holds true for the salvation of the whole as well: to assume that one could do something to improve the condition of the world without God being the cause would seem to be a case of hubris. Moreover, is there a story within Christianity similar to the Bodhisattva ideal in Mahayana Buddhism, where one refuses to enter the gates of Heaven until ALL beings are "saved"? If so then please point it out.
Furthermore, perhaps the separation between self and others (or the world more generally) is less extreme within Buddhism and other Eastern religions than it is among us, and the Buddhism you're referring to is a hybrid of sorts containing much Western baggage (e.g. Cartesian dualism). If that's the case, and there's not such a strong contrast between self and others (seeing all beings as interconnected), then being concerned with the "self" does not preclude but rather demands concern for others. I honestly don't know.
One thing I do know, however, is that Zen Buddhism at least is emphatically not life-denying. We could argue whether that's "really" Buddhism or a distortion of it, I guess, but I'll probably leave it to those more knowledgeable than myself to take it up with you.
acknowledge suffering, identify its cause, recognize that it can be minimized, and follow certain practices (Eight Fold Path) as a means of eliminating as much of it as humanly possible.
Put that way, but very often it is phrased as "life is suffering, desire is the cause of suffering, suffering can be extinguished, the way to extinguish it is the Noble Eightfold Path".
with salvation coming strictly through God's grace. This obviously holds true for the salvation of the whole as well: to assume that one could do something to improve the condition of the world without God being the cause would seem to be a case of hubris.
But for Christianity, everything is sustained into being by God. You do have free will (that is of the essence of Christianity), so what you do does matter. But since you only exist because of God, it is, ultimately, not just your doing, but also God's. So whatsoever one does is, at the very least, permitted by God (who sustains everyone into being).
Also, salvation in Christianity is freely given. It just has to be accepted. Though salvation IS NOT the same as deification (theosis) which is the ultimate aim of Christianity.
However, it is true that even Asian Buddhism tends towards nihilism. Attachments are seen as the cause of suffering in Buddhism - you are not to be attached. So how is it possible to love and care for your children, for example, without any form of attachment? Your children become, just like Buddha's children became for him, a stumbling block. So he left his palace and his children and his wife to find enlightenment alone in the forest. And that is applauded in the story. His loved ones represented nothing more than obstacles in his way. How can this not be selfish? It seems to me that Buddhism is, in its essence, built around this personal aversion to suffering, that sets one on a mission to end suffering for themselves, for their own sake.
How is loyalty at all possible without attachment? How is human society, and all the many social benefits we extract by living in communities at all possible? Our communities are built around attachments. Attachments to your home, attachments to your family, attachments to your children, attachments to your work, etc. We can only be successful in an endeavour which requires collaboration (building a business, building a family, building an organisation, etc. etc.) so long as we remain loyal to each other onto the very end. But this doctrine of non-attachment precludes this lived dependence between people that is necessary in order to have a society.
And then the whole doctrine of anatta (no-self) leads to a detached view of suffering. People are suffering because they are ignorant, therefore it is like a nightmare, ultimately, it's nothing to care about. The Bodhisattva may choose to stay behind until all creatures are saved, however, there is this disconnect and detachment that exists between the Bodhisattva and the rest. The Christian saint falls on his knees and cries at the suffering of the world - the Buddhist sage, on the other hand, sits unmoved, like a rock. There are no tears in his eyes - indeed, if there were to be any tears, he would not have escaped suffering yet. This aversion to suffering is taken to such extremes that one prefers not being human anymore, just to avoid suffering. One prefers castrating one's self, just to get rid of suffering.
Tell me how this doesn't portray a nihilistic tendency that can be exploited and has been exploited in Buddhism. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be corrected on this, but everything that I've read on Buddhism points back to the same thing - a concern with one's OWN salvation, and a distaste of anything that brings about suffering to one's self.
Reply to Agustino :pray:
Thanks for your reply. I’m just a seeker, but don’t know for sure if any book or lecture would describe Buddhism like it was in your post. But everyone can have their opinions. @Erik responded quite well with the questions that I have. Not sure how the doctrine of not having a permanent self (anatta) could directly foster selfishness. It seems exactly the opposite to me. Buddhism can help one begin to discard the two-sided coin of shame and pride, which comes from being locked in one’s identity and ego. It is in perfect accord with the Daoism, with which it combined to form the Cha’an tradition in China.
(edit- just saw your reply to Erik). I will say that whatever one has and brings to Buddhism (or other beliefs) is mostly what one will experience. We carry the thoughts and habit baggage until they are put down. If one is content with their current beliefs and practices, that is sincerely a wonderful thing. If is not broken, no need to fix it. Wisdom, compassion, mindfulness, equanimity, clear seeing, and the detoxification of mind-poisons are all qualities emphasized and developed by various Buddhist practices. That seems to be an urgently helpful thing much needed by many, definitely myself included. And beliefs are needed as long as they are useful, like using a boat to cross a lake.
Attachments are seen as the cause of suffering in Buddhism - you are not to be attached. So how is it possible to love and care for your children, for example, without any form of attachment? Your children become, just like Buddha's children became for him, a stumbling block. So he left his palace and his children and his wife to find enlightenment alone in the forest. And that is applauded in the story. His loved ones represented nothing more than obstacles in his way. How can this not be selfish? It seems to me that Buddhism is, in its essence, built around this personal aversion to suffering, that sets one on a mission to end suffering for themselves, for their own sake.
I've made a point here that you do not address. I am not looking to convince you, or to be convinced by you, but since this is a philosophy forum, I think it's appropriate to engage in dialogue and try our best to resolve problems and misunderstandings. Disengaging from dialogue isn't very productive in achieving this aim.
I have nothing against Buddhism, please keep in mind that I studied Buddhism for quite a few years, first beginning quite early at the age of 12, indirectly through Osho. Then I've read through some of the Sutras, some introductory books, watched lots of YouTube lectures, etc. It's not like I reject it out of hand. But I simply don't see how you can conceptualise social relationships, for example, under Buddhism. Yes, mindfulness, compassion, wisdom, clear sight and everything you mention are much needed. But I'm sure you'll agree that Buddhism gives a certain spin to those practices.
Hi 0 thru 9, I appreciate your response. However, I don't see sufficient effort to answer the points I've brought up.
Thanks for your thanks. Usually I tend to ramble on, so this may be the first time I’ve been asked for more. First of all, a little personal background, so any comments can be put in context. (Sorry if it is distracting or not to the point.) Having been raised Roman Catholic and attended Catholic schools, that is in my blood probably irrevocably. I don’t attend Mass, but have not forsaken Christianity. The Christian mystics and Gospels remain an influence and inspiration.
Perhaps I am like an eclectic packrat, with a patchwork of beliefs, ideas, theories, practices, rituals, and odds and ends. I came to Buddhism through the Tao Te Ching, which I consider perhaps the most helpful bundle of words that I’ve yet encountered. I am not an expert, scholar, or even official member of anything really. That is probably obvious, but just wanted to be clear. I am only speaking of my experiences, ideas, and opinions. Many factors were motivations in my search. My mind seeming like a wild and uncontrollable horse sometimes was the main reason to search for help at the time. The horse might be tamer now, but loves to try to escape.
As you said, you are quite familiar with the Buddhist tenets and sutras, and I had assumed as much from what you have mentioned in the past. So what more I could add beyond that is unknown to me. I will respond to your comment in detail, though.
Attachments are seen as the cause of suffering in Buddhism - you are not to be attached.
Not in my opinion. Buddhism (and other Eastern traditions) have had almost the directly opposite effect on me. All is intertwined, all is connected. The universe is poetically said to be a net with countless jewels attached, each infinitely reflecting the light and image of the others. Anatta means (to me at least) no SEPARATE self. Not absolutely and completely separate. Relatively independent, but somehow linked with other things, beings, and energies. I think a forest analogy is helpful. The trees are clearly separate in one way. But look up and the branches of different trees intermingle with each other. Under the soil is probably an even more intricate web of roots, dirt, water, and insects. Is it one thing or many? Is light a wave or a particle. And who is it that is asking this question?
So how is it possible to love and care for your children, for example, without any form of attachment? Your children become, just like Buddha's children became for him, a stumbling block. So he left his palace and his children and his wife to find enlightenment alone in the forest. And that is applauded in the story. His loved ones represented nothing more than obstacles in his way. How can this not be selfish?
Well, you have heard the tale and “origin story”. From my memory, Siddhartha (not yet the Buddha) did leave his wife and children. He wandered around and then trained with some extreme ascetics, almost starving himself to death. After which, he sought some way less life-denying. The so-called Middle Way. Later, his wife also forsook comfortable riches and became a nun and followed the path he had discovered. Sounds like a happy ending, I guess. I don’t think that there are any claims that he was completely without mistakes. It seems that he learned from any mistakes as well as humanly possible. That doesn’t seem like selfishness to me. YMMV.
It seems to me that Buddhism is, in its essence, built around this personal aversion to suffering, that sets one on a mission to end suffering for themselves, for their own sake.
I honestly don’t know how one could come to this conclusion after studying the words and life of the Buddha, as well as what later traditions added. Such as the concept of the Bohdisattva, as @Erik mentioned above. Aversion is one of the “Three Poisons”, along with greed and hatred. And is therefore discouraged. So trying to reduce suffering, and coming up with an accurate psychological description of its causes and possible cures is a good thing, no? But Buddhism seems to not be seeking members or converts or even believers. And it is not entirely different from a skeptical and pragmatic Stoicism, IMHO. If one accepts the basics of Stoicism and Taoism, perhaps that is traveling towards Buddha territory. (Or perhaps not).
Hope this has been at least a little helpful. Since “more words count less” as said in the TTC, and I can’t think of more to say now... Please excuse the worn cliché, but what can one do except simply hold up a flower. :flower:
Reply to 0 thru 9Reply to Erik Thanks for the replies. With regards to our discussions, I have a bit more time today, so I will use it to clarify my position. So that you don't claim that I'm strawmanning, I will use the exact statements, in the exact contexts, used by people who identify as Buddhists.
@Baden, if you think it appropriate, feel free to move this to its own thread.
As to Buddhism all sorts of love is "Attachment". And the is no such thing called a person.
Top Answer:
There 3 things interplay here:
Kama Raga - attachment to sensual objects or objects arousing lust
Chanda Raga - attachments to people (lovers, loved one's, family, friends)
Suba Sanna - perception of beauty in the shape of the body
So when you see a person the following can happen:
Pleasure, displeasure, neutral sensation on how you perceive the person based on
Previous interaction and perception formed as friend or not or a person who matters or not or good person or bad person or likable or not
Perception of looks of the person
Relative to one's looks
As an object of desire
So when you see a person of the opposite sex the 1st time, what you get is Kama Raga and Suba Sanna. This is in seeking of pleasure born of such interactions.
Though Kama Raga heavily influences Chanda Raga, the main thing is that the person is influential in you life / perceived world. As the "puppet master" of the perceived world you get pleasure from the "puppets" in the show when they seem to go according to your expectations.
Chanda Raga is what might keep a relationship going even when Kama Raga subsides with time and into old age when Suba Sanna wanes off.
Though in seeking pleasure we get the above 3, in fact these give diverse sensations: pleasure, displeasure, neutral due to impermanent nature and non self nature of existance. All the experience you can derive from it is Dukkha (pain - Dukkha Dukkha, pleasure - Viparinama Dukkha, neutral - Sankhara Dukkha). So to understand the 4 Noble Truths contemplate on the arising and passing of sensations.
Buddhism has made me realise that everything is impermanent and undergoing the process of destruction including intimate relationships however if I know this then why is it still so painful when it happens? And what is the point of trying to build a life together with another person when it's inevitably going to end? Sometimes it all feels like such a cruel joke. I was in a relationship for 15 years and never thought it would end but it did and 6 months later I still feel so sad. I don't want to ever get involved intimately with another person ever again because I don't ever want to go through that pain again. Yes this may be aversion to pain but why put yourself through that if you can avoid it? Sure there will be more pain from other things but the pain of separation from a loved one feels worse than a death. It actually feels like I could die.
Top Answer:
Nyom Arturia,
Ajahn Chah once explained well how to have a relation, here in a simile of a glass:
The Broken Glass
You may say, "Don't break my glass!" But you can't prevent something breakable from breaking. If it doesn't break now, it'll break later on. If you don't break it, someone else will. If someone else doesn't break it, one of the chickens will! The Buddha says to accept this. He penetrated all the way to seeing that this glass is already broken. This glass that isn't broken, he has us know as already broken. Whenever you pick up the glass, put water in it, drink from it, and put it down, he tells you to see that it's already broken. Understand? The Buddha's understanding was like this. He saw the broken glass in the unbroken one. Whenever its conditions run out, it'll break. Develop this attitude. Use the glass; look after it. Then one day it slips out of your hand: "Smash!" No problem. Why no problem? Because you saw it as broken before it broke. See?
But usually people say, "I've taken such good care of this glass. Don't ever let it break." Later on the dog breaks it, and you hate the dog. If your child breaks it, you hate him, too. You hate whoever breaks it — because you've dammed yourself up so that the water can't flow. You've made a dam without a spillway. The only thing the dam can do is burst, right? When you make a dam, you have to make a spillway, too. When the water rises up to a certain level, it can flow off safely to the side. When it's full to the brim, it can flow out the spillway. You need to have a spillway like this. Seeing inconstancy is the Buddha's spillway. When you see things this way, you can be at peace. That's the practice of the Dhamma.
That's the case how to possible think if having or losing a relation.
The other case is the sub-question:
And what is the point of trying to build a life together with another person when it's inevitably going to end? Sometimes it all feels like such a cruel joke.
Realization that becoming is actually a "curel joke" is a very high realization and if seen in all compound things the reason for earnest seeking a path out, blessed if having come to the Buddhas good teachings. This is meeting up with the reality of Dukkha.
So in regard of search, what will be for a long time benefit? That search it self is bound to much suffering as well, is clear, but if not having a search is needed and there are three kinds:
Iti 54
This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "There are these three searches. Which three? The search for sensuality, the search for becoming, the search for a holy life. These are the three searches."
Centered,
mindful,
alert,
the Awakened One's
disciple
discerns searches,
how searches come into play,
where they cease,
& the path to their ending.
With the ending of searches, a monk
free of want
is totally unbound.
Search for a partner is nothing but about searching after sensuallity, maybe becoming, isn't it? Of course after a career even more... so just give it a deeper thought and maybe use you luck of independency you currently have for a more holly life to be.
At the End it's maybe worthy to say, that also searching for a relation to be able to live the holly life is actually nessesary, so admirable friend(s) are always worthy to seach for and also to invest much in such a relationship, even of course it will outardly break, but once being part of the other kind, no and never alone and without support till standing firm alone.
Of course, after getting enlightened, One is free from worry: now the person is in higher dimension and is always happy, as he knows how perfect everything is.
But still Buddha's family was there; I mean, wasn't his family his responsibility?
I remember when the Buddha came back to the palace and met his wife: she asked, "just tell me, if it was possible to get enlightenment in the palace."
How necessary is it to leave our families to practice, and if it is not necessary why didn't Buddha just come back? I always feel sad when I think about Siddh?rtha Gautama's wife Yashodhara.
If one is enlightened, he can not hurt anyone feelings: but Buddha hurt Yashodhara's feelings?
I know I am incorrect somewhere, because after all He was enlightened, so he can not take wrong decision.
Top Answer:
What's your point? There is NO SUCH THING as right decision and wrong decision. It purely depends on the context of the situation. If Gautama wants the answer he is seeking, then he has to leave the family. Period. It is NOT WRONG. He did it because he was yearning for it. It cannot happen to you or me, because we don't have the guts to sacrifice and drop everything that doesn't matter and go towards our goal. If Gautama wanted to rule the world or a kingdom, he would have taken different actions. Actions are according to the goal and the situation. Don't think in terms of marriage/divorce law or morality here.
I also want to add finally that, to go for Nirvana is definitely a selfish matter. If I want to find out what it is, it is because it is MY DESIRE to find out. Without Desire, you cannot live, breathe, feel or do anything. It is a desire to find out about life that Gautama went forth with. And whether you like it or not, it is selfish. And why not be selfish about this? Yes you will hurt some feelings, but like I said, you cannot have everything, you have to sacrifice.
And keep in mind, this stack exchange has a greater number of Eastern Buddhists than many other English speaking online places. And these answers make it clear how utterly nihilistic and devaluing Buddhism is of the world and its possibilities. Compare this, on the other hand with Christianity. Christianity, where God Himself comes into the world to live amongst human beings out of Love. Where He, being the King of Kings allows Himself to be mocked and humiliated, and ultimately killed in the name of Love. Behold One who was not afraid of suffering - who did not want to "escape" suffering, but rather plunged straight into the jaws of suffering. Jesus, apart from being God, was a real man. There is something mawkish and unmanly about the retreat from the world in order to avoid suffering. It is true that attachment is suffering (or rather has the potential for suffering in it) - but that's no reason to avoid it.
Only weak natures, who cannot bear the pressure of pain and suffering will give up on themselves. A strong nature, even if reality were different than its desire, would never renounce the said desire. That is the ultimate statement of its strength, will, and determination in front of the world. The fact that it chooses to stick with its nature, rather than surrender to external circumstances. As such, the faith proposed by Christianity is the ultimate rebellion, the ultimate scandal, man's determination that he will stick with himself, rather than with the world. Christianity does not devalue this world by postulating a Heaven when "All tears will be wiped away", but rather lifts up the world, makes it divine. What greater source of strength can be imagined, than this infinite faith, which burns up anything that stands against it, and remains true to one's nature and desires?
It is only in relationship with the transcendent that the joy of immanence is possible.
Blaise Pascal: "Man is only a reed, the weakest in nature, but he is a thinking reed. There is no need for the whole universe to take up arms to crush him: a vapour, a drop of water is enough to kill him. but even if the universe were to crush him, man would still be nobler than his slayer, because he knows that he is dying and the advantage the universe has over him. The universe knows none of this."
And these answers make it clear how utterly nihilistic and devaluing Buddhism is of the world and its possibilities. Compare this, on the other hand with Christianity. Christianity, where God Himself comes into the world to live amongst human beings out of Love. Where He, being the King of Kings allows Himself to be mocked and humiliated, and ultimately killed in the name of Love. Behold One who was not afraid of suffering - who did not want to "escape" suffering, but rather plunged straight into the jaws of suffering. Jesus, apart from being God, was a real man. There is something mawkish and unmanly about the retreat from the world in order to avoid suffering. It is true that attachment is suffering (or rather has the potential for suffering in it) - but that's no reason to avoid it.
Only weak natures, who cannot bear the pressure of pain and suffering will give up on themselves. A strong nature, even if reality were different than its desire, would never renounce the said desire. That is the ultimate statement of its strength, will, and determination in front of the world. The fact that it chooses to stick with its nature, rather than surrender to external circumstances. As such, the faith proposed by Christianity is the ultimate rebellion, the ultimate scandal, man's determination that he will stick with himself, rather than with the world. Christianity does not devalue this world by postulating a Heaven when "All tears will be wiped away", but rather lifts up the world, makes it divine. What greater source of strength can be imagined, than this infinite faith, which burns up anything that stands against it, and remains true to one's nature and desires?
Peace, brother. Forgive me please for skipping to your conclusions though, for it seems here is where we will most respectfully part on this matter. We may meet up at another time and subject. Until then... nostrovia! Please don’t think me “mawkish or unmanly” for retreating from this debate. I realize now that I initiated this discussion by asking you to clarify your stance on nihilism and Buddhism. Now we have it, and are thankful. Maybe I could have even guessed it. If you feel that Buddhism is somehow deficient compared to Christianity, who I am to argue? I don’t consider Buddhism to be nihilist, but what of it? If all living Buddhists took a vote on the matter, would it in deed matter? It would probably be interesting at least. But I find absolute comparisons and competitions relatively unhelpful. In a way, one person can be looking for a useful knife to cut some food with, while another may be searching for the One, True blade Excaliber. Both are noble. Or has Excaliber been found? Then good! Maybe I am searching for it too in a way. You have your beliefs. May they safely carry you wherever you need them to. (Please overlook my melodramatics and mild playful joking. It is less sour and tart than lemonade. This is definitely a serious subject. Carry onward please. Respond as you see fit! :up: )
It would probably be interesting at least. But I find absolute comparisons and competitions relatively unhelpful. In a way, one person can be looking for a useful knife to cut some food with, while another may be searching for the One, True blade Excaliber. Both are noble. Or has Excaliber been found? Then good! Maybe I am searching for it too in a way. You have your beliefs. May they safely carry you wherever you need them to. (Please overlook my melodramatics and mild playful joking. It is less sour and tart than lemonade. This is definitely a serious subject. Carry onward please. Respond as you see fit! :up: )
Hm, I think that you have already placed me in a little box that says "Christian", and therefore not worth aruging with, because it won't get anywhere. That's what I feel, I may be wrong, but that's what it seems like. I am not dogmatic, I just look at what is there. In fact, whether or not Buddhism is nihilistic has nothing to do with Christianity.
About love and relationships:
All the experience you can derive from it is Dukkha
In ultimate reality, relationships don't exit. It's just craving/clinging arising in the mind for seeing, hearing, smelling, touching etc.
Ajahn Chah once explained well how to have a relation, here in a simile of a glass:
The Broken Glass
You may say, "Don't break my glass!" But you can't prevent something breakable from breaking. If it doesn't break now, it'll break later on. If you don't break it, someone else will. If someone else doesn't break it, one of the chickens will! The Buddha says to accept this. He penetrated all the way to seeing that this glass is already broken. This glass that isn't broken, he has us know as already broken. Whenever you pick up the glass, put water in it, drink from it, and put it down, he tells you to see that it's already broken. Understand? The Buddha's understanding was like this. He saw the broken glass in the unbroken one. Whenever its conditions run out, it'll break. Develop this attitude. Use the glass; look after it. Then one day it slips out of your hand: "Smash!" No problem. Why no problem? Because you saw it as broken before it broke. See?
So your child died? No problem! There is no self there, who is there to die? See your child as dead already.
And more:
to go for Nirvana is definitely a selfish matter
Yes you will hurt some feelings, but like I said, you cannot have everything, you have to sacrifice.
So if this isn't an example of nihilism, I don't know what is. Sure, Buddhists claim "Oh yeah, we are not nihilists, because there is no self in the first place to die" - I don't see how that avoids the accusation.
Personally, I am a "seeker" of sorts and have an interest for both Christianity, Platonism and Buddhism and you actually pointed out my own reservations about, especially, Theravada Buddhism. I think that, however, it is worth mentioning that the worldview of Buddhism and Christianity is radically different, and on this particular issue I think that the influence of the concept of "samsara" is relevant (that's why I think secular Buddhism is not "real" Buddhism).
Basically, all beings in Buddhism are seen as subject to a potentially endless cycle of rebirths. All these realms, however blissful, are impermanent and therefore they are ultimately "dukkha" because they are not free from decay and death. As the story goes, the Buddha sought a solution to this problem, i.e. freedom from old age, illness and death. He abandoned his family to seek a solution to this problem and he found it. An "unawakened" life cannot give a solution to the problem of (repeated) decay and death, and therefore Buddhists would say that he actually gave to his family, after awakening, something that is unvaluable, something that surpasses every joy that can give the "world". As a king he could never give even to his family the freedom of Nirvana.
As the story goes, the Buddha awakened to the "Dhamma" and expounded the four Noble Truths. The first is that there is suffering, given by decay, death, association with the "unbeloved" etc. The second is craving. Note that craving is seen as the cause of the "transmigration". The third Nobel Truth is Nirvana, the end of suffering. The fourth is the Path to achieve Nirvana. According to the "suttas" Nirvana is achieved by being unattached and also without aversion. So, the training leads to see reality with personal preferences, which are said to be rooted in ignorance (avijja), the cause of craving (and ultimately the cause of samsara).
Anyway, it is difficult IMO to render justice to Buddhism in all its various forms. Theravada and Mahayana are very different and in each of them there are a lot of school of thoughts.
I think that there are two main reason why people call Buddhism as "nihilistic". One is that according to them (and also for some Buddhists!) Nirvana is simply the mere absence of conditioned phenomena. The other is its tendency of world-denial.
As I said, some interpret Nirvana as "mere absence". But, I think that it is mostly a modern innovation and not a good one (except for, probably, the ancient Buddhist Sautrantika school). For example, even in the Canonical commentaries (i.e. included in the Pali Canon) there are a few "positive" description of Nirvana as being "permanent" (or even "eternal" albeit "not-self and not pertaining to a self", see e.g. this section of the Kathavatthu, a part of the Theravada canonical Abhidhamma). So even saying that for "Buddhism" everything is impermanent and unsatisfactory, is an over-simplification. Then you have the Mahayana idea that there is the "non-abiding Nirvana", where the liberated being (in this case a Bodhisattva or a Buddha) abides in neither Samsara nor in Nirvana, and therefore s/he "renounces" the bliss of Nirvana for the benefit of all sentient beings.
Anyway, look closer. Anatta means also that phenomena are not under one's control and therefore, egoism leads to suffering. Hence, by removing the concern to oneself, in both Theravada and Mahayana the idea is that one reduces egoism. And in fact, the reduction of lust, attachments, aversions etc are accompained by an increasing of "positive" qualities like loving-kindness and compassion. Detachment also means that one does not see the world with the lens of one's preferences and therefore he might also be more able to love others for what they are (and not under the lens of one's expectations, for example). The Mahayana emphasizes the "compassion" part as well the "wisdom" part, hence "taking care of others" is very important in a Mahayana context. But if there is no "potentially endless samsara" the Theravada's "world-denying tendency" and the Mahayana vows to help all sentient beings lose, in my opinion, their meaning. Anyway, if that belief is not true, Buddhism, howwever, can be very useful to be mindful, patient and so on. Buddhist teachings about ethics are in my opinion very useful to non-Buddhists (for example to do vipassana, samatha and metta meditation I do not think that "belief" is required, except an amount of "trust"...).
Also, Buddhism is not anti-natalist. In fact, the human birth is regarded as "precious" and as an opportunity to aspire to the "Highest" or at least for better future rebirths. Again, it is also important to remember, IMO, that AFAIK most forms of Buddhism regard salvation as due to personal commitment (i.e. Buddhist teachers might teach you the Path, you are free to follow it or not. And also you have to walk the Path if you wish).
Regarding what Buddhists say, well, I think that all religions are subject to very different interpretations. For example, some Christians of them believe that "faith" in the sense of "mere belief" is what lead to Salvation, to "Heaven". And, in fact, according to some Christians all "unbelievers" go to Hell. So, I imagine that even in Buddhism there are a lot of views. For example see theEdicts of Ashoka:, e.g:
Everywhere[2] within Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi's domain, and among the people beyond the borders, the Cholas, the Pandyas, the Satiyaputras, the Keralaputras, as far as Tamraparni and where the Greek king Antiochos rules, and among the kings who are neighbors of Antiochos,[3] everywhere has Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, made provision for two types of medical treatment: medical treatment for humans and medical treatment for animals. Wherever medical herbs suitable for humans or animals are not available, I have had them imported and grown. Wherever medical roots or fruits are not available I have had them imported and grown. Along roads I have had wells dug and trees planted for the benefit of humans and animals.
...
is this "world-denying"?
Also, also many forms of Hinduism and Jainism are as "world-denying" as Buddhism. IMO, the belief in Samsara is the reason behind this "world-denying" tendency in India. But, on the other hand, the same belief can also inspire compassion, non-violence and so on.
Personally, I am interested in Buddhism. But I am highly skeptical of many of its doctrines. And, therefore I have reservations, for example, about the "total letting go of all attachements".
Reply to 0 thru 9 In my view, "anatta" points to the non-objectification of "what is the self" (the "identification" process).
Anyway, I think that "interpentration" is quite widespread in East Asian Buddhist teaching, especially in the Huayan school (see e.g.: this article on Fazang, the third patriarch of the Huayan school. on the IEP), which is based on the Avatamsaka sutra.
I think that anatta can be interpreted in a nihilistic way, sadly. However, in Buddhism there is also the "compassion" side of things that should be emphasized. Maybe also @Wayfarer might share his thoughts. In fact, I am very disturbed by the nihilistic readings of "anatta"!
The same goes for "emptiness".
And the reason it is nihilistic is precisely because it castrates man's need for love, and man's need to suffer for their love. All in order to avoid suffering. Don't REALLY love your child - because you know, he is already dead. Be careful there - not too much attachment, you will suffer. It promotes a disengagement with life, or better said, a superficialy engagement with life. It cannot go into depths, it always remains at the surface.
So, the training leads to see reality with personal preferences, which are said to be rooted in ignorance (avijja), the cause of craving (and ultimately the cause of samsara).
I think you mean without personal preferences, but then I see that as dehumanising. How can you be human, if you don't have any preferences? We are human precisely because we can choose, and we choose based on our will, meaning based on our preferences.
For example, even in the Canonical commentaries (i.e. included in the Pali Canon) there are a few "positive" description of Nirvana as being "permanent" (or even "eternal" albeit "not-self and not pertaining to a self", see e.g. this section of the Kathavatthu, a part of the Theravada canonical Abhidhamma).
Sure, it's even called "eternal bliss". But those conceptions are never developed, nor is it clear what "eternal bliss" means, when Nirvana literarily translates as a "blowing out". When you combine this with the doctrine of anatta - no abiding self whatsoever - then it seems to me that things go quite far towards nihilism. Buddhism speaks very clearly against eternalism, and actually also condemns nihilism, but the two condemnations are made because both eternalism and nihilism assume that there is an abiding self to begin with.
And in fact, the reduction of lust, attachments, aversions etc are accompained by an increasing of "positive" qualities like loving-kindness and compassion.
I don't see why the "positive" qualities would follow from the mere removal of lust, and the like. To me, it's more like those positive qualities have to be cultivated for themselves. Love, after all, isn't merely the absence of evil.
Some people who practice meditation end up becoming very closed in themselves, and cold, unmoved, uncaring, inhuman. Breivik for example used meditation to carry out mass murder.
So I'm not at all sure about the soundness of this Buddhist philosophy. It makes sense in the West, where people are generally no longer interested in anything except comfort, and individualism or egoism reigns supreme.
Detachment also means that one does not see the world with the lens of one's preferences and therefore he might also be more able to love others for what they are (and not under the lens of one's expectations, for example).
I want to challenge this. The personality is an integral aspect of loving someone. It is because of one's preferences, in other words, one's humanity, one's fraility, that love is at all possible. It is because I prefer this, over that, that I can be said to like the one. How is it possible to "love others for what they are" when I have no preferences whatsoever? To love them means that I must will to like them... I must will to want them, to prefer them, to choose them.
Buddhist teachings about ethics are in my opinion very useful to non-Buddhists (for example to do vipassana, samatha and metta meditation I do not think that "belief" is required, except an amount of "trust"...).
Not so much here. I don't think ethics requires meditation and the like. Meditation just helps to clarify perception, but does nothing apart from that. It does not change one's will, it does not bring about a change in one's being or one's character.
And the reason it is nihilistic is precisely because it castrates man's need for love, and man's need to suffer for their love. -
Christians definitely attend to the fine art of suffering, embracing hair shirts and self flagellation in imitation of the Great Tortured One.
Christian symbolism is utterly ghastly. We have horror movies now. We no longer need the church for that. In countless ways we've just outgrown it, and that's why Christianity is dead.
Reply to frank What's ghastly about a powerful King going to die after his beloved? That's almost the essence of heroism. It makes sense that it is misunderstood in an age such as ours, which, as Kierkegaard said:
Let others complain that the age is wicked; my complaint is that it is paltry; for it lacks passion. Men's thoughts are thin and flimsy like lace, they are themselves pitiable like the lacemakers. The thoughts of their hearts are too paltry to be sinful. For a worm it might be regarded as a sin to harbor such thoughts, but not for a being made in the image of God. Their lusts are dull and sluggish, their passions sleepy...This is the reason my soul always turns back to the Old Testament and to Shakespeare. I feel that those who speak there are at least human beings: they hate, they love, they murder their enemies, and curse their descendants throughout all generations, they sin
Christianity was a significant tool for me in building character and understanding myself / developing passion, commitment, other virtue etc. I might not experience an understanding of divinity had I not got involved with the church band.
Christianity was a significant tool for me in building character and understanding myself / developing passion, commitment, other virtue etc. I might not experience an understanding of divinity had I not got involved with the church band.
Reply to Agustino
Ha! Fair enough and well played. Thanks for not dismissing my post despite the perhaps mild exasperation. I’ll try to do likewise. You are Christian? As mentioned, I am a Christian... who was later influenced by Buddhism, the Tao, the Hindu and yogic traditions, etc. Maybe they are oil and water and don’t mix. Maybe together they mix up one’s mind. Maybe oil and water is just salad dressing for a mixed salad. (By the way, I am not a big fan of this thread’s current title. But if Christianity went down in flames, you know the story of the Phoenix. And the book of Revelation, if you’d like.)
Excuse me if I politely decline a point by point discussion for now. It is not meant to be dismissive. However, you presented a mixed bag of quotes ranging from a helpful parable from acknowledged master Ajahn Chah (about the temporality and fragility of everything which makes it more precious, not less) to questions from Joe Schmo asking Jane Doe on Stack exchange who possibly answers “seeking Nirvana is selfish nihilism... blah blah... but you gotta crack some eggs to make an omelet... yada yada, etc... Then you toss in some comparisons with Christianity. If you are convinced, then good. If you’re happy, I’m happy! If you come across the Buddha on the road, give him a good kick in his unflatteringly tight yoga pants! The Zen masters would approve. :snicker:
There is nihilism and despair everywhere one turns in this world. It’s in the air! It’s in our bones. We probably bring it to our religions. Maybe that’s why were there in the first place. Let’s find a cure or cures for ourselves as soon as possible. That’s not selfish. It’s taking the splinter out of my eye first, to be able to see what’s going on...
(about the temporality and fragility of everything which makes it more precious, not less)
Let's look at the story:
The Broken Glass
You may say, "Don't break my glass!" But you can't prevent something breakable from breaking. If it doesn't break now, it'll break later on. If you don't break it, someone else will. If someone else doesn't break it, one of the chickens will! The Buddha says to accept this. He penetrated all the way to seeing that this glass is already broken. This glass that isn't broken, he has us know as already broken. Whenever you pick up the glass, put water in it, drink from it, and put it down, he tells you to see that it's already broken. Understand? The Buddha's understanding was like this. He saw the broken glass in the unbroken one. Whenever its conditions run out, it'll break. Develop this attitude. Use the glass; look after it. Then one day it slips out of your hand: "Smash!" No problem. Why no problem? Because you saw it as broken before it broke. See?
But usually people say, "I've taken such good care of this glass. Don't ever let it break." Later on the dog breaks it, and you hate the dog. If your child breaks it, you hate him, too. You hate whoever breaks it — because you've dammed yourself up so that the water can't flow. You've made a dam without a spillway. The only thing the dam can do is burst, right? When you make a dam, you have to make a spillway, too. When the water rises up to a certain level, it can flow off safely to the side. When it's full to the brim, it can flow out the spillway. You need to have a spillway like this. Seeing inconstancy is the Buddha's spillway. When you see things this way, you can be at peace. That's the practice of the Dhamma.
Can you please show me where the story highlights that temporality and fragility makes everything more precious rather than less? I may be wrong, but I think this really is your own addition. There's nothing wrong if you believe this, but I see no indication for it in the story.
I can see indications in the story that you should be at peace when things and people break down because that is their nature - to ultimately break down. But there's nothing in there as far as I can see about the fact that things are temporal and fragile, that they are therefore more valuable rather than less.
They cause suffering, pain, distress and so on. And I think that compassion also means to limit our suffering. If someone is suffering, we should try to help him/her. They are bad in the same way an illness is bad (and therefore we seek to cure it).
I think you mean without personal preferences, but then I see that as dehumanising. How can you be human, if you don't have any preferences? We are human precisely because we can choose, and we choose based on our will, meaning based on our preferences.
I agree to that to an extent. I think that "preferences" in a sense are still there, even in "liberated individuals". For example, the last thing Sariputta (the "wisest disciple" in the suttas) did was to "liberate" his mother. If he had no preference, why did he went to free his mother and not an unkwnown person? On the other hand, however, I think he is depicted as "unattached" to his preferences. And non-attachment does not mean "indifference".
But note that in Theravada, the total freedom from craving is gained at Arhant level (full liberation). Stream-enterers (who are partially liberated) can also enjoy "wordly" pleasures, live an "ordinary" life etc. They, however, have abandoned all "self-views". Again, I think that in this radical "transcendence" of the human condition is due again to the belief in Samsara. For Indians it is "normal" that humans can become even more "worthy" than the devas. So, in such a cultural landscape I am not too surprised to see somewhat disturbing ideas.
Sure, it's even called "eternal bliss". But those conceptions are never developed, nor is it clear what "eternal bliss" means, when Nirvana literarily translates as a "blowing out". When you combine this with the doctrine of anatta - no abiding self whatsoever - then it seems to me that things go quite far towards nihilism. Buddhism speaks very clearly against eternalism, and actually also condemns nihilism, but the two condemnations are made because both eternalism and nihilism assume that there is an abiding self to begin with.
