From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Buddhism and Truth  [Was: A. Johnson thread]
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:05:32 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

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...]
>  
>> I would be very interested to look more closely into Eastern Orthodox
>> Christianity. What do you recommend?  
> 
>      I recommend the book "Orthodox Theology--an Introduction" by Vladimir  
> Lossky as a starting point, followed by the book "The Deification of Man"  
> (the author's name escapes me right now, but I'll find out). These two  
> books provide a very good introduction into the outlook of Eastern  
> Orthodox Christianity, and should provide you with a basis upon which you  
> can judge whether or not this outlook is appealing. 

I'll check and see if my university library has 'em.

>> This is a worthwhile point...still, there was lots of variety, and the
>> "correct" understanding of the Gospel does not necessarily lie with Paul
>> and his minions. I guess that was my only point.
> 
>      Just so I don't misinterpret, what exactly are you thinking of when  
> you use the expressions "the Pauline church" and "Pauline  
> christianity"/"Pauline-Roman branch of Christianity"? Here I'm asking you  
> for your view as to what you believe is the outlook of "Pauline  
> Christianity", i.e. merely replying "Catholicism" or "born-again Christian  
> fundamentalism" isn't going to help much, so you'll need to expound a bit.

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.

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.
 
Re: Ayn Rand, thinking and truth

> Both (thought and  
> experience) are necessary in order to understand reality. I disagree that  
> in order to discover truth we must stop thinking and just experience  
> reality.t]7=g I would say that the problem lies in using thought to _block_  
> experience. Ayn Rand, I think, would say that this is a misuse of thought,  

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. 
 
> Sean quotes the Prajna-Paramita Sutra to John M:      
>> > [deleted]
>> >       Careful, Sean. What you are advocating is the reification of the  
>> > zero, i.e. you are regarding emptiness (or nothing) as an existent.
>> 
>> "Emptiness" is just a poetic expression for an aspect of human 
>> experience. One that is very difficult to get a handle on, however.
>>
>      I agree that "emptiness" is being used as a metaphor. But a metaphor  
> for what? For an aspect of human experience, you say. But what aspect?  
> From the rest of the quote, I believe that this aspect is a feeling of  
> nothingness, a feeling that nothing exists, i.e. that "nothing" is the  
> only reality. Thus, the poem elevates "nothing" to the status of an  
> existent, i.e. "nothing" has been reified.

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...

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 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..."  

My point here is that Buddhist poetic language does NOT resolve into a
logically coherent metaphysic. 

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.

>> Metaphysics is one thing, poetry is another. The great disaster of
>> Christianity occurred when poetry began to be understood as metaphysics.
>> (just my $0.02...:)
> 
>      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.  

>> For a better understanding of what Buddhists mean when they 
>> "emptiness," here's another quotation. This time, Bodhidharma's  
> responses when
>> questioned by the king of China...
>>  
>> king:  So, you've come to bring Buddhism to our country. Who are you?
>> 
>> Bodhidharma: I don't know.
>> 
>> king: Well...what is the teaching of this Buddha-religion of yours?
>> 
>> Bodhidharma: Boundless expanse, and nowhere anything to be called  
> "Buddha."
>> 
>> king (miffed): Just what do you think you're doing?
>> 
>> Bodhidharma: I have no idea.
>> 
>> ...and that was that...!  :)
> 
>      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." 

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.'"

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. 
 
> Arthur Johnson
> johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

"Are you a sceptic, then?"
"Never, my dear. Scepticism is the beginning of Faith."