Achieving Free Will: a Buddhist Perspective
2 views
Skip to first unread message
ornamentalmind
Oct 24, 2009, 7:56:19 PM10/24/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
"B. Alan Wallace addresses the topic of free will: how Buddhism
focuses on how we may achieve greater freedom in the choices we make,
rather than struggling with the metaphysical issue of whether we
already have free will.
Central to the question of free will is the nature of human identity,
and it is in this regard that the Buddhist view of emptiness and
interdependence is truly revolutionary..."
A new article by Alan, the entirety of which can be read at:
http://www.sbinstitute.com/readinglibrary.html
(the first link on the page)
focuses on how we may achieve greater freedom in the choices we make,
rather than struggling with the metaphysical issue of whether we
already have free will.
Central to the question of free will is the nature of human identity,
and it is in this regard that the Buddhist view of emptiness and
interdependence is truly revolutionary..."
A new article by Alan, the entirety of which can be read at:
http://www.sbinstitute.com/readinglibrary.html
(the first link on the page)
Redshirt Bluejacket
Oct 26, 2009, 12:35:55 AM10/26/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Oct 24, 7:56 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Thank you -- read it, a very useful frame.... and you, sir, are a
brightly shining mind!!
wrote:
brightly shining mind!!
Michele Gennette
Oct 26, 2009, 4:31:57 PM10/26/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
On Oct 24, 7:56 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com> |
|
|
|
|
Bridge
Oct 27, 2009, 6:33:30 PM10/27/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
Here's an example:
Say a woman is raised by a father that has certain personality traits.
She very well could have an unconscious pull towards similar men as
she matures.
That's an example of a lack of free will. She can make a choice. I
know. It's just that she has this factor of history like a weight on
her. Since we're so used to our personal weights, because they
permeate our every action, it's easy to take them as normal or "who we
are". That's not really true though. With some counseling this woman
can at least be shown this dynamic by an unbiased professional. She
then can better choose how she will proceed.
Hence, more free will.
I loved the article. Something about this guy's writing style bugs me
a bit though. I feel at times he meanders and leaves things too
unfinished, just my opinion.
ornamentalmind
Oct 27, 2009, 8:24:27 PM10/27/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
Bridge, about Wallace’s writing ‘style’ – that specific paper was a
small excerpt from a talk he gave and was edited and put together by
someone else. The edited article was targeted for a specific
periodical. There are enough details at the bottom of it to research
this if you want to.
IF you are interested in his writing style, you might want to try one
of his books or papers. There are chapters from his books and entire
papers etc. available online here:
http://www.alanwallace.org/writings.htm
small excerpt from a talk he gave and was edited and put together by
someone else. The edited article was targeted for a specific
periodical. There are enough details at the bottom of it to research
this if you want to.
IF you are interested in his writing style, you might want to try one
of his books or papers. There are chapters from his books and entire
papers etc. available online here:
http://www.alanwallace.org/writings.htm
ornamentalmind
Oct 27, 2009, 8:24:43 PM10/27/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
Bridge
Oct 28, 2009, 8:43:01 AM10/28/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
ornamentalmind
Oct 28, 2009, 10:14:42 AM10/28/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
YW
> > > unfinished, just my opinion.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Joe
Nov 1, 2009, 12:49:39 PM11/1/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
Western man is addicted to the idea of himself as an autonomous
entity. The Buddha taught that there is in reality no such thing.
Hinduism talks about the gunas, prakriti, the modes of material
nature. It speaks of these as possible sources of attachment. The
three modes correlate at least roughly to matter, energy, and mind.
One step towards enlightenment is ceasing to identify with the
physical body. But another, deeper, and more difficult to take step,
is ceasing to identify with the mind. Hinduism has the concept of the
Atman, which is not the mind, while Buddhism has the concept of
Anatta, literally "no atman," which asserts that in our observation of
the five clinging aggregates, we can find nothing at all of Self.