Yes, anatta seems to point towards that. But, as far as I know, only an ancient school of Buddhism apparently interpreted Nirvana in that way! So, I think that it is not simply "oblivion". Also in the discourses themselves the Tathagatha is said to be "deep, boundless..." (see e.g. the sutta MN 72). Of course we have the "extinction of the fire" analogy, but we have also a "hint" to some "ineffability". Also, there are some hints in discourses like: Udana 8.1 and Iti 43. But, indeed you are correct in saying that both eternalism and annihilationism were criticized for poisiting an "abiding self". So, sadly, the nihilist view has its textual support (and, in fact, you find a lot of people who say that). I do not deny that!
Regarding what is that "eternal bliss", if not "mere absence", I agree that it is not developed. This is meaningful in the "Buddhist soteriological context", because if one "conceives things" about Nirvana, one begins to grasp his concept of Nirvana and therefore can miss Nirvana itself. Personally, I think that "mere absence" can be considered as a "worthwile goal" only if one thinks that anatta means that we do not exist at all.
Anyway, I think that even in Christianity we do not know what the promised "eternal bliss" is! After all, I have no clear idea of "what is like" to be in Communion with God? Or, take for example religions that aspire at "union with God". What does that mean, experientially? So, IMO, the fact that Buddhism does not want to describe Nirvana is due to a strict "apophatic" approach (and yes, I think it is sometimes misunderstood as "oblivion").
I don't see why the "positive" qualities would follow from the mere removal of lust, and the like. To me, it's more like those positive qualities have to be cultivated for themselves. Love, after all, isn't merely the absence of evil.
Agreed! Sorry, for the lack of clarity, I did not want to imply that! What I meant is that we can develop positive qualities easier if we remove "negative ones". In fact, Buddhism without the cultivation of positive qualities can become an ego trip IMO.
I want to challenge this. The personality is an integral aspect of loving someone. It is because of one's preferences, in other words, one's humanity, one's fraility, that love is at all possible. It is because I prefer this, over that, that I can be said to like the one. How is it possible to "love others for what they are" when I have no preferences whatsoever? To love them means that I must will to like them... I must will to want them, to prefer them, to choose them.
Again, I agree with this. And I think that Buddhism does agree with it. In fact, there is also e.g. "mudita", i.e. "symphatetic joy". As I said before, maybe the problem is not preference or personality but our tendency to "grasp" and not be able to "let go". But, you are right. Even compassion itself is a preference: you want others to feel good and so on. I think that the problem is egoism here, i.e. wanting to control others for selfish reasons.
Anyway, I still like Christianity for the reason you mention here. We are not told to behave in a "god-like" way, so to speak. We can still be "human", with our weaknesses. We do not need to "renounce" the world to achieve Salvation. Hence, we can try to do our best as humans to make the world a better place, to love others and so on. In Christianity one does not have to think in terms of multiple life and, therefore, should try to value this life. So Christianity, as you say, is more life-affirming. Also, Christianity is, in a way, more flexible than Buddhism: a person that has a greater tendency to enjoy worldy pleasures is not "disadvantaged" in the pursuit of Salvation.
On the other hand, if there is no God and we are in a Samsara the situation is different...
Not so much here. I don't think ethics requires meditation and the like. Meditation just helps to clarify perception, but does nothing apart from that. It does not change one's will, it does not bring about a change in one's being or one's character.
Again, I agree that meditation per se does not lead to love others. But, maybe it can help to become more effective in our actions. Also, by "ethical teachings" I also meant something like:
"Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do.
Well, I don't think death necessarily causes suffering, pain and distress, at least for the one dying. But old age, illness, etc. obviously do.
At the same time, I think it is possible to, psychologically so to speak, not mind your own suffering. In other words, the suffering is still there, the pain, for example, is still there, but you don't mind it. It's hard to describe this state, I've sometimes experienced it. So I think it is possible to accept life, and see the pains as inseparable from the joys, and say yes to the whole ride, without "extinguishing" yourself as per Buddhism.
I agree to that to an extent. I think that "preferences" in a sense are still there, even in "liberated individuals". For example, the last thing Sariputta (the "wisest disciple" in the suttas) did was to "liberate" his mother. If he had no preference, why did he went to free his mother and not an unkwnown person? On the other hand, however, I think he is depicted as "unattached" to his preferences. And non-attachment does not mean "indifference".
But note that in Theravada, the total freedom from craving is gained at Arhant level (full liberation). Stream-enterers (who are partially liberated) can also enjoy "wordly" pleasures, live an "ordinary" life etc. They, however, have abandoned all "self-views". Again, I think that in this radical "transcendence" of the human condition is due again to the belief in Samsara. For Indians it is "normal" that humans can become even more "worthy" than the devas. So, in such a cultural landscape I am not too surprised to see somewhat disturbing ideas.
Yes, anatta seems to point towards that. But, as far as I know, only an ancient school of Buddhism apparently interpreted Nirvana in that way! So, I think that it is not simply "oblivion". Also in the discourses themselves the Tathagatha is said to be "deep, boundless..." (see e.g. the sutta MN 72). Of course we have the "extinction of the fire" analogy, but we have also a "hint" to some "ineffability". Also, there are some hints in discourses like: Udana 8.1 and Iti 43. But, indeed you are correct in saying that both eternalism and annihilationism were criticized for poisiting an "abiding self". So, sadly, the nihilist view has its textual support (and, in fact, you find a lot of people who say that). I do not deny that!
Regarding what is that "eternal bliss", if not "mere absence", I agree that it is not developed. This is meaningful in the "Buddhist soteriological context", because if one "conceives things" about Nirvana, one begins to grasp his concept of Nirvana and therefore can miss Nirvana itself. Personally, I think that "mere absence" can be considered as a "worthwile goal" only if one thinks that anatta means that we do not exist at all.
Anyway, I think that even in Christianity we do not know what the promised "eternal bliss" is! After all, I have no clear idea of "what is like" to be in Communion with God? Or, take for example religions that aspire at "union with God". What does that mean, experientially? So, IMO, the fact that Buddhism does not want to describe Nirvana is due to a strict "apophatic" approach (and yes, I think it is sometimes misunderstood as "oblivion").
I think that the problem is egoism here, i.e. wanting to control others for selfish reasons.
Yeah, I sort of agree, but this point is disputable. Suppose you have a son who is addicted to hard drugs - stuff like cocaine. In one sense, you do want to control him (so that he no longer takes the drugs). I think this desire to control him is, in this case, natural and justified. But the desire to control him will not be JUST for your own good, but also for his (your good is also related to his good, the two are, to some extent, mutually dependent). So in what sense do you say you should be unattached to saving your son?
On the other hand, if there is no God and we are in a Samsara the situation is different...
The interesting thing on this point, is that I don't think there has to be a God. It is sufficient to have faith in Him. Faith transcends the rational, but is not thereby irrational. Having faith will still transform THIS LIFE.
I think that, however, we should try to find a balance here, i.e. trying to love and also trying to avoid too much attachment.
Can you clarify what attachment means, and also why we should avoid attachment in love? For example, I love my son and I am attached to him, if he dies, I will be devastated. But I am not afraid of being devastated in that case... I would not want NOT to be devastated. The devastation is the expression of my love, I want to let it happen, why would I want to stop it?
Christianity is a dead religion. It's a vestige of a world now gone. It's absurd stories and ridiculous requirements have been superseded by secular authority and science. Good riddance.
For some people in the Western world, but it seems pretty vibrant in South American and Africa. I'm an atheist, but to call a religion with 2+ billion followers as dead seems kind of silly. A dead religion would be one without any followers, right? Or one that was dying off. Something like Zoroastrianism (325,000 followers according to Wiki which I guess is in perpetual decline).
Even in the west, there are still plenty of passionate followers. Maybe it's not so prominent in Europe, but in the US, you have a significant evangelical movement. It's not dead to them.
Aleksander KvamJuly 04, 2018 at 16:20#1938520 likes
fantasy is a good escape...especially if you`ve gone through some shitty stuff...I understand that very well...but reality IS and you cant change that no matter who much you want it to.
A dead religion would be one without any followers, right?
Romans clung to the old Roman religion for many years after it had become hollow and useless beyond a nod to tradition and a satisfaction to the superstitious. That's all Christianity is now.
You'll notice the forum members here who claim life for it are offering some imaginary Christianity, which is another sign that the real one is dead.
Reply to frank There are good reasons why Christianity isn't a dead religion that do not hinge on acceptance of the Creed (like "was crucified, died, and was buried; on the third day he arose from the dead..."). I can not intellectually consent to the Nicene Creed, and not all Christians heartily endorse the Creed. But that doesn't mean that Christianity is, in any sense "dead".
If you label the UK, Germany, or France as the deciding sample of Christianity's health, then sure, it will seem like it is on life support. However, there are about 2 billion plus Christians in the world. There are around 70 million Christians in China and 240 million in the United States. The rumors of Christianity's death have been greatly exaggerated.
What are the signs of Christianity being quite alive?
Numbers alone indicate that the life of the Church is ongoing.
Most Christians adhere to a reasonably common understanding of the Creed, and to the import of the scriptures.
Christians form communities and much (or all) of their lives are lived within that community.
Most Christians identify as Christians (meaning "being Christian" is more significant than a mere demographic category).
Many Christians (maybe half) participate regularly (on a monthly basis) in worship, scripture reading, thinking about what they should do vs. what they want to do in the context of the scripture) and so on.
There are many "hot spots" of Christian religious activity, as well as some "cold spots" (for better and for worse).
The fact that mainline Christians recite the Creed during the liturgy isn't what holds the church together anywhere. What holds the church together is what holds any and every group together: regular contact, identification of similarities, psychological and material benefits derived from, and a need to belong to a community.
Even you--finding the various points of the creed absurd as you do (by the way, Jesus is thought to have died in fact, not just sort of a faked death) could (and may) belong to a Christian community. You probably couldn't get away with belonging to a strict fundamentalist community, but there is room on the edges of Christian communities for the apostate, heretic, and nonbeliever. This is true of other religions too, not because the creeds allow it, but because communities can encompass some number of heretics without harm.
:up: :wink: (thanks for the link! anyway, as you might imagine I meant something like "absorption" as in pantheistic religions. But, I think that Christian "communion"/union with God somewhat resembles it even if the "separation" between God and the creatures remain. I have no idea about what that resemblance might be, however.)
Well, I don't think death necessarily causes suffering, pain and distress, at least for the one dying. But old age, illness, etc. obviously do.
maybe death does not cause pain, suffering etc in some cases. But for whoever is unable to "let go", thinking about the end of life is certainly painful and causes distress (meaning if one fears death, then death is certainly linked to suffering).
Also, Buddhists believe in rebirth and, for them, "death" is either Nirvana without remainder or leads to another life marked by old age, illness and so on (which, except for the case of a partially awakened one, means the continuation of a potentially endless cycle of rebirths and redeaths).
At the same time, I think it is possible to, psychologically so to speak, not mind your own suffering. In other words, the suffering is still there, the pain, for example, is still there, but you don't mind it. It's hard to describe this state, I've sometimes experienced it. So I think it is possible to accept life, and see the pains as inseparable from the joys, and say yes to the whole ride, without "extinguishing" yourself as per Buddhism.
Well, sometimes I think that "Arahants" dealt with suffering in that way. If you are familiar with the two darts analogy (see: SN 36.6 "The dart" ), where awakened beings are said to not experience mental suffering (and so, I think that you can consider that "total acceptance"). But, the total eradication of all forms of unsatisfactoriness and suffering according to the traditional Theravadin view happens at "Nirvana without remainder" (=death of a Arhat or a Buddha).
Personally, I would like to experience the state that you describe. But, IMO, this also means a reduction of "self concern" or more precisely a reduction of our tendency to strive to control things ("anatta", in a more experiential level, means "lack of control", see Anatta-lakkhana sutta (regarded to be the second discourse of the Buddha)). I think that the effect of "letting go" is roughly the state you describe.
Yeah, I sort of agree, but this point is disputable. Suppose you have a son who is addicted to hard drugs - stuff like cocaine. In one sense, you do want to control him (so that he no longer takes the drugs). I think this desire to control him is, in this case, natural and justified. But the desire to control him will not be JUST for your own good, but also for his (your good is also related to his good, the two are, to some extent, mutually dependent). So in what sense do you say you should be unattached to saving your son?
I would say that if you act in that way, you simply act out of compassion, which is very good (with or without "attachment"). In fact, you can act in that way also without thinking about your own good, but only for his (more on later...).
Okay, I agree! How do we go about developing positive qualities?
Probably, by trying to do actions that involve them (which means trying to cultivate that qualities actively). Spiritual practice might help to "develop" mindstates that are conductive for that actions.
The interesting thing on this point, is that I don't think there has to be a God. It is sufficient to have faith in Him. Faith transcends the rational, but is not thereby irrational. Having faith will still transform THIS LIFE.
Very interesting perspective :wink: ! Not sure that I can understand what you are saying here, but I think that I can even agree with it.
I do not understand, however, how it can be reconciled with the "traditional" position that if there is no resurrection, faith is vain (of course, I am not saying that you have to agree with that perspective but I wonder how you "deal" with this) (see e.g. 1 Cor 15:32 link "If the dead do not rise, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!”"). In fact, there are a lot of Christian dogmas that I can find very hard to accept and, sadly, no one was able to give me a satisfactory answer to my doubts.
Can you clarify what attachment means, and also why we should avoid attachment in love? For example, I love my son and I am attached to him, if he dies, I will be devastated. But I am not afraid of being devastated in that case... I would not want NOT to be devastated. The devastation is the expression of my love, I want to let it happen, why would I want to stop it?
Thank you very much for raising this issue. It is a very deep problem. I admit that I have not, in my mind, a clear understanding of what a "love without attachment" might be. Also, I admit that I have not a definitive answer. But let me separate the problem in two parts.
1) I think that "attachment" means clinging to positive experience in our life, in such a way that we cannot accept negative situations (which in my mind means we feel aversion). So, an unattached love might mean that I can accept that, for example, my son chooses a way of life that I would not like for him and I can still love him. Or, that I can be able to have positive feelings even to my "enemies" (i.e.desiring for them happiness and so on...). Note that I do not think that it is completely "right" to say that Buddhas are completely without desire. After all, they are seen as the embodiment of compassion (other than wisdom) and compassion (karuna) is of course a desire. There is also "metta" (loving-kindness). Linked to metta, mudita (sympathetic joy) and karuna, there is the prayer "may all beings be happy and secure", which is after all a desire! But again, what means experientially to love and to be without attachment at the same time? I don't really know! Love and acceptance are somewhat difficult to reconcile.
2) you said that "I would not want NOT to be devastated. The devastation is the expression of my love, I want to let it happen, why would I want to stop it?". This is an excellent question. I think that I cannot find a reason to stop you, because I think that I agree with you. Maybe a possible Buddhist answer is that, there is nothing wrong in it but unfortunately that (alone) will not save you from samsara (honestly, I find this answer as disturbing but unfortunately it has some truth in it...) and in order to "achieve" release from samsara you should accept to "let go" even loved ones without, of course, stopping to love them. But again, stream-enterers* might be extremely sad and therefore I am not even sure of what a real answer might be.
Anyway, I refuse to think that there is something "wrong" in your reaction and you should change it and in fact it is one of my qualms about Buddhism. A strong point of Christianity is that "love" is the highest virtue and there are various way for expressing it. Christianity has the strong point to be able to give meaning and value to suffering. Also, in Christianity we are not expected to change our condition and become somewhat "super-human", but we can give meaning and value to our experiences, actions and so on: something that everybody can do (in a way or an another depending on their possibilities...).
*see how Ananda is described here. I like him in particular, because unlike other famous disciples looks very "human" and I can relate to him much more than the others more "awakened" ones! :smile:
P.S. Note that English is not my mother tongue. Also, some ideas expressed here are not even clear in my mind. So, sorry if I am not clear, enough or if I have made mistakes!
I think that anatta can be interpreted in a nihilistic way, sadly.
Nihilism is a caricature of Buddhism which sadly some Buddhists unwittingly fall into. But nihilism is explicitly called out as an incorrect view from the outset of Buddhist teaching.
Oh, and no, Christianity is not a ‘dead religion’. I’m old enough to recall reading the nineteen sixty six Time magazine with the cover Is God Dead? Thought it was ridiculously misconceived and nothing has happened since to cause me to change that view. Of course a lot rides on interpretation. It never occurred to me that the Bible was literally true, so the fact that it’s not literally true doesn’t have a particular impact on me.
But the core teaching of Christianity is based on agap? which is a direct counterpart to bodhicitta. The whole point is to live out of a sense of compassion and relatedness. Like Augustine said: ‘love, and do what you will’. But it’s not as easy as it sounds.
But what do you think, in particular, about the points raised by Agustino in this post and at the end of this one? I think I have partly answered to them. But there are some points that indeed are very difficult to answer.
Is religion's role as the focus of community something that could be taken over by a non-religious entity?
Of course -- religion isn't the only focus of community. An example:
The Degree of Honor Protective Association began in the 1870s as a women's support organization for striking railroad workers and their families. Over time it became a fraternal organization that was the focus of community, particularly in small midwestern towns, but also an insurance company. It was much like the the Eagles or Masons. They held dances, meals, parties, meetings, and so on. The Fraternal side came to an end in the 1950s-1960s. If they had been a religion (it wasn't), it would now be a dead religion. It remains as a small women-run (and profitable) life insurance company. If the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America disappeared, but the insurance companies Aid Association for Lutherans and Lutheran Brotherhood (now merged into Thrivant Financial) were all that remained, we could say "Lutheranism is dead."
I am saying that Buddhism is accepted as it is accepted mostly because it is misunderstood through the lens of our hedonistic/consumerist culture. Buddhism is a palliative against pain and suffering. But the issue lies with the way it is used. It's used in order to mask resolvable pains as unresolvable ones, in order to maintain a diseased state of the soul, in order to prevent the pain from waking one up to one's own conditioning. Buddhism is a way of avoiding the need to look at your own face and to actually do something that can bring about a resolution.
Yeah there's nothing like silent meditation for hours on end to avoid looking at your own face.
There's some truth in what Agustino is saying, because there's a lot of trendy fashionable Western Buddhism that is indeed platitudes and emotional palliatives. Zizek picked up on the same trend. But, as Rumi said - there would be no fools' gold, if there were no gold.
Our communities are built around attachments. Attachments to your home, attachments to your family, attachments to your children, attachments to your work, etc.
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26
What I meant is that we can develop positive qualities easier if we remove "negative ones".
— boundless
Okay, I agree! How do we go about developing positive qualities?
That is the point I would like to address. In Christianity, the emphasis is on forming a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. You feel this as a living presence in your life, which naturally results in the development of qualities such as charity, self-restraint, and so on. However - not always. Even Christians who say they have been 'born again' will confess that their inherent negative tendencies (to put it in modern terms) still have a grip on them. Actually Paul laments this Romans 7:14. And I'm sure many a spiritual seeker will have gone through that - I know I do on a daily basis.
In Buddhist practice, the 'agency of change' relies on a different 'energy source'. It comes from clearly seeing and understanding the source of dukkha. Now when that is written out, it's easy to say 'well that's just a dogma'. And it would be, if you only wrote it out, or talked about it. But the point of Buddhist training is to really see how the process of clinging, attachment and craving is giving rise to unhappiness, moment to moment. And part of that, is also the realisation of the true nature, which is the aspect of the being that understands and responds to the teaching (known in Mahayana Buddhism as the Buddha Nature, Tath?gatagarbha). I guess it sounds complicated when you try and explain it, but the crux of it is similar to the Biblical teaching 'you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free'. But that 'knowing' is 'jnana', or direct insight into the cause of sorrow. That is a skill that can be learned and applied.
So developing positive qualities means, the pursuit of the 'three legs of the tripod', which are wisdom (prajna), morality (sila) and meditation (samadhi). Then the 'true nature' begins to manifest. Really a lot of the skill of meditation is learning how to get out of the way of that happening.
Christianity is dead in the sense that its symbols no longer resonate for Western man - that much is true.
There is a lot of truth in that. A large part of the issue is that the tropes and imagery of the Bible hark back to an early agrarian, pre-industrial culture - sheep, fields and religious sacrifices. It is remote from the life and experience of the 21st century. But that is why interpretation is needed. There are still universal truths in the tradition, but they need to be constantly re-interpreted in light of changing circumstances. Obviously 'biblical literalism' is an impediment to that - that leads to fundamentalism and many other conflicts.
Karen Armstrong is a good commentator on this subject, not least because she has the perspective of comparative religion rather than Christian apologetics. I frequently cite of her OP's from a few years ago, titled Should we believe in belief? And it's a very good question.
Stories of heroes descending to the underworld were not regarded as primarily factual but taught people how to negotiate the obscure regions of the psyche. In the same way, the purpose of a creation myth was therapeutic; before the modern period no sensible person ever thought it gave an accurate account of the origins of life. A cosmology was recited at times of crisis or sickness, when people needed a symbolic influx of the creative energy that had brought something out of nothing. Thus the Genesis myth, a gentle polemic against Babylonian religion, was balm to the bruised spirits of the Israelites who had been defeated and deported by the armies of Nebuchadnezzar during the sixth century BCE. Nobody was required to "believe" it; like most peoples, the Israelites had a number of other mutually-exclusive creation stories and as late as the 16th century, Jews thought nothing of making up a new creation myth that bore no relation to Genesis but spoke more directly to their tragic circumstances at that time.
Above all, myth was a programme of action. When a mythical narrative was symbolically re-enacted, it brought to light within the practitioner something "true" about human life and the way our humanity worked, even if its insights, like those of art, could not be proven rationally. If you did not act upon it, it would remain as incomprehensible and abstract – like the rules of a board game, which seem impossibly convoluted, dull and meaningless until you start to play.
Religious truth is, therefore, a species of practical knowledge. Like swimming, we cannot learn it in the abstract; we have to plunge into the pool and acquire the knack by dedicated practice. Religious doctrines are a product of ritual and ethical observance, and make no sense unless they are accompanied by such spiritual exercises as yoga, prayer, liturgy and a consistently compassionate lifestyle. Skilled practice in these disciplines can lead to intimations of the transcendence we call God, Nirvana, Brahman or Dao. Without such dedicated practice, these concepts remain incoherent, incredible and even absurd.
That is admittedly lacking in a lot of Christian organisations. As a consequence, as Joseph Campbell said, '“Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies.” So it's all part of the situation of post-modernism.
What exactly is it about Christianity that makes you want it to be so dead? Your characterizations about the traditions of Christianity are just modern jokes about the weird sacredness of ancient religion; replace Christianity with any other concurrent religion, and your middle-school criticisms would stand just as well. (except they wouldn't, obviously)
Do you have a specific issue with Christian theology? If so, good; there are countless problems with Christian theology. Countless holes. Name one, and we can begin a debate.
Is your problem just that you're interpreting Christianity as an entire religion based on an evangelical literalist interpretation, as @Wayfarerhas already cautioned against? If so, this thread is just a waist of precious time.
Christianity's remarkable success as a religion (judging from the number of avowed Christians over the centuries) is, I think, attributable to the fact that it is both malleable and intolerant. It was adept at assimilating pagan philosophy and religion and Judaism, the result being a mishmash which appealed to one or another cherished belief or dream of those peoples within the Roman Empire, where it was born. So it gained many adherents. But unlike the pagan religions, which included the mystery religions which were similar to it in many ways, it was intolerant in the sense Judaism was intolerant of different beliefs. Once its adherents attained high status and power within the Empire, it was relentless in the persecution of non-believers; the Christian Empire was far more effective in persecution than the pagan Empire. Pagan persecution was sporadic and generally unsustained (Hollywood myth to the contrary), except possibly the persecution under Diocletian--a very thorough emperor (but even that was short-lived relatively speaking).
But in gaining new converts, Christians priests and missionaries appropriated "native" customs and manners even while crushing local beliefs. Christian theologians borrowed heavily from Platonism, Aristotle and the Stoics and attempted, unconvincingly I believe, to make them seem consistent with the story of Jesus and the idea he was God. They still do so now, somehow finding explanation of Jesus' divinity, his death, sacrifice and resurrection in philosophy and the findings of science.
As for its status now, here in God's favorite country kinds of Christianity seem alive and well, especially in the form of Protestant fundamentalism, doing handsprings down the center aisles of churches and supporting creationism, but also in the form of Catholic pentacostalism, Opus Dei, and now it seems "People of Praise."
That is the point I would like to address. In Christianity, the emphasis is on forming a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. You feel this as a living presence in your life, which naturally results in the development of qualities such as charity, self-restraint, and so on. However - not always. Even Christians who say they have been 'born again' will confess that their inherent negative tendencies (to put it in modern terms) still have a grip on them. Actually Paul laments this Romans 7:14. And I'm sure many a spiritual seeker will have gone through that - I know I do on a daily basis.
In Buddhist practice, the 'agency of change' relies on a different 'energy source'. It comes from clearly seeing and understanding the source of dukkha. Now when that is written out, it's easy to say 'well that's just a dogma'. And it would be, if you only wrote it out, or talked about it. But the point of Buddhist training is to really see how the process of clinging, attachment and craving is giving rise to unhappiness, moment to moment. And part of that, is also the realisation of the true nature, which is the aspect of the being that understands and responds to the teaching (known in Mahayana Buddhism as the Buddha Nature, Tath?gatagarbha). I guess it sounds complicated when you try and explain it, but the crux of it is similar to the Biblical teaching 'you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free'. But that 'knowing' is 'jnana', or direct insight into the cause of sorrow. That is a skill that can be learned and applied.
So developing positive qualities means, the pursuit of the 'three legs of the tripod', which are wisdom (prajna), morality (sila) and meditation (samadhi). Then the 'true nature' begins to manifest. Really a lot of the skill of meditation is learning how to get out of the way of that happening.
Very good answer. Thank you :up:
I think that the "advantage" that Buddhist has, in this respect, is that one can also do spiritual practice without "believing" in Buddhist "dogmas" or believing that the Buddha was really "fully awakened" (the same goes for other Eastern religions, like some sects of Hinduism and Taoism for example. But Buddhist practice IMO has the least amount of "belief" required to work). On the other hand, I hardly see how most forms of prayer can be useful for non Christians. Of course, there are some exceptions, but generally Christian practices work much better for Christians IMO.
I agree also regarding what Paul describes. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to not fall under the traps of that negative tendencies you mention. And it is quite distressing.
And also, I believe you are right in saying that Buddhism is much more about the "immediate experience" (that's why it appeals to a secular and "skeptic" mindset). Of course, a certain amount to "openness" to "higher truths" is necessary for deepening spiritual practice.
There's some truth in what Agustino is saying, because there's a lot of trendy fashionable Western Buddhism that is indeed platitudes and emotional palliatives. Zizek picked up on the same trend. But, as Rumi said - there would be no fools' gold, if there were no gold.
True! In fact, I think that Buddhism without rebirth and karma is a palliative of sorts. Or at best, it can become a sort of Epicureanism. But, yes no "true" Buddhism. Theravada (or, IMO better, "Shravakyana") and Mahayana Buddhism are religions of renunciation. The same goes IMO also for Vajrayana even if its practices are more "adaptable" to non-monastic life (I am not fully sure about it, but I think this is true AFAIK). But, IMO, all three have "world-denying" aspects that secular Buddhists do not want to see, so to speak.
There is a lot of truth in that. A large part of the issue is that the tropes and imagery of the Bible hark back to an early agrarian, pre-industrial culture - sheep, fields and religious sacrifices. It is remote from the life and experience of the 21st century. But that is why interpretation is needed. There are still universal truths in the tradition, but they need to be constantly re-interpreted in light of changing circumstances. Obviously 'biblical literalism' is an impediment to that - that leads to fundamentalism and many other conflicts.
Karen Armstrong is a good commentator on this subject, not least because she has the perspective of comparative religion rather than Christian apologetics. I frequently cite of her OP's from a few years ago, titled Should we believe in belief? And it's a very good question.
:up: very interesting thanks. As you say, too many people simply cannot understand the significance that symbols had in that social contexts. In order to understand we need to contextualize. Otherwise, we cannot understand fully.
why we should avoid attachment in love? For example, I love my son and I am attached to him, if he dies, I will be devastated. But I am not afraid of being devastated in that case... I would not want NOT to be devastated. The devastation is the expression of my love, I want to let it happen, why would I want to stop it?
Just to clarify what I said yesterday... I think that Buddhists have no problems, strictly speaking with this. I think that they do not find nothing "wrong" in it. However, we should consider also their belief in a "potentially endless cycle of rebirths and redeaths" - in that case they might say that, unfortunately, that if we do not learn to "let go", then we will be trapped in samsara. The ideal is to be both loving and "non-attached" (as I said yesterday, what does that mean I do not really know! BUT IMO in Buddhism "true" non-attachment is accompained by compassion, amity and so on). Anyway, I do not think that a man that is not devasted by the death of a loved one is not loving, necessarily. Of course, being devasted is a sure sign of loving. But not being devasted is not IMO a sign of not loving.
I think that in this respect Christianity is more open to give value to suffering and to all various forms. In fact, if we look to the Gospels we find that Jesus appreciated equally different kinds of love. I think that that Christianity and Buddhism here differ and that maybe the difference is due to the fact that Christianity does not have the dogma of Samsara. Also, in Christianity there is the idea that we are saved by God's Grace and not from our efforts (we have, of course be able to accept it). In many forms of Buddhism there is no "Higher Power" that can "save" us. For example, according to Theravada the Buddha only indicated the Path and we have to walk through it. Of course, the Buddha is seen as an exceptional teacher and it is said that hearing his teachings directly is much more effective than hearing from anyone else. But this is not, of course, the same as Grace. In Mahayana, the situation is different. But I think that Grace becomes very important only in Pure Land, but I do not know that school very well.
As I said, I find this aspect of Buddhism hard to accept. It is quite disturbing, because I find nothing wrong in expressing love by being devasted. I hope to be in that state, too, if such a situation occurs. This because I think that my expression of genuine love would be being devasted. But I am open to other expression of equally genuine love (do you agree with this?). But, I think it is also important to say that if one is not devasted, he or she can be still be loving. (Also, we try to console someone, if is devasted...).
A separate question might be: is it possible to feel genuine love without also suffer? Honestly, I don't know. I am open to an affirmative answer. But, I think that for most people love entails suffering and also I think that in order to "attain" the state where one feels love and does not suffer one needs to learn to love and suffer. If one does not learn that, I do not think that he or she will be able to reach that "state" (if it is possible, of course). Anyway, I think that this idea is present in Buddhist texts. For example, the partially awakened Ananda loves and suffers (and is consoled by his fellow Buddhist disciples and by the Buddha). Does this make sense to you?
Also in some form of Buddhism self-sacrifice can even take the form of self-immolation. This is true especailly for (some traditions at least of) Mahayana Buddhism. But also some Jataka tales (included in the Theravada canon) apparently speak about it, as it can be seen here.
But, even Christianity promotes non-attachment to some extent, I think. In fact, consider this quote of Gospel according to Saint Luke provided by Janus:
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26
So, one must "renounce" to some extent (I think this is the meaning of "hate") even to family. In fact, I find somewhat disurbing this quote, too. I mean, not everyone is prepared to do that. I think this also applies to many Christians!
Regarding the OP question, I think that Christianity is not dead.
Problem is that our society, as it has been said also by others, is VERY different from the society where Christianity originated and, therefore, many rituals, symbols etc sound very anachronistic and difficult to understand.
The image of Jesus Christ as the "Lamb of the world" becomes much more meaningful if we consider that in nomadic society of that very ancient times, a lamb was sacrificed in order to protect the community and the herd by the attacks of wolves. The reason behind sacrifices was survival. The danger was real. Hence, sacrifice was done for protection. In the same way, the sacrifice of Jesus aimed to salvation from sin, evil and so on.
Nowadays, we do not (normally) have to struggle for our survival. And we do not protect ourselves, our herd etc by making a sacrifice. So, it is more difficult for us to appreciate that symbolism.
The same, I think is true for many others symbols, rituals, linguistic expressions etc. In fact, when I discussed with two Catholic theologians about these matters, they explained to me these things very well and I began to appreciate their meanings. Besides the cultural background, I think that nowadays there is a communication problem. In those times the meaning was clearer and there was less need to explain things. But nowadays we need also people that are good to explain them.
So, IMO, the crisis of Christianity is in part due to a difficulty in communication.
I want to add another similarity between Buddhism and Christianity.
Buddhism places a lot of importance on intention. In fact, intentional actions have karmic consequence (e.g. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/kamma.html - note that "kamma" is the Pali word for the sanskrit karma). Hence we read in the Vinaya Pitaka (the collection of canonical Buddhist scriptures of the Theravada school that deals mostly with rules of monks and nuns):
On one occasion a monk, feeling compassion, released a pig trapped in a snare. He became remorseful … “What was your intention, monk?”
“I was motivated by compassion, Master.”
“There’s no offense for one who is motivated by compassion.”
("Master" here refers to the Buddha. Source: Suttacentral - (emphasis mine))
Hence, if one is motivated by compassion he can "break" the "not stealing" precept. If otherwise the intention was stealing:
On one occasion a monk released a pig trapped in a snare, intending to steal it before the owners saw it. He became remorseful … “You have committed an offense entailing expulsion.”
(same source as above (Suttacentral) - emphasis mine)
So, we see also an interesting parallel with Christianity, IMO. First, also Christianity seems to suggest that intention plays a central role. Consider for example this passage:
16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”
'Non-attachment' is also a basic theme of the New Testament:
'For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it'. Matt 16.
'If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me' Mark 10
'Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that fail not, where no thief approaches, neither moth corrupts. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.' Luke 12
'Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.' Luke 12
All of these sayings are perfectly in accord with the spirit of the Buddhist nikayas.
As I said, I find this aspect of Buddhism hard to accept. It is quite disturbing, because I find nothing wrong in expressing love by being devasted.
I think that it's because 'emotional indifference' is not at all the same as 'non-attachment'. In both religions, there is an understanding that the peace that arises from God's love (for Christians) or realisation of Nirv??a (for Buddhists) is such that even the witnessing of terrible tragedies doesn't undermine it. But it doesn't undermine empathy - far from it, in fact.
When I was young, I had a casual job as wardsman in the casualty ward of a Catholic teaching hospital (called Mater Misercordiae, 'mother of mercy'). The nursing sisters exemplified this quality of 'un-attached compassion'. Several times I witnessed the senior nurse comforting people in terrible states of distress, whose loved ones had just died. I was deeply moved by her ability of 'suffering with' in these cases. Yet she had to then go back to her duties in a very busy suburban casualty ward straight away afterwards. I think that kind of compassion really does require tapping into a spiritual source. Of course, this is what the Catholic symbolism of 'the sacred heart' refers to. You actually find iconographic representations of the same idea in Chinese Buddhism.
Can you please show me where the story highlights that temporality and fragility makes everything more precious rather than less? I may be wrong, but I think this really is your own addition. There's nothing wrong if you believe this, but I see no indication for it in the story.
I can see indications in the story that you should be at peace when things and people break down because that is their nature - to ultimately break down. But there's nothing in there as far as I can see about the fact that things are temporal and fragile, that they are therefore more valuable rather than less.
True, I suppose that would just be my take on it, which one could take or leave. :wink: And there is some rationalization there in forming an approach to the world of objects (even our bodies) that often don’t act the way we expect or want. Maybe the planned obsolescence of today’s plastic phones and other products can reflect this lesson or story.
'Non-attachment' is also a basic theme of the New Testament:
'For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it'. Matt 16.
'If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me' Mark 10
'Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that fail not, where no thief approaches, neither moth corrupts. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.' Luke 12
'Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.' Luke 12
All of these sayings are perfectly in accord with the spirit of the Buddhist nikayas.
Agreed, the spirit is somewhat similar (especially if one considers Mahayana Buddhism)!
I want also to add that many "hard" expressions were typical in that cultural contexts. So, for example, the quote of the Gospel according to St. Luke provided by Janus:
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
probably meant that, in order to follow the "vocation", one should be able to "let go" even of her/his family attachments. Problem is, IMO, that translations cannot capture the intended meaning nowadays. We need also commentaries and interpretations.
I think that it's because 'emotional indifference' is not at all the same as 'non-attachment'. In both religions, there is an understanding that the peace that arises from God's love (for Christians) or realisation of Nirv??a (for Buddhists) is such that even the witnessing of terrible tragedies doesn't undermine it. But it doesn't undermine empathy - far from it, in fact.
When I was young, I had a casual job as wardsman in the casualty ward of a Catholic teaching hospital (called Mater Misercordiae, 'mother of mercy'). The nursing sisters exemplified this quality of 'un-attached compassion'. Several times I witnessed the senior nurse comforting people in terrible states of distress, whose loved ones had just died. I was deeply moved by her ability of 'suffering with' in these cases. Yet she had to then go back to her duties in a very busy suburban casualty ward straight away afterwards. I think that kind of compassion really does require tapping into a spiritual source. Of course, this is what the Catholic symbolism of 'the sacred heart' refers to. You actually find iconographic representations of the same idea in Chinese Buddhism.
Yes, I think that the "ideal" might be similar. Probably we have a difference in emphasis. This difference in emphasis is IMO linked to the fact that Buddhism accepts samsara and Christianity does not, and, also that Christianity accepts God's Grace and Buddhism (for the most part*) does not. It is very difficult to reduce attachments. Yet, according to Buddhism, to "escape" from samsara one must reduce attachments. On the other hand, in Christianity, Salvation is not "gained" by reducing attachments but by accepting God's Grace. Hence, in Christianity it is love is much more emphasized. While not everyone are able to reduce attachments, everybody, in principle, can love. So, we can understand why in Christianity love is much more emphasized than non-attachment.
