From: johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson)
Subject: Re: Buddhism and Truth  [Was: A. Johnson thread]
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 16:00:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.210532.7429@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
> In article <1992Sep9.170956.8845@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>,  
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
> > In article <1992Sep6.114904.7362@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
> >> In article <1992Sep6.035121.4113@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>,  
> > johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:

     [...some stuff deleted...]

> This is a bit tricky, since the Valentinian Gnostics claimed that their 
> doctrine was the teaching for "the spiritually mature" Paul mentions
> in Second Corinthians. What I mean by "Pauline" or "Paulist"  
Christianity
> is "the emerging Christian orthodoxy that culminated in the Nicean  
Creed,
> the Athanasian Creed, etc."  I know that theology continued to develop
> and change after this point, but it seems to me that (aside from a few  
mystics)
> the basics remain the same.
> 
> "Pauline" Christianity teaches things like: the Resurrection was an  
actual,
> not a metaphoric, event; Jesus WAS God, con-substantial, etc.; the God  
of 
> the OT is the God of the NT;  salvation/damnation etc. are to be  
understood
> as _metaphysical_ terms, not poetic ones ( also Heaven and Hell) ...
> "Pauline" Christians were responsible for choosing the canon.

     Got it. By your definition, I qualify as a "Pauline Christian". This  
shouldn't be overly surprising, since Paul was "the Apostle to the  
Gentiles", and as far as I know, I'm a Gentile. Were I a Jewish convert to  
Christianity, I would then be a Hebrew, not a Gentile, Christian, and my  
understanding of the Gospel would probably be much more "Hebrew" in  
outlook, i.e. I think that I would be a "Jamesine" or "Petrine" Christian.  
But I digress.
     Anyway, my guess is that your understanding of Paul is, at least in  
part, based on your experiences as an evangelical Protestant. In my own  
life, growing up in a deeply Protestant family, I remember that the words  
of Paul were quoted far more often than the words of either Jesus or the  
Gospel writers, and when the latter two were quoted, the pages of the NT  
usually were then quickly turned to Paul in order to determine the  
meaning. I hesitate to generalize solely based on my experience, so I will  
just say that in discussions with Protestant Christians, I have usually  
observed the same pattern, i.e. that Paul is the lens through which the  
Gospel is viewed.
     Furthermore, I think that it's fair to say that traditional  
(classical?) Protestant teaching views Paul in a highly individual sense.  
This becomes particularly clear when one looks at the way Paul's letters  
to the Roman and Galatian churches are understood by Protestants. Speaking  
of the salvation of the individual is fine, provided this is not pressed  
too far. When I read these letters, I see Paul discussing the salvation of  
the individual, but always _as part_ of a community, never separately.  
"None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. If we live,  
we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether  
we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's" (Romans 14:7-8). Seen in  
this context, Paul appears quite different from the neurotic, insecure  
individual that secular society often portrays him as.     
 
> Stuff like that. My understanding is that Christianity was far more
> diverse in the first couple of centuries following the crucifixion than
> it has ever been since. Today we have variations on the Pauline theme,
> in the early days there were a lot of different themes.

     I would say it was more diverse than now, yes. The additional  
diversity, IMO, was due to the intellectual (and sometimes  
not-so-intellectual) struggle by people steeped in classical Greek-Roman  
philosophy and culture to understand the Trinity and the Incarnation in  
metaphysical terms. A lot of those debates may seem very strange and  
esoteric to us, but that's because Western culture does not put much value  
on metaphysics. The primary struggle within Christianity now concerns the  
amount of effort one must put into being a Christian (this has been  
ongoing since the Reformation). An important subject, but not very  
philosophical. Pretty "applied", like modern Western culture. To ancient  
Christians, most of this modern debate would seem totally pointless. I  
think that they would say to us: "Endless disputation about 'faith (trust)  
vs works' gets us nowhere. Of course faith (trust) is necessary. Of course  
doing good works is necessary. The _real_ issues are the following: are  
the Father and the Son of the same nature, or only of similar nature? Is  
Christ of two natures or one? Two hypostases or one? Two persopa or one?  
Is Mary the Theotokos (Mother of God) or the Christotokos (Mother of  
Christ)? Understanding _these_ are what really matters." 
  
> Re: Ayn Rand, thinking and truth

     [...some stuff deleted...]
  
> The issues raised by this comment are so huge and complex that I shudder  
at the
> thought of getting into it in detail. For now let's say I agree with you  
that 
> in order to discover "truth" we need to think. Let's address the broader
> issue in the context of Buddhism, if you are interested in continuing  
with
> this line of discussion. 

     OK, I'm game, though I must warn you that I am not an expert on  
Buddhism, so I may very well misunderstand some things. If I do, please  
enlighten ( :-) ) me. 

     [...some stuff deleted...]

  
> The opening of the Prajna-Paramita Sutra...("The Heart of Perfect  
Wisdom")
> (in verse form...for easier memorization - that's why I remember it...)
> 
>   The bodhisattva of compassion 
>   plunged the depths of perfect wisdom,
>   saw the emptiness of all five skandhas (elements of being - ed.)
>   and sundered the bonds that create suffering.
>   Know then: form is only emptiness, emptiness only form.
>   Form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form...

     I need a clarification here. What are the five skandhas?
 