How might this be interpreted? There are two possible ways. Either
there is no such thing as a Self at all, or, there is the Self, but it
cannot be observed at all. This is because the Self is always the
subject, and whatever is observed is always the object. There is no
subjective way to observe oneself, but oneself can be inferred from
the very occurrence of subjectivity in the first place.
Christianity and Catholicism teaches that there is a soul, i.e. a
self, but we must be careful not to confuse the concept of the soul
with the Hindu conception of Atman. An atman, for example, can exist
independently of a particular body, whereas in Christianity, the soul
and the body are created together, and the soul is naturally the form
of the body. This implies, as well, that in the Christian view, the
actions of the mind are intimately connected with the individual soul,
and not, as other views might tend, merely accidental or even
illusory.
A soul possesses the powers of cognition and volition. These
correlate closely with the Buddhist ideas of Samjña and Sankhara,
respectively. The will, i.e. the channel of causative interaction
outgoing from the soul to the world, is the primary formative power to
which we have access. The question of free will is the question of
whether we can actually act, or whether, on the contrary, we actually
do nothing but react. Now a little reflection will reveal that we are
conditioned, i.e. by the material modes. The tama-guna, corresponding
to matter, and the raja-guna, corresponding to energy, work together
according to the laws of physics. But the interaction of these two
with the sattva-guna, corresponding to mind, is that the mind seeks
that in energy and matter that it perceives as the good.
The difference between an enlightened and an unenlightened mind is in
the perception of what actually constitutes the good. All creatures
tend toward it; this is simply the operation of nature. There is no
free will involved in, for example, a gorilla seeking food. Eating is
good; it is what he wants to do. He seeks food to satisfy his craving
for food. He cannot decide to fast. But a human being can. Thus a
human being has, demonstrably, a free will. A human being can decide
between goods. There is the good of eating; there is also the good of
fasting. And a human being can decide, with free will, to pursue the
one or the other. Philosophically, it has been advanced that free
will manifests as the ability to have done otherwise. If we accept
that by way of a definition, then plainly, whenever there is a choice,
we exercise our free will to choose between options.
But our choices are limited by factors. For example, we cannot choose
an option of which we are unaware. If free will is an atomic fact,
i.e. one either does or does not possess it, without degrees, freedom,
by contrast, is something we can have more or less of. I mean to make
a conceptual distinction between free will per se, and the relative
freedom of the will. Free will is simply the ability to choose.
Freedom is the range of available choices.
Those who deny free will fundamentally deny that the range of options
is ever > 1. Obviously, if there is no free will, then there is no
freedom. One justification they use for this view is that all our
choices are materially conditioned, i.e. we are bound in any situation
to choose what appears to us as the best, and what appears to us as
the best is determined by previous conditioning. But this
conditioning includes not only value judgments, but practical
considerations and prejudices that develop. A person mught be
confronted with a decision between two options, one of which is
perceived as morally more correct but that requires more effort to
accomplish. Such a person might choose the less morally correct
option because they perceive the saving of effort to be more rewarding
than to do the right thing. That is certainly something that we would
rightly call sin.
There is a difference between not knowing what the right thing is, out
of ignorance, and knowing it and failing to do it, out of weakness.
One might sin out of ignorance and not be as culpable, whereas one who
sinned out of weakness would be more culpable, since if they asked for
grace it would be given to them. But sins of ignorance and weakness
can be forgiven. Sins of malice, will not be forgiven, since malice
is precisely a decision to sin for no other reason than that it is the
wrong thing. Malice is primarily hatred of God, and of all that is
right. The decision of malice is called the Sin against the Holy
Spirit, that which will never be forgiven, either in this age or the
age to come.
In the end, as the article also pointed out, the primary consideration
is not so much how free we are as it is whether what we decide to do
is right. If only right thoughts ever occurred to us, we would have,
practically, no free will at all, but we would be in a state of
perpetual bliss. Freedom is only useful if it can bring us to bliss.