BTW, as usual, thank you for the interesting parallelism!
Agreed, the spirit is somewhat similar (especially if one considers Mahayana Buddhism)!
I want also to add that many "hard" expressions were typical in that cultural contexts. So, for example, the quote of the Gospel according to St. Luke provided by Janus:
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
probably meant that, in order to follow the "vocation", one should be able to "let go" even of her/his family attachments. Problem is, IMO, that translations cannot capture the intended meaning nowadays. We need also commentaries and interpretations.
'For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it'. Matt 16.
This is non-attachment to one's life in favour of attachment to "lose [your] life for [his] sake". So it is still quite far from promoting non-attachment as a value in itself. Whereas Buddhism seems to promote non-attachment as a virtue. Christianity on the other hand promotes attachment to the right things as a virtue. There is an important difference over there.
'Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that fail not, where no thief approaches, neither moth corrupts. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.' Luke 12
'Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.' Luke 12
So far from "non-attachment" being a basic theme of the New Testament, I would say the theme is rather attachment to the right things.
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
probably meant that, in order to follow the "vocation", one should be able to "let go" even of her/his family attachments. Problem is, IMO, that translations cannot capture the intended meaning nowadays. We need also commentaries and interpretations.
To me, this means that you must love God more than anyone or anything else, and relative to your love of God, you hate brother, mother, sister, etc.
In other words, I don't see this "let go" stuff to be the emphasis of the New Testament. The emphasis is rather "be attached to what matters most - God".
Yet, according to Buddhism, to "escape" from samsara one must reduce attachments. On the other hand, in Christianity, Salvation is not "gained" by reducing attachments but by accepting God's Grace. Hence, in Christianity it is love is much more emphasized.
So far from "non-attachment" being a basic theme of the New Testament, I would say the theme is rather attachment to the right things.
That's what 'non-attachment' is for - detach from what is unwholesome or deleterious so as to unite with what is in your ultimate best interest 'where moth and rust don't corrupt'. But of course if the superiority of Christianity over Buddhism is your fundamental point, then that is not something which is resolvable by debate.
But for whoever is unable to "let go", thinking about the end of life is certainly painful and causes distress (meaning if one fears death, then death is certainly linked to suffering).
Depends. It's not just being unable to "let go" that causes the pain. There are other beliefs associated with it that are responsible for causing pain. For example, if someone isn't able to "let go" of their desires, then the end of life can be painful and cause distress SO LONG AS the person in question does not see a possibility to fulfil the said desires AFTER death. In this case, a Christian would believe that God will "wipe away every tear", and so they may not feel such pain and distress when death comes, even though they cannot let go of their desires.
Also, Buddhists believe in rebirth and, for them, "death" is either Nirvana without remainder or leads to another life marked by old age, illness and so on (which, except for the case of a partially awakened one, means the continuation of a potentially endless cycle of rebirths and redeaths).
See, it's only when one sees the endless cylce of rebirths and redeaths as something negative that being unable to let go makes it painful.
Personally, I would like to experience the state that you describe. But, IMO, this also means a reduction of "self concern" or more precisely a reduction of our tendency to strive to control things ("anatta", in a more experiential level, means "lack of control", see Anatta-lakkhana sutta (regarded to be the second discourse of the Buddha)). I think that the effect of "letting go" is roughly the state you describe.
I largely agree with this here - it's also what happens when you stop wishing that things were different than they are. But even that is not a great way to put it. Because it implies that you don't have any wants or preferences (such as preferring that there is no pain). But those wants and preferences, at least for me, still existed in that state. Just that I wasn't "troubled" by the pain. It's difficult to explain.
I do not understand, however, how it can be reconciled with the "traditional" position that if there is no resurrection, faith is vain (of course, I am not saying that you have to agree with that perspective but I wonder how you "deal" with this) (see e.g. 1 Cor 15:32 link "If the dead do not rise, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!”"). In fact, there are a lot of Christian dogmas that I can find very hard to accept and, sadly, no one was able to give me a satisfactory answer to my doubts.
But the resurrection is itself a matter of faith. Afterall, even if you saw the risen Christ, you always have at your disposal alternative explanations. So if you lack faith, if you lack the will to believe, and are instead cursed by unbelief (it's a problem of the will), then regardless of what you see, you will not believe.
So St. Paul is right - if there is no resurrection, our faith (I read this as religion) is in vain.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
So the resurrection is something that is, by default, not seen. It is rather hoped for.
1) I think that "attachment" means clinging to positive experience in our life, in such a way that we cannot accept negative situations (which in my mind means we feel aversion).
Right, so then attachment can be the opposite of aversion, and Buddha's way being the Middle Way would strive to neither attachment to the positive (pleasure, let's say), nor aversion for the negative (pain).
So, an unattached love might mean that I can accept that, for example, my son chooses a way of life that I would not like for him and I can still love him.
Well, I think this centers around how we define love. See below.
Or, that I can be able to have positive feelings even to my "enemies" (i.e.desiring for them happiness and so on...).
See, this I see as a problem. Love does not require positive feelings. I can be very upset at someone I love, or I can be disappointed with them, or even, why not, angry with them. All these feelings do not suggest in the least that I don't love them. Love is rather the choice, or better said, the will to like them REGARDLESS of how I feel. The will not to give up on them.
So in the case of my enemies, I may still feel anger towards them, but only because they are doing wrong and destroying their own souls for example. Or in the case of my son, I may feel upset because he is harming himself. Or just like the Japanese Samurai, I can feel great compassion while slashing my enemies in half. All these actions do not necessitate the absence of love. Sometimes, it may be the loving thing to do to be angry at someone you love.
Maybe a possible Buddhist answer is that, there is nothing wrong in it but unfortunately that (alone) will not save you from samsara (honestly, I find this answer as disturbing but unfortunately it has some truth in it...) and in order to "achieve" release from samsara you should accept to "let go" even loved ones without, of course, stopping to love them.
Why should being saved from Samsara be this important?
A strong point of Christianity is that "love" is the highest virtue and there are various way for expressing it. Christianity has the strong point to be able to give meaning and value to suffering. Also, in Christianity we are not expected to change our condition and become somewhat "super-human", but we can give meaning and value to our experiences, actions and so on: something that everybody can do (in a way or an another depending on their possibilities...).
*see how Ananda is described here. I like him in particular, because unlike other famous disciples looks very "human" and I can relate to him much more than the others more "awakened" ones! :smile:
To me, this means that you must love God more than anyone or anything else, and relative to your love of God, you hate brother, mother, sister, etc.
In other words, I don't see this "let go" stuff to be the emphasis of the New Testament. The emphasis is rather "be attached to what matters most - God".
Yes, here you are right :up: I wanted to stress that "renunciation" is present in both traditions. But, of course, in Christianity renunciation is "used" to avert the mind to "what matters most - God". In Buddhism, renunciation is a value in itself, so to speak.
On the other hand, in Buddhism one should be attached to the Dharma (as well as the Buddha and the Sangha...): one should not get rid of the raft before ending the crossing. So, I think that in a way, there is still a possible (partial) similarity here: in Buddhism before achieving Nirvana, one should desire Nirvana, just like one, in Christianity one should desire God until one "enters" in communion with God. A very important difference is that, in Buddhism the Goal is achieved during life, in Christianity after death. But, you are right here. There is an undeniable difference!
Also, in Mahayana there is the idea that the desire to help others will be fulfilled even after Awakening for "countless eons".
Depends. It's not just being unable to "let go" that causes the pain. There are other beliefs associated with it that are responsible for causing pain. For example, if someone isn't able to "let go" of their desires, then the end of life can be painful and cause distress SO LONG AS the person in question does not see a possibility to fulfil the said desires AFTER death. In this case, a Christian would believe that God will "wipe away every tear", and so they may not feel such pain and distress when death comes, even though they cannot let go of their desires.
Agreed! And here we have another important difference between Christianity and Buddhism. If desires will be fulfilled, then one should not fear death. In fact, I think that some biographies of Christian figures show people that are not afraid of death because they have faith. On the other hand, Buddhists Arahants do not fear death because they are "unattached".
Yet, according to Buddhism, to "escape" from samsara one must reduce attachments. On the other hand, in Christianity, Salvation is not "gained" by reducing attachments but by accepting God's Grace. Hence, in Christianity it is love is much more emphasized.
See, it's only when one sees the endless cylce of rebirths and redeaths as something negative that being unable to let go makes it painful.
But... that cycle is endless. Above all, it is endless in the sense that it is aimless. There is no purpose. I think that such a perspective is very distressing and frustrating. If it had an end (in both senses), I could accept to be reborn, to suffer and so on. But it is aimless and there is the idea that we are not in full control, and therefore, we will not be able to get reborn in intended conditions forever. So, even with the best intentions, the idea is that we will sometimes commit serious crimes. So, such a perspective is IMO extremely distressing. On the other hand, if it had at least a temporal end, one could try to remain in Samsara to help others.
Of course, there is also the Mahayana that teaches that Bodhisattvas will be always help sentient beings. But, in Mahayana Bodhisattvas are awakened.
I largely agree with this here - it's also what happens when you stop wishing that things were different than they are. But even that is not a great way to put it. Because it implies that you don't have any wants or preferences (such as preferring that there is no pain). But those wants and preferences, at least for me, still existed in that state. Just that I wasn't "troubled" by the pain. It's difficult to explain.
But the resurrection is itself a matter of faith. Afterall, even if you saw the risen Christ, you always have at your disposal alternative explanations. So if you lack faith, if you lack the will to believe, and are instead cursed by unbelief (it's a problem of the will), then regardless of what you see, you will not believe.
So St. Paul is right - if there is no resurrection, our faith (I read this as religion) is in vain.
The interesting thing on this point, is that I don't think there has to be a God. It is sufficient to have faith in Him. Faith transcends the rational, but is not thereby irrational. Having faith will still transform THIS LIFE.
If there is no God, resurrection is not possible. So, Paul says that faith is vain if there is no resurrection. Hence, as I see it, Paul says that if there is no God, faith is vain.
So, how can you say that faith is not vain if there is no God and, at the same time, be in agreement with Paul?
Right, so then attachment can be the opposite of aversion, and Buddha's way being the Middle Way would strive to neither attachment to the positive (pleasure, let's say), nor aversion for the negative (pain).
I think that they are opposites in the sense that they are two sides of the same coin. If one is attached to a particular pleasant experience, then when it ends and arises an unpleasant one, he/she experiences aversion. So, I see them as very connected. When attachment is absent, aversion too disappears.
See, this I see as a problem. Love does not require positive feelings. I can be very upset at someone I love, or I can be disappointed with them, or even, why not, angry with them. All these feelings do not suggest in the least that I don't love them. Love is rather the choice, or better said, the will to like them REGARDLESS of how I feel. The will not to give up on them.
So in the case of my enemies, I may still feel anger towards them, but only because they are doing wrong and destroying their own souls for example. Or in the case of my son, I may feel upset because he is harming himself. Or just like the Japanese Samurai, I can feel great compassion while slashing my enemies in half. All these actions do not necessitate the absence of love. Sometimes, it may be the loving thing to do to be angry at someone you love.
OK! Let me explain better myself. I think that if you love them, then "at the bottom of your heart" you still desire, for them, the good. So, you might get angry but, at the same time, you want the best for them. When I wrote "positive feelings", I meant this. Sorry for the confusion.
So, I mostly agreee with you. I think that only a "negative ethical" approach (i.e. do not do this, do not do that...) in our actions is not sufficient. We also need to develop compassion, love and so on. And, in order to express love we might also get angry.
Regarding the example of the Japanese Samurai, well, that is a somewhat controverted point for me. I am not sure that in this particular example you are right. But I need some time to reflect upon this.
Anyway, as you say, love is, in the highest sense of the word, a disposition where you always want the best for others (which IMO coincides with the full expression of metta (good-will), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion)). Sometimes, sadly, I feel that Buddhism, especially Theravada, is presented in a way in which the importance of metta, karuna and mudita is neglected. For example, in the absence of hate we can develop better compassion. But a presentation of Theravada that emphasizes ONLY the "absence of hate", without also give importance to compassion is very wanting. The "negative" and the "positive" sides are both needed. After all, the Dhammapada has the following verse (source: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.14.budd.html):
183. To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas.
I think that the same "unbalance" in giving ONLY importance to the "negative"/"absence" side is at the basis of the position that Nirvana is ONLY the absence of greed, hatred and delusion.
But, of course, differences with Christianity remain also on this point.
Why should being saved from Samsara be this important?
Because it is aimless and endless. And, if Nirvana has a "positive reality" of sorts, also to experience the "highest bliss".
In the "negativistic" interpretation of "Nirvana", the ONLY reason to leave Samsara is to avoid endless and (ultimately) aimless.
In the Mahayana one also wishes to escape "samsara", also to be better help sentient beings.
Anyway, I am happpy to see that we agree in many points!
Not sure if this helps on the attachment issue. Jesuits call it spiritual freedom. And in Ignatian Spirituality it is the described in the first principal and foundation - here below:
God created human beings to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by
doing this, to save their souls.
God created all other things on the face of the earth to help fulfill this
purpose.
From this it follows that we are to use the things of this world only to
the extent that they help us to this end, and we ought to rid ourselves
of the things of this world to the extent that they get in the way of this
end.
For this it is necessary to make ourselves indifferent to all created
things as much as we are able, so that we do not necessarily want
health rather than sickness, riches rather than poverty, honor rather
than dishonor, a long rather than a short life, and so in all the rest, so
that we ultimately desire and choose only what is most conducive for
us to the end for which God created us.
If there is no God, resurrection is not possible. So, Paul says that faith is vain if there is no resurrection. Hence, as I see it, Paul says that if there is no God, faith is vain.
So, how can you say that faith is not vain if there is no God and, at the same time, be in agreement with Paul?
As I explained, when Paul refers to "faith" in that quote, I read him as referring to the Christian religion. When I said that even if there is no God, faith in Him is sufficient to grant all that one needs for THIS LIFE, I use faith with a different sense. The sense I quoted:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
So in summary, I agree, if there is no Resurrection, then there can be no Christian religion (faith in one sense). But the Resurrection is itself a matter of faith (different sense here), and it cannot be any other way.
In the "negativistic" interpretation of "Nirvana", the ONLY reason to leave Samsara is to avoid endless and (ultimately) aimless.
But then, in the negativistic interpretation, Nirvana becomes the real suicide. Shooting yourself in the head is not a real suicide, because you will reincarnate, and in a much worse state than before, it will take you much longer until you can get to the human stage again, from where you can commit the real suicide (Nirvana). I see this interpretation as the essence of the life-denying, impotent, impulse.
But... that cycle is endless. Above all, it is endless in the sense that it is aimless. There is no purpose. I think that such a perspective is very distressing and frustrating.
But... if that cycle had a purpose, then it would have an end. And an end means precisely a death. There can be no end without death, for how can life, whose very nature is change, suddenly come to a halt without ceasing to be life?
So I don't think that the perspective of an endless Samsara, which contains both pain and pleasure is necessarily distressing and frustrating. It is like an adventure - you never know what you will find the next time around. It is sort of exciting - once you get to see the big picture, and you stop anchoring yourself merely in your present condition as if this was all that there will ever be. In a way, an eternal Samsara is a good thing - it means that all pain (and pleasure alike) will ultimately come to an end. So if you are suffering now... fret not, it too will end.
If desires will be fulfilled, then one should not fear death. In fact, I think that some biographies of Christian figures show people that are not afraid of death because they have faith. On the other hand, Buddhists Arahants do not fear death because they are "unattached".
So in summary, I agree, if there is no Resurrection, then there can be no Christian religion (faith in one sense). But the Resurrection is itself a matter of faith (different sense here), and it cannot be any other way.
Ok! I think it is more clear now, thanks :smile:
I will certainly read with interest your more detailed explanation!
But then, in the negativistic interpretation, Nirvana becomes the real suicide. Shooting yourself in the head is not a real suicide, because you will reincarnate, and in a much worse state than before, it will take you much longer until you can get to the human stage again, from where you can commit the real suicide (Nirvana). I see this interpretation as the essence of the life-denying, impotent, impulse.
Yeah, that's why I think the negativistic interpretation is wrong. Seeking Nirvana, in this negativistic view, is seeking solely the ending of suffering (which, in turn, leads to the "end of life"). Personally, despite the fact that in modern times many think that "oblivion=Nirvana", I think that there is enough evidence to say that in ancient times it was a minority interpretation and, therefore, it is more a modern phenomenon. Of course, this does not mean that it wrong by default.
Nowadays, you can read claims (both by critics and by Buddhist themselves) that it is the "orthodox" Theravadin view. I think that they are wrong: the negativistic view was rejected explicitily by Buddhagosa (who, apparently, built the (real) "orthodox" view of the school). Anyway, there are in the commentarial part rare "positive" descriptions of Nirvana, like in that part of the Kathavattu I linked the other day. You can find a translation of a nearly identical "positive" description here at the end of this article: Timeless (Jayarava Raves' blog) (like the other passage, Nirvana is said to be "eternal" here - AFAIK Jayarava is a "modernist" of sorts who does not believe in all supernatural elements). So, unless these descriptions are later interpolations, you actually find somewhat "positive" characterizations of Nirvana. And in the suttas, Nirvana is said to be "beyond reasoning" (in the passage of the Itivuttaka hat I linked earlier) and, frankly, oblivion is not "beyond reasoning" IMO.
BTW, I approached Buddhism because of the "apophatic" approach on Nirvana. I really liked the "negative" language used. Reading the suttas, I was really fascinated by this approach.It gave me a sense of awe and mystery. Theravada Buddhism struck me as the most "rigorous" apophatic approach. Then, when I read that many Buddhists actually interpret the very same passages as suggesting that Nirvana is oblivion, I was somewhat dismayed. Now, I am still a student of Buddhism and I began last year to practice vipassana. I do not consider myself a Buddhist, though.
But... if that cycle had a purpose, then it would have an end. And an end means precisely a death. There can be no end without death, for how can life, whose very nature is change, suddenly come to a halt without ceasing to be life?
I see! Let me ask a question, however: do you see Christian Heaven as "timeless"? If so, you can see an "end" as something that is blissful. But, also, note that I was thinking to the "end" of a particular mode of existence, samsara. If samsara ends and, after that, a different (and more blissful) existence starts, then we do not end with a death, but with a "life" with less misery! (of course, I am speculating! No religions that I know have this view).
So I don't think that the perspective of an endless Samsara, which contains both pain and pleasure is necessarily distressing and frustrating. It is like an adventure - you never know what you will find the next time around. It is sort of exciting - once you get to see the big picture, and you stop anchoring yourself merely in your present condition as if this was all that there will ever be. In a way, an eternal Samsara is a good thing - it means that all pain (and pleasure alike) will ultimately come to an end. So if you are suffering now... fret not, it too will end.
Well, at times I have similar musings about samsara (well, it is the "lightness" given by impermanence)! After all, now I do not remeber my past lives (assuming that samsara is real). Hence, even if I will suffer in the future, then I will forget it and, maybe, I will be reborn temporarily in a blissful abode. Then, again, I will fall from it. But, with time I will forget it again. So, without memory it seems an adventure. On the other hand, if I had memories of such a long time, then maybe I will get somewhat bored and annoyed from the cycle. I think that the 15th chapter of the Samyutta Nikaya explains it very well. Unfortunately, you will continue to suffer and cause others suffering. Hence, an escape from such a state will be desired. And if I remembered all my crimes, all the enormous amounts of suffering that I caused to myself and to others and so on, I would like to stop it, if there is no way to "control" the whole thing. Again, in such a situation, if we accept that Nirvana has a positive reality, Buddhism is not "nihilistic". In this case, "Nirvana" might be seen as a satisfying end to our "beginingless" stories. Things change, however, if the "negativistic" view is held.
On the other hand, Christianity posits a sure end for all Creation. We do not have to seek a "satisfying end". It will surely end. What we have to do is to "use rightly" the time we have in this lifetime. I think that the view about time and "history" conditiones all others teachings.
Edit: regarding Christianity there are some dogmas that I (for now) cannot accept. For example, the idea of an original/ancestral sin really disturbs me and seems to me very implausible.
It's not dead, but it's as good as dead to me, and should be so to all those who are of a truly philosophical bent, those who care more about the truth than filling gaps, and those who wish to forge their own path rather than follow the herd.
in the negativistic interpretation, Nirvana becomes the real suicide.
Nirv??a is not non-existence, but the extinction of ego. The meaning is very similar to the Biblical injunction 'He who looses his life for My sake will be saved.'
“??riputra, foolish ordinary beings do not have the wisdom that comes from hearing the Dharma. When they hear about a Tath?gata’s entering nirv??a, they take the wrong view of cessation or extinction. Because of their perception of cessation or extinction, they claim that the realm of sentient beings decreases. Their claim constitutes an enormously wrong view and an extremely grave, evil karma.
Furthermore, ??riputra, from the wrong view of decrease, these sentient beings derive three more wrong views. These three views and the view of decrease, like a net, are inseparable from each other. What are these three views? They are the view of cessation, which means the ultimate end; the view of extinction, which is equated to nirv??a; the view that nirv??a is a void, which means that nirv??a is the ultimate quiet nothingness. ??riputra, in this way these three views fetter, hold, and impress [sentient beings]. 1
So there is a 'negativistic' view of Nirv??a, but it is mistaken.
boundless: If desires will be fulfilled, then one should not fear death. In fact, I think that some biographies of Christian figures show people that are not afraid of death because they have faith. On the other hand, Buddhists Arahants do not fear death because they are "unattached". — boundless
Yes.
So, the occult aim of all religion is to achieve a state of equanimity wherein death is no longer feared; we cannot really live until we have authentically conquered (as opposed to inauthentically distracting ourselves from) the fear of death, because the fear of death is equally a fear of life.
Really, the actuality of, as opposed to the faith in, the afterlife is irrelevant because we have no way of knowing what it will be. So the only way to compare religions, or philosophies for that matter, with one another is in terms of their efficacy in enabling people to conquer death-fear and thus to be able to live fully. It is arguable that attachment in the negative sense is ultimately resultant from death-fear, as are hatred, envy, jealousy, pride, the inability to love oneself and others, and so on; in short all of the so-called "negative" anti-life emotions.
When it comes to religion the stumbling block for many is the inability to believe dogmas for which there is no tangible evidence. I think that being committed to any religion is, in the final analysis, a matter of faith; I guess it's just bad luck for those who lack the capacity to believe with enough conviction and consistency to bring about the transformation.
For example, the idea of an original/ancestral sin really disturbs me and seems to me very implausible.
Why not? How is "original sin" different from the beginningless Avidya (or Samsara) in Buddhism? The presence of evil in the world makes it most clear that the world is fallen - something is not right.
Now there are multiple interpretations of Original Sin. The Eastern Orthodox view is that while we're not "guilty" of the sin of Adam and Eve, we are born in a corrupt world. So while we are a clean mirror at birth (free of sin), it's very easy for dirt to get stuck on us, since we're born in the mud so to speak. So there is always a very strong tendency towards sin.
Nirv??a is not non-existence, but the extinction of ego. The meaning is very similar to the Biblical injunction 'He who looses his life for My sake will be saved.'
Okay, thanks for sharing that. So what is left after the extinction of ego? Is the personality wiped away?
On the other hand, if I had memories of such a long time, then maybe I will get somewhat bored and annoyed from the cycle.
Bingo. That's the point, Osho raised the same point too. But the point only resonates with one who does have such memories. The fact that nature wipes away the memories makes Samsara bearable, so to speak. One does not feel any urgency to escape.
Anyway, as you say, love is, in the highest sense of the word, a disposition where you always want the best for others (which IMO coincides with the full expression of metta (good-will), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion)). Sometimes, sadly, I feel that Buddhism, especially Theravada, is presented in a way in which the importance of metta, karuna and mudita is neglected.
I agree with you. There is another important point of difference with regards to love I think. In the Christian approach to romantic love (between a husband and a wife) and the Buddhist one. Kierkegaard writes very well with regards to the Christian POV in his Works of Love (an amazing book).
Namely, the love between a man and his wife opens up an area of Being that is otherwise closed. It brings up some unique problems that one cannot use the same stock answers against. For example, ever lover, as Kierkegaard states, needs to proclaim that their love for the beloved is eternal. Now the question is, how can such a proclamation be made in good faith? Because if it can't, then the lover is doomed from the very beginning. And Kierkegaard answers from the Christian side that this proclamation and vow is made in good faith when the two lovers swear their love not by themselves, but by the third, God. It is only when their love is anchored in the eternal, that it can take on the character of the eternal.
This is one issue. Another issue is how Buddhism and Christianity would deal with things like "becoming one flesh". It is clear that in a romantic relationship, two people form a spiritual bond - indeed, in some regards, they become one, where the distinction/boundary between the one and the other starts to vanish. Christianity would claim that each one has authority and ownership over the other.
1 Corinthians 7:4:The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife.
And yet, Buddhism I think would be unable to negotiate this kind of relationship to achieve this level of intimacy or merging of the two together. The common answer, it seems, is that because of anatta, any such merger is a form of attachment, that will surely bring about great sadness. To me though, this seems something that again would block some important, life-affirming possibilities. What's your take?
That is what has to be discovered. Don’t forget the origin of the word ‘person’, which is from ‘persona’, the masks worn by dramatists classical Greece. (Although, that said, there was an influential early Buddhist school called the Pudgalavada, where ‘pudgala’ means ‘person’ and ‘vada’ is ‘way’. This is actually quite similar to the modern philosophy of personalism, although it is nowadays regarded as an heretical movement by most other Buddhist schools.)
But again, ‘dying to the self’ is not something unique to Buddhism:
[quote=Angelus Silesius]O Man, as long as you exist, know, have, and cherish,
You have not been delivered, believe me, of your burden.[/quote]
You’re right about the fact that Buddhism is not particular interested in marriage. But, that said, Mah?y?na is not particularly bound to monasticism, as a bodhisattva can appear in any kind of guise - or persona! - ‘for the benefit of sentient beings’.
Don’t forget the origin of the word ‘person’, which is from ‘persona’, the masks worn by dramatists classical Greece.
Fair enough, I actually agree with that, but only because we are who we are by choice. Therefore, "in essence" we are nothing - meaning we decide who to be, what mask to wear. On the other hand, what we decide does say something about who is behind the mask so to speak.
It really depends on what you mean by "self". Do you think the "self" is always something negative? I mean, as far as I see it, lots of things in life require a STRONG self. Going on the example below, romantic love, for example, requires a sense of self who is relating with another. Without a sense of self, how can you even relate to another? Who is relating to who?
Mah?y?na is not particularly bound to monasticism, as a bodhisattva can appear in any kind of guise - or persona! - ‘for the benefit of sentient beings’.
The apophatic approach mentioned by @boundless seems to be most helpful here. A useful device to have in the mental toolbox. At least to me, it is like the eraser for the blackboard or the brakes on a car. Going back to the uncarved block... at least once in a while.
We as humans may get glimpses of “unfiltered reality” or pure gnosis or the like. I think the (arguably) widespread view of mystics or maybe theologians is that we can’t handle it for very long. Which is completely and totally OK. No offense to the human mind, but Pure Isness blows our circuits within seconds. Maybe sooner. We think the summer sun at noon is intense. How about going beyond the earth’s atmosphere and then feeling and looking at the sun? A picture of a shadow of a reflection on the cave wall may disappoint Plato. But if it gives us the gist, and we keep in mind that it is a copy of a copy, then hopefully we will not go too far astray.
We take tiny nibbles of our dinner, which is made even smaller by the digestive system. We smile (or try to repress laughter) at the small child who tries to eat the PB&J sandwich in one bite, so they can go back outside to play. And when they then drop it on the floor and cry because now it is gone forever. And completely irreplaceable.
Could it be similar to a philosophical disclaimer that says “Please proceed with caution. Most or all of the following or preceding mentioned concepts are just that- concepts. They are made out of sentences made out of words, which are formed from letters. Consider them to be etched in Silly Putty. Even for as accurate, factual, or inspirational a statement as ever been made. This is not a pipe, the map is not the territory, and my doodlings may or may not be a very accurate map. For entertainment and educational purposes only. This password will only be valid for the next 15 minutes. Carry on. Keep your feet on the ground, and keep reaching for the stars. Peace.” ?
Of course, this disclaimer applies to this particular post of free association. (Not too surprisingly).
Why not? How is "original sin" different from the beginningless Avidya (or Samsara) in Buddhism? The presence of evil in the world makes it most clear that the world is fallen - something is not right.
I agree in a sense! I think that our condition is "fallen", but I do not know what this "fall" is!
Now there are multiple interpretations of Original Sin. The Eastern Orthodox view is that while we're not "guilty" of the sin of Adam and Eve, we are born in a corrupt world. So while we are a clean mirror at birth (free of sin), it's very easy for dirt to get stuck on us, since we're born in the mud so to speak. So there is always a very strong tendency towards sin.
https://oca.org/questions/teaching/original-sin
Thank you a lot for this! I did not know that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox held such different views about original sin. When I said that "I cannot accept" the original sin dogma I had in mind the Roman Catholic version, i.e. that we are born "guilty". The Eastern Orthodox version is much better!
Bingo. That's the point, Osho raised the same point too. But the point only resonates with one who does have such memories. The fact that nature wipes away the memories makes Samsara bearable, so to speak. One does not feel any urgency to escape.
Well, yes, I feel more or less the same. I am fascinated by Buddhism but I do not feel a strong urgency to "escape" from Samsara. So, I am trying to use Buddhists teachings to have a better understanding of my experience, to live a more "ethical" life (sadly, I am not very good in this) and also I think that Buddhism, both Theravada and Mahayana, has at least some understanding of the "ultimate". That's why I like it.
I agree with you. There is another important point of difference with regards to love I think. In the Christian approach to romantic love (between a husband and a wife) and the Buddhist one. Kierkegaard writes very well with regards to the Christian POV in his Works of Love (an amazing book).
Never read it. But it seems indeed a very interesting work (I add it on my list!)
Namely, the love between a man and his wife opens up an area of Being that is otherwise closed. It brings up some unique problems that one cannot use the same stock answers against. For example, ever lover, as Kierkegaard states, needs to proclaim that their love for the beloved is eternal. Now the question is, how can such a proclamation be made in good faith? Because if it can't, then the lover is doomed from the very beginning. And Kierkegaard answers from the Christian side that this proclamation and vow is made in good faith when the two lovers swear their love not by themselves, but by the third, God. It is only when their love is anchored in the eternal, that it can take on the character of the eternal.
Indeed a very good point. Indeed, in Christianity this is possible, because it is emphasized that "love is eternal" (e.g. the famous "Hymn of love" of 1 Cor 13). If love, as Kierkegaard, is anchored in the eternal, then, as you say, the proclamation can be done in good faith. Again, it shows the importance of Faith!
Also, in Mahayana, in a sense, "love" is eternal. But, again "anatta" makes that proclamation impossible.
This is one issue. Another issue is how Buddhism and Christianity would deal with things like "becoming one flesh". It is clear that in a romantic relationship, two people form a spiritual bond - indeed, in some regards, they become one, where the distinction/boundary between the one and the other starts to vanish. Christianity would claim that each one has authority and ownership over the other.
The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife. — 1 Corinthians 7:4
I see. Same as above. On this point, however, I would like to note that a somewhat similar idea is found in Buddhism. I think that in a sutta it is said that a husband and a wife, in order to live again in a future life, should both behave virtously, be faithful to each other and so on. So, the idea of the "bond" is IMO present, in a more limited sense, in Buddhism.
And yet, Buddhism I think would be unable to negotiate this kind of relationship to achieve this level of intimacy or merging of the two together. The common answer, it seems, is that because of anatta, any such merger is a form of attachment, that will surely bring about great sadness. To me though, this seems something that again would block some important, life-affirming possibilities. What's your take?
You indeed have raised very good points and I agree with them. And also, I think that you showed also that these "life-affirming" possibilities depend on being "anchored" in the Eternal, and hence they depend on "faith". If there they are not anchored, such proclamations and vows of an eternal "bond" risk to be tainted by bad faith. Unfortunately, not everyone has faith :sad:
I think that regarding the importance of Love, Christianity and Mahayana Buddhism share many similarities. The greatest difference is due to the different views about Samsara and the self.
It really depends on what you mean by "self". Do you think the "self" is always something negative? I mean, as far as I see it, lots of things in life require a STRONG self. Going on the example below, romantic love, for example, requires a sense of self who is relating with another. Without a sense of self, how can you even relate to another? Who is relating to who?
I think that this is another interesting point, isn't it? In a Mahayana context, for example, how I can reconcile compassion (e.g. work for the benefit of all sentient beings) with the idea of anatman? I think that this is another "mystery" in Buddhism. In the Mahayana, I think that in a sense "bonds" are very real. You might find this article interesting. I think that in Buddhism, it is important to note that there are two truths, not one. Probably only an "awakened" one can really know the answers of your questions. But, I think that from a buddhist point of view they are very useful answer in order to avoid to fall in a nihilistic trap.
Also, there is the idea that one need to cultivate a strong self in order to "let go" ("take yourself as your refuge")!
And do you mean to say that it is not possible to communicate this discovery to others?
That was what the Buddha spent around forty years of his life doing, so in one sense it can be communicated. But there is a saying that ‘the Buddha only points the way, the student has to walk it'. [Hence my forum name!] There’s a sense in which it has to something that you find for and in yourself.
The whole point about genuine insight, is that it is a form of knowledge which is itself transformative. It's something that can only be learned 'in the first person', so to speak.
Do you think the "self" is always something negative?
It's really more a matter of seeing through it, or beyond it. In one sense, a healthy sense of one's own abilities and obligations is obviously needed just to get along, but on the other hand, I think we all have to get over the instinctive sense of being the centre of our own universe.
The other thing to notice about the Buddhist use of language in this respect, is that 'anatta' (not-self) is invariably used adjectively, that is, 'all phenomena' have the three characteristics of being anatta, dukkha, anicca. So no-self is not really saying 'there is no self'; the whole focus of Buddhist teaching is to understand how everything arises dependent on causes and conditions. Asserting that there is, or is not, 'a self', is itself a dogmatic belief. But that's a subtle point (and an endless cause of locked threads on Buddhist forums.)
We as humans may get glimpses of “unfiltered reality” or pure gnosis or the like. I think the (arguably) widespread view of mystics or maybe theologians is that we can’t handle it for very long. Which is completely and totally OK. No offence to the human mind, but Pure Isness blows our circuits within seconds.
There's a similar thought expressed in Alduous Huxley's Doors of Perception. But on the other hand, the insights that arise from mindfulness practice are often quite subtle and not at all spectacular. There are of course aha! moments, but not that many.
Actually there is a thought I wanted to share on the general theme of religious belief. It has to do with psychodynamics. I think the purpose of belief is to snap you out of an habitual mode of understanding and awaken you to a totally different relationship with your fellows and with the world. But the point is, for that to happen, you really do have to commit to it; it can't be just a hypothetical question. You need to have a commitment, 'skin in the game', so to speak. And obviously the Christian faith can provide that - if you take it seriously, if it really means something to you. Not as a 'set of propositions' or a half-assed pseudo-scientific theory, which is how atheists generally construe it. But for it to work, you have to believe it, otherwise the ego will always find a way to turn it into yet another means for maintaining itself (which happens all the time.) I think driving home this understanding is the role of the spiritual preceptor, teacher or guru.
This is true; belief is absolutely the mainstay of all religions. Anyone who cannot genuinely (that is in more than a merely 'lip service' way) believe what they can have no tangible evidence for is simply not suited to religious practice.
Reply to Janus But I want to go further than that, because what I'm saying is that belief only has instrumental value. It is only a means to an end, not an end in itself; it's when it becomes an end in itself, belief for the sake of believing, that it tends to ossify into dogmatic belief systems.
But on the other hand, the insights that arise from mindfulness practice are often quite subtle and not at all spectacular. There are of course aha! moments, but not that many.
:up: Definitely. I think in general our awareness is both larger and deeper than our intellect. And as many large deep things often do, it gets buried and lost in the shuffle. What is the saying? Our awareness is as open, clear, empty, and large as the sky itself.
I think the purpose of belief is to snap you out of an habitual mode of understanding and awaken you to a totally different relationship with your fellows and with the world. But the point is, for that to happen, you really do have to commit to it; it can't be just a hypothetical question. You need to have a commitment, 'skin in the game', so to speak. And obviously the Christian faith can provide that - if you take it seriously, if it really means something to you.
Yes, completely agree. And I have far to go, much more progress can be made. But not much need for shame or pride. Just keep going. I think of spiritual-type knowledge as a support for the practice, and the practice as a support for life. Ignosticm and apophatic approaches (neither denying nor confirming) help me get out the head, and into the heart and soul. That’s were the action is. And the kingdom of God is spread out on the earth, even if we don’t see it. Whether a simple aphorism or a complex theory, the ideas that tend to enlighten me are the ones that run against the wind of our world, and yet are a breath of fresh air.
I agree; it is analogous to the placebo effect. A placebo will not work unless you believe it will work, but the important thing is that it works, not whether what you believe is "true".. The same goes for religious and spiritual practice; if the aim is to bring about a transformation then the belief is only a means to bring that about. the transformation is the important thing; without that the belief is nothing more than a belief, like any other. If the transformations apparently effected by religious and spiritual belief and practice are authentic (that is, not merely "for show") then belief has a real value, independently of whether what is believed is "true". It really seems to be a kind of pragmatism.
