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, Nirvāṇa: '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. — boundless
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. — Agustino
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. — Agustino
(Matthew 5:43-48, source)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.
(Luke 6: 35-36, source)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!
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? — Agustino
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. — Agustino
“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.
What would you say is the relationship between anatta and will? — Agustino
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? — Agustino
Can you detail what you mean? — Agustino
So you do have a nature (or a self)? — Agustino
I agree. — Agustino
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. — 0 thru 9
Okay, but how far should one go to stop their son from consuming cocaine? — Agustino
What do you mean for "good will"? — Agustino
On the Christian world-view, I think I would disagree with this assertion. Christian love, at its highest, is both preferential and non-preferential.I believe that here we should consider the duality between the "relative" and "ultimate" truth. At the "ultimate", love is non-preferential. — boundless
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. — 1 Corinthians 9:24
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.?Maybe it points to the fact that we should not neglect who are "outside" our preferences. We should also be "good" with our enemies. — boundless
I would say so - every man has a preferential relationship with God.Now, let me ask you, in turn this question: is "preferential love" present in Heaven? — boundless
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.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.
I agree with you that Christianity aspires to both.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? — 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?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). — boundless
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.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.
Well, is it really the case, or not? Does the metaphor bit suggest that this is a "relative" truth?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 — boundless
Thanks, I will look into it! :)You might like "The stages of Christian mysticism and Buddhist purification" by Lance Cousins, a very rare comparative study between Christianity and Theravada Buddhism. — 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.Well, just for curiosity, how would you answer to your question? — boundless
Hmmm... but in a love relationship wouldn't what is good for the other, also be good for you?IMO "good-will" means willing to do what is good for the other. Being faithful is doing what is good here. — boundless
Buddhists reject the Hindu notion of atman. But what exactly is rejected still remains mysterious. — Agustino
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. — Agustino
I would say so - every man has a preferential relationship with God. — Agustino
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.? — Agustino
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. — Agustino
(MN 21 I.B. Horner translation)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.
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? — Agustino
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. — Agustino
Well, is it really the case, or not? Does the metaphor bit suggest that this is a "relative" truth? — Agustino
Thanks, I will look into it! — Agustino
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. — Agustino
Hmmm... but in a love relationship wouldn't what is good for the other, also be good for you? — Agustino
(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.) — Wayfarer
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. — boundless
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. — frank
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.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. — 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.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? — boundless
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. — boundless
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? — Bitter Crank
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. — Bitter Crank
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. — Bitter Crank
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. — Agustino
"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. — Agustino
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.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. — 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?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 — Wayfarer
When Buddhists claim that the self is impermanent I have no clue what they're talking about. — Agustino
do you personally believe in free will? — Agustino
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. — 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.Of course. The site also covers that: — Wayfarer
Alright. Why do you reckon popular/modern interpretations of Buddhism fall more towards the nihilistic/materialistic side?I do question some of the popular modern interpretations of Buddhism — 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.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. — Wayfarer
Okay, I agree, how can it be otherwise. Words are symbols, not the reality itself.As far as I'm concerned, the reality is never in religions as such, they're simply signposts. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.