Freedom in itself is nothing; Love is all.
entity. The Buddha taught that there is in reality no such thing.
Hinduism talks about the gunas, prakriti, the modes of material
nature. It speaks of these as possible sources of attachment. The
three modes correlate at least roughly to matter, energy, and mind.
One step towards enlightenment is ceasing to identify with the
physical body. But another, deeper, and more difficult to take step,
is ceasing to identify with the mind. Hinduism has the concept of the
Atman, which is not the mind, while Buddhism has the concept of
Anatta, literally "no atman," which asserts that in our observation of
the five clinging aggregates, we can find nothing at all of Self.
How might this be interpreted? There are two possible ways. Either
there is no such thing as a Self at all, or, there is the Self, but it
cannot be observed at all. This is because the Self is always the
subject, and whatever is observed is always the object. There is no
subjective way to observe oneself, but oneself can be inferred from
the very occurrence of subjectivity in the first place.
Christianity and Catholicism teaches that there is a soul, i.e. a
self, but we must be careful not to confuse the concept of the soul
with the Hindu conception of Atman. An atman, for example, can exist
independently of a particular body, whereas in Christianity, the soul
and the body are created together, and the soul is naturally the form
of the body. This implies, as well, that in the Christian view, the
actions of the mind are intimately connected with the individual soul,
and not, as other views might tend, merely accidental or even
illusory.
A soul possesses the powers of cognition and volition. These
correlate closely with the Buddhist ideas of Samjña and Sankhara,
respectively. The will, i.e. the channel of causative interaction
outgoing from the soul to the world, is the primary formative power to
which we have access. The question of free will is the question of
whether we can actually act, or whether, on the contrary, we actually
do nothing but react. Now a little reflection will reveal that we are
conditioned, i.e. by the material modes. The tama-guna, corresponding
to matter, and the raja-guna, corresponding to energy, work together
according to the laws of physics. But the interaction of these two
with the sattva-guna, corresponding to mind, is that the mind seeks
that in energy and matter that it perceives as the good.
The difference between an enlightened and an unenlightened mind is in
the perception of what actually constitutes the good. All creatures
tend toward it; this is simply the operation of nature. There is no
free will involved in, for example, a gorilla seeking food. Eating is
good; it is what he wants to do. He seeks food to satisfy his craving
for food. He cannot decide to fast. But a human being can. Thus a
human being has, demonstrably, a free will. A human being can decide
between goods. There is the good of eating; there is also the good of
fasting. And a human being can decide, with free will, to pursue the
one or the other. Philosophically, it has been advanced that free
will manifests as the ability to have done otherwise. If we accept
that by way of a definition, then plainly, whenever there is a choice,
we exercise our free will to choose between options.
But our choices are limited by factors. For example, we cannot choose
an option of which we are unaware. If free will is an atomic fact,
i.e. one either does or does not possess it, without degrees, freedom,
by contrast, is something we can have more or less of. I mean to make
a conceptual distinction between free will per se, and the relative
freedom of the will. Free will is simply the ability to choose.
Freedom is the range of available choices.
Those who deny free will fundamentally deny that the range of options
is ever > 1. Obviously, if there is no free will, then there is no
freedom. One justification they use for this view is that all our
choices are materially conditioned, i.e. we are bound in any situation
to choose what appears to us as the best, and what appears to us as
the best is determined by previous conditioning. But this
conditioning includes not only value judgments, but practical
considerations and prejudices that develop. A person mught be
confronted with a decision between two options, one of which is
perceived as morally more correct but that requires more effort to
accomplish. Such a person might choose the less morally correct
option because they perceive the saving of effort to be more rewarding
than to do the right thing. That is certainly something that we would
rightly call sin.
There is a difference between not knowing what the right thing is, out
of ignorance, and knowing it and failing to do it, out of weakness.