You can find the same kinds of beliefs operating in the arts, or even in sport. For example, some tennis players are superstitious and they develop little routines that ritualize their superstitious beliefs, and these beliefs apparently help them to attain the self-belief they need to win matches. It doesn't matter whether those superstitions are "true", all that matters is that they work to bring about the desired result.
One of my favourite Zen anecdotes. One day a student finally had the long-awaited satori, a glimpse of the Original Nature. He excitedly awaited the next dokusan (formal interview with teacher) in which he told him about what had happened.
'Very good', says the teacher.
'Now what do I do?', says the student.
'Apply in broad, even strokes, allowing some time to dry between coats.'
Another quote, I think from Joseph Campbell (could have been quoting someone else): Life will grind you, there’s really no escape from that. But depending on the angle we choose to take, life can either grind us down, or make us sharper.
The title of this thread reminds me of this song. The lyrics as I take it refer both to Jesus and the lyricist, who is trying to wake up. It is weary and tired. Like one of the more desolate Psalms: [i]I am poured out like water, and all my bones are disjointed. My heart is like wax; it melts away within me.
[/i]
And do you mean to say that it is not possible to communicate this discovery to others?
Well, I think that it cannot be fully communicated. Of course, as @Wayfarer says, it is partially communicable. However, "insight" is a transformative experience and therefore one must see "it" for onself (that's why there is so much emphasis on practice).
For example, in the "Dhamma-niyama sutta (AN 3.137)" the "Dhamma" is described as a sort of "Law of phenomena" that is valid whether or not there is the arising of Tathagathas. The Tathagathas are said to "awaken" to it. IMO, it is implicit that the "Dhamma" goes beyond what can be said verbally. See also the http://"Garava sutta SN 6.2", where it is said that all Buddhas dwell "revering" the "Dhamma". I think it is another implicit reference to the fact that the Awakening is an experience of something that is "bigger", so to speak.
To be complete, the sutra that Wayfarer quoted is not included in the Theravada Canon. It is a Mahayana sutra included among the "Tathagathagarba" sutras.
The apophatic approach mentioned by boundless seems to be most helpful here. A useful device to have in the mental toolbox. At least to me, it is like the eraser for the blackboard or the brakes on a car. Going back to the uncarved block... at least once in a while.
I like the apophatic approach because gives me a sense of awe and reverence. It is also true that, unfortunately, I have a somewhat compulsive need to philosophize about the "ultimate". Anyway, I think that is very useful to find peace.
We as humans may get glimpses of “unfiltered reality” or pure gnosis or the like. I think the (arguably) widespread view of mystics or maybe theologians is that we can’t handle it for very long. Which is completely and totally OK.
Well, I think there is some truth in this view (even if I do not think that it is universal, despite being widespread) because, after all, our minds are accustomed with ordinary reality. On the other hand, "mystical experiences" can be very extra-ordinary, so I imagine that they can affect even our physical health somehow since I do not see mind and body as completely "separate".
I think the purpose of belief is to snap you out of an habitual mode of understanding and awaken you to a totally different relationship with your fellows and with the world. But the point is, for that to happen, you really do have to commit to it; it can't be just a hypothetical question. You need to have a commitment, 'skin in the game', so to speak. And obviously the Christian faith can provide that - if you take it seriously, if it really means something to you.
Another quote, I think from Joseph Campbell (could have been quoting someone else): Life will grind you, there’s really no escape from that. But depending on the angle we choose to take, life can either grind us down, or make us sharper.
I think that, for example, Christianity here has a good point. Suffering is very hard to bear if you consider it meaningless. But, in Christianity you can live suffering in a meaningful way, i.e. by loving in a way where your "suffering" can even become a sort of "gift" you give to yourself and to others. For example, Jesus felt abandoned at the Cross (Luke 22.42), he did not "endure" suffering in an equanimous way. However, through suffering Jesus was able to give us the "gift" of Love. In this sense, as @Agustino says, Christianity can be life-affirming and even give meaning to suffering itself: one can follow Jesus' teachings even without following a rigorous and ascetic spiritual practice (like the case, for example, of Buddhism, especially Theravada).
Also, in Mahayana, in a sense, "love" is eternal. But, again "anatta" makes that proclamation impossible.
Why do you say that in a certain sense, "love" is eternal in Mahayana? Love has different aspects - largely, we have two kinds of love: non-preferential love, and preferential love. Preferential love is the love you feel towards mother, father, children, wife/husband (and even here, love breaks down into multiple categories). Non-preferential love is the love of neighbour, the love of God, etc. Above we were talking about the kind of preferential love mentioned - I'm not sure if Buddhism talks positively about this love. For example, Buddhism often emphasises allowing the loved one to be free, but, for example, is allowing one's child to be free equivalent to allowing them to snort cocaine? Or is allowing one's wife/husband to be free the equivalent of allowing them to be unfaithful? How are we to draw the boundary? How does Buddhism propose to manage such cases, where the stock answer "compassion, letting go, etc." isn't a clear cut answer?
Love cannot exist without the lover and the beloved, and so if anatta is true, and all things are non-self, then how can love be eternal?
I see. Same as above. On this point, however, I would like to note that a somewhat similar idea is found in Buddhism. I think that in a sutta it is said that a husband and a wife, in order to live again in a future life, should both behave virtously, be faithful to each other and so on. So, the idea of the "bond" is IMO present, in a more limited sense, in Buddhism.
Yes, I agree, I am aware of the story. However, even in this case, their love may be countless of lives, but how can it be eternal?
Do you think that not everyone can have faith? Faith, is really the will to believe. It's not a matter of intellect. You will not gain faith by more study, and more reasoning. The faithful know exactly the same as the unfaithful. But the faithful focus on the glimmer of light, whereas the unfaithful focus on the larger darkness.
Faith is fundamentally a movement of the will. It's the will that must be changed, the will that must want to have faith, to cling onto God.
I think that regarding the importance of Love, Christianity and Mahayana Buddhism share many similarities. The greatest difference is due to the different views about Samsara and the self.
God became flesh. He had himself crucified in order to redeem his own creation. It's the ravings of a lunatic.
The Old Testament was based on law, while the New Testament is based on faith. The first mention of law originates in the Garden of Eden and was symbolized by the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Law is composed of a bunch of rules that breaks down human behavior into good and evil, with consequences for both.
The tree knowledge of good and evil or law was populated by Satan, who was the left hand man of God during the Old Testament. Satan, who began as Lucifer, was in charge of the earth and was in heaven during the Old Testament. Arguments could b made that Satan was the intermediary to God during the Old Testament.
Satan is not thrown from heaven, until Revelations, which was written years after the death of Christ. The main problem with law, was the Satan connection. Law can be perverted through loopholes, double standards and unneeded complexities.
With that being said, the torture, death and rebirth of Jesus was a legal strategy that made law and therefore the old dispensation, void. Death is the ultimate penalty under the law. After you die at the hands of the state/law, you are no longer under the law since you have paid the highest penalty. The rebirth symbolism creates a reboot of the same person, who is now legally protected by double jeopardy, and therefore beyond law.
This loophole causes a symbolic disruption in heaven, where Satan recruits his followers and is thrown out of heaven, since his authority in the hierarchy has been superseded by Jesus using this legal strategy. There after, the righteous man was to live by faith and not by the works of the law, since law is made obsolete to those who are reborn.
The torture and death of Jesus showed everyone how the law can be perverted for political gain to do evil. Law had its day in the sun, but humanity needed to step on up higher. Faith brings one back to something close to natural instinct. With natural instinct and faith we become like the animal who has natural laws written in their hearts, with no need of man made ordinance contained in commandments carved in stone. Now the tree of life appears.
Many people claim to be Christian, so clearly it isn't dead. I see people in here pronouncing it dead and regurgitating Nietzsche, citing the development of science and rationalism as a replacement for belief in God, but faith in God isn't rational.. Nietzsche was naive to assume rationalism would simply displace faith as if there is rough equivalency between them... Fact is it hasn't gone away and the statistics show that. Nietzsche's philosophy was never coherent - he argues that rationalism will displace faith then describes all the ways western civilization will fall into nihilism as a result - he only wound up illustrating the reasons people continue to cling to their beliefs and the reasons that rationalism falls short as a replacement. How he didn't see this is beyond me.
We as humans may get glimpses of “unfiltered reality” or pure gnosis or the like. I think the (arguably) widespread view of mystics or maybe theologians is that we can’t handle it for very long. Which is completely and totally OK.
— 0 thru 9
Well, I think there is some truth in this view (even if I do not think that it is universal, despite being widespread) because, after all, our minds are accustomed with ordinary reality. On the other hand, "mystical experiences" can be very extra-ordinary, so I imagine that they can affect even our physical health somehow since I do not see mind and body as completely "separate".
Thanks for your reply, as well as your other contributions to this thread. :up:
I completely agree with your statement about mystical experiences and the interconnectedness of the body and mind. And I would say that likewise the faculties of the mind are intertwined. Lately, I’ve been wondering what the difference and relationship between one’s intellect and one’s awareness is. A mystical experience seems like it would be pure expanded awareness mostly (for lack of a better term). Some call it non-dual consciousness. Any intellectual sorting and naming would come later. Which is to be expected; no problem there. The intellect is an indispensable part of us.
If I may go out even further on this limb... One could compare a mystical experience to unexpectedly seeing a herd of wild horses up close. They seem to come out of nowhere into your area. And they exude a strong life force that is hypnotic. In this example, this mostly would fall into the category of “awareness”. Where the intellect (and mostly the ego) might enter the picture is if the person then decided to capture all of the horses, either to keep or sell. Not judging the morality of such an action, but there is a clear difference between the experience and decision to possibly capture the horses.
So I guess what I’m saying here is that awareness can be expanded. You would certainly agree with that, I imagine. There seem to be many practices in collective Buddhism that do so. And do so while perhaps temporarily “putting the brakes” on the intellect, the emotions, the ego, etc. Just giving the awareness a chance to grow by tending to it like a garden, watering it and pulling some weeds. The intellect and all the other mental powers we have are valuable. And any cautious approaches to such would be with the intention to make them even more valuable and useful to us. Like you said...
I like the apophatic approach because gives me a sense of awe and reverence. It is also true that, unfortunately, I have a somewhat compulsive need to philosophize about the "ultimate". Anyway, I think that is very useful to find peace.
Completely agree. I think that as long as the “need to philosophize about the ultimate” is counterbalanced by awareness and the sense of awe you mentioned, one can proceed both cautiously and confidently. There is a verse from the Tao Te Ching that might be related:
You can do what you like with material things. But only if you hold to the Mother of things will you do it for long. Live long by looking long. Have deep roots and a strong trunk.
Faith brings one back to something close to natural instinct.
I agree with that. Augustine is well-known for having struggled to find a doorway into Christianity. Instinct actually blocked his path: he loved women in every sense of the word. It was the physical aspect of that which put him in opposition to faith. So there's a convoluted story in there for someone who might want to explore it.
And Christianity is dead as a worldview. Calling it a living religion is perhaps a nod to the possibility of its being absorbed into a new world religion as it once absorbed all the dead worldviews in its cradle.
IamTheFortressJuly 12, 2018 at 01:44#1960780 likes
Is it the dead religion? Absolutely not. I come from the country where lots and lots of people are extremely devoted to Roman Catholic Church, especially young people. They study The Bible, are parts of Christian associations and live accordingly by The Church rules. It is clear for me that this is important to them.
But will it die in the future? It might. As I perceive those people I feel there is something... reactionary in their devotion. I live in a conservative country and the narration of mainstream media is very xenophobic. People are scared of many trends that come to us from Western Europe; they are scared of LGBT movement, of gender and sexual orientation-confusion and drama regarding it, they are scared by the existential crisis that comes from having too many options in life and having to decide how to live your life all by yourself, without any clear guidelines. They stick to religion because it seems familiar and therefore reassuring. It makes the world simpler as it deems some options as immoral and reduces the uncertainty.
I think they need faith, because it lies within majority of people's needs to have faith. I grew up in atheistic/agnostic family and it was generating much anxiety for me even though the need to believe in something wasn't transmitted onto me from other people, so I think that at least some of us has the inborn need for faith. We do have such needs because the sense of safety is one of the most basic animal need. But once individual reaches certain level of self-awareness, they need to realise that every sense of safety in the material world is short-termed and delusional since everything ends with gradual decay and death. Since the solace from this fact cannot be pursued in the pragmatical sense (nothing can make us immortal) people resort to magical thinking or rituals to resort the sense of control and release the anxiety, to antropomorphising things that are beyond our power and control as 'God' (because if it's a person, we can engage in dialogue with it and we can please it and ask for its mercy) or to transferring their inborn archetype of "safe place" onto some conceptual other world or state of being (hence the concepts of "afterlife", "heaven", "nirvana") - since we still have the need for safety but are now smart enough to know it doesn't last for long in the material world. I think that most if not all religions' main purpose is to cater for those needs and that they are all pretty similar in the nutshell. Catholicism is more popular among my peers simply because it's there, it's familiar, it's been there for many generations. But I am not sure if it's the most optimal thing for the modern man to believe. I think that this religion is mainly anachronistic in its teachings. The Wisdom of New Testament was revolutionary in the times it has been created and that was certainly a milestone for humanity. Take the diversion from the preferential, selfish love into the non-preferential "love thy neighbour" type of love that has created the foundation for the concept of morality as something universal and utilitarian, rather than tribal. It must have been important and fresh for the people then, but now that we have absorbed this way of thinking about morality, digested it, raised few generations of children on it, I am not sure The Bible can teach us anything new by now. The same Jesus in the Gospel initially denies to heal the daughter of non-Jewish woman (saying that "dogs shouldn't eat from the table where children dine") or curses the fig tree to dry for it is fruitless in the time of the year when it is normal for it to be fruitless (I have always got the vibe from that parabola as if he didn't care if what he demands of his followers is above their abilities, his anger will fall at them if they fail anyway). Such fragments of The Bible annoyed me as I judged them from my modern mindset and that's why I think that XXI century's person has outgrown the figure of Jesus morally in the perception of "right" and "wrong" (whether the XXI century's person applies what they consider "right" and "wrong" to their everyday life is another thing, but well, that cannot be taught by any Holy Book I believe). Jesus is no moral authority anymore because he has nothing left to teach, what was universal and valuable in The Bible was absorbed by secular culture already and the rest is anachronistic - not fitting to the modern man's reality and problems.
Someone before has stated that The Bible is alive, only the symbolism in it is too cryptic for modern people to decipher. Like the "lamb of God" symbolism that one had evoked strong emotional response from people who sometimes really had to sacrifice the lamb in order to sustain their families or save the herd from the wolves. What I am really wondering is if the symbolism of this scene can be as that important for the modern European person at all, even after translating to a more modern language. It is not the language that is the problem for me here, it is the fact that life conditions have changed. Most people from The Western countries have troubles in conceptualising such harsh life when your physical safety from predators or hunger is your main concern. They don't know the value of community in leading such life. Today people are more preoccupied in more "subtle" problems like identity and value crisis in the multicultural world, feeling of existential emptiness, the problems with growing competitiveness among people, with civilizational diseases. Such things Catholicism doesn't address as during the time that Catholicism was formed, people had other things to worry about. I think it's the main reason that Christianity is now blooming in Africa, while it is quite stiff in Europe - it's just Europeans don't deal with the same issues as first Christians did anymore.
To sum up, I think people do need religion and always will need it but Catholicism is pretty much close to burning-out in Europe. I really hope it will get replaced or reformed as currently it promotes lots of prejudice, for example towards LGBT people. In my country we are one step from passing the bill that penalises the woman for trying to get an abortion (even due to medical reasons) - while I'm not pro-choice myself this is way overboard and it comes from religious fanaticism that doesn't even have anything in common with The Bible or with early Christianity.
Why do you say that in a certain sense, "love" is eternal in Mahayana? Love has different aspects - largely, we have two kinds of love: non-preferential love, and preferential love. Preferential love is the love you feel towards mother, father, children, wife/husband (and even here, love breaks down into multiple categories). Non-preferential love is the love of neighbour, the love of God, etc. Above we were talking about the kind of preferential love mentioned - I'm not sure if Buddhism talks positively about this love. For example, Buddhism often emphasises allowing the loved one to be free, but, for example, is allowing one's child to be free equivalent to allowing them to snort cocaine? Or is allowing one's wife/husband to be free the equivalent of allowing them to be unfaithful? How are we to draw the boundary? How does Buddhism propose to manage such cases, where the stock answer "compassion, letting go, etc." isn't a clear cut answer?
You are right, to some extent. Buddhism emphasizes much more the "non-preferential" kind of love. At the same time, however, I do not think that it speaks negatively about the "preferential" one. In fact, in the paper I mentioned, if I recall correctly, the contemplation that "it is not easy to find a being that was not a mother, a father etc" leads to both non-attachment but also to the devolepment of compassion etc for all sentient beings because they might have been our father, mother etc in the long time of samsara. It sounds, actually reminiscent of this passage of the Gospel:
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
The problem is that the “love” you describe requires essential selves: “I will love you forever”, taken literally, sense implies that there is an unchanging “I” that will love “forever” an unchanging “you”. This is true if and only if there are “permanent selves” in the two lovers or if there is a Higher Power that is able to render them permanent. In both cases, according to Buddhism we have an “eternalistic view” (a “partial eternalism” in the second case). So, I think that the “eternal” romantic love you have in mind is incompatible with Buddhist notion of anatman also because it requires an ability to control forever the events, whereas anatman denies that. I think that in some Mahayana schools the mindstreams never cease and so in a “metaphorical” sense the promise might be justified.
Regarding the real-life examples you are providing, I think that, in order to be compassionate, one should try to stop his son for consuming cocaine and for “good-will” a wife/husband should try to be faithful!
Do you think that not everyone can have faith? Faith, is really the will to believe. It's not a matter of intellect. You will not gain faith by more study, and more reasoning. The faithful know exactly the same as the unfaithful. But the faithful focus on the glimmer of light, whereas the unfaithful focus on the larger darkness.
Faith is fundamentally a movement of the will. It's the will that must be changed, the will that must want to have faith, to cling onto God.
I agree that faith is a matter of will. One chooses to believe. Problem is, however, that people are Christians (or Buddhists, or whatever) for various reasons. Some, like Saint Paul converted because of a mystical experience, some remain attached to their tradition, some convert to the religion of his/her lover and so on. It is a matter of will. Personally, I am trying to see which religion looks to me more reasonable, so to speak, since I chose to “question everything”, to be skeptical, problematic, and so on. But this choice actually reflects my nature (or at least I think and hope). Hence, probably in my case for both “natural” and voluntary reasons I have more diffiulty to “have faith” in whatever religion. Maybe it is only egoism on my part for refusing to choose a tradition, but I think that it I am following my “nature”. Again, I choose to see it in this way. So, the answer for your question is “no”, everyone can have faith. Yet, at the practical level, for some having faith and believing is much more simple than for others (in my case, of course, it might be simply egoism).
I think that for Mahayana Buddhism the answer may be “yes”. Buddhas are already “outside” (in the sense of being “trascending and immanent”) and yet they are full of compassion etc. The "mindstreams" of the awakened beings are always present to help countless sentient beings in countless eons. If samsara will be completely emptied, I think that there are at least some schools of Mahayana that do not accept an end of the "mindstreams". Since, the mindstreams of awakened beings are full of "positive qualities", then you can argue that some kind of relational love is endless.
Since I am agnostic (but actively seeking to "find out the truth") about "Samsara", I can only say that I recognize that our world is "fallen" and some kind of "Love" (which I have no problems to call "divine") transcends the this world.
Of course, becoming a Buddha means that one "transcends" the human condition. On the other hand, in Christianity there is no need to do that (in fact, and I agree with it, Christianity teaches that there are serious risks for those interested in "transcending" the human condition. After all, it is very easy to get conceited in the process)
I completely agree with your statement about mystical experiences and the interconnectedness of the body and mind. And I would say that likewise the faculties of the mind are intertwined. Lately, I’ve been wondering what the difference and relationship between one’s intellect and one’s awareness is. A mystical experience seems like it would be pure expanded awareness mostly (for lack of a better term). Some call it non-dual consciousness. Any intellectual sorting and naming would come later. Which is to be expected; no problem there. The intellect is an indispensable part of us.
I do not think that all mystical experiences are the same, but I think that there is some affinity between them. To borrow an analogy used by Wittgenstein, I think that there is a "family resemblance" between them. However, a very common element, IMO, even more common than "non-duality" is that of "something higher", that inspires respect and reverence. Non-duality too is widespread that there are many traditions where it is absent, or at least not very emphasized.
Regarding the distinction between intellect and awareness, well, I agree. Immediate awareness is nonconceptual, one simply is "cognizant". Concepts arrive later, but conceptual knowledge is mediated, not immediate. I think that immediate awareness comes into degrees. Maybe, "mystical experience" are at the "high-end" of the scale, so to speak.
You might like this article on "Trycicle". It is about the Tibetan Buddhist position that "cognizance" and "emptiness" are fundamental qualities of the mind.
If I may go out even further on this limb... One could compare a mystical experience to unexpectedly seeing a herd of wild horses up close. They seem to come out of nowhere into your area. And they exude a strong life force that is hypnotic. In this example, this mostly would fall into the category of “awareness”. Where the intellect (and mostly the ego) might enter the picture is if the person then decided to capture all of the horses, either to keep or sell. Not judging the morality of such an action, but there is a clear difference between the experience and decision to possibly capture the horses.
So I guess what I’m saying here is that awareness can be expanded. You would certainly agree with that, I imagine. There seem to be many practices in collective Buddhism that do so. And do so while perhaps temporarily “putting the brakes” on the intellect, the emotions, the ego, etc. Just giving the awareness a chance to grow by tending to it like a garden, watering it and pulling some weeds. The intellect and all the other mental powers we have are valuable. And any cautious approaches to such would be with the intention to make them even more valuable and useful to us. Like you said...
I like the apophatic approach because gives me a sense of awe and reverence. It is also true that, unfortunately, I have a somewhat compulsive need to philosophize about the "ultimate". Anyway, I think that is very useful to find peace. — boundless
Completely agree. I think that as long as the “need to philosophize about the ultimate” is counterbalanced by awareness and the sense of awe you mentioned, one can proceed both cautiously and confidently. There is a verse from the Tao Te Ching that might be related:
You can do what you like with material things. But only if you hold to the Mother of things will you do it for long. Live long by looking long. Have deep roots and a strong trunk.
I completely agree (as it happens, I really like the early Taoist writings! They really give inspiration, awe and a sense of freedom rarely found elsewhere. I say "early", simply because I am not very familar (not even by readins secondary literature) with more recent writings than the Liezi).
At the same time, however, I do not think that it speaks negatively about the "preferential" one.
But, if, as you say, everyone could be mother, father, etc. then your current mother and father are, relatively speaking, devalued, aren't they? In other words, it is no longer a preferential kind of love, is it? If you expand the object of preference to include almost anybody, then you cannot claim to have a preference anymore - it defeats the purpose.
It sounds, actually reminiscent of this passage of the Gospel:
But the Gospel passage quoted is Jesus's answer. The message is that God's love is not preferential - or rather, that God's love is more than merely preferential. To further unpack this, God's love for each person is of the same intensity as the preferential love a father has for a child, but this does not, in any regard, diminish God's love for others.
The problem is that the “love” you describe requires essential selves: “I will love you forever”, taken literally, sense implies that there is an unchanging “I” that will love “forever” an unchanging “you”.
I find this notion very strange and unclear. Do we have free will? If we have free will, then presumably, we are able to control some things, such as who we love. So if love is such a choice that we make, it doesn't require our selves to be unchanging, but rather merely our choice to remain unchanging. It becomes, once again, a matter of the will, doesn't it?
It's also not clear to me what an "unchanging self" would even be. Buddhists reject the Hindu notion of atman. But what exactly is rejected still remains mysterious. I mean, phenomenologically speaking, what is the difference between an unchanging self, and a changing one? We live life, and sometimes our preferences change. Does that mean our self has changed? If the phenomena are anatta (empty of self), then there can be no question of our self changing when phenomena (thoughts, desires, etc.) change.
What would you say is the relationship between anatta and will?
So, I think that the “eternal” romantic love you have in mind is incompatible with Buddhist notion of anatman also because it requires an ability to control forever the events, whereas anatman denies that.
I disagree. The events could lead to the two lovers becoming separate, for example. But this cannot affect their will, all by itself. Love is anchored in their will. Is their will not under their control?
I think that for Mahayana Buddhism the answer may be “yes”. Buddhas are already “outside” (in the sense of being “trascending and immanent”) and yet they are full of compassion etc. The "mindstreams" of the awakened beings are always present to help countless sentient beings in countless eons. If samsara will be completely emptied, I think that there are at least some schools of Mahayana that do not accept an end of the "mindstreams". Since, the mindstreams of awakened beings are full of "positive qualities", then you can argue that some kind of relational love is endless.
Since I am agnostic (but actively seeking to "find out the truth") about "Samsara", I can only say that I recognize that our world is "fallen" and some kind of "Love" (which I have no problems to call "divine") transcends the this world.
Of course, becoming a Buddha means that one "transcends" the human condition. On the other hand, in Christianity there is no need to do that (in fact, and I agree with it, Christianity teaches that there are serious risks for those interested in "transcending" the human condition. After all, it is very easy to get conceited in the process)
Thanks for the reply. I will answer back tomorrow.
Also, thank you for the links. Very interesting site, indeed.
BTW, there is a scholar, prof Alexander Wynne that makes similar criticism on the "orthodox" "no self" doctrine. See e.g. these two articles (maybe also @Wayfarer is interested in reading them):
Well, personally I do not believe that the "anatman" teaching was misunderstood in the last two thousand years. But, both the link you provided and these articles are very interesting.
My view about "anatman", however, is that in some sense it is true that it means that there is no "self" (and also that in some extent Buddhism can be said to be reductionistic). However, I think it is a teaching that can be easily misunderstood as implying that there is no free will, that we do not exist at all, that the private experience is illusory, no "real" moral responsibility etc (I think that the teachers quoted in the articles when they denied the "self" they did not imply that we do not exist at all). Anyway, maybe there is too much emphasis on the "no self" thing (after all, as these links and Wayfarer noted previously, "anatta" is mostly used as an adjective. This makes sense, considering that "anatta" is a property that is to be investigated in analytical and meditative experience).
Incidentally in terms of cross-cultural analysis, see Buddhist Analogues of Sin and Grace: A Dialogue with Augustine John Makransky. It makes an interesting comparison between Augustine's teaching of the original sin (which has been immensely influential particularly in Latin Christianity) and the Buddhist teaching of 'avidya' (ignorance).
In Christian terms, no action of human will in its fallen condition can restore humans to freedom from sin and to consistent love of the Good. Such capacities can only be restored by their Creator, through the transcendent power of His grace. As Augustine wrote, '... victory [over vice] cannot be sincerely and truly gained but by delighting in true righteousness, and it is faith in Christ that gives this. ... . Accordingly vices are then only to be considered overcome when they are conquered by the love of God, which God Himself alone gives... .” Augustine recognizes how serious is the problem of sin and vice, how hopeless it is for humans to solve it relying only upon their own devices. The solution must come from transcendent power.
How have Buddhist thinkers engaged the parallel issues? In Buddhist terms, if our entire being were just the process of egoic conditioning that the Buddha had diagnosed, there could be no escape from the suffering of clinging, aversion, vice and consequent suffering. However, the Buddha also taught another dimension of being, an unconditioned dimension, Nirv??a: 'Oh, monks, there is an unborn, unarisen, and unconditioned. Were there were not an unborn, unarisen, and unconditioned, there would be no escape for those born, arisen and conditioned. Because there is the unborn, unarisen, unconditioned, there is escape for those born, arisen, and conditioned.
....
Although...Buddhist anthropology differs considerably from Augustine’s, a Buddhist response to this problem is profoundly similar in one respect. For Buddhists, as for Augustine, there can be no freedom from bondage unless something transcendent intervenes. Only someone beyond such conditioning can point the way beyond it. Only someone who fully embodies that transcendent, unconditioned dimension of being could reveal it to others, and demonstrate the way for others to be released unto it.
I do not think that all mystical experiences are the same, but I think that there is some affinity between them. To borrow an analogy used by Wittgenstein, I think that there is a "family resemblance" between them. However, a very common element, IMO, even more common than "non-duality" is that of "something higher", that inspires respect and reverence. Non-duality too is widespread that there are many traditions where it is absent, or at least not very emphasized.
Regarding the distinction between intellect and awareness, well, I agree. Immediate awareness is nonconceptual, one simply is "cognizant". Concepts arrive later, but conceptual knowledge is mediated, not immediate. I think that immediate awareness comes into degrees. Maybe, "mystical experience" are at the "high-end" of the scale, so to speak.
Thanks for the reply and further details! Good point about the “family resemblance” between mystical experiences. They do seem to cut across traditions and epochs. To me, there is a unmistakable similarity (not identical of course but similar) between Sufis, Christian mystics, Taoist sages, and even animist Aboriginal tribal shamans. They are not reducible to each other nor interchangeable. But there seems to me to be a thread that connects them all. It is probably the whole exoteric vs esoteric topic.
And thanks for the Tricycle link. Will check it out. :up:
But, if, as you say, everyone could be mother, father, etc. then your current mother and father are, relatively speaking, devalued, aren't they? In other words, it is no longer a preferential kind of love, is it? If you expand the object of preference to include almost anybody, then you cannot claim to have a preference anymore - it defeats the purpose.
I believe that here we should consider the duality between the "relative" and "ultimate" truth. At the "ultimate", love is non-preferential. But, at the relative level, we have special relationiships :smile:
I think that Buddhism suggests us to love everybody, have "metta", "karuna" etc for everybody. Yet, I do not think that it devalues special relationships. Maybe it points to the fact that we should not neglect who are "outside" our preferences. We should also be "good" with our enemies.
But the Gospel passage quoted is Jesus's answer. The message is that God's love is not preferential - or rather, that God's love is more than merely preferential. To further unpack this, God's love for each person is of the same intensity as the preferential love a father has for a child, but this does not, in any regard, diminish God's love for others.
Now, let me ask you, in turn this question: is "preferential love" present in Heaven?
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend expecting back nothing, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful![s]
I see a parallel between the "divine love" and "boundless heart" (see the "Metta Sutta") related to the "ultimate" in Buddhism. You are right that Christianity praises preferential love more than what Buddhism does, yet, I believe that Christianity too aspires to arrive at both and encourages people to strive to "imitate" God. What do you think about this?
I find this notion very strange and unclear. Do we have free will? If we have free will, then presumably, we are able to control some things, such as who we love. So if love is such a choice that we make, it doesn't require our selves to be unchanging, but rather merely our choice to remain unchanging. It becomes, once again, a matter of the will, doesn't it?
I think that we have free will. And choices are a matter of will. And, maybe, Buddhists might agree on this point. Yet, I have reservations that our choices are unchanging (see below).
It's also not clear to me what an "unchanging self" would even be. Buddhists reject the Hindu notion of atman. But what exactly is rejected still remains mysterious. I mean, phenomenologically speaking, what is the difference between an unchanging self, and a changing one? We live life, and sometimes our preferences change. Does that mean our self has changed? If the phenomena are anatta (empty of self), then there can be no question of our self changing when phenomena (thoughts, desires, etc.) change.
BINGO! Well, we know that Buddha denied that any of the five aggregates (consciousness included) could be taken as "me, mine, my self (atman)". He also denied that "Nirvana" could be the "atman".
Personally, I think that he even denied an "impermanent" self. There were "ascetics and brahmins" that thought that "the body is the self". The body, of course, is impermanent, subject to illness, uncontrolled changes and so on. Therefore the Buddha, IMO, denied a "changing" self, too.
I think that he denied all possible "objectification" of the self, i.e. he denied that we could say that "my self is this", or even "my self is indescribable" (the position of the Pudgalavadins, apparently). At MN 2 (Ven. Thanissaro translation) we find:
“This is how he attends inappropriately: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?’
“As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self … or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self … or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self … or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine—the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions—is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
Hence, all "definitions" and descriptions are to be "transcended". Note the paradoxical language of this sutta. I think that Buddhism points even beyond the position that "there is no self". In fact, it stops completely identification. I read somewhere that "shunyata" is nowadays translated as "openness", meaning that "anatman/anatta" points to have no "self", i.e. having no reference point.
What would you say is the relationship between anatta and will?
Difficult question! Personally I believe that there is free will (I never saw a convincing argument for the view that moral responsibility is meaningful without free will). If anatta is true, I believe that it is a sort of "undeterminate question". In fact, I think that it is very puzzling (tha author of the blog post you linked here, indeed, has a point!).
I disagree. The events could lead to the two lovers becoming separate, for example. But this cannot affect their will, all by itself. Love is anchored in their will. Is their will not under their control?
Maybe not. In fact, I think that this is one of the important points of the anatman teaching, i.e. that, if unawakened, we cannot even have the "right intentions" forever (if that was possible a perpetual succession of blissful rebirths would be possible). It is IMO an important point. Our "fallen" nature (see also the quote provided by Wayfarer in his latest post) prevents us to control forever our will. Isn't it reminiscent to the Christian tenet that we need God's Grace to save ourselves from sinning? Of course, in Buddhism, one "gets free" from this fallen nature by "awakening" rather than Grace. But, here, I think we have a similarity.
I would have put it differently, being a wild speculation of mine (of course everything I write is a wild speculation, but that was especially the case). Anyway, what I meant is that if mindstreams continue forever AND if such mindstreams are full of "positive qualities", for example the "loving" quality, then mindstreams will radiate love forever, so to speak. So, in some sense, mindstreams of awakened beings will always love. The "metaphor" part was meant to include in what I tried to say, the Buddhist tenet of anatman. I hope that it is clearer now. But, I admit that it might be not XD
As an aside, on the "everything is impermanent" view, check Ven. Yuttadhammo's answer to this question on Buddhism stackexchange (also, I found useful his youtube videos on meditation).
Thanks for the reply and further details! Good point about the “family resemblance” between mystical experiences. They do seem to cut across traditions and epochs. To me, there is a unmistakable similarity (not identical of course but similar) between Sufis, Christian mystics, Taoist sages, and even animist Aboriginal tribal shamans. They are not reducible to each other nor interchangeable. But there seems to me to be a thread that connects them all. It is probably the whole exoteric vs esoteric topic.
And thanks for the Tricycle link. Will check it out.
Well, in those traditions you mention the idea of "union with the Absolute" is central (well, I am not very familar with Sufism and I do not know anything about Aboriginal spirituality but I trust you!). The "unity motif", so to speak, is very widespread around the world. Buddhists are generally cautious in speaking of "unity" or "oneness", but the idea is IMO far from being absent, especially in East Asian (Mahayana) Buddhism. For example, there is a school, the Hua-yan (known as "Hwaeom" in Korea and as "Kegon" in Japan) that teaches that all phenomena "interpenetrate" (I think that I already linked in this thread the IEP article on Fazang, the third patriarch of this school). But it is also present in the Tiantai (in Japanese Tendai) school as you can see in the SEP article about that school. But I think that the teaching of interpenetration is present also in Chan/Zen Buddhism (the modern teacher Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh speaks of "interbeing" which is related to interpenetration and interdependence). Maybe this "flavor" of Buddhism may be very interesting for you.
Another family resemblance is that of the "ephemeral" vs "permanent" (both in the sense of everlastingness and timeless). Again, many Buddhists are reticent to speak of the "permanent", but I think that this "ephemeral"/"permanent" thing is also present in early Buddhism. Check, for example, the Dhamma-niyama sutta which seems to suggest that the "Dharma" is a "truth" that stands all times, yet no every Buddhist agrees on this (also there are some texts of the Theravada schools that seldom refer to "Nirvana" as "permanent" but you find some controversy here. Even in the article about Tiantai that I linked before you find that, according to the author, Early Buddhism says that everything is impermanent. But IMO it is only the interpretation of the author [see, for example, the link to the answer of Ven. Yuttadhammo that I provided at the end to my answer to Agustino in this very post]).
Then, we have the "experience" of a "relationship", i.e. being loved. Again, it is pretty widespread, especially in religions that believe in a Personal Deity.
Okay, but how far should one go to stop their son from consuming cocaine?
Well, independently of Buddhism or Christianity, I cannot give you a precise answer on this. To be honest, I tried to give you a response here, but I failed. So, please do not take it as due to a lack of effort.
Well, just for curiosity, how would you answer to your question?
I believe that here we should consider the duality between the "relative" and "ultimate" truth. At the "ultimate", love is non-preferential.
On the Christian world-view, I think I would disagree with this assertion. Christian love, at its highest, is both preferential and non-preferential.
1 Corinthians 9:24:Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.
In Christianity too, only ONE gets the prize. This isn't meant to suggest that God doesn't love all men, but rather that God loves all men as individuals, one-to-one. So God's Love is both preferential and non-preferential at the same time. In front of God, each human being is the chosen one. And at the same time, this does not stop God from loving all men, even though he prefers each one as individual.
Maybe it points to the fact that we should not neglect who are "outside" our preferences. We should also be "good" with our enemies.
But there are cases where sacrifices are required, since we cannot please everyone as human beings. We are not God - we are finite creatures, and as such we cannot love the way God does. So it's true, that we should love all men. But what do we do when the love of all men, comes in conflict with the love of our wife, or our child, etc.?
Now, let me ask you, in turn this question: is "preferential love" present in Heaven?
