@Agustino, thanks for the insights!

Like Christianity? :P — 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.)

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. — 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).

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. — 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.

I mostly agree on all these points. — Agustino

Perfect! :smile:

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? — 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...).

Okay, I agree! How do we go about developing positive qualities? — 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.

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. — 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.

I see, I agree. — Agustino

Good!

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? — 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!

I think that anatta can be interpreted in a nihilistic way, sadly. — boundless

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 agapē 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!

Is religion's role as the focus of community something that could be taken over by a non-religious entity?

Is religion's role as the focus of community something that could be taken over by a non-religious entity? — frank

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. — Agustino

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. — Agustino

"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? — Agustino

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, Tathāgatagarbha). 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. — Agustino

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."

Thank you a lot for you answers!

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, Tathāgatagarbha). 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. — 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.

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

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? — Agustino

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 — 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!

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.”

(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).

Been a bit busy today, I'll be getting back to all these posts, hopefully soon! My apologies!

'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. — 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 Nirvāṇa (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!

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. — Agustino

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. — Wayfarer

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 Nirvāṇa (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. — Wayfarer

Agreed!

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. — 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!

As far as the Buddha is concerned, have a read of the monk with dysentery — Wayfarer

Great find! Thank you :up:


*the only exceptions, that I am aware of, are some schools of Pure Land Buddhism.

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. — boundless

I actually disagree with you guys on this.

'For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it'. Matt 16. — 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:

'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 — Wayfarer

'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 — Wayfarer

'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 — 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.

"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. — 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".

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. — boundless

YES!

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. — Agustino

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.

That's what 'non-attachment' is for - detach from what is unwholesome or deleterious. — Wayfarer

And what should you attach to? And where is this referenced?

But of course if the superiority of Christianity over Buddhism is your fundamental point, then that is not something which is resolvable by debate. — Wayfarer

:brow:

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). — boundless

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). — 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.

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

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). — 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).

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. — boundless

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...). — 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.

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. — boundless

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...). — boundless

I agree.

*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: — boundless

Yes, agreed!

Hi,
thanks for raising again interesting points:-)!

I am very sorry for the delay. Hopefully, I will answer later today!

Finally, I am here:

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". — 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".

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. — 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".

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. — 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. — 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.

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. — Agustino

I think that I agree here.

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. — Agustino

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. — Agustino

Exactly! But I am still confused by what you said earlier, i.e.:

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. — 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?

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). — 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.

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. — 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):

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? — 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!

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.

I will comment in more detail soon, but for now:

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? — 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:

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. — 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.

Because it is aimless and endless. — boundless

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. — 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.

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 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. — Agustino

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. — 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.

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? — 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).

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. — 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.

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.