One might sin out of ignorance and not be as culpable, whereas one who
sinned out of weakness would be more culpable, since if they asked for
grace it would be given to them. But sins of ignorance and weakness
can be forgiven. Sins of malice, will not be forgiven, since malice
is precisely a decision to sin for no other reason than that it is the
wrong thing. Malice is primarily hatred of God, and of all that is
right. The decision of malice is called the Sin against the Holy
Spirit, that which will never be forgiven, either in this age or the
age to come.
In the end, as the article also pointed out, the primary consideration
is not so much how free we are as it is whether what we decide to do
is right. If only right thoughts ever occurred to us, we would have,
practically, no free will at all, but we would be in a state of
perpetual bliss. Freedom is only useful if it can bring us to bliss.
Freedom in itself is nothing; Love is all.
ornamentalmind
Nov 2, 2009, 5:19:24 AM11/2/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
Nicely presented Joe and in direct harmony with the goal of the
group.
As I understand it, Buddhism does not embrace the concept of sin. Have
you researched this and found any correlate?
> > (the first link on the page)- Hide quoted text -
group.
As I understand it, Buddhism does not embrace the concept of sin. Have
you researched this and found any correlate?
Joe
Nov 4, 2009, 2:04:53 AM11/4/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 2, 5:19 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nicely presented Joe and in direct harmony with the goal of the
> group.
>
> As I understand it, Buddhism does not embrace the concept of sin. Have
> you researched this and found any correlate?
>
(2nd noble truth) Suffering's Origin (Samudaya):
"This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this
craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and
lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual
pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."
Parallel in Christianity:
James 1:14 . . . each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed
by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to
sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
According to the Buddha, the root of suffering is desire or craving.
But it is unclear that all our desires necessarily lead to suffering.
There is the desire for virtue, which God infuses in those He
chooses. That is rewarding in just having the desire itself, and
also, in the desire is contained the seeds of its fulfillment. A
world is conceivable wherein we would have all manner of desires
together with the sure knowledge of their fulfillment in perfect time,
and absent any longing between the desiring and the obtaining. Such a
world would not contain the element of Dukkha at all. Of course, for
such a world to be real, we ourselves would also have to be perfect.
So the world described is known in the Christian religion as Heaven,
and in Buddhism it is Nibbana-in-Samsara.
So while the Buddha taught that all suffering has its root in desire,
unless I miss my guess, he did not mean to imply the converse. Not
all desire necessarily leads to suffering. Inordinate desire does,
and the problem with human beings as opposed to any other animal is
that we naturally desire the infinite, and when we seek satisfaction
in finite things, that is called inordinate desire. The desire for
enlightenment, the desire to walk the eightfold path, are examples of
desires that lead, rather through suffering than to it. There is
definitely suffering in any ascetic path, but the reward is infinitely
greater.
ornamentalmind
Nov 4, 2009, 4:48:26 AM11/4/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
Joe, thanks for your contribution about sin in Christianity and what
you see as a correlate in Buddhism.
Using your own resource, one finds this:
“Buddhism does not recognize the idea behind sin because in Buddhism,
instead, there is a "Cause-Effect Theory", known as Karma, or action-
reaction.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin#Buddhist_views_of_sin
From a different source, we find:
“17. The idea of sin or original sin has no place in Buddhism. Also,
sin should not be equated to suffering.”
(The other points may help to clarify this one point.)
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot01.htm
So, it appears that we should review the interpretations of the words
you presented.
An analysis will show that within Christianity temptation and
associated (personal) desire as well as the perceived resulting sin
and death are all seen as actualities. In an ontological sense, they
are perceived as being real. The Buddhist view in this context sees
all craving, even the craving for ‘virtue’ as being illusory and when
cause/effect is recognized and known, this former wrong view of
grasping is transcended and suffering disappears. So, yes, all desire
necessarily leads to suffering in the sense that this ignorance itself
causes suffering. To hold the view that one must suffer to get TO some
place like ‘enlightenment’ merely maintains the attachment and
associated suffering.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
you see as a correlate in Buddhism.