I would say so - every man has a preferential relationship with God.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Sure, I agree that we must love all men. At the same time, it is evident that our preferential love will sometimes come into conflict with our non-preferential love. My position is that, in such cases, one should choose their preferential love. This is similar to Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac when commanded by God.
You are right that Christianity praises preferential love more than what Buddhism does, yet, I believe that Christianity too aspires to arrive at both and encourages people to strive to "imitate" God. What do you think about this?
I agree with you that Christianity aspires to both.
Maybe not. In fact, I think that this is one of the important points of the anatman teaching, i.e. that, if unawakened, we cannot even have the "right intentions" forever (if that was possible a perpetual succession of blissful rebirths would be possible).
Okay, yes I see. I see your point, and I agree. However - potentially - we could have "right intentions" forever if we are awakened. So given two lovers who both become enlightened, what will happen to their love? Their love cannot fail to be eternal - that seems the only plausible answer. It is true that in Buddhism, because of ignorance, we cannot act rightly 100% of the time. But what happens if we dispel the ignorance?
This is what one of the blog posts I linked to says:
Reacting vs Responding
Reactions are conditioned – they are based on habits or things we have done repeatedly to condition that reaction.
Responses on the other hand can be carefully thought out and planned, weighing up the situation to see what the best course of action would be.
Responses are done with intention – you insert your intention in to solve the situation. Reactions are not.
If you say that everything is conditioned by what happened before it – then life would just be a series of pure chain reactions in the same way that inanimate objects would react to each other with no ability to change things – like dominoes falling one after the other. But the crucial difference is that we are not the dominoes that have no choice in the matter. Rather, we are more like the creator of how the dominoes formations are shaped, we are the creator of how far apart the dominoes are from each other, we are the creator of when the first domino falls – if we want them to fall at all – so we have all these freedoms!
So we have our own free will, we make our own choices. We are not inanimate things which have no free will – and so, they have no choice but to follow the course of what came before it. For us, we can be influenced by something, but we are not bound to follow along with that influence.
I agree with this difference. We start out in life in the unenligthened state, where we mostly react, instead of respond, to what is happening around us. We are the slaves of our instincts, and so on. But, as we approach enlightenment, we cease reacting, and start responding more and more. When we finally become enlightened, we no longer react, we are no longer part of the stream so to speak. Everything we do becomes a response, that is freely chosen, and not compelled.
The "metaphor" part was meant to include in what I tried to say, the Buddhist tenet of anatman. I hope that it is clearer now. But, I admit that it might be not XD
Well, is it really the case, or not? Does the metaphor bit suggest that this is a "relative" truth?
You might like "The stages of Christian mysticism and Buddhist purification" by Lance Cousins, a very rare comparative study between Christianity and Theravada Buddhism.
Well, just for curiosity, how would you answer to your question?
I would say it depends on the means one has at one's disposal. I would say that it's fine to use a degree of coercion in order to prevent a greater evil in this case. What coercion would consist in, depends on the circumstances. It could be some form of financial pressure, not giving your son something else he desires, etc.
Buddhists reject the Hindu notion of atman. But what exactly is rejected still remains mysterious.
The Buddha criticized the Brahmin teaching on many grounds, one of which was just this unclarity. The way ?tman is depicted in the Vedas and the Upani?ads is often contradictory and vague. The soul might travel to the Sun, or to space, or beneath the earth, or re-appear as an animal or even a plant. It was actually typical of much of the speculation about death that was found in many of the ancient cultures of that time.
Secondly, when the Buddha criticized 'eternalism', it was a specific rejection of the idea that there was a permanent, self-existent and inherently real self or subject, that would continue to be reborn in perpetuity. Given that there were ascetics who believed that they could recall their previous lives, this was not an outlandish thing to believe. In fact, even Guatama is said to have recalled all his previous lives, at the penultimate stage just prior to realising final Nirv??a. So the belief in 'eternalism' was the belief that there is an unchangeable self or subject, which transmigrates from life to life, and which is never subject to change; two of the similes given is that it is like 'a post set fast' or 'a solitary mountain peak'.There is a dialogue on 'Sati the Fisherman's Son', who is a character who believes that consciousness transmigrates from life to life, who is so recalcitrant in his mistaken view, that all the Buddha can do is hold him up as an example of pernicious error.
All of these views are laid out in a text called the Brahmaj?la Sutta, which details the 64 kinds of wrong views - said to be the complete list - that ascetics fall into. But if you take a very high level view, they're all variations of either 'ceasing to exist', which is nihilism, or 'continuing to exist', which is eternalism. The 'middle path' is neither! That is the entry-point to N?g?rjuna - those who say "it is", are eternalist, those who say "it is not" are nihilist. (According to the commentary that I read on the Brahmaj?la the majority of people today tend towards nihilism, although many don't realise it.)
(That is why, by way of a footnote, that Madhyamika is sometimes compared to Pyrrhonian scepticism, to which it is sometimes compared, as it amounts to a 'suspension of judgement' or radical un-knowing. See Sunyata and Epoche, Jay Garfield, and Pyrrho and the East, Edward Flintoff. However in our cultural context, it is very difficult to understand such religiously-oriented scepticism, as we're inclined to equate scepticism with [scientific] realism.)
This isn't meant to suggest that God doesn't love all men, but rather that God loves all men as individuals, one-to-one. So God's Love is both preferential and non-preferential at the same time. In front of God, each human being is the chosen one. And at the same time, this does not stop God from loving all men, even though he prefers each one as individual.
But there are cases where sacrifices are required, since we cannot please everyone as human beings. We are not God - we are finite creatures, and as such we cannot love the way God does. So it's true, that we should love all men. But what do we do when the love of all men, comes in conflict with the love of our wife, or our child, etc.?
Sure, I agree that we must love all men. At the same time, it is evident that our preferential love will sometimes come into conflict with our non-preferential love. My position is that, in such cases, one should choose their preferential love. This is similar to Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac when commanded by God.
Well, I think that here there is some controversy, both in Buddhism and in Christianity. Taken literally, the passages quoted above about "love your enemies" imply that Christians should abstain from all violence. Yet, it seems that violence is sometimes even necessary. A Gandhian approach might be effective with some enemies but if the enemies are the nazies, then a Gandhian approach would be equal to an assured massacre. In Buddhism there are differing views on this point, too. The first precept is to abstain from killing. And, you find passages like:
Monks, as low-down thieves might carve one limb from limb with a double-handled saw, yet even then whoever sets his mind at enmity, he, for this reason, is not a doer of my teaching.
which are extremely similar to the "turn the other cheek" in the Gospels. But what about the case a loved one, say a son/daughter is in peril? Is it "right" to not act? Or in order to save others one should act? (maybe as an act of compassion). Personally, I agree with you. Sometimes, sadly, violence seems impossible to avoid. Yet, maybe most Buddhists might disagree. For example, among the Theravadins, check the view of Bhikkhu Bodhi (which, however was criticized by other Buddhist figures like Thanissaro bhikkhu).
On the other hand, I cannot understand the example you give of Abraham. In my understanding, it seems the exact opposite, i.e. that Abraham was seen as "righteous" by being faithful to God even to the point of sacrificing his son. Yet, last year a catholic priest made a point that this was not the correct reading of the episode. Unfortunately, I cannot remember his reasoning in saying this. So, why do you think that this episode is an example of the importance of preferential love?
Okay, yes I see. I see your point, and I agree. However - potentially - we could have "right intentions" forever if we are awakened. So given two lovers who both become enlightened, what will happen to their love? Their love cannot fail to be eternal - that seems the only plausible answer. It is true that in Buddhism, because of ignorance, we cannot act rightly 100% of the time. But what happens if we dispel the ignorance?
Good questions! In "non-Mahayana" schools (i.e. Theravada and other "early" Buddhist schools) I think that their love cannot continue forever, simply due to the fact that Nirvana without remainder also implies the cessation of "good qualities". On the other hand, in the Mahayana the situation is much more complicated. If the mindstreams are really endless, they continue forever even when purified by ignorance and other "defilements". Providing that this is the case, however, I think that the love is "non-preferential".
But still, you have that the arhat Sariputra went to save his mother just before his death. So, I am not even sure that preferential love is absent in awakened ones.
I agree with this difference. We start out in life in the unenligthened state, where we mostly react, instead of respond, to what is happening around us. We are the slaves of our instincts, and so on. But, as we approach enlightenment, we cease reacting, and start responding more and more. When we finally become enlightened, we no longer react, we are no longer part of the stream so to speak. Everything we do becomes a response, that is freely chosen, and not compelled.
I mostly agree with this. However, you need a qualitative and irreversible change, meaning that in order to achieve that state you need to get awakened/enlightened.
Well, is it really the case, or not? Does the metaphor bit suggest that this is a "relative" truth?
Yes, I meant that. And I think that in order to understand what it means, we should fully know the relation between the relative and the ultimate truth. Which in turn means that we should be awakened :lol:
I found it very interesting. Most comparative studies are devoted to Mahayana, and many of them rely only on Meister Eckhart writings. I find it extremely interesting because it is a comparison between the work of a saint, St. Theresa of Avila, with the "traditional" Theravada commentary by Buddhaghosa. I never found anything similar to that.
I would say it depends on the means one has at one's disposal. I would say that it's fine to use a degree of coercion in order to prevent a greater evil in this case. What coercion would consist in, depends on the circumstances. It could be some form of financial pressure, not giving your son something else he desires, etc.
(That is why, by way of a footnote, that Madhyamika is sometimes compared to Pyrrhonian scepticism, to which it is sometimes compared, as it amounts to a 'suspension of judgement' or radical un-knowing. See Sunyata and Epoche, Jay Garfield, and Pyrrho and the East, Edward Flintoff. However in our cultural context, it is very difficult to understand such religiously-oriented scepticism, as we're inclined to equate scepticism with [scientific] realism.)
Another point to be stressed here is that this "un-knowing" limits itself only at the "ultimate" level. In the relative level, I would be VERY hesitant to call Madhyamaka a "Pyrhonism". As an obvious example, there is the belief in rebirth, karma, that dependent origination is the best relative truth and so on.
I would be VERY hesitant to call Madhyamaka a "Pyrhonism". As an obvious example, there is the belief in rebirth, karma, that dependent origination is the best relative truth and so on.
I said the two are 'sometimes compared', and I think there's a very good argument for that relationship. See also Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism (Studies in Comparative Philosophy and Religion), Adrian Kuzminski, http://a.co/fk9cJQF.
I agree with that. Augustine is well-known for having struggled to find a doorway into Christianity. Instinct actually blocked his path: he loved women in every sense of the word. It was the physical aspect of that which put him in opposition to faith. So there's a convoluted story in there for someone who might want to explore it.
And Christianity is dead as a worldview. Calling it a living religion is perhaps a nod to the possibility of its being absorbed into a new world religion as it once absorbed all the dead worldviews in its cradle.
If we lost our sense of sight, in the short term, we would become disorientated. But as time goes on our others senses would become enhanced. The brain will gradually reroute resources, so we are able to function under the new constraints of no sight. If you repress the extroverted and materialistic aspects of sexuality, using will power and choice, a similar thing will occur, with the brain rerouting aspects of the brain's operating system.
One common affect of repressed desire is active imagination and fantasy. This is a gateway to the operating system of the brain. The personality firmware, associated with sexuality, will become more conscious, via fantasy and symbolism, as a way for it to get the ego involved to help it remove the dam, so the energy can flow. But if the dam persists, pressure builds behind the dam, and the potential finds new ways around.
These induced brain dynamics are the reason many, if not most religions, often deny aspects of the physical self. It was about a rewiring of the brain away from instinctive pathways of animal man. Born again is similar to a system update. But like any update, the brain first has to uninstall the old, which is a destructive process which can get stressful.
Bible prophesies, such as Revelations, appears to discuss a major update of the operating system of the human brain. The final human left are very different. The materialists will see an extroverted dynamics that occur outside themselves; materialistic and physical dynamics in cultural reality. But those who live in the gateway, due to the willful repression, witness an internal dynamics that requires a certain amount of willpower and choice to maintain sufficient potential for initiation.
The firmware of the brain first needs to be updated to accept the larger update of the operating system. The gateway to the firmware is connected to the new inner world beyond the dam.
An analogy is an older PC or Mac, may not accept the latest operating system, because some parts of the mother board first need to be updated. This may require a new computer or tablet unless one replaces the motherboard. The human brain is pliable and we can update the mother board, in situ, in advance, to accept the latest update in the operating system.
You don't want to try the update too early on an older computer, since the old operating system will be lost and the new not installed properly. Natural man can't accept the update. However, an updated version of natural man will appear after the update. Where faith comes in is an acceptance of the changes from the initial rewiring, then to uninstall, then to reinstall, so you don't corrupt the files. The Saints who appear, were like human dynamos.
But also the warnings are there to make sure you do all the steps or it will lead to your own destruction. This is where the motherboard is not prepared properly before uninstall.
Reply to wellwisher Condemnation of slavery to sexual desire has been an aspect of Christianity since its early days. Some scholars say it was an attack on the Roman system of patronage. Some note that women might have been attracted to Christianity because of the emancipatory effect of this condemnation.
You're talking about spiritual transformation. Spiritual and social transformations might go hand in hand.
Yeah, sorry that remark was not adressed to you :-)You are right, there are indeed affinities (and thank you for the suggestioni)! I had other people in mind who take the similarities to imply that Buddhism suspends judgement on everything.
Reply to boundless Krishnamurti was a sceptic in the same sense. When the Dalai Lama first came to India, he was told about Krishnamurti (this is in the late 50's), and exclaimed 'Aha! A N?g?rjuna!' (This anecdote is related in Pupul Jayakar's bio of K.)
Taken literally, the passages quoted above about "love your enemies" imply that Christians should abstain from all violence. Yet, it seems that violence is sometimes even necessary.
It would entail abstaining from all violence so long as we assume that love can never be expressed through violence. Because remember, to love one is different than to do what they would want you to do.
On the other hand, I cannot understand the example you give of Abraham. In my understanding, it seems the exact opposite, i.e. that Abraham was seen as "righteous" by being faithful to God even to the point of sacrificing his son. Yet, last year a catholic priest made a point that this was not the correct reading of the episode. Unfortunately, I cannot remember his reasoning in saying this. So, why do you think that this episode is an example of the importance of preferential love?
"Preferential love" is another way of saying that there is a hierarchy in love. In this case, Abraham's love for God is prefered relative to Abraham's love for his son. A man's love for his wife is preferred over his love for his neighbour. And so on so forth. So when one comes in conflict with the other, the preferred one is chosen. But it's important to note at this point that preferential love is always built on top of non-preferential love.
Will be answering the rest tomorrow, too tired now!
Taken literally, the passages quoted above about "love your enemies" imply that Christians should abstain from all violence. Yet, it seems that violence is sometimes even necessary.
It gets worse. Paul adds...
"If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen."
and
"Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."
Not only must you not be violent, you must not even harbor unexpressed hate. The bar is set very high. For Christian pacifists, Jesus provides clear and unequivocal guidance: Love your enemies, turn the other cheek, and so on. "Your convenience isn't the point," Jesus said to me in a private note.
Only the utterly resolute can attempt absolute pacifism (this is different than conscientious objection to war). Those who are not so resolute will have to define what is necessary violence and what is not. One might decide that violence in defense of one's self, one's spouse, and one's children (maybe pets?) is legitimate. But then, "How much violence is necessary?" Where between a slap on the hand and death does one draw the line?
If one is willing to defend one's self, spouse, and children, perhaps one should extend one's protective circle to the neighbors' children... You can see where this ends. One is prepared to defend one's interests, which is a much broader permission to be violent than merely defending one's self and one's spouse or children.
I did at one time, but I I can not now defend pacifism. I am not willing to accept any degree of abuse without defending myself IF I CAN. If I am unable to defend myself, then I will have to accept whatever happens. "Accepting whatever happens" is not "loving one's enemies". And calling in the categorial imperative, if I claim my own right to defense, I can't deny someone else defending themselves.
I think I mostly agree with you on this point.
Removal of hatred, violent tendencies and so on from our minds is indeed a good thing. Yet, sometimes, even non-violence seems excessive!
Only the utterly resolute can attempt absolute pacifism (this is different than conscientious objection to war). Those who are not so resolute will have to define what is necessary violence and what is not. One might decide that violence in defense of one's self, one's spouse, and one's children (maybe pets?) is legitimate. But then, "How much violence is necessary?" Where between a slap on the hand and death does one draw the line?
Well, I think this is the point. Rigorous pacifists would answer that violence is never necessary. But, frankly, I find such a position quite extreme.
After all, if by doing nothing we know that others might get harmed, are we "in the right" if we abstain from action when by acting we know that we can save them?
Violence should, I think, be used when all other possible solutions are ineffective and even if violence is employed, it should be done without the intention of killing (but rather for saving) and without cruelty. If possible, violence should have the purpose to change the mind of the aggressor. But, of course, I am speaking of the "ideal".
If one is willing to defend one's self, spouse, and children, perhaps one should extend one's protective circle to the neighbors' children... You can see where this ends. One is prepared to defend one's interests, which is a much broader permission to be violent than merely defending one's self and one's spouse or children.
I think that I partly agree. On the other hand, however, I think that one should try to extende as much as one can good-will, compassion etc (by wanting to do too much, one risks to cause more trouble than anything else).
I did at one time, but I I can not now defend pacifism. I am not willing to accept any degree of abuse without defending myself IF I CAN. If I am unable to defend myself, then I will have to accept whatever happens. "Accepting whatever happens" is not "loving one's enemies". And calling in the categorial imperative, if I claim my own right to defense, I can't deny someone else defending themselves.
I am quite conflicted on this point, actually. As I said, one should try to defend oneself and others by non-violent means. If that does not work, one can try to use some coercion trying to stop the aggressor trying to cause less harm as possible.
In the "real world", however, this is really hard to do.
If we consider "harming" as bad and "saving" as good, then, IMO, we can see that harming for self-defence (or to save others) is a very particular "kind" of violence. If we look at intentions involved, for example, we are very likely to find an intention to "save" simultaneous to an intention to "harm". So, even to a pacifist, it might be regarded as a "neutral" (or rather, so to speak, "mixed") action.
(P.S. As an aside, the Biblical quotes you provided are from the first letter of John. Yet Paul himself says something similar "14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse" and "17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." found at Chapter 12 of the Epistle to Romans, link)
It would entail abstaining from all violence so long as we assume that love can never be expressed through violence. Because remember, to love one is different than to do what they would want you to do.
I might agree with that, if we make a clarification (well, I am not sure of what you mean here).
I highly doubt that having the intention of harming or killing are expression of love. Rather, I can see "violence" motivated by compassion when one tries to save others or oneself by violent actions. At the best, there is the case when you want to stop them with the intention of "saving" them (and hoping that they later ). But, for example, I doubt that you can "express" your "love" to your aggressor by killing him or her. So, a bit of coercion might express love (like in the example of cocaine), but I cannot easily see how one can express love to another by seriously harming (intentionally) or even klling (intentionally) him/her. At best, such actions can be done for benefit for others (or oneself), certainly not for the one seriously harmed or killed (except, maybe, the case where one seriously harms another to avoid that he/she will be killed).
Anyway, I am not really sure that the Gospels allow violence as an expression of love. I mean, in the same discourses where love to enemies is mentioned, it is said to who do evil, to turn the other cheek, to not resist to an evil person etc (the same is said more or less by Paul "14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse" and "17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." Chapter 12 of Epistles to Romans, link). Personally, the "pacifistic" reading is strongly supported by these passages.
Actually, a pacifist might say that it is not possible to "resist evil" and "express love" at the same time. But, at the same time it is true that doing nothing can, for example, cause a massacre in certain situations. The issue is extremely controversial and I think that many Christian thinkers struggled on this point and allowed violence only in some cases. Yet, I cannot see how a literal reading of such passages can be reconciled with violence.
Also, another problem here. Even if it could be possible to do violence with a loving disposition, this is not the case for everybody. Some might not be able to do that. In this case, if one seeks to always act lovingly, then s/he will abstain completely from violence.
"Preferential love" is another way of saying that there is a hierarchy in love. In this case, Abraham's love for God is prefered relative to Abraham's love for his son. A man's love for his wife is preferred over his love for his neighbour. And so on so forth. So when one comes in conflict with the other, the preferred one is chosen. But it's important to note at this point that preferential love is always built on top of non-preferential love.
Thanks for the explanation. Maybe next week I will be able to ask to that my friend about the interpretation of this biblical passage. In that case, I will let you know his interpretation of the passage!
P.S
I inform you that I will not be able to answer until Tuesday, I think.
When the brain writes memory to the cerebral matter, an emotional tag is added by the limbic system in the core region of the brain as it writes to the cerebral. Our final memory has both content, as was well an emotional tag. Our strongest memories always have the strongest emotional tagging.
The value of this schema is our memory can be triggered in two ways; via the content or via the emotional tag of the memory. I can look at my favorite food and starts to feel hungry due to the previous emotional tagging, Or I can start to get hungry and images of my favorite food will appear in my imagination. This is also due to previous memory.
When you love your enemy, you are tricking the brain into adding a love tag to a memory that the brain will normally; instinctively or collectively, tag with fear and hate. If successful love tagging occurs, due to willower and choice, one is much less stressed in life.
Love integrates us internally and externally. When you are in love everything seems better. Hate and fear attempts to divide us internally and externally. Hate isolates us. Therefore if you increase the proportions of love tagging in your memory, and decrease the proportion of fear and hate tagging, your mind becomes more integrated and 3-D. It is a path for human evolution.
The ancient prophets did not have a materialist explanation for the brain, but they understood how the brain software worked. Jesus was trying to upgrade, via choices and willpower.
Secondly, when the Buddha criticized 'eternalism', it was a specific rejection of the idea that there was a permanent, self-existent and inherently real self or subject, that would continue to be reborn in perpetuity.
I don't understand what you mean here. How can the concept of "permanence" (or "impermanence" for that matter) apply to a self? A self isn't an object in the world, like a chair for example. So applying the concept of permanence or impermanence to the self makes no sense to me. When Buddhists claim that the self is impermanent I have no clue what they're talking about. How can the self be impermanent? The self is the locus of freedom, or choice. As such, the self is always "empty" - the very possibility of freedom demands that the self be "empty" such that it can choose. Without being "empty", there is no possibility of choice.
So the belief in 'eternalism' was the belief that there is an unchangeable self or subject, which transmigrates from life to life, and which is never subject to change
What's the problem with a subject which transmigrates from life to life? And how can a subject be subject to change? :s How can or does a subject change? What "is" this subject which is subject to change?
Also, do you personally believe in free will? If so, how do you reconcile free will with anatta and dependent origination?
When Buddhists claim that the self is impermanent I have no clue what they're talking about.
All things - i.e. all objects of experience - have three characteristics - anicca, anatta, dhukka - impermanent, not-self, and unsatisfying. That's generally the gist. But there is also 'the unborn, the unconditioned, the unborn' which corresponds with (in my view) 'the wisdom uncreate' of Augustine. That wordpress site that you mentioned addresses this.
All things - i.e. all objects of experience - have three characteristics - anicca, anatta, dhukka - impermanent, not-self, and unsatisfying. That's generally the gist. But there is also 'the unborn, the unconditioned, the unborn' which corresponds with (in my view) 'the wisdom uncreate' of Augustine. That wordpress site that you mentioned addresses this.
Okay, I agree with pretty much 95% of the way you and that site interpret things. However, why do you reckon that this isn't the mainstream Buddhist interpretation? Much of the Buddhist literature out there doesn't interpret things this way.
Reply to Agustino I do question some of the popular modern interpretations of Buddhism although I don't concur with the criticisms you made of it in the beginning of the thread; I'm not aware of any Buddhist converts who 'use it to maintain a diseased state of the soul' which I think is right over the top. But like any institution, it can become corrupted; like any form of belief it can be misinterpreted or misunderstood. But Buddhism does encourage a questioning attitude. But, hey, most of my family, or those who are still religious, are from a Christian cultural background, and I am immensely grateful for, and also defensive of, my Christian cultural heritage. As far as I'm concerned, the reality is never in religions as such, they're simply signposts. I've never wanted to be a believer as such; the thing which drew me to Buddhism was its emphasis on learning through experience.
Anyway - don't agree with the OP, that 'Christianity is a dead religion', nor with your initial criticisms of Buddhism although hopefully some of those concerns have been addressed in the course of the conversation.
I'm not aware of any Buddhist converts who 'use it to maintain a diseased state of the soul' which I think is right over the top.
It is hyperbole, and clearly doesn't apply to all Buddhists. Also, it depends what you mean by "convert". There are people in the West who attempt to follow Buddhism and do use it for unwholesome purposes. Do you not agree that the doctrines such as detachment are often wrongly interpreted by the Western mind? And thus you'd get people trying to "detach" themselves from the love they feel for a dying family member for example, thus turning colder towards them, since they see that the "attachment" (or love) also hurts and causes suffering.
On another note, do you agree that meditation can be used for unwholesome purposes?
For example: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/may/22/anders-behring-breivik-meditation
Comments (141)
I thought Big Jordan Peterson was bringing it back?
He just knows how to tap into people's insecurities.
I think we should do away with tax exemption for churches, though.
This statement needs some unpacking. Christianity is dead in the sense that its symbols no longer resonate for Western man - that much is true. And Christianity has been "dying" in this sense ever since Nietzsche proclaimed that "God is dead, and we have killed him". Christianity has lost its authenticity in other words. The symbols used by the Christian religion no longer "make sense" to the way of being of the average Joe in the Western world. Christianity has lost its vitality.
Christianity has become legalistic. The meaning behind the words is lost. All we have left are the words, and without the meaning, the words are, of course, empty and absurd. To revive Christianity we have to recover the meaning, we have to re-invent the meaning. We have to re-paint the white fence white again, since it has darkened with the passage of time.
Although as a side note, Christianity is doing great in Latin America and China.
Quoting frank
But it's not because the stories are absurd, or the requirements are ridiculous. They are absolutely not. It's because "secular man" does not have the openness required to understand them. The social environment is inimical to Christianity, and as such, Christianity cannot but be misunderstood by the masses. To talk of a hedonistic AND Christian age at one and the same time is indeed a contradiction in terms. They are two parallel worlds. The evils currently seen in the world are interpreted, by science and secular authority, as necessary. As the nature of existence. Hence the prevailing acceptance of a (misunderstood) nihilistic religion like Buddhism.
Woah there, Berdyaev. :razz:
Sorry... I realize this is the Shoutbox, but this statement might also need to be unpacked if you don’t mind. Are you perhaps saying that Buddhism is accepted only or mostly because it is misunderstood? If so, what does that mean? If not, what did you mean?
And as I understand it, Buddhism is mostly (though not always) non-theistic. But that doesn’t necessarily make it “nihilistic”. And as you probably know, Buddhism can function as a religion, a philosophy, or both.
I would agree with most of the rest of your post though. :up: Christianity (maybe just in the West) has lost vitality or at least something important (if difficult) to define. What the cause might be is up for debate. In my opinion and for whatever it may be worth, the long history of those in power using Christian beliefs as a pure white robe to parade around in is a large factor.
God became flesh. He had himself crucified in order to redeem his own creation. It's the ravings of a lunatic.
You might be surprised to discover how long ago the Pope was first identified as Antichrist. And of of course To Mega Therion has always been lurking. :)
Ah no, its sublime. Especially if you throw in a twist of christ forgetting he is God, or doubting it. Its a beautiful myth. Not saying I believe it (tho I kinda do, just allegorically) but either way its pretty good.
The suffering of christ did what exactly?
It's more like: If the universe were created intentionally, then any olive branch(or rainbow) from the force that created it, while remaining outside it, would be meaningless. Any communication from outside-the-world to people inside-the-world would be condescending at best. But, if that force were to voluntarily enter the world (and if he forgets he made that choice, or at least occasionally doubts that he really is God, and so has to live out his days like the rest of us, its even better) then there is some actual connection established. It's not propitiation, its solidarity.
In any case, even without Kazantzakis, you have Christ throwing out psalms 22:1 on the cross.
To believe that the divine knows the depths of one's grief, not from watching it from on far, but from within is beautiful.
It's a Tibetan Buddhist thing as well.
yeah! I'm more inclined to approach these themes in eastern terms, or at least western mystical ones (I like gnosticism a lot) - I feel like the christ drama is like a satisfying 'pageant' or something dramatizing a less tangible thing.
It was dispelled the moment I asked myself, "But who believes this?"
I am saying that Buddhism is accepted as it is accepted mostly because it is misunderstood through the lens of our hedonistic/consumerist culture. Buddhism is a palliative against pain and suffering. But the issue lies with the way it is used. It's used in order to mask resolvable pains as unresolvable ones, in order to maintain a diseased state of the soul, in order to prevent the pain from waking one up to one's own conditioning. Buddhism is a way of avoiding the need to look at your own face and to actually do something that can bring about a resolution.
For example, an alcoholic may resort to Buddhism and the tenet that life is suffering as a palliative for accepting his condition. He suffers because, oh well, suffering is unavoidable. It's the nature of life. There is no urgency to remedy his condition, nor is there anything morally wrong with his actions.
It is nihilistic not because it is a-theistic, but rather because it leads one towards being irresponsible for one's own condition, AND, more importantly, for the condition of the world. And somewhat paradoxically, Buddhism also engenders this same self-concern which plagues the West today - because it turns the focus inward, on one's self, as it becomes of prime importance to pay attention to yourself, and only secondarily to others. If your son smokes and you don't like that, for example, it teaches you to accept it, because life is suffering, it is in the nature of life to have our desires disappointed. And thus, you don't do anything about it. These are all manifestations of nihilism.
So while Buddhism is misunderstood in the West, it is also true that Buddhism is, amongst the religions, the most nihilistic and world-denying. That is why it can be misunderstood in the first place. It is for this reason that it can be used as it is being used.
You sure this isn't a misrepresentation of Buddhism? Going off memory, as well as an admittedly superficial acquaintance with the "religion", I recall it being distilled down to some fairly simple truths: acknowledge suffering, identify its cause, recognize that it can be minimized, and follow certain practices (Eight Fold Path) as a means of eliminating as much of it as humanly possible. That sounds like the exact opposite of your description.
It's actually Christianity - at least in its Protestant forms - which rejects the individual's power to do anything about his or her situation, with salvation coming strictly through God's grace. This obviously holds true for the salvation of the whole as well: to assume that one could do something to improve the condition of the world without God being the cause would seem to be a case of hubris. Moreover, is there a story within Christianity similar to the Bodhisattva ideal in Mahayana Buddhism, where one refuses to enter the gates of Heaven until ALL beings are "saved"? If so then please point it out.
Furthermore, perhaps the separation between self and others (or the world more generally) is less extreme within Buddhism and other Eastern religions than it is among us, and the Buddhism you're referring to is a hybrid of sorts containing much Western baggage (e.g. Cartesian dualism). If that's the case, and there's not such a strong contrast between self and others (seeing all beings as interconnected), then being concerned with the "self" does not preclude but rather demands concern for others. I honestly don't know.
One thing I do know, however, is that Zen Buddhism at least is emphatically not life-denying. We could argue whether that's "really" Buddhism or a distortion of it, I guess, but I'll probably leave it to those more knowledgeable than myself to take it up with you.
I am discussing Western Buddhism for the most part. I did claim it is a misrepresentation of actual Buddhism:
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Erik
Put that way, but very often it is phrased as "life is suffering, desire is the cause of suffering, suffering can be extinguished, the way to extinguish it is the Noble Eightfold Path".
Quoting Erik
But for Christianity, everything is sustained into being by God. You do have free will (that is of the essence of Christianity), so what you do does matter. But since you only exist because of God, it is, ultimately, not just your doing, but also God's. So whatsoever one does is, at the very least, permitted by God (who sustains everyone into being).
Also, salvation in Christianity is freely given. It just has to be accepted. Though salvation IS NOT the same as deification (theosis) which is the ultimate aim of Christianity.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
However, it is true that even Asian Buddhism tends towards nihilism. Attachments are seen as the cause of suffering in Buddhism - you are not to be attached. So how is it possible to love and care for your children, for example, without any form of attachment? Your children become, just like Buddha's children became for him, a stumbling block. So he left his palace and his children and his wife to find enlightenment alone in the forest. And that is applauded in the story. His loved ones represented nothing more than obstacles in his way. How can this not be selfish? It seems to me that Buddhism is, in its essence, built around this personal aversion to suffering, that sets one on a mission to end suffering for themselves, for their own sake.
How is loyalty at all possible without attachment? How is human society, and all the many social benefits we extract by living in communities at all possible? Our communities are built around attachments. Attachments to your home, attachments to your family, attachments to your children, attachments to your work, etc. We can only be successful in an endeavour which requires collaboration (building a business, building a family, building an organisation, etc. etc.) so long as we remain loyal to each other onto the very end. But this doctrine of non-attachment precludes this lived dependence between people that is necessary in order to have a society.
And then the whole doctrine of anatta (no-self) leads to a detached view of suffering. People are suffering because they are ignorant, therefore it is like a nightmare, ultimately, it's nothing to care about. The Bodhisattva may choose to stay behind until all creatures are saved, however, there is this disconnect and detachment that exists between the Bodhisattva and the rest. The Christian saint falls on his knees and cries at the suffering of the world - the Buddhist sage, on the other hand, sits unmoved, like a rock. There are no tears in his eyes - indeed, if there were to be any tears, he would not have escaped suffering yet. This aversion to suffering is taken to such extremes that one prefers not being human anymore, just to avoid suffering. One prefers castrating one's self, just to get rid of suffering.
Tell me how this doesn't portray a nihilistic tendency that can be exploited and has been exploited in Buddhism. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be corrected on this, but everything that I've read on Buddhism points back to the same thing - a concern with one's OWN salvation, and a distaste of anything that brings about suffering to one's self.
Thanks for your reply. I’m just a seeker, but don’t know for sure if any book or lecture would describe Buddhism like it was in your post. But everyone can have their opinions. @Erik responded quite well with the questions that I have. Not sure how the doctrine of not having a permanent self (anatta) could directly foster selfishness. It seems exactly the opposite to me. Buddhism can help one begin to discard the two-sided coin of shame and pride, which comes from being locked in one’s identity and ego. It is in perfect accord with the Daoism, with which it combined to form the Cha’an tradition in China.
(edit- just saw your reply to Erik). I will say that whatever one has and brings to Buddhism (or other beliefs) is mostly what one will experience. We carry the thoughts and habit baggage until they are put down. If one is content with their current beliefs and practices, that is sincerely a wonderful thing. If is not broken, no need to fix it. Wisdom, compassion, mindfulness, equanimity, clear seeing, and the detoxification of mind-poisons are all qualities emphasized and developed by various Buddhist practices. That seems to be an urgently helpful thing much needed by many, definitely myself included. And beliefs are needed as long as they are useful, like using a boat to cross a lake.
Quoting Agustino
I've made a point here that you do not address. I am not looking to convince you, or to be convinced by you, but since this is a philosophy forum, I think it's appropriate to engage in dialogue and try our best to resolve problems and misunderstandings. Disengaging from dialogue isn't very productive in achieving this aim.
I have nothing against Buddhism, please keep in mind that I studied Buddhism for quite a few years, first beginning quite early at the age of 12, indirectly through Osho. Then I've read through some of the Sutras, some introductory books, watched lots of YouTube lectures, etc. It's not like I reject it out of hand. But I simply don't see how you can conceptualise social relationships, for example, under Buddhism. Yes, mindfulness, compassion, wisdom, clear sight and everything you mention are much needed. But I'm sure you'll agree that Buddhism gives a certain spin to those practices.
Quoting Agustino
Thanks for your thanks. Usually I tend to ramble on, so this may be the first time I’ve been asked for more. First of all, a little personal background, so any comments can be put in context. (Sorry if it is distracting or not to the point.) Having been raised Roman Catholic and attended Catholic schools, that is in my blood probably irrevocably. I don’t attend Mass, but have not forsaken Christianity. The Christian mystics and Gospels remain an influence and inspiration.
Perhaps I am like an eclectic packrat, with a patchwork of beliefs, ideas, theories, practices, rituals, and odds and ends. I came to Buddhism through the Tao Te Ching, which I consider perhaps the most helpful bundle of words that I’ve yet encountered. I am not an expert, scholar, or even official member of anything really. That is probably obvious, but just wanted to be clear. I am only speaking of my experiences, ideas, and opinions. Many factors were motivations in my search. My mind seeming like a wild and uncontrollable horse sometimes was the main reason to search for help at the time. The horse might be tamer now, but loves to try to escape.
As you said, you are quite familiar with the Buddhist tenets and sutras, and I had assumed as much from what you have mentioned in the past. So what more I could add beyond that is unknown to me. I will respond to your comment in detail, though.
Quoting Agustino
Not in my opinion. Buddhism (and other Eastern traditions) have had almost the directly opposite effect on me. All is intertwined, all is connected. The universe is poetically said to be a net with countless jewels attached, each infinitely reflecting the light and image of the others. Anatta means (to me at least) no SEPARATE self. Not absolutely and completely separate. Relatively independent, but somehow linked with other things, beings, and energies. I think a forest analogy is helpful. The trees are clearly separate in one way. But look up and the branches of different trees intermingle with each other. Under the soil is probably an even more intricate web of roots, dirt, water, and insects. Is it one thing or many? Is light a wave or a particle. And who is it that is asking this question?