> Note that emptiness is not asserted as being absolute. The sutra goes on  
to
> say:
> 
>   There is no pain, nor cease in pain, 
>   not even wisdom to attain.
>   Attainment, too, is emptiness. 
>  
> Yet we are told later on that:
> 
>   This is highest wisdom,
>   true beyond all doubt.
> 
> "Emptiness" is not "some feeling" - neither is it a metaphysical  
existent.
> What it is, is damn hard to explain...! :)  

      The poem seems to be attempting to describe the bodhisattva's seeing  
(in a vision?) the "emptiness" of the five skandhas. Since the poem  
doesn't say the five skandhas _are_ emptiness, my best guess is that  
"emptiness" is being used in the sense of "lacking reality or substance".  
So the five skandhas, believed (by others) to be real (to be existents?)  
actually are not real, according to the poem. The next line ("and sundered  
the bonds that create suffering") may or may not be connected to the  
previous line. It could mean that, as a result of seeing the emptiness of  
the five skandhas, the bodhisattva then could sunder the bonds creating  
suffering (the bonds resulting from mistakenly taking the five skandhas to  
be real, which results in suffering?) The two events might also be  
unconnected, i.e. he saw the emptiness, and also sundered the bonds,  
without the second necessarily following from the first.          
 
> The sutra repeatedly contradicts itself, quite deliberately. 
> "There is no pain, nor CEASE in pain..."
> "...not even wisdom to attain ... this is highest wisdom..."
> 
> From a rational point of view, this is nonsense. If form is emptiness,  
and
> emptiness is form, then form is form, and emptiness is emptiness.
> Nothing has been said, from a logical point of view. Certainly, there is  
no
> attempt in Buddhism to assert that "nothingness" is an existent. From a
> Buddhist point of view, there ARE no existents. But obviously there  
are...
> because "emptiness is FORM..."  

      Wait a minute, here. This poem may not be asserting that there are  
no existents. It might only be asserting that _form_ is not an existent,  
e.g. that, say, the concept "table" has no existence in reality. However,  
the concept "table", while not itself existing in reality, does have a  
_referent_ in reality, namely the tables that one sees every day (Ayn Rand  
rears her head again :-) ).  
 
> My point here is that Buddhist poetic language does NOT resolve into a
> logically coherent metaphysic. 

     Maybe, maybe not.
 
> But - it was never intended to. When questioned on matters of  
metaphysics,
> the Buddha would say nothing. He would simply remain silent. "I teach 
> suffering, and the ending of suffering," he said. As the late Buddhist
> teacher Shunryu Suzuki put it, "Metaphysical explanations of life are  
not
> the point."
> 
> If metaphysical explanations are not the point, why not? And what is the
> point?  These questions go to the heart of Buddhism. If you want to, we  
can
> pursue this in more detail in future posts.

     Continue. Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Buddhism may have some  
contact points.
     
     [...some stuff deleted...]

> >      Poetry should not be understood simply as metaphysics, true.  
However,  
> > through the use of metaphor, poetry does have referents in reality.
> 
> Again, I'd rather approach this by means of a single focusing issue,
> in this case Buddhism. Buddhists would say that the great source of 
> suffering is a too-limited understanding of what poetry is, a narrow  
view 
> that amounts to a _worship_ of poetry.  

     Continue.

     [...some stuff deleted...] 
 
> >      So what you're saying is, Buddhists have no idea what they mean  
by  
> > emptiness. Maybe a few Buddhists should try to commune their  
experience  
> > with their thoughts! :-)
> 
> True Buddhists indeed have no idea of what they mean by emptiness. 
> "The Tao that can be expressed is not eternal Tao; the way that can be
> named is not the unchanging way."
> 
> Strictly speaking, if one "has an idea" about what emptiness is, that is
> proof that they do not know what emptiness is. "He who knows, does not
> speak. He who speaks, does not know." 

     Something like what Abba Antony said to Abba Joseph wrt the passage  
of Scripture? 
 
> When Buddhists DO try to commune their experiences with their thoughts, 
> they come up with stuff like "form is emptiness, and emptiness is form,"
> and "Boundless expanse, and nowhere anything to be called `Buddha.'"

     Expand on this more fully. For the moment, my reply is that perhaps  
Buddhists are not going far enough along the way. Christians who are  
willing to follow along a meditative path often describe seeing something  
similar to "form is only emptiness, and emptiness only form". But they  
also say that there is something beyond emptiness, namely the Presence of  
Christ, usually described as Light; for example:
     
    "You shone upon me with brilliant radiance and, so it seemed, you
     appeared to me in your wholeness as with my whole self I gazed
     openly upon you. And when I said, 'Master, who are you?' then you
     were pleased to speak for the first time with me the prodigal. 
     With what gentleness did you talk to me, as I stood astonished
     and trembling, as I reflected a little within myself and said:
     'What does this glory and this dazzling brightness mean? How is
     it that I am chosen to receive such great blessings?' 'I am God',
     you replied, 'who became man for your sake; and because you have
     sought me with your whole heart, see from this time onwards you
     shall be my brother, my fellow-heir, and my friend.'"
     (St. Symeon the New Theologian)
                                  
> Whatever it is they are talking about is not something that one can talk
> about logically, rationally, and "sensibly." Not and be true to 
> whatever it is they are talking about. 
> 
> Sean Hartigan
> hartigan@ac.dal.ca
> 
> "Are you a sceptic, then?"
> "Never, my dear. Scepticism is the beginning of Faith."

Arthur Johnson
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu

"God cannot be grasped by the mind. If he could be grasped, he would not  
be God." -- Evagrius of Pontus

"When we have reached love, we have reached God and our journey is  
complete. We have crossed over to the island which lies beyond the world,  
where are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit: to whom be glory and  
dominion. May God make us worthy to fear and love him. Amen." -- St. Isaac  
the Syrian