Using your own resource, one finds this:
“Buddhism does not recognize the idea behind sin because in Buddhism,
instead, there is a "Cause-Effect Theory", known as Karma, or action-
reaction.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin#Buddhist_views_of_sin
From a different source, we find:
“17. The idea of sin or original sin has no place in Buddhism. Also,
sin should not be equated to suffering.”
(The other points may help to clarify this one point.)
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot01.htm
So, it appears that we should review the interpretations of the words
you presented.
An analysis will show that within Christianity temptation and
associated (personal) desire as well as the perceived resulting sin
and death are all seen as actualities. In an ontological sense, they
are perceived as being real. The Buddhist view in this context sees
all craving, even the craving for ‘virtue’ as being illusory and when
cause/effect is recognized and known, this former wrong view of
grasping is transcended and suffering disappears. So, yes, all desire
necessarily leads to suffering in the sense that this ignorance itself
causes suffering. To hold the view that one must suffer to get TO some
place like ‘enlightenment’ merely maintains the attachment and
associated suffering.
Joe
Nov 17, 2009, 6:05:18 PM11/17/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
enlightenment, it is simply that in this world, when one tries to
attain it, one experiences resistance and hardship. God can and does
use those things to perfect us. But an angel in heaven, for example,
is fully enlightened without any necessity of suffering.
On a deeper level, it seems that you have uncovered a major
discrepanacy between Buddhist doctrine and Christian doctrine, and it
is this: free will.
According to the Christian revelation, we have free will, i.e. morally
significant free will, and will be judged according to how we used
it. But if everything is simply a case of cause-and-effect, as in the
eastern doctrine of karma, then there is no such thing as free will,
there is only causal determinism. Then there is no such thing as
responsibility for one's own actions, since everything is determined
by inexorable causes. There is, indeed, in such a situation, no point
in pursuing enlightenment, salvation, or any such thing, since
whatever has already been predetermined to come our way does, and
nothing we do can change or alter the course of what is essentially
fate.
Our perception of the freedom of our wills then is an illusion to be
overcome, whenever fate determines for each of us that we shall
overcome it. Ultimately, there is no such thing as either a lasting
reward in heaven or a lasting punishment in hell, for anyone, since
all existence itself is merely transitory. The end result of
everything is nothing. If this is, indeed, the case, then it would
seem the only wise course would be to recognize that everything, in
the end, indeed amounts to nothing, and so any of it is a funny place
to get attached.
The solitary question I have, given such a scheme, is, what was the
point? This is really where me and the Buddha part ways. According
to a Buddhist perspective, there really is no point to any of it. To
exist, was our first mistake. It has all been downhill from there,
until the point where we realize that existence is fundamentally
flawed, and was a bad idea in the first place (but we didn't know that
at the time because we were ignorant, never having existed to find
out), and the solution to it is to stop forming new contexts for
existence, and let the old ones die away, and finally arrive back at
our starting point, which is nothing.
To exist is to tie the knot of suffering, and to attain enlightenment
is to unravel that knot.
This is nihilistic, ultimately. Not all Buddhist sects hold to these
doctrines exactly, but I believe the majority do.
The Buddha did not see any point in existence because the Buddha did
not acknowledge the reality of love.
From a Christian perspective, God is Love, and thus is love the reason
for our existence. This is true, both as origin and as destiny. Our
beginning is love; and our end is love. And existence ideally ought
to be a fulfillment of love joining the beginning with the end. The
only thing that prevents love from being all in all, is sin.
But, if there is no freedom of will, then there can be no such thing
as sin. Interesting how this ties in with the subject of the thread.
What are your thoughts? Are we morally responsible for our choices?
If so, how would such a concept square with cause-and-effect karma?