Quoting Agustino
Well, you have heard the tale and “origin story”. From my memory, Siddhartha (not yet the Buddha) did leave his wife and children. He wandered around and then trained with some extreme ascetics, almost starving himself to death. After which, he sought some way less life-denying. The so-called Middle Way. Later, his wife also forsook comfortable riches and became a nun and followed the path he had discovered. Sounds like a happy ending, I guess. I don’t think that there are any claims that he was completely without mistakes. It seems that he learned from any mistakes as well as humanly possible. That doesn’t seem like selfishness to me. YMMV.
Quoting Agustino
I honestly don’t know how one could come to this conclusion after studying the words and life of the Buddha, as well as what later traditions added. Such as the concept of the Bohdisattva, as @Erik mentioned above. Aversion is one of the “Three Poisons”, along with greed and hatred. And is therefore discouraged. So trying to reduce suffering, and coming up with an accurate psychological description of its causes and possible cures is a good thing, no? But Buddhism seems to not be seeking members or converts or even believers. And it is not entirely different from a skeptical and pragmatic Stoicism, IMHO. If one accepts the basics of Stoicism and Taoism, perhaps that is traveling towards Buddha territory. (Or perhaps not).
Hope this has been at least a little helpful. Since “more words count less” as said in the TTC, and I can’t think of more to say now... Please excuse the worn cliché, but what can one do except simply hold up a flower. :flower:
@Baden, if you think it appropriate, feel free to move this to its own thread.
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/13731/relationships-what-is-love
Question:
Top Answer:
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/26482/if-the-self-is-an-illusion-all-my-relationships-are-illusion-too
Question:
Top Answer:
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/21366/how-do-you-have-a-relationship
Question:
Top Answer:
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/19351/why-buddha-was-not-worried-about-his-family-after-enlightenment/19481
Question:
Top Answer:
And keep in mind, this stack exchange has a greater number of Eastern Buddhists than many other English speaking online places. And these answers make it clear how utterly nihilistic and devaluing Buddhism is of the world and its possibilities. Compare this, on the other hand with Christianity. Christianity, where God Himself comes into the world to live amongst human beings out of Love. Where He, being the King of Kings allows Himself to be mocked and humiliated, and ultimately killed in the name of Love. Behold One who was not afraid of suffering - who did not want to "escape" suffering, but rather plunged straight into the jaws of suffering. Jesus, apart from being God, was a real man. There is something mawkish and unmanly about the retreat from the world in order to avoid suffering. It is true that attachment is suffering (or rather has the potential for suffering in it) - but that's no reason to avoid it.
Only weak natures, who cannot bear the pressure of pain and suffering will give up on themselves. A strong nature, even if reality were different than its desire, would never renounce the said desire. That is the ultimate statement of its strength, will, and determination in front of the world. The fact that it chooses to stick with its nature, rather than surrender to external circumstances. As such, the faith proposed by Christianity is the ultimate rebellion, the ultimate scandal, man's determination that he will stick with himself, rather than with the world. Christianity does not devalue this world by postulating a Heaven when "All tears will be wiped away", but rather lifts up the world, makes it divine. What greater source of strength can be imagined, than this infinite faith, which burns up anything that stands against it, and remains true to one's nature and desires?
It is only in relationship with the transcendent that the joy of immanence is possible.
Blaise Pascal:
"Man is only a reed, the weakest in nature, but he is a thinking reed. There is no need for the whole universe to take up arms to crush him: a vapour, a drop of water is enough to kill him. but even if the universe were to crush him, man would still be nobler than his slayer, because he knows that he is dying and the advantage the universe has over him. The universe knows none of this."
String successfully pulled.
See, just one session with the master was enough! :wink:
:100:
Peace, brother. Forgive me please for skipping to your conclusions though, for it seems here is where we will most respectfully part on this matter. We may meet up at another time and subject. Until then... nostrovia! Please don’t think me “mawkish or unmanly” for retreating from this debate. I realize now that I initiated this discussion by asking you to clarify your stance on nihilism and Buddhism. Now we have it, and are thankful. Maybe I could have even guessed it. If you feel that Buddhism is somehow deficient compared to Christianity, who I am to argue? I don’t consider Buddhism to be nihilist, but what of it? If all living Buddhists took a vote on the matter, would it in deed matter? It would probably be interesting at least. But I find absolute comparisons and competitions relatively unhelpful. In a way, one person can be looking for a useful knife to cut some food with, while another may be searching for the One, True blade Excaliber. Both are noble. Or has Excaliber been found? Then good! Maybe I am searching for it too in a way. You have your beliefs. May they safely carry you wherever you need them to. (Please overlook my melodramatics and mild playful joking. It is less sour and tart than lemonade. This is definitely a serious subject. Carry onward please. Respond as you see fit! :up: )
Hm, I think that you have already placed me in a little box that says "Christian", and therefore not worth aruging with, because it won't get anywhere. That's what I feel, I may be wrong, but that's what it seems like. I am not dogmatic, I just look at what is there. In fact, whether or not Buddhism is nihilistic has nothing to do with Christianity.
About love and relationships:
So your child died? No problem! There is no self there, who is there to die? See your child as dead already.
And more:
So if this isn't an example of nihilism, I don't know what is. Sure, Buddhists claim "Oh yeah, we are not nihilists, because there is no self in the first place to die" - I don't see how that avoids the accusation.
Personally, I am a "seeker" of sorts and have an interest for both Christianity, Platonism and Buddhism and you actually pointed out my own reservations about, especially, Theravada Buddhism. I think that, however, it is worth mentioning that the worldview of Buddhism and Christianity is radically different, and on this particular issue I think that the influence of the concept of "samsara" is relevant (that's why I think secular Buddhism is not "real" Buddhism).
Basically, all beings in Buddhism are seen as subject to a potentially endless cycle of rebirths. All these realms, however blissful, are impermanent and therefore they are ultimately "dukkha" because they are not free from decay and death. As the story goes, the Buddha sought a solution to this problem, i.e. freedom from old age, illness and death. He abandoned his family to seek a solution to this problem and he found it. An "unawakened" life cannot give a solution to the problem of (repeated) decay and death, and therefore Buddhists would say that he actually gave to his family, after awakening, something that is unvaluable, something that surpasses every joy that can give the "world". As a king he could never give even to his family the freedom of Nirvana.
As the story goes, the Buddha awakened to the "Dhamma" and expounded the four Noble Truths. The first is that there is suffering, given by decay, death, association with the "unbeloved" etc. The second is craving. Note that craving is seen as the cause of the "transmigration". The third Nobel Truth is Nirvana, the end of suffering. The fourth is the Path to achieve Nirvana. According to the "suttas" Nirvana is achieved by being unattached and also without aversion. So, the training leads to see reality with personal preferences, which are said to be rooted in ignorance (avijja), the cause of craving (and ultimately the cause of samsara).
Anyway, it is difficult IMO to render justice to Buddhism in all its various forms. Theravada and Mahayana are very different and in each of them there are a lot of school of thoughts.
I think that there are two main reason why people call Buddhism as "nihilistic". One is that according to them (and also for some Buddhists!) Nirvana is simply the mere absence of conditioned phenomena. The other is its tendency of world-denial.
As I said, some interpret Nirvana as "mere absence". But, I think that it is mostly a modern innovation and not a good one (except for, probably, the ancient Buddhist Sautrantika school). For example, even in the Canonical commentaries (i.e. included in the Pali Canon) there are a few "positive" description of Nirvana as being "permanent" (or even "eternal" albeit "not-self and not pertaining to a self", see e.g. this section of the Kathavatthu, a part of the Theravada canonical Abhidhamma). So even saying that for "Buddhism" everything is impermanent and unsatisfactory, is an over-simplification. Then you have the Mahayana idea that there is the "non-abiding Nirvana", where the liberated being (in this case a Bodhisattva or a Buddha) abides in neither Samsara nor in Nirvana, and therefore s/he "renounces" the bliss of Nirvana for the benefit of all sentient beings.
Anyway, look closer. Anatta means also that phenomena are not under one's control and therefore, egoism leads to suffering. Hence, by removing the concern to oneself, in both Theravada and Mahayana the idea is that one reduces egoism. And in fact, the reduction of lust, attachments, aversions etc are accompained by an increasing of "positive" qualities like loving-kindness and compassion. Detachment also means that one does not see the world with the lens of one's preferences and therefore he might also be more able to love others for what they are (and not under the lens of one's expectations, for example). The Mahayana emphasizes the "compassion" part as well the "wisdom" part, hence "taking care of others" is very important in a Mahayana context. But if there is no "potentially endless samsara" the Theravada's "world-denying tendency" and the Mahayana vows to help all sentient beings lose, in my opinion, their meaning. Anyway, if that belief is not true, Buddhism, howwever, can be very useful to be mindful, patient and so on. Buddhist teachings about ethics are in my opinion very useful to non-Buddhists (for example to do vipassana, samatha and metta meditation I do not think that "belief" is required, except an amount of "trust"...).
Also, Buddhism is not anti-natalist. In fact, the human birth is regarded as "precious" and as an opportunity to aspire to the "Highest" or at least for better future rebirths. Again, it is also important to remember, IMO, that AFAIK most forms of Buddhism regard salvation as due to personal commitment (i.e. Buddhist teachers might teach you the Path, you are free to follow it or not. And also you have to walk the Path if you wish).
Regarding what Buddhists say, well, I think that all religions are subject to very different interpretations. For example, some Christians of them believe that "faith" in the sense of "mere belief" is what lead to Salvation, to "Heaven". And, in fact, according to some Christians all "unbelievers" go to Hell. So, I imagine that even in Buddhism there are a lot of views. For example see theEdicts of Ashoka:, e.g:
is this "world-denying"?
Also, also many forms of Hinduism and Jainism are as "world-denying" as Buddhism. IMO, the belief in Samsara is the reason behind this "world-denying" tendency in India. But, on the other hand, the same belief can also inspire compassion, non-violence and so on.
Personally, I am interested in Buddhism. But I am highly skeptical of many of its doctrines. And, therefore I have reservations, for example, about the "total letting go of all attachements".
In my view, "anatta" points to the non-objectification of "what is the self" (the "identification" process).
Anyway, I think that "interpentration" is quite widespread in East Asian Buddhist teaching, especially in the Huayan school (see e.g.: this article on Fazang, the third patriarch of the Huayan school. on the IEP), which is based on the Avatamsaka sutra.
I think that anatta can be interpreted in a nihilistic way, sadly. However, in Buddhism there is also the "compassion" side of things that should be emphasized. Maybe also @Wayfarer might share his thoughts. In fact, I am very disturbed by the nihilistic readings of "anatta"!
The same goes for "emptiness".
Quoting boundless
Why are death and decay so bad?
Quoting boundless
I think you mean without personal preferences, but then I see that as dehumanising. How can you be human, if you don't have any preferences? We are human precisely because we can choose, and we choose based on our will, meaning based on our preferences.
Quoting boundless
Sure, it's even called "eternal bliss". But those conceptions are never developed, nor is it clear what "eternal bliss" means, when Nirvana literarily translates as a "blowing out". When you combine this with the doctrine of anatta - no abiding self whatsoever - then it seems to me that things go quite far towards nihilism. Buddhism speaks very clearly against eternalism, and actually also condemns nihilism, but the two condemnations are made because both eternalism and nihilism assume that there is an abiding self to begin with.
Quoting boundless
I don't see why the "positive" qualities would follow from the mere removal of lust, and the like. To me, it's more like those positive qualities have to be cultivated for themselves. Love, after all, isn't merely the absence of evil.
Some people who practice meditation end up becoming very closed in themselves, and cold, unmoved, uncaring, inhuman. Breivik for example used meditation to carry out mass murder.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/may/22/anders-behring-breivik-meditation
So I'm not at all sure about the soundness of this Buddhist philosophy. It makes sense in the West, where people are generally no longer interested in anything except comfort, and individualism or egoism reigns supreme.
Quoting boundless
I want to challenge this. The personality is an integral aspect of loving someone. It is because of one's preferences, in other words, one's humanity, one's fraility, that love is at all possible. It is because I prefer this, over that, that I can be said to like the one. How is it possible to "love others for what they are" when I have no preferences whatsoever? To love them means that I must will to like them... I must will to want them, to prefer them, to choose them.
Quoting boundless
I agree.
Quoting boundless
Not so much here. I don't think ethics requires meditation and the like. Meditation just helps to clarify perception, but does nothing apart from that. It does not change one's will, it does not bring about a change in one's being or one's character.
Quoting boundless
I agree.
Christians definitely attend to the fine art of suffering, embracing hair shirts and self flagellation in imitation of the Great Tortured One.
Christian symbolism is utterly ghastly. We have horror movies now. We no longer need the church for that. In countless ways we've just outgrown it, and that's why Christianity is dead.
Per the gospel account he didn't really die. People saw him 3 days later. :roll:
So because people saw Him 3 days later, it means He didn't really die? :s
I appreciate and honor that.
Does Christianity demand that I put aside common sense?
No.
Ha! Fair enough and well played. Thanks for not dismissing my post despite the perhaps mild exasperation. I’ll try to do likewise. You are Christian? As mentioned, I am a Christian... who was later influenced by Buddhism, the Tao, the Hindu and yogic traditions, etc. Maybe they are oil and water and don’t mix. Maybe together they mix up one’s mind. Maybe oil and water is just salad dressing for a mixed salad. (By the way, I am not a big fan of this thread’s current title. But if Christianity went down in flames, you know the story of the Phoenix. And the book of Revelation, if you’d like.)
Excuse me if I politely decline a point by point discussion for now. It is not meant to be dismissive. However, you presented a mixed bag of quotes ranging from a helpful parable from acknowledged master Ajahn Chah (about the temporality and fragility of everything which makes it more precious, not less) to questions from Joe Schmo asking Jane Doe on Stack exchange who possibly answers “seeking Nirvana is selfish nihilism... blah blah... but you gotta crack some eggs to make an omelet... yada yada, etc... Then you toss in some comparisons with Christianity. If you are convinced, then good. If you’re happy, I’m happy! If you come across the Buddha on the road, give him a good kick in his unflatteringly tight yoga pants! The Zen masters would approve. :snicker:
There is nihilism and despair everywhere one turns in this world. It’s in the air! It’s in our bones. We probably bring it to our religions. Maybe that’s why were there in the first place. Let’s find a cure or cures for ourselves as soon as possible. That’s not selfish. It’s taking the splinter out of my eye first, to be able to see what’s going on...
Yes. (But I won’t mention the heretical New Age story of Jesus traveling to the East. :zip: )
Let's look at the story:
Can you please show me where the story highlights that temporality and fragility makes everything more precious rather than less? I may be wrong, but I think this really is your own addition. There's nothing wrong if you believe this, but I see no indication for it in the story.
I can see indications in the story that you should be at peace when things and people break down because that is their nature - to ultimately break down. But there's nothing in there as far as I can see about the fact that things are temporal and fragile, that they are therefore more valuable rather than less.
I just meant there were churches that appear to be both. No need for Jesus to go anywhere. :)
They cause suffering, pain, distress and so on. And I think that compassion also means to limit our suffering. If someone is suffering, we should try to help him/her. They are bad in the same way an illness is bad (and therefore we seek to cure it).
Quoting Agustino
I agree to that to an extent. I think that "preferences" in a sense are still there, even in "liberated individuals". For example, the last thing Sariputta (the "wisest disciple" in the suttas) did was to "liberate" his mother. If he had no preference, why did he went to free his mother and not an unkwnown person? On the other hand, however, I think he is depicted as "unattached" to his preferences. And non-attachment does not mean "indifference".
But note that in Theravada, the total freedom from craving is gained at Arhant level (full liberation). Stream-enterers (who are partially liberated) can also enjoy "wordly" pleasures, live an "ordinary" life etc. They, however, have abandoned all "self-views". Again, I think that in this radical "transcendence" of the human condition is due again to the belief in Samsara. For Indians it is "normal" that humans can become even more "worthy" than the devas. So, in such a cultural landscape I am not too surprised to see somewhat disturbing ideas.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, anatta seems to point towards that. But, as far as I know, only an ancient school of Buddhism apparently interpreted Nirvana in that way! So, I think that it is not simply "oblivion". Also in the discourses themselves the Tathagatha is said to be "deep, boundless..." (see e.g. the sutta MN 72). Of course we have the "extinction of the fire" analogy, but we have also a "hint" to some "ineffability". Also, there are some hints in discourses like: Udana 8.1 and Iti 43. But, indeed you are correct in saying that both eternalism and annihilationism were criticized for poisiting an "abiding self". So, sadly, the nihilist view has its textual support (and, in fact, you find a lot of people who say that). I do not deny that!
Regarding what is that "eternal bliss", if not "mere absence", I agree that it is not developed. This is meaningful in the "Buddhist soteriological context", because if one "conceives things" about Nirvana, one begins to grasp his concept of Nirvana and therefore can miss Nirvana itself. Personally, I think that "mere absence" can be considered as a "worthwile goal" only if one thinks that anatta means that we do not exist at all.
Anyway, I think that even in Christianity we do not know what the promised "eternal bliss" is! After all, I have no clear idea of "what is like" to be in Communion with God? Or, take for example religions that aspire at "union with God". What does that mean, experientially? So, IMO, the fact that Buddhism does not want to describe Nirvana is due to a strict "apophatic" approach (and yes, I think it is sometimes misunderstood as "oblivion").
Quoting Agustino
Agreed! Sorry, for the lack of clarity, I did not want to imply that! What I meant is that we can develop positive qualities easier if we remove "negative ones". In fact, Buddhism without the cultivation of positive qualities can become an ego trip IMO.
Quoting Agustino
Again, I agree with this. And I think that Buddhism does agree with it. In fact, there is also e.g. "mudita", i.e. "symphatetic joy". As I said before, maybe the problem is not preference or personality but our tendency to "grasp" and not be able to "let go". But, you are right. Even compassion itself is a preference: you want others to feel good and so on. I think that the problem is egoism here, i.e. wanting to control others for selfish reasons.
Anyway, I still like Christianity for the reason you mention here. We are not told to behave in a "god-like" way, so to speak. We can still be "human", with our weaknesses. We do not need to "renounce" the world to achieve Salvation. Hence, we can try to do our best as humans to make the world a better place, to love others and so on. In Christianity one does not have to think in terms of multiple life and, therefore, should try to value this life. So Christianity, as you say, is more life-affirming. Also, Christianity is, in a way, more flexible than Buddhism: a person that has a greater tendency to enjoy worldy pleasures is not "disadvantaged" in the pursuit of Salvation.
On the other hand, if there is no God and we are in a Samsara the situation is different...
Quoting Agustino
Again, I agree that meditation per se does not lead to love others. But, maybe it can help to become more effective in our actions. Also, by "ethical teachings" I also meant something like:
(MN 61, Instructions to Rahula)
Sorry for the edit!
Like Christianity? :P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)
Quoting boundless
Well, I don't think death necessarily causes suffering, pain and distress, at least for the one dying. But old age, illness, etc. obviously do.
At the same time, I think it is possible to, psychologically so to speak, not mind your own suffering. In other words, the suffering is still there, the pain, for example, is still there, but you don't mind it. It's hard to describe this state, I've sometimes experienced it. So I think it is possible to accept life, and see the pains as inseparable from the joys, and say yes to the whole ride, without "extinguishing" yourself as per Buddhism.
Quoting boundless
Quoting boundless
I mostly agree on all these points.
Quoting boundless
Yeah, I sort of agree, but this point is disputable. Suppose you have a son who is addicted to hard drugs - stuff like cocaine. In one sense, you do want to control him (so that he no longer takes the drugs). I think this desire to control him is, in this case, natural and justified. But the desire to control him will not be JUST for your own good, but also for his (your good is also related to his good, the two are, to some extent, mutually dependent). So in what sense do you say you should be unattached to saving your son?
Quoting boundless
Okay, I agree! How do we go about developing positive qualities?
Quoting boundless
The interesting thing on this point, is that I don't think there has to be a God. It is sufficient to have faith in Him. Faith transcends the rational, but is not thereby irrational. Having faith will still transform THIS LIFE.
Quoting boundless
I see, I agree.
Quoting boundless
Can you clarify what attachment means, and also why we should avoid attachment in love? For example, I love my son and I am attached to him, if he dies, I will be devastated. But I am not afraid of being devastated in that case... I would not want NOT to be devastated. The devastation is the expression of my love, I want to let it happen, why would I want to stop it?
For some people in the Western world, but it seems pretty vibrant in South American and Africa. I'm an atheist, but to call a religion with 2+ billion followers as dead seems kind of silly. A dead religion would be one without any followers, right? Or one that was dying off. Something like Zoroastrianism (325,000 followers according to Wiki which I guess is in perpetual decline).
Even in the west, there are still plenty of passionate followers. Maybe it's not so prominent in Europe, but in the US, you have a significant evangelical movement. It's not dead to them.
Yeah, according to the most recent pew research poll, Christianity is the largest religion in the world.
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/
Romans clung to the old Roman religion for many years after it had become hollow and useless beyond a nod to tradition and a satisfaction to the superstitious. That's all Christianity is now.
You'll notice the forum members here who claim life for it are offering some imaginary Christianity, which is another sign that the real one is dead.
It definitely is as far as the vast majority of people are concerned; which is its own vindication.
If you label the UK, Germany, or France as the deciding sample of Christianity's health, then sure, it will seem like it is on life support. However, there are about 2 billion plus Christians in the world. There are around 70 million Christians in China and 240 million in the United States. The rumors of Christianity's death have been greatly exaggerated.
What are the signs of Christianity being quite alive?
Numbers alone indicate that the life of the Church is ongoing.
Most Christians adhere to a reasonably common understanding of the Creed, and to the import of the scriptures.
Christians form communities and much (or all) of their lives are lived within that community.
Most Christians identify as Christians (meaning "being Christian" is more significant than a mere demographic category).
Many Christians (maybe half) participate regularly (on a monthly basis) in worship, scripture reading, thinking about what they should do vs. what they want to do in the context of the scripture) and so on.
There are many "hot spots" of Christian religious activity, as well as some "cold spots" (for better and for worse).
The fact that mainline Christians recite the Creed during the liturgy isn't what holds the church together anywhere. What holds the church together is what holds any and every group together: regular contact, identification of similarities, psychological and material benefits derived from, and a need to belong to a community.
Even you--finding the various points of the creed absurd as you do (by the way, Jesus is thought to have died in fact, not just sort of a faked death) could (and may) belong to a Christian community. You probably couldn't get away with belonging to a strict fundamentalist community, but there is room on the edges of Christian communities for the apostate, heretic, and nonbeliever. This is true of other religions too, not because the creeds allow it, but because communities can encompass some number of heretics without harm.
Quoting Agustino
:up: :wink: (thanks for the link! anyway, as you might imagine I meant something like "absorption" as in pantheistic religions. But, I think that Christian "communion"/union with God somewhat resembles it even if the "separation" between God and the creatures remain. I have no idea about what that resemblance might be, however.)
Quoting Agustino
maybe death does not cause pain, suffering etc in some cases. But for whoever is unable to "let go", thinking about the end of life is certainly painful and causes distress (meaning if one fears death, then death is certainly linked to suffering).
Also, Buddhists believe in rebirth and, for them, "death" is either Nirvana without remainder or leads to another life marked by old age, illness and so on (which, except for the case of a partially awakened one, means the continuation of a potentially endless cycle of rebirths and redeaths).
Quoting Agustino
Well, sometimes I think that "Arahants" dealt with suffering in that way. If you are familiar with the two darts analogy (see: SN 36.6 "The dart" ), where awakened beings are said to not experience mental suffering (and so, I think that you can consider that "total acceptance"). But, the total eradication of all forms of unsatisfactoriness and suffering according to the traditional Theravadin view happens at "Nirvana without remainder" (=death of a Arhat or a Buddha).
Personally, I would like to experience the state that you describe. But, IMO, this also means a reduction of "self concern" or more precisely a reduction of our tendency to strive to control things ("anatta", in a more experiential level, means "lack of control", see Anatta-lakkhana sutta (regarded to be the second discourse of the Buddha)). I think that the effect of "letting go" is roughly the state you describe.
Quoting Agustino
Perfect! :smile:
Quoting Agustino
I would say that if you act in that way, you simply act out of compassion, which is very good (with or without "attachment"). In fact, you can act in that way also without thinking about your own good, but only for his (more on later...).
Quoting Agustino
Probably, by trying to do actions that involve them (which means trying to cultivate that qualities actively). Spiritual practice might help to "develop" mindstates that are conductive for that actions.
Quoting Agustino
Very interesting perspective :wink: ! Not sure that I can understand what you are saying here, but I think that I can even agree with it.
I do not understand, however, how it can be reconciled with the "traditional" position that if there is no resurrection, faith is vain (of course, I am not saying that you have to agree with that perspective but I wonder how you "deal" with this) (see e.g. 1 Cor 15:32 link "If the dead do not rise, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!”"). In fact, there are a lot of Christian dogmas that I can find very hard to accept and, sadly, no one was able to give me a satisfactory answer to my doubts.
Quoting Agustino
Good!
Quoting Agustino
Thank you very much for raising this issue. It is a very deep problem. I admit that I have not, in my mind, a clear understanding of what a "love without attachment" might be. Also, I admit that I have not a definitive answer. But let me separate the problem in two parts.
1) I think that "attachment" means clinging to positive experience in our life, in such a way that we cannot accept negative situations (which in my mind means we feel aversion). So, an unattached love might mean that I can accept that, for example, my son chooses a way of life that I would not like for him and I can still love him. Or, that I can be able to have positive feelings even to my "enemies" (i.e.desiring for them happiness and so on...). Note that I do not think that it is completely "right" to say that Buddhas are completely without desire. After all, they are seen as the embodiment of compassion (other than wisdom) and compassion (karuna) is of course a desire. There is also "metta" (loving-kindness). Linked to metta, mudita (sympathetic joy) and karuna, there is the prayer "may all beings be happy and secure", which is after all a desire! But again, what means experientially to love and to be without attachment at the same time? I don't really know! Love and acceptance are somewhat difficult to reconcile.
2) you said that "I would not want NOT to be devastated. The devastation is the expression of my love, I want to let it happen, why would I want to stop it?". This is an excellent question. I think that I cannot find a reason to stop you, because I think that I agree with you. Maybe a possible Buddhist answer is that, there is nothing wrong in it but unfortunately that (alone) will not save you from samsara (honestly, I find this answer as disturbing but unfortunately it has some truth in it...) and in order to "achieve" release from samsara you should accept to "let go" even loved ones without, of course, stopping to love them. But again, stream-enterers* might be extremely sad and therefore I am not even sure of what a real answer might be.
Anyway, I refuse to think that there is something "wrong" in your reaction and you should change it and in fact it is one of my qualms about Buddhism. A strong point of Christianity is that "love" is the highest virtue and there are various way for expressing it. Christianity has the strong point to be able to give meaning and value to suffering. Also, in Christianity we are not expected to change our condition and become somewhat "super-human", but we can give meaning and value to our experiences, actions and so on: something that everybody can do (in a way or an another depending on their possibilities...).
*see how Ananda is described here. I like him in particular, because unlike other famous disciples looks very "human" and I can relate to him much more than the others more "awakened" ones! :smile:
P.S. Note that English is not my mother tongue. Also, some ideas expressed here are not even clear in my mind. So, sorry if I am not clear, enough or if I have made mistakes!
Nihilism is a caricature of Buddhism which sadly some Buddhists unwittingly fall into. But nihilism is explicitly called out as an incorrect view from the outset of Buddhist teaching.
Oh, and no, Christianity is not a ‘dead religion’. I’m old enough to recall reading the nineteen sixty six Time magazine with the cover Is God Dead? Thought it was ridiculously misconceived and nothing has happened since to cause me to change that view. Of course a lot rides on interpretation. It never occurred to me that the Bible was literally true, so the fact that it’s not literally true doesn’t have a particular impact on me.
But the core teaching of Christianity is based on agap? which is a direct counterpart to bodhicitta. The whole point is to live out of a sense of compassion and relatedness. Like Augustine said: ‘love, and do what you will’. But it’s not as easy as it sounds.
Agreed :wink:
But what do you think, in particular, about the points raised by Agustino in this post and at the end of this one? I think I have partly answered to them. But there are some points that indeed are very difficult to answer.
Thank you in advance!
Of course -- religion isn't the only focus of community. An example:
The Degree of Honor Protective Association began in the 1870s as a women's support organization for striking railroad workers and their families. Over time it became a fraternal organization that was the focus of community, particularly in small midwestern towns, but also an insurance company. It was much like the the Eagles or Masons. They held dances, meals, parties, meetings, and so on. The Fraternal side came to an end in the 1950s-1960s. If they had been a religion (it wasn't), it would now be a dead religion. It remains as a small women-run (and profitable) life insurance company. If the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America disappeared, but the insurance companies Aid Association for Lutherans and Lutheran Brotherhood (now merged into Thrivant Financial) were all that remained, we could say "Lutheranism is dead."
Yeah there's nothing like silent meditation for hours on end to avoid looking at your own face.
There's some truth in what Agustino is saying, because there's a lot of trendy fashionable Western Buddhism that is indeed platitudes and emotional palliatives. Zizek picked up on the same trend. But, as Rumi said - there would be no fools' gold, if there were no gold.
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26
That is the point I would like to address. In Christianity, the emphasis is on forming a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. You feel this as a living presence in your life, which naturally results in the development of qualities such as charity, self-restraint, and so on. However - not always. Even Christians who say they have been 'born again' will confess that their inherent negative tendencies (to put it in modern terms) still have a grip on them. Actually Paul laments this Romans 7:14. And I'm sure many a spiritual seeker will have gone through that - I know I do on a daily basis.
In Buddhist practice, the 'agency of change' relies on a different 'energy source'. It comes from clearly seeing and understanding the source of dukkha. Now when that is written out, it's easy to say 'well that's just a dogma'. And it would be, if you only wrote it out, or talked about it. But the point of Buddhist training is to really see how the process of clinging, attachment and craving is giving rise to unhappiness, moment to moment. And part of that, is also the realisation of the true nature, which is the aspect of the being that understands and responds to the teaching (known in Mahayana Buddhism as the Buddha Nature, Tath?gatagarbha). I guess it sounds complicated when you try and explain it, but the crux of it is similar to the Biblical teaching 'you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free'. But that 'knowing' is 'jnana', or direct insight into the cause of sorrow. That is a skill that can be learned and applied.
So developing positive qualities means, the pursuit of the 'three legs of the tripod', which are wisdom (prajna), morality (sila) and meditation (samadhi). Then the 'true nature' begins to manifest. Really a lot of the skill of meditation is learning how to get out of the way of that happening.
There is a lot of truth in that. A large part of the issue is that the tropes and imagery of the Bible hark back to an early agrarian, pre-industrial culture - sheep, fields and religious sacrifices. It is remote from the life and experience of the 21st century. But that is why interpretation is needed. There are still universal truths in the tradition, but they need to be constantly re-interpreted in light of changing circumstances. Obviously 'biblical literalism' is an impediment to that - that leads to fundamentalism and many other conflicts.
Karen Armstrong is a good commentator on this subject, not least because she has the perspective of comparative religion rather than Christian apologetics. I frequently cite of her OP's from a few years ago, titled Should we believe in belief? And it's a very good question.
That is admittedly lacking in a lot of Christian organisations. As a consequence, as Joseph Campbell said, '“Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies.” So it's all part of the situation of post-modernism.
What exactly is it about Christianity that makes you want it to be so dead? Your characterizations about the traditions of Christianity are just modern jokes about the weird sacredness of ancient religion; replace Christianity with any other concurrent religion, and your middle-school criticisms would stand just as well. (except they wouldn't, obviously)
Do you have a specific issue with Christian theology? If so, good; there are countless problems with Christian theology. Countless holes. Name one, and we can begin a debate.
Is your problem just that you're interpreting Christianity as an entire religion based on an evangelical literalist interpretation, as @Wayfarerhas already cautioned against? If so, this thread is just a waist of precious time.
But in gaining new converts, Christians priests and missionaries appropriated "native" customs and manners even while crushing local beliefs. Christian theologians borrowed heavily from Platonism, Aristotle and the Stoics and attempted, unconvincingly I believe, to make them seem consistent with the story of Jesus and the idea he was God. They still do so now, somehow finding explanation of Jesus' divinity, his death, sacrifice and resurrection in philosophy and the findings of science.
As for its status now, here in God's favorite country kinds of Christianity seem alive and well, especially in the form of Protestant fundamentalism, doing handsprings down the center aisles of churches and supporting creationism, but also in the form of Catholic pentacostalism, Opus Dei, and now it seems "People of Praise."
Thank you a lot for you answers! Quoting Wayfarer
Very good answer. Thank you :up:
I think that the "advantage" that Buddhist has, in this respect, is that one can also do spiritual practice without "believing" in Buddhist "dogmas" or believing that the Buddha was really "fully awakened" (the same goes for other Eastern religions, like some sects of Hinduism and Taoism for example. But Buddhist practice IMO has the least amount of "belief" required to work). On the other hand, I hardly see how most forms of prayer can be useful for non Christians. Of course, there are some exceptions, but generally Christian practices work much better for Christians IMO.
I agree also regarding what Paul describes. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to not fall under the traps of that negative tendencies you mention. And it is quite distressing.
And also, I believe you are right in saying that Buddhism is much more about the "immediate experience" (that's why it appeals to a secular and "skeptic" mindset). Of course, a certain amount to "openness" to "higher truths" is necessary for deepening spiritual practice.
Quoting Wayfarer
True! In fact, I think that Buddhism without rebirth and karma is a palliative of sorts. Or at best, it can become a sort of Epicureanism. But, yes no "true" Buddhism. Theravada (or, IMO better, "Shravakyana") and Mahayana Buddhism are religions of renunciation. The same goes IMO also for Vajrayana even if its practices are more "adaptable" to non-monastic life (I am not fully sure about it, but I think this is true AFAIK). But, IMO, all three have "world-denying" aspects that secular Buddhists do not want to see, so to speak.
Quoting Wayfarer
:up: very interesting thanks. As you say, too many people simply cannot understand the significance that symbols had in that social contexts. In order to understand we need to contextualize. Otherwise, we cannot understand fully.
Just to clarify what I said yesterday... I think that Buddhists have no problems, strictly speaking with this. I think that they do not find nothing "wrong" in it. However, we should consider also their belief in a "potentially endless cycle of rebirths and redeaths" - in that case they might say that, unfortunately, that if we do not learn to "let go", then we will be trapped in samsara. The ideal is to be both loving and "non-attached" (as I said yesterday, what does that mean I do not really know! BUT IMO in Buddhism "true" non-attachment is accompained by compassion, amity and so on). Anyway, I do not think that a man that is not devasted by the death of a loved one is not loving, necessarily. Of course, being devasted is a sure sign of loving. But not being devasted is not IMO a sign of not loving.
I think that in this respect Christianity is more open to give value to suffering and to all various forms. In fact, if we look to the Gospels we find that Jesus appreciated equally different kinds of love. I think that that Christianity and Buddhism here differ and that maybe the difference is due to the fact that Christianity does not have the dogma of Samsara. Also, in Christianity there is the idea that we are saved by God's Grace and not from our efforts (we have, of course be able to accept it). In many forms of Buddhism there is no "Higher Power" that can "save" us. For example, according to Theravada the Buddha only indicated the Path and we have to walk through it. Of course, the Buddha is seen as an exceptional teacher and it is said that hearing his teachings directly is much more effective than hearing from anyone else. But this is not, of course, the same as Grace. In Mahayana, the situation is different. But I think that Grace becomes very important only in Pure Land, but I do not know that school very well.
As I said, I find this aspect of Buddhism hard to accept. It is quite disturbing, because I find nothing wrong in expressing love by being devasted. I hope to be in that state, too, if such a situation occurs. This because I think that my expression of genuine love would be being devasted. But I am open to other expression of equally genuine love (do you agree with this?). But, I think it is also important to say that if one is not devasted, he or she can be still be loving. (Also, we try to console someone, if is devasted...).
A separate question might be: is it possible to feel genuine love without also suffer? Honestly, I don't know. I am open to an affirmative answer. But, I think that for most people love entails suffering and also I think that in order to "attain" the state where one feels love and does not suffer one needs to learn to love and suffer. If one does not learn that, I do not think that he or she will be able to reach that "state" (if it is possible, of course). Anyway, I think that this idea is present in Buddhist texts. For example, the partially awakened Ananda loves and suffers (and is consoled by his fellow Buddhist disciples and by the Buddha). Does this make sense to you?
Also in some form of Buddhism self-sacrifice can even take the form of self-immolation. This is true especailly for (some traditions at least of) Mahayana Buddhism. But also some Jataka tales (included in the Theravada canon) apparently speak about it, as it can be seen here.
But, even Christianity promotes non-attachment to some extent, I think. In fact, consider this quote of Gospel according to Saint Luke provided by Janus:
Quoting Janus
So, one must "renounce" to some extent (I think this is the meaning of "hate") even to family. In fact, I find somewhat disurbing this quote, too. I mean, not everyone is prepared to do that. I think this also applies to many Christians!
Problem is that our society, as it has been said also by others, is VERY different from the society where Christianity originated and, therefore, many rituals, symbols etc sound very anachronistic and difficult to understand.
The image of Jesus Christ as the "Lamb of the world" becomes much more meaningful if we consider that in nomadic society of that very ancient times, a lamb was sacrificed in order to protect the community and the herd by the attacks of wolves. The reason behind sacrifices was survival. The danger was real. Hence, sacrifice was done for protection. In the same way, the sacrifice of Jesus aimed to salvation from sin, evil and so on.
Nowadays, we do not (normally) have to struggle for our survival. And we do not protect ourselves, our herd etc by making a sacrifice. So, it is more difficult for us to appreciate that symbolism.
The same, I think is true for many others symbols, rituals, linguistic expressions etc. In fact, when I discussed with two Catholic theologians about these matters, they explained to me these things very well and I began to appreciate their meanings. Besides the cultural background, I think that nowadays there is a communication problem. In those times the meaning was clearer and there was less need to explain things. But nowadays we need also people that are good to explain them.
So, IMO, the crisis of Christianity is in part due to a difficulty in communication.
Buddhism places a lot of importance on intention. In fact, intentional actions have karmic consequence (e.g. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/kamma.html - note that "kamma" is the Pali word for the sanskrit karma). Hence we read in the Vinaya Pitaka (the collection of canonical Buddhist scriptures of the Theravada school that deals mostly with rules of monks and nuns):
("Master" here refers to the Buddha. Source: Suttacentral - (emphasis mine))
Hence, if one is motivated by compassion he can "break" the "not stealing" precept. If otherwise the intention was stealing:
(same source as above (Suttacentral) - emphasis mine)
So, we see also an interesting parallel with Christianity, IMO. First, also Christianity seems to suggest that intention plays a central role. Consider for example this passage:
(source: Matthew 15, 16-20 NIV )
Both religions are against legalistic thinking and excessive attachment to rituals.
IMO, Christianity is dying also because people do not see in it these things in it. In general, people do not see wisdom in religion.
And also, some forms of secular Buddhism by "neglecting" the central aspect of "sila" (morality).
'For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it'. Matt 16.
'If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me' Mark 10
'Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that fail not, where no thief approaches, neither moth corrupts. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.' Luke 12
'Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.' Luke 12
All of these sayings are perfectly in accord with the spirit of the Buddhist nikayas.
Quoting boundless
I think that it's because 'emotional indifference' is not at all the same as 'non-attachment'. In both religions, there is an understanding that the peace that arises from God's love (for Christians) or realisation of Nirv??a (for Buddhists) is such that even the witnessing of terrible tragedies doesn't undermine it. But it doesn't undermine empathy - far from it, in fact.
When I was young, I had a casual job as wardsman in the casualty ward of a Catholic teaching hospital (called Mater Misercordiae, 'mother of mercy'). The nursing sisters exemplified this quality of 'un-attached compassion'. Several times I witnessed the senior nurse comforting people in terrible states of distress, whose loved ones had just died. I was deeply moved by her ability of 'suffering with' in these cases. Yet she had to then go back to her duties in a very busy suburban casualty ward straight away afterwards. I think that kind of compassion really does require tapping into a spiritual source. Of course, this is what the Catholic symbolism of 'the sacred heart' refers to. You actually find iconographic representations of the same idea in Chinese Buddhism.
As far as the Buddha is concerned, have a read of the monk with dysentery
It's okay! No problem!
I will be slower in the coming days. So, take all the time you need :smile:
Thank you in advance!
True, I suppose that would just be my take on it, which one could take or leave. :wink: And there is some rationalization there in forming an approach to the world of objects (even our bodies) that often don’t act the way we expect or want. Maybe the planned obsolescence of today’s plastic phones and other products can reflect this lesson or story.
Agreed, the spirit is somewhat similar (especially if one considers Mahayana Buddhism)!
I want also to add that many "hard" expressions were typical in that cultural contexts. So, for example, the quote of the Gospel according to St. Luke provided by Janus:
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
probably meant that, in order to follow the "vocation", one should be able to "let go" even of her/his family attachments. Problem is, IMO, that translations cannot capture the intended meaning nowadays. We need also commentaries and interpretations.
Quoting Wayfarer
Agreed!
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, I think that the "ideal" might be similar. Probably we have a difference in emphasis. This difference in emphasis is IMO linked to the fact that Buddhism accepts samsara and Christianity does not, and, also that Christianity accepts God's Grace and Buddhism (for the most part*) does not. It is very difficult to reduce attachments. Yet, according to Buddhism, to "escape" from samsara one must reduce attachments. On the other hand, in Christianity, Salvation is not "gained" by reducing attachments but by accepting God's Grace. Hence, in Christianity it is love is much more emphasized. While not everyone are able to reduce attachments, everybody, in principle, can love. So, we can understand why in Christianity love is much more emphasized than non-attachment.
BTW, as usual, thank you for the interesting parallelism!
Quoting Wayfarer
Great find! Thank you :up:
*the only exceptions, that I am aware of, are some schools of Pure Land Buddhism.
Quoting boundless
I actually disagree with you guys on this.
Quoting Wayfarer
This is non-attachment to one's life in favour of attachment to "lose [your] life for [his] sake". So it is still quite far from promoting non-attachment as a value in itself. Whereas Buddhism seems to promote non-attachment as a virtue. Christianity on the other hand promotes attachment to the right things as a virtue. There is an important difference over there.
Same for the below:
Quoting Wayfarer
Quoting Wayfarer
Quoting Wayfarer
So far from "non-attachment" being a basic theme of the New Testament, I would say the theme is rather attachment to the right things.
Quoting boundless
To me, this means that you must love God more than anyone or anything else, and relative to your love of God, you hate brother, mother, sister, etc.
In other words, I don't see this "let go" stuff to be the emphasis of the New Testament. The emphasis is rather "be attached to what matters most - God".
Quoting boundless
YES!
That's what 'non-attachment' is for - detach from what is unwholesome or deleterious so as to unite with what is in your ultimate best interest 'where moth and rust don't corrupt'. But of course if the superiority of Christianity over Buddhism is your fundamental point, then that is not something which is resolvable by debate.
And what should you attach to? And where is this referenced?
Quoting Wayfarer
:brow:
Depends. It's not just being unable to "let go" that causes the pain. There are other beliefs associated with it that are responsible for causing pain. For example, if someone isn't able to "let go" of their desires, then the end of life can be painful and cause distress SO LONG AS the person in question does not see a possibility to fulfil the said desires AFTER death. In this case, a Christian would believe that God will "wipe away every tear", and so they may not feel such pain and distress when death comes, even though they cannot let go of their desires.
Quoting boundless
See, it's only when one sees the endless cylce of rebirths and redeaths as something negative that being unable to let go makes it painful.
Quoting boundless
I largely agree with this here - it's also what happens when you stop wishing that things were different than they are. But even that is not a great way to put it. Because it implies that you don't have any wants or preferences (such as preferring that there is no pain). But those wants and preferences, at least for me, still existed in that state. Just that I wasn't "troubled" by the pain. It's difficult to explain.
Quoting boundless
But the resurrection is itself a matter of faith. Afterall, even if you saw the risen Christ, you always have at your disposal alternative explanations. So if you lack faith, if you lack the will to believe, and are instead cursed by unbelief (it's a problem of the will), then regardless of what you see, you will not believe.
So St. Paul is right - if there is no resurrection, our faith (I read this as religion) is in vain.
So the resurrection is something that is, by default, not seen. It is rather hoped for.
Quoting boundless
Right, so then attachment can be the opposite of aversion, and Buddha's way being the Middle Way would strive to neither attachment to the positive (pleasure, let's say), nor aversion for the negative (pain).
Quoting boundless
Well, I think this centers around how we define love. See below.
Quoting boundless
See, this I see as a problem. Love does not require positive feelings. I can be very upset at someone I love, or I can be disappointed with them, or even, why not, angry with them. All these feelings do not suggest in the least that I don't love them. Love is rather the choice, or better said, the will to like them REGARDLESS of how I feel. The will not to give up on them.
So in the case of my enemies, I may still feel anger towards them, but only because they are doing wrong and destroying their own souls for example. Or in the case of my son, I may feel upset because he is harming himself. Or just like the Japanese Samurai, I can feel great compassion while slashing my enemies in half. All these actions do not necessitate the absence of love. Sometimes, it may be the loving thing to do to be angry at someone you love.
Quoting boundless
Why should being saved from Samsara be this important?
Quoting boundless
I agree.
Quoting boundless
Yes, agreed!
Hi,
thanks for raising again interesting points:-)!
I am very sorry for the delay. Hopefully, I will answer later today!
Quoting Agustino
Yes, here you are right :up: I wanted to stress that "renunciation" is present in both traditions. But, of course, in Christianity renunciation is "used" to avert the mind to "what matters most - God". In Buddhism, renunciation is a value in itself, so to speak.
On the other hand, in Buddhism one should be attached to the Dharma (as well as the Buddha and the Sangha...): one should not get rid of the raft before ending the crossing. So, I think that in a way, there is still a possible (partial) similarity here: in Buddhism before achieving Nirvana, one should desire Nirvana, just like one, in Christianity one should desire God until one "enters" in communion with God. A very important difference is that, in Buddhism the Goal is achieved during life, in Christianity after death. But, you are right here. There is an undeniable difference!
Also, in Mahayana there is the idea that the desire to help others will be fulfilled even after Awakening for "countless eons".
Quoting Agustino
Agreed! And here we have another important difference between Christianity and Buddhism. If desires will be fulfilled, then one should not fear death. In fact, I think that some biographies of Christian figures show people that are not afraid of death because they have faith. On the other hand, Buddhists Arahants do not fear death because they are "unattached".
Quoting boundless
Quoting Agustino
But... that cycle is endless. Above all, it is endless in the sense that it is aimless. There is no purpose. I think that such a perspective is very distressing and frustrating. If it had an end (in both senses), I could accept to be reborn, to suffer and so on. But it is aimless and there is the idea that we are not in full control, and therefore, we will not be able to get reborn in intended conditions forever. So, even with the best intentions, the idea is that we will sometimes commit serious crimes. So, such a perspective is IMO extremely distressing. On the other hand, if it had at least a temporal end, one could try to remain in Samsara to help others.
Of course, there is also the Mahayana that teaches that Bodhisattvas will be always help sentient beings. But, in Mahayana Bodhisattvas are awakened.
Quoting Agustino
I think that I agree here.
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Exactly! But I am still confused by what you said earlier, i.e.:
Quoting Agustino
If there is no God, resurrection is not possible. So, Paul says that faith is vain if there is no resurrection. Hence, as I see it, Paul says that if there is no God, faith is vain.
So, how can you say that faith is not vain if there is no God and, at the same time, be in agreement with Paul?
Quoting Agustino
I think that they are opposites in the sense that they are two sides of the same coin. If one is attached to a particular pleasant experience, then when it ends and arises an unpleasant one, he/she experiences aversion. So, I see them as very connected. When attachment is absent, aversion too disappears.
Quoting Agustino
OK! Let me explain better myself. I think that if you love them, then "at the bottom of your heart" you still desire, for them, the good. So, you might get angry but, at the same time, you want the best for them. When I wrote "positive feelings", I meant this. Sorry for the confusion.
So, I mostly agreee with you. I think that only a "negative ethical" approach (i.e. do not do this, do not do that...) in our actions is not sufficient. We also need to develop compassion, love and so on. And, in order to express love we might also get angry.
Regarding the example of the Japanese Samurai, well, that is a somewhat controverted point for me. I am not sure that in this particular example you are right. But I need some time to reflect upon this.
Anyway, as you say, love is, in the highest sense of the word, a disposition where you always want the best for others (which IMO coincides with the full expression of metta (good-will), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion)). Sometimes, sadly, I feel that Buddhism, especially Theravada, is presented in a way in which the importance of metta, karuna and mudita is neglected. For example, in the absence of hate we can develop better compassion. But a presentation of Theravada that emphasizes ONLY the "absence of hate", without also give importance to compassion is very wanting. The "negative" and the "positive" sides are both needed. After all, the Dhammapada has the following verse (source: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.14.budd.html):
I think that the same "unbalance" in giving ONLY importance to the "negative"/"absence" side is at the basis of the position that Nirvana is ONLY the absence of greed, hatred and delusion.
But, of course, differences with Christianity remain also on this point.
Quoting Agustino
Because it is aimless and endless. And, if Nirvana has a "positive reality" of sorts, also to experience the "highest bliss".
In the "negativistic" interpretation of "Nirvana", the ONLY reason to leave Samsara is to avoid endless and (ultimately) aimless.
In the Mahayana one also wishes to escape "samsara", also to be better help sentient beings.
Anyway, I am happpy to see that we agree in many points!
God created human beings to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by
doing this, to save their souls.
God created all other things on the face of the earth to help fulfill this
purpose.
From this it follows that we are to use the things of this world only to
the extent that they help us to this end, and we ought to rid ourselves
of the things of this world to the extent that they get in the way of this
end.
For this it is necessary to make ourselves indifferent to all created
things as much as we are able, so that we do not necessarily want
health rather than sickness, riches rather than poverty, honor rather
than dishonor, a long rather than a short life, and so in all the rest, so
that we ultimately desire and choose only what is most conducive for
us to the end for which God created us.
Quoting boundless
As I explained, when Paul refers to "faith" in that quote, I read him as referring to the Christian religion. When I said that even if there is no God, faith in Him is sufficient to grant all that one needs for THIS LIFE, I use faith with a different sense. The sense I quoted:
So in summary, I agree, if there is no Resurrection, then there can be no Christian religion (faith in one sense). But the Resurrection is itself a matter of faith (different sense here), and it cannot be any other way.
Quoting boundless
But then, in the negativistic interpretation, Nirvana becomes the real suicide. Shooting yourself in the head is not a real suicide, because you will reincarnate, and in a much worse state than before, it will take you much longer until you can get to the human stage again, from where you can commit the real suicide (Nirvana). I see this interpretation as the essence of the life-denying, impotent, impulse.
Quoting boundless
Quoting boundless
But... if that cycle had a purpose, then it would have an end. And an end means precisely a death. There can be no end without death, for how can life, whose very nature is change, suddenly come to a halt without ceasing to be life?
So I don't think that the perspective of an endless Samsara, which contains both pain and pleasure is necessarily distressing and frustrating. It is like an adventure - you never know what you will find the next time around. It is sort of exciting - once you get to see the big picture, and you stop anchoring yourself merely in your present condition as if this was all that there will ever be. In a way, an eternal Samsara is a good thing - it means that all pain (and pleasure alike) will ultimately come to an end. So if you are suffering now... fret not, it too will end.
Quoting boundless
Yes.
Ok! I think it is more clear now, thanks :smile:
I will certainly read with interest your more detailed explanation!
Quoting Agustino
Yeah, that's why I think the negativistic interpretation is wrong. Seeking Nirvana, in this negativistic view, is seeking solely the ending of suffering (which, in turn, leads to the "end of life"). Personally, despite the fact that in modern times many think that "oblivion=Nirvana", I think that there is enough evidence to say that in ancient times it was a minority interpretation and, therefore, it is more a modern phenomenon. Of course, this does not mean that it wrong by default.
Nowadays, you can read claims (both by critics and by Buddhist themselves) that it is the "orthodox" Theravadin view. I think that they are wrong: the negativistic view was rejected explicitily by Buddhagosa (who, apparently, built the (real) "orthodox" view of the school). Anyway, there are in the commentarial part rare "positive" descriptions of Nirvana, like in that part of the Kathavattu I linked the other day. You can find a translation of a nearly identical "positive" description here at the end of this article: Timeless (Jayarava Raves' blog) (like the other passage, Nirvana is said to be "eternal" here - AFAIK Jayarava is a "modernist" of sorts who does not believe in all supernatural elements). So, unless these descriptions are later interpolations, you actually find somewhat "positive" characterizations of Nirvana. And in the suttas, Nirvana is said to be "beyond reasoning" (in the passage of the Itivuttaka hat I linked earlier) and, frankly, oblivion is not "beyond reasoning" IMO.
BTW, I approached Buddhism because of the "apophatic" approach on Nirvana. I really liked the "negative" language used. Reading the suttas, I was really fascinated by this approach.It gave me a sense of awe and mystery. Theravada Buddhism struck me as the most "rigorous" apophatic approach. Then, when I read that many Buddhists actually interpret the very same passages as suggesting that Nirvana is oblivion, I was somewhat dismayed. Now, I am still a student of Buddhism and I began last year to practice vipassana. I do not consider myself a Buddhist, though.
Quoting Agustino
I see! Let me ask a question, however: do you see Christian Heaven as "timeless"? If so, you can see an "end" as something that is blissful. But, also, note that I was thinking to the "end" of a particular mode of existence, samsara. If samsara ends and, after that, a different (and more blissful) existence starts, then we do not end with a death, but with a "life" with less misery! (of course, I am speculating! No religions that I know have this view).
Quoting Agustino
Well, at times I have similar musings about samsara (well, it is the "lightness" given by impermanence)! After all, now I do not remeber my past lives (assuming that samsara is real). Hence, even if I will suffer in the future, then I will forget it and, maybe, I will be reborn temporarily in a blissful abode. Then, again, I will fall from it. But, with time I will forget it again. So, without memory it seems an adventure. On the other hand, if I had memories of such a long time, then maybe I will get somewhat bored and annoyed from the cycle. I think that the 15th chapter of the Samyutta Nikaya explains it very well. Unfortunately, you will continue to suffer and cause others suffering. Hence, an escape from such a state will be desired. And if I remembered all my crimes, all the enormous amounts of suffering that I caused to myself and to others and so on, I would like to stop it, if there is no way to "control" the whole thing. Again, in such a situation, if we accept that Nirvana has a positive reality, Buddhism is not "nihilistic". In this case, "Nirvana" might be seen as a satisfying end to our "beginingless" stories. Things change, however, if the "negativistic" view is held.
On the other hand, Christianity posits a sure end for all Creation. We do not have to seek a "satisfying end". It will surely end. What we have to do is to "use rightly" the time we have in this lifetime. I think that the view about time and "history" conditiones all others teachings.
Edit: regarding Christianity there are some dogmas that I (for now) cannot accept. For example, the idea of an original/ancestral sin really disturbs me and seems to me very implausible.
Nirv??a is not non-existence, but the extinction of ego. The meaning is very similar to the Biblical injunction 'He who looses his life for My sake will be saved.'
So there is a 'negativistic' view of Nirv??a, but it is mistaken.
So, the occult aim of all religion is to achieve a state of equanimity wherein death is no longer feared; we cannot really live until we have authentically conquered (as opposed to inauthentically distracting ourselves from) the fear of death, because the fear of death is equally a fear of life.
Really, the actuality of, as opposed to the faith in, the afterlife is irrelevant because we have no way of knowing what it will be. So the only way to compare religions, or philosophies for that matter, with one another is in terms of their efficacy in enabling people to conquer death-fear and thus to be able to live fully. It is arguable that attachment in the negative sense is ultimately resultant from death-fear, as are hatred, envy, jealousy, pride, the inability to love oneself and others, and so on; in short all of the so-called "negative" anti-life emotions.
When it comes to religion the stumbling block for many is the inability to believe dogmas for which there is no tangible evidence. I think that being committed to any religion is, in the final analysis, a matter of faith; I guess it's just bad luck for those who lack the capacity to believe with enough conviction and consistency to bring about the transformation.
Why not? How is "original sin" different from the beginningless Avidya (or Samsara) in Buddhism? The presence of evil in the world makes it most clear that the world is fallen - something is not right.
Now there are multiple interpretations of Original Sin. The Eastern Orthodox view is that while we're not "guilty" of the sin of Adam and Eve, we are born in a corrupt world. So while we are a clean mirror at birth (free of sin), it's very easy for dirt to get stuck on us, since we're born in the mud so to speak. So there is always a very strong tendency towards sin.
https://oca.org/questions/teaching/original-sin
Quoting Wayfarer
Okay, thanks for sharing that. So what is left after the extinction of ego? Is the personality wiped away?
Quoting boundless
Bingo. That's the point, Osho raised the same point too. But the point only resonates with one who does have such memories. The fact that nature wipes away the memories makes Samsara bearable, so to speak. One does not feel any urgency to escape.
Quoting boundless
I agree with you. There is another important point of difference with regards to love I think. In the Christian approach to romantic love (between a husband and a wife) and the Buddhist one. Kierkegaard writes very well with regards to the Christian POV in his Works of Love (an amazing book).
Namely, the love between a man and his wife opens up an area of Being that is otherwise closed. It brings up some unique problems that one cannot use the same stock answers against. For example, ever lover, as Kierkegaard states, needs to proclaim that their love for the beloved is eternal. Now the question is, how can such a proclamation be made in good faith? Because if it can't, then the lover is doomed from the very beginning. And Kierkegaard answers from the Christian side that this proclamation and vow is made in good faith when the two lovers swear their love not by themselves, but by the third, God. It is only when their love is anchored in the eternal, that it can take on the character of the eternal.
This is one issue. Another issue is how Buddhism and Christianity would deal with things like "becoming one flesh". It is clear that in a romantic relationship, two people form a spiritual bond - indeed, in some regards, they become one, where the distinction/boundary between the one and the other starts to vanish. Christianity would claim that each one has authority and ownership over the other.
And yet, Buddhism I think would be unable to negotiate this kind of relationship to achieve this level of intimacy or merging of the two together. The common answer, it seems, is that because of anatta, any such merger is a form of attachment, that will surely bring about great sadness. To me though, this seems something that again would block some important, life-affirming possibilities. What's your take?
That is what has to be discovered. Don’t forget the origin of the word ‘person’, which is from ‘persona’, the masks worn by dramatists classical Greece. (Although, that said, there was an influential early Buddhist school called the Pudgalavada, where ‘pudgala’ means ‘person’ and ‘vada’ is ‘way’. This is actually quite similar to the modern philosophy of personalism, although it is nowadays regarded as an heretical movement by most other Buddhist schools.)
But again, ‘dying to the self’ is not something unique to Buddhism:
[quote=Angelus Silesius]O Man, as long as you exist, know, have, and cherish,
You have not been delivered, believe me, of your burden.[/quote]
You’re right about the fact that Buddhism is not particular interested in marriage. But, that said, Mah?y?na is not particularly bound to monasticism, as a bodhisattva can appear in any kind of guise - or persona! - ‘for the benefit of sentient beings’.
And do you mean to say that it is not possible to communicate this discovery to others?
Quoting Wayfarer
Fair enough, I actually agree with that, but only because we are who we are by choice. Therefore, "in essence" we are nothing - meaning we decide who to be, what mask to wear. On the other hand, what we decide does say something about who is behind the mask so to speak.
Quoting Wayfarer
It really depends on what you mean by "self". Do you think the "self" is always something negative? I mean, as far as I see it, lots of things in life require a STRONG self. Going on the example below, romantic love, for example, requires a sense of self who is relating with another. Without a sense of self, how can you even relate to another? Who is relating to who?
Quoting Wayfarer
Okay, I agree.
We as humans may get glimpses of “unfiltered reality” or pure gnosis or the like. I think the (arguably) widespread view of mystics or maybe theologians is that we can’t handle it for very long. Which is completely and totally OK. No offense to the human mind, but Pure Isness blows our circuits within seconds. Maybe sooner. We think the summer sun at noon is intense. How about going beyond the earth’s atmosphere and then feeling and looking at the sun? A picture of a shadow of a reflection on the cave wall may disappoint Plato. But if it gives us the gist, and we keep in mind that it is a copy of a copy, then hopefully we will not go too far astray.
We take tiny nibbles of our dinner, which is made even smaller by the digestive system. We smile (or try to repress laughter) at the small child who tries to eat the PB&J sandwich in one bite, so they can go back outside to play. And when they then drop it on the floor and cry because now it is gone forever. And completely irreplaceable.
Could it be similar to a philosophical disclaimer that says “Please proceed with caution. Most or all of the following or preceding mentioned concepts are just that- concepts. They are made out of sentences made out of words, which are formed from letters. Consider them to be etched in Silly Putty. Even for as accurate, factual, or inspirational a statement as ever been made. This is not a pipe, the map is not the territory, and my doodlings may or may not be a very accurate map. For entertainment and educational purposes only. This password will only be valid for the next 15 minutes. Carry on. Keep your feet on the ground, and keep reaching for the stars. Peace.” ?
Of course, this disclaimer applies to this particular post of free association. (Not too surprisingly).
I agree in a sense! I think that our condition is "fallen", but I do not know what this "fall" is!
Quoting Agustino
Thank you a lot for this! I did not know that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox held such different views about original sin. When I said that "I cannot accept" the original sin dogma I had in mind the Roman Catholic version, i.e. that we are born "guilty". The Eastern Orthodox version is much better!
Quoting Agustino
Well, yes, I feel more or less the same. I am fascinated by Buddhism but I do not feel a strong urgency to "escape" from Samsara. So, I am trying to use Buddhists teachings to have a better understanding of my experience, to live a more "ethical" life (sadly, I am not very good in this) and also I think that Buddhism, both Theravada and Mahayana, has at least some understanding of the "ultimate". That's why I like it.
Quoting Agustino
Never read it. But it seems indeed a very interesting work (I add it on my list!)
Quoting Agustino
Indeed a very good point. Indeed, in Christianity this is possible, because it is emphasized that "love is eternal" (e.g. the famous "Hymn of love" of 1 Cor 13). If love, as Kierkegaard, is anchored in the eternal, then, as you say, the proclamation can be done in good faith. Again, it shows the importance of Faith!
Also, in Mahayana, in a sense, "love" is eternal. But, again "anatta" makes that proclamation impossible.
Quoting Agustino
I see. Same as above. On this point, however, I would like to note that a somewhat similar idea is found in Buddhism. I think that in a sutta it is said that a husband and a wife, in order to live again in a future life, should both behave virtously, be faithful to each other and so on. So, the idea of the "bond" is IMO present, in a more limited sense, in Buddhism.
Quoting Agustino
You indeed have raised very good points and I agree with them. And also, I think that you showed also that these "life-affirming" possibilities depend on being "anchored" in the Eternal, and hence they depend on "faith". If there they are not anchored, such proclamations and vows of an eternal "bond" risk to be tainted by bad faith. Unfortunately, not everyone has faith :sad:
I think that regarding the importance of Love, Christianity and Mahayana Buddhism share many similarities. The greatest difference is due to the different views about Samsara and the self.
Quoting Agustino
The Mystery, Unknown etc :wink:
Quoting Agustino
I think that this is another interesting point, isn't it? In a Mahayana context, for example, how I can reconcile compassion (e.g. work for the benefit of all sentient beings) with the idea of anatman? I think that this is another "mystery" in Buddhism. In the Mahayana, I think that in a sense "bonds" are very real. You might find this article interesting. I think that in Buddhism, it is important to note that there are two truths, not one. Probably only an "awakened" one can really know the answers of your questions. But, I think that from a buddhist point of view they are very useful answer in order to avoid to fall in a nihilistic trap.
Also, there is the idea that one need to cultivate a strong self in order to "let go" ("take yourself as your refuge")!
That was what the Buddha spent around forty years of his life doing, so in one sense it can be communicated. But there is a saying that ‘the Buddha only points the way, the student has to walk it'. [Hence my forum name!] There’s a sense in which it has to something that you find for and in yourself.
The whole point about genuine insight, is that it is a form of knowledge which is itself transformative. It's something that can only be learned 'in the first person', so to speak.
Quoting Agustino
It's really more a matter of seeing through it, or beyond it. In one sense, a healthy sense of one's own abilities and obligations is obviously needed just to get along, but on the other hand, I think we all have to get over the instinctive sense of being the centre of our own universe.
The other thing to notice about the Buddhist use of language in this respect, is that 'anatta' (not-self) is invariably used adjectively, that is, 'all phenomena' have the three characteristics of being anatta, dukkha, anicca. So no-self is not really saying 'there is no self'; the whole focus of Buddhist teaching is to understand how everything arises dependent on causes and conditions. Asserting that there is, or is not, 'a self', is itself a dogmatic belief. But that's a subtle point (and an endless cause of locked threads on Buddhist forums.)
Quoting 0 thru 9
There's a similar thought expressed in Alduous Huxley's Doors of Perception. But on the other hand, the insights that arise from mindfulness practice are often quite subtle and not at all spectacular. There are of course aha! moments, but not that many.
Actually there is a thought I wanted to share on the general theme of religious belief. It has to do with psychodynamics. I think the purpose of belief is to snap you out of an habitual mode of understanding and awaken you to a totally different relationship with your fellows and with the world. But the point is, for that to happen, you really do have to commit to it; it can't be just a hypothetical question. You need to have a commitment, 'skin in the game', so to speak. And obviously the Christian faith can provide that - if you take it seriously, if it really means something to you. Not as a 'set of propositions' or a half-assed pseudo-scientific theory, which is how atheists generally construe it. But for it to work, you have to believe it, otherwise the ego will always find a way to turn it into yet another means for maintaining itself (which happens all the time.) I think driving home this understanding is the role of the spiritual preceptor, teacher or guru.
This is true; belief is absolutely the mainstay of all religions. Anyone who cannot genuinely (that is in more than a merely 'lip service' way) believe what they can have no tangible evidence for is simply not suited to religious practice.
I only borrow from the best! :yum:
Quoting Wayfarer
:up: Definitely. I think in general our awareness is both larger and deeper than our intellect. And as many large deep things often do, it gets buried and lost in the shuffle. What is the saying? Our awareness is as open, clear, empty, and large as the sky itself.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, completely agree. And I have far to go, much more progress can be made. But not much need for shame or pride. Just keep going. I think of spiritual-type knowledge as a support for the practice, and the practice as a support for life. Ignosticm and apophatic approaches (neither denying nor confirming) help me get out the head, and into the heart and soul. That’s were the action is. And the kingdom of God is spread out on the earth, even if we don’t see it. Whether a simple aphorism or a complex theory, the ideas that tend to enlighten me are the ones that run against the wind of our world, and yet are a breath of fresh air.
I agree; it is analogous to the placebo effect. A placebo will not work unless you believe it will work, but the important thing is that it works, not whether what you believe is "true".. The same goes for religious and spiritual practice; if the aim is to bring about a transformation then the belief is only a means to bring that about. the transformation is the important thing; without that the belief is nothing more than a belief, like any other. If the transformations apparently effected by religious and spiritual belief and practice are authentic (that is, not merely "for show") then belief has a real value, independently of whether what is believed is "true". It really seems to be a kind of pragmatism.
You can find the same kinds of beliefs operating in the arts, or even in sport. For example, some tennis players are superstitious and they develop little routines that ritualize their superstitious beliefs, and these beliefs apparently help them to attain the self-belief they need to win matches. It doesn't matter whether those superstitions are "true", all that matters is that they work to bring about the desired result.
Quoting 0 thru 9
One of my favourite Zen anecdotes. One day a student finally had the long-awaited satori, a glimpse of the Original Nature. He excitedly awaited the next dokusan (formal interview with teacher) in which he told him about what had happened.
'Very good', says the teacher.
'Now what do I do?', says the student.
'Apply in broad, even strokes, allowing some time to dry between coats.'
:pray:
Ha, that’s good! Had not heard that one. Thanks.
Another quote, I think from Joseph Campbell (could have been quoting someone else): Life will grind you, there’s really no escape from that. But depending on the angle we choose to take, life can either grind us down, or make us sharper.
[/i]
Quoting Agustino
Well, I think that it cannot be fully communicated. Of course, as @Wayfarer says, it is partially communicable. However, "insight" is a transformative experience and therefore one must see "it" for onself (that's why there is so much emphasis on practice).
For example, in the "Dhamma-niyama sutta (AN 3.137)" the "Dhamma" is described as a sort of "Law of phenomena" that is valid whether or not there is the arising of Tathagathas. The Tathagathas are said to "awaken" to it. IMO, it is implicit that the "Dhamma" goes beyond what can be said verbally. See also the http://"Garava sutta SN 6.2", where it is said that all Buddhas dwell "revering" the "Dhamma". I think it is another implicit reference to the fact that the Awakening is an experience of something that is "bigger", so to speak.
To be complete, the sutra that Wayfarer quoted is not included in the Theravada Canon. It is a Mahayana sutra included among the "Tathagathagarba" sutras.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I like the apophatic approach because gives me a sense of awe and reverence. It is also true that, unfortunately, I have a somewhat compulsive need to philosophize about the "ultimate". Anyway, I think that is very useful to find peace.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Well, I think there is some truth in this view (even if I do not think that it is universal, despite being widespread) because, after all, our minds are accustomed with ordinary reality. On the other hand, "mystical experiences" can be very extra-ordinary, so I imagine that they can affect even our physical health somehow since I do not see mind and body as completely "separate".
Quoting Wayfarer
Agreed!
Quoting 0 thru 9
I think that, for example, Christianity here has a good point. Suffering is very hard to bear if you consider it meaningless. But, in Christianity you can live suffering in a meaningful way, i.e. by loving in a way where your "suffering" can even become a sort of "gift" you give to yourself and to others. For example, Jesus felt abandoned at the Cross (Luke 22.42), he did not "endure" suffering in an equanimous way. However, through suffering Jesus was able to give us the "gift" of Love. In this sense, as @Agustino says, Christianity can be life-affirming and even give meaning to suffering itself: one can follow Jesus' teachings even without following a rigorous and ascetic spiritual practice (like the case, for example, of Buddhism, especially Theravada).
Why do you say that in a certain sense, "love" is eternal in Mahayana? Love has different aspects - largely, we have two kinds of love: non-preferential love, and preferential love. Preferential love is the love you feel towards mother, father, children, wife/husband (and even here, love breaks down into multiple categories). Non-preferential love is the love of neighbour, the love of God, etc. Above we were talking about the kind of preferential love mentioned - I'm not sure if Buddhism talks positively about this love. For example, Buddhism often emphasises allowing the loved one to be free, but, for example, is allowing one's child to be free equivalent to allowing them to snort cocaine? Or is allowing one's wife/husband to be free the equivalent of allowing them to be unfaithful? How are we to draw the boundary? How does Buddhism propose to manage such cases, where the stock answer "compassion, letting go, etc." isn't a clear cut answer?
Love cannot exist without the lover and the beloved, and so if anatta is true, and all things are non-self, then how can love be eternal?
Quoting boundless
Yes, I agree, I am aware of the story. However, even in this case, their love may be countless of lives, but how can it be eternal?
Quoting boundless
Do you think that not everyone can have faith? Faith, is really the will to believe. It's not a matter of intellect. You will not gain faith by more study, and more reasoning. The faithful know exactly the same as the unfaithful. But the faithful focus on the glimmer of light, whereas the unfaithful focus on the larger darkness.
Faith is fundamentally a movement of the will. It's the will that must be changed, the will that must want to have faith, to cling onto God.
Quoting boundless
Do you think Love extends beyond Samsara?
The Old Testament was based on law, while the New Testament is based on faith. The first mention of law originates in the Garden of Eden and was symbolized by the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Law is composed of a bunch of rules that breaks down human behavior into good and evil, with consequences for both.
The tree knowledge of good and evil or law was populated by Satan, who was the left hand man of God during the Old Testament. Satan, who began as Lucifer, was in charge of the earth and was in heaven during the Old Testament. Arguments could b made that Satan was the intermediary to God during the Old Testament.
Satan is not thrown from heaven, until Revelations, which was written years after the death of Christ. The main problem with law, was the Satan connection. Law can be perverted through loopholes, double standards and unneeded complexities.
With that being said, the torture, death and rebirth of Jesus was a legal strategy that made law and therefore the old dispensation, void. Death is the ultimate penalty under the law. After you die at the hands of the state/law, you are no longer under the law since you have paid the highest penalty. The rebirth symbolism creates a reboot of the same person, who is now legally protected by double jeopardy, and therefore beyond law.
This loophole causes a symbolic disruption in heaven, where Satan recruits his followers and is thrown out of heaven, since his authority in the hierarchy has been superseded by Jesus using this legal strategy. There after, the righteous man was to live by faith and not by the works of the law, since law is made obsolete to those who are reborn.
The torture and death of Jesus showed everyone how the law can be perverted for political gain to do evil. Law had its day in the sun, but humanity needed to step on up higher. Faith brings one back to something close to natural instinct. With natural instinct and faith we become like the animal who has natural laws written in their hearts, with no need of man made ordinance contained in commandments carved in stone. Now the tree of life appears.
Thanks for your reply, as well as your other contributions to this thread. :up:
I completely agree with your statement about mystical experiences and the interconnectedness of the body and mind. And I would say that likewise the faculties of the mind are intertwined. Lately, I’ve been wondering what the difference and relationship between one’s intellect and one’s awareness is. A mystical experience seems like it would be pure expanded awareness mostly (for lack of a better term). Some call it non-dual consciousness. Any intellectual sorting and naming would come later. Which is to be expected; no problem there. The intellect is an indispensable part of us.
If I may go out even further on this limb... One could compare a mystical experience to unexpectedly seeing a herd of wild horses up close. They seem to come out of nowhere into your area. And they exude a strong life force that is hypnotic. In this example, this mostly would fall into the category of “awareness”. Where the intellect (and mostly the ego) might enter the picture is if the person then decided to capture all of the horses, either to keep or sell. Not judging the morality of such an action, but there is a clear difference between the experience and decision to possibly capture the horses.
So I guess what I’m saying here is that awareness can be expanded. You would certainly agree with that, I imagine. There seem to be many practices in collective Buddhism that do so. And do so while perhaps temporarily “putting the brakes” on the intellect, the emotions, the ego, etc. Just giving the awareness a chance to grow by tending to it like a garden, watering it and pulling some weeds. The intellect and all the other mental powers we have are valuable. And any cautious approaches to such would be with the intention to make them even more valuable and useful to us. Like you said...