>
> read more »
ornamentalmind
Nov 18, 2009, 4:05:09 AM11/18/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
Hi Joe,
Glad you wish to continue the discussion!
First, I can only guess that when you say you ‘disagree’ that you are
*not* disagreeing that the source you provided the last time about
Buddhism and sin said the exact opposite of your contention according
to the excerpt and link I provided from it. (Wikipedia). Also, I’ll
guess you don’t disagree that other sources, like the additional one I
provided that said “the idea of sin or original sin has no place in
Buddhism either.
Continuing the review of our interaction, I will guess that you also
do *not* disagree with my previous analysis that:
“…Christianity temptation and associated (personal) desire as well as
I will also guess that you do *not* disagree with my previous
statements of:
“The Buddhist view in this context sees all craving, even the craving
Nor does it appear that you disagree with my conclusion:
“So, yes, all desire necessarily leads to suffering in the sense that
this ignorance itself causes suffering.”
Rather, it looks like when you say
“I disagree. First, it is not that one "must" suffer to reach
enlightenment,…”
you are disagreeing with my analysis that:
“To hold the view that one must suffer to get TO some place like
One reason I added that analysis was in partial response to your
previous commentary of:
“…inordinate desire. The desire for enlightenment, the desire to walk
I see both my analysis and your words above as being compatible.
Now, looking at your current post, it appears that you in fact again
support my analysis when you say
“…it is simply that in this world, when one tries to attain it
[enlightenment], one experiences resistance and hardship.”
And, when you continue with:
“… God can and does use those things to perfect us. But an angel in
I cannot comment because both of these statements are based on faith
and revelation and as such are unassailable.
Continuing, I do have difficulties with your pronouncement that:
“…On a deeper level, it seems that you have uncovered a major
discrepanacy (sic.) between Buddhist doctrine and Christian doctrine,
and it is this: free will.”
While I do see many non-correlates such as the Christian doctrine of
sin which was the topic, the notion of free will is a much more
complex issue and I do not know that it is a discrepancy, major or
minor, between the two systems. The article addressed free will to
some extent.
This brings up another point…there are *not* two systems. Neither
Buddhist doctrine nor Christian doctrine is a monolith. Both systems
have almost countless interpretations, commentaries, clarifications,
translations, analyses both old and new etc.
Continuing, I would have guessed that you had studied Buddhist
literature and/or commentary enough to now, at this late date, not
come to the following nihilistic conclusion:
“…The end result of everything is nothing. If this is, indeed, the
If you in fact are merely wishing to be contentious, I am not
interested. If in fact you are not aware of one of the first
clarifications most who study comparative religions learn about
Buddhism, namely that it is not nihilistic, then I will ask that you
take the time to do so.
So, given your misstated interpretation of Buddhism, any questions,
rhetorical or not about “such a scheme” are things only you can answer
since it is your invention.
I am aware that some Christian authors contend similar thoughts.
Perhaps this is how you have arrived at this belief? I don’t know.
Perhaps your continued false comparison involving love is from the
same sources? Again, I don’t know. When I run into an analysis from
one system about a different system, I examine the system being
criticized before I make a determination. In this case, the conclusion
is clear for those who do the same.
Most of the rest is a presentation of Christian dogma. So, again, it
is unassailable due to its source and nature. As a result, no
commentary is forthcoming.
When it comes to the notion of morality, I find no issue in my
personal practice, such things being innate. And, even though I no
longer practice Buddhism; my path is quite similar in this area. So,
for me, morality flows quite naturally and integrally as it does for
Buddhists. If you are not aware about how morality manifests in
Buddhism compared with Christianity, here is a short overview that
should help clarify the issue for you because it addresses both
systems with input from both.
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/morality1.htm
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Glad you wish to continue the discussion!