Quoting boundless
Completely agree. I think that as long as the “need to philosophize about the ultimate” is counterbalanced by awareness and the sense of awe you mentioned, one can proceed both cautiously and confidently. There is a verse from the Tao Te Ching that might be related:
You can do what you like with material things. But only if you hold to the Mother of things will you do it for long. Live long by looking long. Have deep roots and a strong trunk.
I agree with that. Augustine is well-known for having struggled to find a doorway into Christianity. Instinct actually blocked his path: he loved women in every sense of the word. It was the physical aspect of that which put him in opposition to faith. So there's a convoluted story in there for someone who might want to explore it.
And Christianity is dead as a worldview. Calling it a living religion is perhaps a nod to the possibility of its being absorbed into a new world religion as it once absorbed all the dead worldviews in its cradle.
As far as I know, Augustine only loved ONE woman in every sense of the word.
But will it die in the future? It might. As I perceive those people I feel there is something... reactionary in their devotion. I live in a conservative country and the narration of mainstream media is very xenophobic. People are scared of many trends that come to us from Western Europe; they are scared of LGBT movement, of gender and sexual orientation-confusion and drama regarding it, they are scared by the existential crisis that comes from having too many options in life and having to decide how to live your life all by yourself, without any clear guidelines. They stick to religion because it seems familiar and therefore reassuring. It makes the world simpler as it deems some options as immoral and reduces the uncertainty.
I think they need faith, because it lies within majority of people's needs to have faith. I grew up in atheistic/agnostic family and it was generating much anxiety for me even though the need to believe in something wasn't transmitted onto me from other people, so I think that at least some of us has the inborn need for faith. We do have such needs because the sense of safety is one of the most basic animal need. But once individual reaches certain level of self-awareness, they need to realise that every sense of safety in the material world is short-termed and delusional since everything ends with gradual decay and death. Since the solace from this fact cannot be pursued in the pragmatical sense (nothing can make us immortal) people resort to magical thinking or rituals to resort the sense of control and release the anxiety, to antropomorphising things that are beyond our power and control as 'God' (because if it's a person, we can engage in dialogue with it and we can please it and ask for its mercy) or to transferring their inborn archetype of "safe place" onto some conceptual other world or state of being (hence the concepts of "afterlife", "heaven", "nirvana") - since we still have the need for safety but are now smart enough to know it doesn't last for long in the material world. I think that most if not all religions' main purpose is to cater for those needs and that they are all pretty similar in the nutshell. Catholicism is more popular among my peers simply because it's there, it's familiar, it's been there for many generations. But I am not sure if it's the most optimal thing for the modern man to believe. I think that this religion is mainly anachronistic in its teachings. The Wisdom of New Testament was revolutionary in the times it has been created and that was certainly a milestone for humanity. Take the diversion from the preferential, selfish love into the non-preferential "love thy neighbour" type of love that has created the foundation for the concept of morality as something universal and utilitarian, rather than tribal. It must have been important and fresh for the people then, but now that we have absorbed this way of thinking about morality, digested it, raised few generations of children on it, I am not sure The Bible can teach us anything new by now. The same Jesus in the Gospel initially denies to heal the daughter of non-Jewish woman (saying that "dogs shouldn't eat from the table where children dine") or curses the fig tree to dry for it is fruitless in the time of the year when it is normal for it to be fruitless (I have always got the vibe from that parabola as if he didn't care if what he demands of his followers is above their abilities, his anger will fall at them if they fail anyway). Such fragments of The Bible annoyed me as I judged them from my modern mindset and that's why I think that XXI century's person has outgrown the figure of Jesus morally in the perception of "right" and "wrong" (whether the XXI century's person applies what they consider "right" and "wrong" to their everyday life is another thing, but well, that cannot be taught by any Holy Book I believe). Jesus is no moral authority anymore because he has nothing left to teach, what was universal and valuable in The Bible was absorbed by secular culture already and the rest is anachronistic - not fitting to the modern man's reality and problems.
Someone before has stated that The Bible is alive, only the symbolism in it is too cryptic for modern people to decipher. Like the "lamb of God" symbolism that one had evoked strong emotional response from people who sometimes really had to sacrifice the lamb in order to sustain their families or save the herd from the wolves. What I am really wondering is if the symbolism of this scene can be as that important for the modern European person at all, even after translating to a more modern language. It is not the language that is the problem for me here, it is the fact that life conditions have changed. Most people from The Western countries have troubles in conceptualising such harsh life when your physical safety from predators or hunger is your main concern. They don't know the value of community in leading such life. Today people are more preoccupied in more "subtle" problems like identity and value crisis in the multicultural world, feeling of existential emptiness, the problems with growing competitiveness among people, with civilizational diseases. Such things Catholicism doesn't address as during the time that Catholicism was formed, people had other things to worry about. I think it's the main reason that Christianity is now blooming in Africa, while it is quite stiff in Europe - it's just Europeans don't deal with the same issues as first Christians did anymore.
To sum up, I think people do need religion and always will need it but Catholicism is pretty much close to burning-out in Europe. I really hope it will get replaced or reformed as currently it promotes lots of prejudice, for example towards LGBT people. In my country we are one step from passing the bill that penalises the woman for trying to get an abortion (even due to medical reasons) - while I'm not pro-choice myself this is way overboard and it comes from religious fanaticism that doesn't even have anything in common with The Bible or with early Christianity.
You are right, to some extent. Buddhism emphasizes much more the "non-preferential" kind of love. At the same time, however, I do not think that it speaks negatively about the "preferential" one. In fact, in the paper I mentioned, if I recall correctly, the contemplation that "it is not easy to find a being that was not a mother, a father etc" leads to both non-attachment but also to the devolepment of compassion etc for all sentient beings because they might have been our father, mother etc in the long time of samsara. It sounds, actually reminiscent of this passage of the Gospel:
(Matthew 12:48-50 source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+12%3A46-50&version=NIV)
The problem is that the “love” you describe requires essential selves: “I will love you forever”, taken literally, sense implies that there is an unchanging “I” that will love “forever” an unchanging “you”. This is true if and only if there are “permanent selves” in the two lovers or if there is a Higher Power that is able to render them permanent. In both cases, according to Buddhism we have an “eternalistic view” (a “partial eternalism” in the second case). So, I think that the “eternal” romantic love you have in mind is incompatible with Buddhist notion of anatman also because it requires an ability to control forever the events, whereas anatman denies that. I think that in some Mahayana schools the mindstreams never cease and so in a “metaphorical” sense the promise might be justified.
Regarding the real-life examples you are providing, I think that, in order to be compassionate, one should try to stop his son for consuming cocaine and for “good-will” a wife/husband should try to be faithful!
Quoting Agustino
I agree that faith is a matter of will. One chooses to believe. Problem is, however, that people are Christians (or Buddhists, or whatever) for various reasons. Some, like Saint Paul converted because of a mystical experience, some remain attached to their tradition, some convert to the religion of his/her lover and so on. It is a matter of will. Personally, I am trying to see which religion looks to me more reasonable, so to speak, since I chose to “question everything”, to be skeptical, problematic, and so on. But this choice actually reflects my nature (or at least I think and hope). Hence, probably in my case for both “natural” and voluntary reasons I have more diffiulty to “have faith” in whatever religion. Maybe it is only egoism on my part for refusing to choose a tradition, but I think that it I am following my “nature”. Again, I choose to see it in this way. So, the answer for your question is “no”, everyone can have faith. Yet, at the practical level, for some having faith and believing is much more simple than for others (in my case, of course, it might be simply egoism).
Quoting Agustino
I think that for Mahayana Buddhism the answer may be “yes”. Buddhas are already “outside” (in the sense of being “trascending and immanent”) and yet they are full of compassion etc. The "mindstreams" of the awakened beings are always present to help countless sentient beings in countless eons. If samsara will be completely emptied, I think that there are at least some schools of Mahayana that do not accept an end of the "mindstreams". Since, the mindstreams of awakened beings are full of "positive qualities", then you can argue that some kind of relational love is endless.
Since I am agnostic (but actively seeking to "find out the truth") about "Samsara", I can only say that I recognize that our world is "fallen" and some kind of "Love" (which I have no problems to call "divine") transcends the this world.
Of course, becoming a Buddha means that one "transcends" the human condition. On the other hand, in Christianity there is no need to do that (in fact, and I agree with it, Christianity teaches that there are serious risks for those interested in "transcending" the human condition. After all, it is very easy to get conceited in the process)
Quoting 0 thru 9
Thanks! I am happy that you have appreciated. Anyway, thank you for yours! :wink:
Quoting 0 thru 9
I do not think that all mystical experiences are the same, but I think that there is some affinity between them. To borrow an analogy used by Wittgenstein, I think that there is a "family resemblance" between them. However, a very common element, IMO, even more common than "non-duality" is that of "something higher", that inspires respect and reverence. Non-duality too is widespread that there are many traditions where it is absent, or at least not very emphasized.
Regarding the distinction between intellect and awareness, well, I agree. Immediate awareness is nonconceptual, one simply is "cognizant". Concepts arrive later, but conceptual knowledge is mediated, not immediate. I think that immediate awareness comes into degrees. Maybe, "mystical experience" are at the "high-end" of the scale, so to speak.
You might like this article on "Trycicle". It is about the Tibetan Buddhist position that "cognizance" and "emptiness" are fundamental qualities of the mind.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I agree, at least for some mystical experiences.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I completely agree (as it happens, I really like the early Taoist writings! They really give inspiration, awe and a sense of freedom rarely found elsewhere. I say "early", simply because I am not very familar (not even by readins secondary literature) with more recent writings than the Liezi).
But, if, as you say, everyone could be mother, father, etc. then your current mother and father are, relatively speaking, devalued, aren't they? In other words, it is no longer a preferential kind of love, is it? If you expand the object of preference to include almost anybody, then you cannot claim to have a preference anymore - it defeats the purpose.
Quoting boundless
But the Gospel passage quoted is Jesus's answer. The message is that God's love is not preferential - or rather, that God's love is more than merely preferential. To further unpack this, God's love for each person is of the same intensity as the preferential love a father has for a child, but this does not, in any regard, diminish God's love for others.
Quoting boundless
I find this notion very strange and unclear. Do we have free will? If we have free will, then presumably, we are able to control some things, such as who we love. So if love is such a choice that we make, it doesn't require our selves to be unchanging, but rather merely our choice to remain unchanging. It becomes, once again, a matter of the will, doesn't it?
It's also not clear to me what an "unchanging self" would even be. Buddhists reject the Hindu notion of atman. But what exactly is rejected still remains mysterious. I mean, phenomenologically speaking, what is the difference between an unchanging self, and a changing one? We live life, and sometimes our preferences change. Does that mean our self has changed? If the phenomena are anatta (empty of self), then there can be no question of our self changing when phenomena (thoughts, desires, etc.) change.
What would you say is the relationship between anatta and will?
Quoting boundless
I disagree. The events could lead to the two lovers becoming separate, for example. But this cannot affect their will, all by itself. Love is anchored in their will. Is their will not under their control?
Quoting boundless
Can you detail what you mean?
Quoting boundless
Okay, but how far should one go to stop their son from consuming cocaine?
Quoting boundless
What do you mean for "good will"?
Quoting boundless
So you do have a nature (or a self)? :P
Quoting boundless
I agree.
https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/is-there-no-self-or-is-there-free-will-in-buddhism/
https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/the-confusion-over-the-self-in-modern-buddhism/
I guess you're saying that out of all the women he had sex with he only truly loved one of them?
Which one and why do you think that?
Thanks for the reply. I will answer back tomorrow.
Also, thank you for the links. Very interesting site, indeed.
BTW, there is a scholar, prof Alexander Wynne that makes similar criticism on the "orthodox" "no self" doctrine. See e.g. these two articles (maybe also @Wayfarer is interested in reading them):
The atman and its negation. A conceptual and chronological analysis of early Buddhist thought and Early evidence for the "no self" doctrine? A note on the second anatman teaching of the Second Sermon
Well, personally I do not believe that the "anatman" teaching was misunderstood in the last two thousand years. But, both the link you provided and these articles are very interesting.
My view about "anatman", however, is that in some sense it is true that it means that there is no "self" (and also that in some extent Buddhism can be said to be reductionistic). However, I think it is a teaching that can be easily misunderstood as implying that there is no free will, that we do not exist at all, that the private experience is illusory, no "real" moral responsibility etc (I think that the teachers quoted in the articles when they denied the "self" they did not imply that we do not exist at all). Anyway, maybe there is too much emphasis on the "no self" thing (after all, as these links and Wayfarer noted previously, "anatta" is mostly used as an adjective. This makes sense, considering that "anatta" is a property that is to be investigated in analytical and meditative experience).
Incidentally in terms of cross-cultural analysis, see Buddhist Analogues of Sin and Grace: A Dialogue with Augustine John Makransky. It makes an interesting comparison between Augustine's teaching of the original sin (which has been immensely influential particularly in Latin Christianity) and the Buddhist teaching of 'avidya' (ignorance).
Thanks for the reply and further details! Good point about the “family resemblance” between mystical experiences. They do seem to cut across traditions and epochs. To me, there is a unmistakable similarity (not identical of course but similar) between Sufis, Christian mystics, Taoist sages, and even animist Aboriginal tribal shamans. They are not reducible to each other nor interchangeable. But there seems to me to be a thread that connects them all. It is probably the whole exoteric vs esoteric topic.
And thanks for the Tricycle link. Will check it out. :up:
I believe that here we should consider the duality between the "relative" and "ultimate" truth. At the "ultimate", love is non-preferential. But, at the relative level, we have special relationiships :smile:
I think that Buddhism suggests us to love everybody, have "metta", "karuna" etc for everybody. Yet, I do not think that it devalues special relationships. Maybe it points to the fact that we should not neglect who are "outside" our preferences. We should also be "good" with our enemies.
Quoting Agustino
Now, let me ask you, in turn this question: is "preferential love" present in Heaven?
(Matthew 5:43-48, source)
(Luke 6: 35-36, source)
I see a parallel between the "divine love" and "boundless heart" (see the "Metta Sutta") related to the "ultimate" in Buddhism. You are right that Christianity praises preferential love more than what Buddhism does, yet, I believe that Christianity too aspires to arrive at both and encourages people to strive to "imitate" God. What do you think about this?
Quoting Agustino
I think that we have free will. And choices are a matter of will. And, maybe, Buddhists might agree on this point. Yet, I have reservations that our choices are unchanging (see below).
Quoting Agustino
BINGO! Well, we know that Buddha denied that any of the five aggregates (consciousness included) could be taken as "me, mine, my self (atman)". He also denied that "Nirvana" could be the "atman".
Personally, I think that he even denied an "impermanent" self. There were "ascetics and brahmins" that thought that "the body is the self". The body, of course, is impermanent, subject to illness, uncontrolled changes and so on. Therefore the Buddha, IMO, denied a "changing" self, too.
I think that he denied all possible "objectification" of the self, i.e. he denied that we could say that "my self is this", or even "my self is indescribable" (the position of the Pudgalavadins, apparently). At MN 2 (Ven. Thanissaro translation) we find:
Hence, all "definitions" and descriptions are to be "transcended". Note the paradoxical language of this sutta. I think that Buddhism points even beyond the position that "there is no self". In fact, it stops completely identification. I read somewhere that "shunyata" is nowadays translated as "openness", meaning that "anatman/anatta" points to have no "self", i.e. having no reference point.
Quoting Agustino
Difficult question! Personally I believe that there is free will (I never saw a convincing argument for the view that moral responsibility is meaningful without free will). If anatta is true, I believe that it is a sort of "undeterminate question". In fact, I think that it is very puzzling (tha author of the blog post you linked here, indeed, has a point!).
Quoting Agustino
Maybe not. In fact, I think that this is one of the important points of the anatman teaching, i.e. that, if unawakened, we cannot even have the "right intentions" forever (if that was possible a perpetual succession of blissful rebirths would be possible). It is IMO an important point. Our "fallen" nature (see also the quote provided by Wayfarer in his latest post) prevents us to control forever our will. Isn't it reminiscent to the Christian tenet that we need God's Grace to save ourselves from sinning? Of course, in Buddhism, one "gets free" from this fallen nature by "awakening" rather than Grace. But, here, I think we have a similarity.
Quoting Agustino
I would have put it differently, being a wild speculation of mine (of course everything I write is a wild speculation, but that was especially the case). Anyway, what I meant is that if mindstreams continue forever AND if such mindstreams are full of "positive qualities", for example the "loving" quality, then mindstreams will radiate love forever, so to speak. So, in some sense, mindstreams of awakened beings will always love. The "metaphor" part was meant to include in what I tried to say, the Buddhist tenet of anatman. I hope that it is clearer now. But, I admit that it might be not XD
Quoting Agustino
Yes! Maybe it is not as "real" as I take it to be :yikes:
Quoting Agustino
Excellent!
You might like "The stages of Christian mysticism and Buddhist purification" by Lance Cousins, a very rare comparative study between Christianity and Theravada Buddhism.
As an aside, on the "everything is impermanent" view, check Ven. Yuttadhammo's answer to this question on Buddhism stackexchange (also, I found useful his youtube videos on meditation).
Quoting 0 thru 9
Well, in those traditions you mention the idea of "union with the Absolute" is central (well, I am not very familar with Sufism and I do not know anything about Aboriginal spirituality but I trust you!). The "unity motif", so to speak, is very widespread around the world. Buddhists are generally cautious in speaking of "unity" or "oneness", but the idea is IMO far from being absent, especially in East Asian (Mahayana) Buddhism. For example, there is a school, the Hua-yan (known as "Hwaeom" in Korea and as "Kegon" in Japan) that teaches that all phenomena "interpenetrate" (I think that I already linked in this thread the IEP article on Fazang, the third patriarch of this school). But it is also present in the Tiantai (in Japanese Tendai) school as you can see in the SEP article about that school. But I think that the teaching of interpenetration is present also in Chan/Zen Buddhism (the modern teacher Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh speaks of "interbeing" which is related to interpenetration and interdependence). Maybe this "flavor" of Buddhism may be very interesting for you.
Another family resemblance is that of the "ephemeral" vs "permanent" (both in the sense of everlastingness and timeless). Again, many Buddhists are reticent to speak of the "permanent", but I think that this "ephemeral"/"permanent" thing is also present in early Buddhism. Check, for example, the Dhamma-niyama sutta which seems to suggest that the "Dharma" is a "truth" that stands all times, yet no every Buddhist agrees on this (also there are some texts of the Theravada schools that seldom refer to "Nirvana" as "permanent" but you find some controversy here. Even in the article about Tiantai that I linked before you find that, according to the author, Early Buddhism says that everything is impermanent. But IMO it is only the interpretation of the author [see, for example, the link to the answer of Ven. Yuttadhammo that I provided at the end to my answer to Agustino in this very post]).
Then, we have the "experience" of a "relationship", i.e. being loved. Again, it is pretty widespread, especially in religions that believe in a Personal Deity.
Quoting Agustino
Well, independently of Buddhism or Christianity, I cannot give you a precise answer on this. To be honest, I tried to give you a response here, but I failed. So, please do not take it as due to a lack of effort.
Well, just for curiosity, how would you answer to your question?
Quoting Agustino
IMO "good-will" means willing to do what is good for the other. Being faithful is doing what is good here.
On the Christian world-view, I think I would disagree with this assertion. Christian love, at its highest, is both preferential and non-preferential.
In Christianity too, only ONE gets the prize. This isn't meant to suggest that God doesn't love all men, but rather that God loves all men as individuals, one-to-one. So God's Love is both preferential and non-preferential at the same time. In front of God, each human being is the chosen one. And at the same time, this does not stop God from loving all men, even though he prefers each one as individual.
Quoting boundless
But there are cases where sacrifices are required, since we cannot please everyone as human beings. We are not God - we are finite creatures, and as such we cannot love the way God does. So it's true, that we should love all men. But what do we do when the love of all men, comes in conflict with the love of our wife, or our child, etc.?
Quoting boundless
I would say so - every man has a preferential relationship with God.
Sure, I agree that we must love all men. At the same time, it is evident that our preferential love will sometimes come into conflict with our non-preferential love. My position is that, in such cases, one should choose their preferential love. This is similar to Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac when commanded by God.
Quoting boundless
I agree with you that Christianity aspires to both.
Quoting boundless
Okay, yes I see. I see your point, and I agree. However - potentially - we could have "right intentions" forever if we are awakened. So given two lovers who both become enlightened, what will happen to their love? Their love cannot fail to be eternal - that seems the only plausible answer. It is true that in Buddhism, because of ignorance, we cannot act rightly 100% of the time. But what happens if we dispel the ignorance?
This is what one of the blog posts I linked to says:
I agree with this difference. We start out in life in the unenligthened state, where we mostly react, instead of respond, to what is happening around us. We are the slaves of our instincts, and so on. But, as we approach enlightenment, we cease reacting, and start responding more and more. When we finally become enlightened, we no longer react, we are no longer part of the stream so to speak. Everything we do becomes a response, that is freely chosen, and not compelled.
Quoting boundless
Well, is it really the case, or not? Does the metaphor bit suggest that this is a "relative" truth?
Quoting boundless
Thanks, I will look into it! :)
Quoting boundless
I would say it depends on the means one has at one's disposal. I would say that it's fine to use a degree of coercion in order to prevent a greater evil in this case. What coercion would consist in, depends on the circumstances. It could be some form of financial pressure, not giving your son something else he desires, etc.
Quoting boundless
Hmmm... but in a love relationship wouldn't what is good for the other, also be good for you?
The Buddha criticized the Brahmin teaching on many grounds, one of which was just this unclarity. The way ?tman is depicted in the Vedas and the Upani?ads is often contradictory and vague. The soul might travel to the Sun, or to space, or beneath the earth, or re-appear as an animal or even a plant. It was actually typical of much of the speculation about death that was found in many of the ancient cultures of that time.
Secondly, when the Buddha criticized 'eternalism', it was a specific rejection of the idea that there was a permanent, self-existent and inherently real self or subject, that would continue to be reborn in perpetuity. Given that there were ascetics who believed that they could recall their previous lives, this was not an outlandish thing to believe. In fact, even Guatama is said to have recalled all his previous lives, at the penultimate stage just prior to realising final Nirv??a. So the belief in 'eternalism' was the belief that there is an unchangeable self or subject, which transmigrates from life to life, and which is never subject to change; two of the similes given is that it is like 'a post set fast' or 'a solitary mountain peak'.There is a dialogue on 'Sati the Fisherman's Son', who is a character who believes that consciousness transmigrates from life to life, who is so recalcitrant in his mistaken view, that all the Buddha can do is hold him up as an example of pernicious error.
All of these views are laid out in a text called the Brahmaj?la Sutta, which details the 64 kinds of wrong views - said to be the complete list - that ascetics fall into. But if you take a very high level view, they're all variations of either 'ceasing to exist', which is nihilism, or 'continuing to exist', which is eternalism. The 'middle path' is neither! That is the entry-point to N?g?rjuna - those who say "it is", are eternalist, those who say "it is not" are nihilist. (According to the commentary that I read on the Brahmaj?la the majority of people today tend towards nihilism, although many don't realise it.)
(That is why, by way of a footnote, that Madhyamika is sometimes compared to Pyrrhonian scepticism, to which it is sometimes compared, as it amounts to a 'suspension of judgement' or radical un-knowing. See Sunyata and Epoche, Jay Garfield, and Pyrrho and the East, Edward Flintoff. However in our cultural context, it is very difficult to understand such religiously-oriented scepticism, as we're inclined to equate scepticism with [scientific] realism.)
Good point!
Quoting Agustino
Well, another good point.
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Well, I think that here there is some controversy, both in Buddhism and in Christianity. Taken literally, the passages quoted above about "love your enemies" imply that Christians should abstain from all violence. Yet, it seems that violence is sometimes even necessary. A Gandhian approach might be effective with some enemies but if the enemies are the nazies, then a Gandhian approach would be equal to an assured massacre. In Buddhism there are differing views on this point, too. The first precept is to abstain from killing. And, you find passages like:
(MN 21 I.B. Horner translation)
which are extremely similar to the "turn the other cheek" in the Gospels. But what about the case a loved one, say a son/daughter is in peril? Is it "right" to not act? Or in order to save others one should act? (maybe as an act of compassion). Personally, I agree with you. Sometimes, sadly, violence seems impossible to avoid. Yet, maybe most Buddhists might disagree. For example, among the Theravadins, check the view of Bhikkhu Bodhi (which, however was criticized by other Buddhist figures like Thanissaro bhikkhu).
On the other hand, I cannot understand the example you give of Abraham. In my understanding, it seems the exact opposite, i.e. that Abraham was seen as "righteous" by being faithful to God even to the point of sacrificing his son. Yet, last year a catholic priest made a point that this was not the correct reading of the episode. Unfortunately, I cannot remember his reasoning in saying this. So, why do you think that this episode is an example of the importance of preferential love?
Quoting Agustino
Good questions! In "non-Mahayana" schools (i.e. Theravada and other "early" Buddhist schools) I think that their love cannot continue forever, simply due to the fact that Nirvana without remainder also implies the cessation of "good qualities". On the other hand, in the Mahayana the situation is much more complicated. If the mindstreams are really endless, they continue forever even when purified by ignorance and other "defilements". Providing that this is the case, however, I think that the love is "non-preferential".
But still, you have that the arhat Sariputra went to save his mother just before his death. So, I am not even sure that preferential love is absent in awakened ones.
Quoting Agustino
I mostly agree with this. However, you need a qualitative and irreversible change, meaning that in order to achieve that state you need to get awakened/enlightened.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, I meant that. And I think that in order to understand what it means, we should fully know the relation between the relative and the ultimate truth. Which in turn means that we should be awakened :lol:
Quoting Agustino
I found it very interesting. Most comparative studies are devoted to Mahayana, and many of them rely only on Meister Eckhart writings. I find it extremely interesting because it is a comparison between the work of a saint, St. Theresa of Avila, with the "traditional" Theravada commentary by Buddhaghosa. I never found anything similar to that.
Quoting Agustino
Well, I agree with all this!
Quoting Agustino
Yes :wink:
Quoting Wayfarer
Another point to be stressed here is that this "un-knowing" limits itself only at the "ultimate" level. In the relative level, I would be VERY hesitant to call Madhyamaka a "Pyrhonism". As an obvious example, there is the belief in rebirth, karma, that dependent origination is the best relative truth and so on.
As an example of the "reverence" idea among Theravadins, check this writing of Buddhadasa bhikkhu, ABC of Buddhism. Also, I forgot to mention the comparative religion article about that I linked to Agustino yesterday, i.e. http://www.academia.edu/4364149/The_stages_of_Christian_mysticism_and_Buddhist_purification.
I said the two are 'sometimes compared', and I think there's a very good argument for that relationship. See also Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism (Studies in Comparative Philosophy and Religion), Adrian Kuzminski, http://a.co/fk9cJQF.
If we lost our sense of sight, in the short term, we would become disorientated. But as time goes on our others senses would become enhanced. The brain will gradually reroute resources, so we are able to function under the new constraints of no sight. If you repress the extroverted and materialistic aspects of sexuality, using will power and choice, a similar thing will occur, with the brain rerouting aspects of the brain's operating system.
One common affect of repressed desire is active imagination and fantasy. This is a gateway to the operating system of the brain. The personality firmware, associated with sexuality, will become more conscious, via fantasy and symbolism, as a way for it to get the ego involved to help it remove the dam, so the energy can flow. But if the dam persists, pressure builds behind the dam, and the potential finds new ways around.
These induced brain dynamics are the reason many, if not most religions, often deny aspects of the physical self. It was about a rewiring of the brain away from instinctive pathways of animal man. Born again is similar to a system update. But like any update, the brain first has to uninstall the old, which is a destructive process which can get stressful.
Bible prophesies, such as Revelations, appears to discuss a major update of the operating system of the human brain. The final human left are very different. The materialists will see an extroverted dynamics that occur outside themselves; materialistic and physical dynamics in cultural reality. But those who live in the gateway, due to the willful repression, witness an internal dynamics that requires a certain amount of willpower and choice to maintain sufficient potential for initiation.
The firmware of the brain first needs to be updated to accept the larger update of the operating system. The gateway to the firmware is connected to the new inner world beyond the dam.
An analogy is an older PC or Mac, may not accept the latest operating system, because some parts of the mother board first need to be updated. This may require a new computer or tablet unless one replaces the motherboard. The human brain is pliable and we can update the mother board, in situ, in advance, to accept the latest update in the operating system.
You don't want to try the update too early on an older computer, since the old operating system will be lost and the new not installed properly. Natural man can't accept the update. However, an updated version of natural man will appear after the update. Where faith comes in is an acceptance of the changes from the initial rewiring, then to uninstall, then to reinstall, so you don't corrupt the files. The Saints who appear, were like human dynamos.
But also the warnings are there to make sure you do all the steps or it will lead to your own destruction. This is where the motherboard is not prepared properly before uninstall.
You're talking about spiritual transformation. Spiritual and social transformations might go hand in hand.
Yeah, sorry that remark was not adressed to you :-)You are right, there are indeed affinities (and thank you for the suggestioni)! I had other people in mind who take the similarities to imply that Buddhism suspends judgement on everything.
It would entail abstaining from all violence so long as we assume that love can never be expressed through violence. Because remember, to love one is different than to do what they would want you to do.
Quoting boundless
"Preferential love" is another way of saying that there is a hierarchy in love. In this case, Abraham's love for God is prefered relative to Abraham's love for his son. A man's love for his wife is preferred over his love for his neighbour. And so on so forth. So when one comes in conflict with the other, the preferred one is chosen. But it's important to note at this point that preferential love is always built on top of non-preferential love.
Will be answering the rest tomorrow, too tired now!
It gets worse. Paul adds...
"If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen."
and
"Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."
Not only must you not be violent, you must not even harbor unexpressed hate. The bar is set very high. For Christian pacifists, Jesus provides clear and unequivocal guidance: Love your enemies, turn the other cheek, and so on. "Your convenience isn't the point," Jesus said to me in a private note.
Only the utterly resolute can attempt absolute pacifism (this is different than conscientious objection to war). Those who are not so resolute will have to define what is necessary violence and what is not. One might decide that violence in defense of one's self, one's spouse, and one's children (maybe pets?) is legitimate. But then, "How much violence is necessary?" Where between a slap on the hand and death does one draw the line?
If one is willing to defend one's self, spouse, and children, perhaps one should extend one's protective circle to the neighbors' children... You can see where this ends. One is prepared to defend one's interests, which is a much broader permission to be violent than merely defending one's self and one's spouse or children.
I did at one time, but I I can not now defend pacifism. I am not willing to accept any degree of abuse without defending myself IF I CAN. If I am unable to defend myself, then I will have to accept whatever happens. "Accepting whatever happens" is not "loving one's enemies". And calling in the categorial imperative, if I claim my own right to defense, I can't deny someone else defending themselves.
Interesting anedocte :up:
I think I mostly agree with you on this point.
Removal of hatred, violent tendencies and so on from our minds is indeed a good thing. Yet, sometimes, even non-violence seems excessive!
Quoting Bitter Crank
Well, I think this is the point. Rigorous pacifists would answer that violence is never necessary. But, frankly, I find such a position quite extreme.
After all, if by doing nothing we know that others might get harmed, are we "in the right" if we abstain from action when by acting we know that we can save them?
Violence should, I think, be used when all other possible solutions are ineffective and even if violence is employed, it should be done without the intention of killing (but rather for saving) and without cruelty. If possible, violence should have the purpose to change the mind of the aggressor. But, of course, I am speaking of the "ideal".
Quoting Bitter Crank
I think that I partly agree. On the other hand, however, I think that one should try to extende as much as one can good-will, compassion etc (by wanting to do too much, one risks to cause more trouble than anything else).
Quoting Bitter Crank
I am quite conflicted on this point, actually. As I said, one should try to defend oneself and others by non-violent means. If that does not work, one can try to use some coercion trying to stop the aggressor trying to cause less harm as possible.
In the "real world", however, this is really hard to do.
If we consider "harming" as bad and "saving" as good, then, IMO, we can see that harming for self-defence (or to save others) is a very particular "kind" of violence. If we look at intentions involved, for example, we are very likely to find an intention to "save" simultaneous to an intention to "harm". So, even to a pacifist, it might be regarded as a "neutral" (or rather, so to speak, "mixed") action.
(P.S. As an aside, the Biblical quotes you provided are from the first letter of John. Yet Paul himself says something similar "14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse" and "17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." found at Chapter 12 of the Epistle to Romans, link)
Quoting Agustino
I might agree with that, if we make a clarification (well, I am not sure of what you mean here).
I highly doubt that having the intention of harming or killing are expression of love. Rather, I can see "violence" motivated by compassion when one tries to save others or oneself by violent actions. At the best, there is the case when you want to stop them with the intention of "saving" them (and hoping that they later ). But, for example, I doubt that you can "express" your "love" to your aggressor by killing him or her. So, a bit of coercion might express love (like in the example of cocaine), but I cannot easily see how one can express love to another by seriously harming (intentionally) or even klling (intentionally) him/her. At best, such actions can be done for benefit for others (or oneself), certainly not for the one seriously harmed or killed (except, maybe, the case where one seriously harms another to avoid that he/she will be killed).
Anyway, I am not really sure that the Gospels allow violence as an expression of love. I mean, in the same discourses where love to enemies is mentioned, it is said to who do evil, to turn the other cheek, to not resist to an evil person etc (the same is said more or less by Paul "14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse" and "17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." Chapter 12 of Epistles to Romans, link). Personally, the "pacifistic" reading is strongly supported by these passages.
Actually, a pacifist might say that it is not possible to "resist evil" and "express love" at the same time. But, at the same time it is true that doing nothing can, for example, cause a massacre in certain situations. The issue is extremely controversial and I think that many Christian thinkers struggled on this point and allowed violence only in some cases. Yet, I cannot see how a literal reading of such passages can be reconciled with violence.
Also, another problem here. Even if it could be possible to do violence with a loving disposition, this is not the case for everybody. Some might not be able to do that. In this case, if one seeks to always act lovingly, then s/he will abstain completely from violence.
EDIT:
Quoting Agustino
Thanks for the explanation. Maybe next week I will be able to ask to that my friend about the interpretation of this biblical passage. In that case, I will let you know his interpretation of the passage!
P.S
I inform you that I will not be able to answer until Tuesday, I think.
The value of this schema is our memory can be triggered in two ways; via the content or via the emotional tag of the memory. I can look at my favorite food and starts to feel hungry due to the previous emotional tagging, Or I can start to get hungry and images of my favorite food will appear in my imagination. This is also due to previous memory.
When you love your enemy, you are tricking the brain into adding a love tag to a memory that the brain will normally; instinctively or collectively, tag with fear and hate. If successful love tagging occurs, due to willower and choice, one is much less stressed in life.
Love integrates us internally and externally. When you are in love everything seems better. Hate and fear attempts to divide us internally and externally. Hate isolates us. Therefore if you increase the proportions of love tagging in your memory, and decrease the proportion of fear and hate tagging, your mind becomes more integrated and 3-D. It is a path for human evolution.
The ancient prophets did not have a materialist explanation for the brain, but they understood how the brain software worked. Jesus was trying to upgrade, via choices and willpower.
I don't understand what you mean here. How can the concept of "permanence" (or "impermanence" for that matter) apply to a self? A self isn't an object in the world, like a chair for example. So applying the concept of permanence or impermanence to the self makes no sense to me. When Buddhists claim that the self is impermanent I have no clue what they're talking about. How can the self be impermanent? The self is the locus of freedom, or choice. As such, the self is always "empty" - the very possibility of freedom demands that the self be "empty" such that it can choose. Without being "empty", there is no possibility of choice.
Quoting Wayfarer
What's the problem with a subject which transmigrates from life to life? And how can a subject be subject to change? :s How can or does a subject change? What "is" this subject which is subject to change?
Also, do you personally believe in free will? If so, how do you reconcile free will with anatta and dependent origination?
All things - i.e. all objects of experience - have three characteristics - anicca, anatta, dhukka - impermanent, not-self, and unsatisfying. That's generally the gist. But there is also 'the unborn, the unconditioned, the unborn' which corresponds with (in my view) 'the wisdom uncreate' of Augustine. That wordpress site that you mentioned addresses this.
https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/the-ephemeral-vs-the-eternal/
Quoting Agustino
Of course. The site also covers that:
https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/is-there-no-self-or-is-there-free-will-in-buddhism/
Quoting Wayfarer
Okay, I agree with pretty much 95% of the way you and that site interpret things. However, why do you reckon that this isn't the mainstream Buddhist interpretation? Much of the Buddhist literature out there doesn't interpret things this way.
Anyway - don't agree with the OP, that 'Christianity is a dead religion', nor with your initial criticisms of Buddhism although hopefully some of those concerns have been addressed in the course of the conversation.
Alright. Why do you reckon popular/modern interpretations of Buddhism fall more towards the nihilistic/materialistic side?
Quoting Wayfarer
It is hyperbole, and clearly doesn't apply to all Buddhists. Also, it depends what you mean by "convert". There are people in the West who attempt to follow Buddhism and do use it for unwholesome purposes. Do you not agree that the doctrines such as detachment are often wrongly interpreted by the Western mind? And thus you'd get people trying to "detach" themselves from the love they feel for a dying family member for example, thus turning colder towards them, since they see that the "attachment" (or love) also hurts and causes suffering.
On another note, do you agree that meditation can be used for unwholesome purposes?
For example: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/may/22/anders-behring-breivik-meditation
Quoting Wayfarer
Okay, I agree, how can it be otherwise. Words are symbols, not the reality itself.