First, I can only guess that when you say you ‘disagree’ that you are
*not* disagreeing that the source you provided the last time about
Buddhism and sin said the exact opposite of your contention according
to the excerpt and link I provided from it. (Wikipedia). Also, I’ll
guess you don’t disagree that other sources, like the additional one I
provided that said “the idea of sin or original sin has no place in
Buddhism either.
Continuing the review of our interaction, I will guess that you also
do *not* disagree with my previous analysis that:
“…Christianity temptation and associated (personal) desire as well as
the perceived resulting sin and death are all seen as actualities. In
an ontological sense, they are perceived as being real.”
I will also guess that you do *not* disagree with my previous
statements of:
“The Buddhist view in this context sees all craving, even the craving
for ‘virtue’ as being illusory and when cause/effect is recognized and
known, this former wrong view of grasping is transcended and suffering
disappears.”
known, this former wrong view of grasping is transcended and suffering
Nor does it appear that you disagree with my conclusion:
“So, yes, all desire necessarily leads to suffering in the sense that
this ignorance itself causes suffering.”
Rather, it looks like when you say
“I disagree. First, it is not that one "must" suffer to reach
enlightenment,…”
you are disagreeing with my analysis that:
“To hold the view that one must suffer to get TO some place like
‘enlightenment’ merely maintains the attachment and associated
suffering.”
One reason I added that analysis was in partial response to your
previous commentary of:
“…inordinate desire. The desire for enlightenment, the desire to walk
the eightfold path, are examples of
desires that lead, rather through suffering than to it. There is
definitely suffering in any ascetic path, but the reward is infinitely
greater.”
desires that lead, rather through suffering than to it. There is
definitely suffering in any ascetic path, but the reward is infinitely
I see both my analysis and your words above as being compatible.
Now, looking at your current post, it appears that you in fact again
support my analysis when you say
“…it is simply that in this world, when one tries to attain it
[enlightenment], one experiences resistance and hardship.”
And, when you continue with:
“… God can and does use those things to perfect us. But an angel in
heaven, for example, is fully enlightened without any necessity of
suffering.”
I cannot comment because both of these statements are based on faith
and revelation and as such are unassailable.
Continuing, I do have difficulties with your pronouncement that:
“…On a deeper level, it seems that you have uncovered a major
discrepanacy (sic.) between Buddhist doctrine and Christian doctrine,
and it is this: free will.”
While I do see many non-correlates such as the Christian doctrine of
sin which was the topic, the notion of free will is a much more
complex issue and I do not know that it is a discrepancy, major or
minor, between the two systems. The article addressed free will to
some extent.
This brings up another point…there are *not* two systems. Neither
Buddhist doctrine nor Christian doctrine is a monolith. Both systems
have almost countless interpretations, commentaries, clarifications,
translations, analyses both old and new etc.
Continuing, I would have guessed that you had studied Buddhist
literature and/or commentary enough to now, at this late date, not
come to the following nihilistic conclusion:
“…The end result of everything is nothing. If this is, indeed, the
case, then it would seem the only wise course would be to recognize
that everything, in the end, indeed amounts to nothing, and so any of
it is a funny place to get attached.”
that everything, in the end, indeed amounts to nothing, and so any of
If you in fact are merely wishing to be contentious, I am not
interested. If in fact you are not aware of one of the first
clarifications most who study comparative religions learn about
Buddhism, namely that it is not nihilistic, then I will ask that you
take the time to do so.
So, given your misstated interpretation of Buddhism, any questions,
rhetorical or not about “such a scheme” are things only you can answer
since it is your invention.
I am aware that some Christian authors contend similar thoughts.
Perhaps this is how you have arrived at this belief? I don’t know.
Perhaps your continued false comparison involving love is from the
same sources? Again, I don’t know. When I run into an analysis from
one system about a different system, I examine the system being
criticized before I make a determination. In this case, the conclusion
is clear for those who do the same.
Most of the rest is a presentation of Christian dogma. So, again, it
is unassailable due to its source and nature. As a result, no
commentary is forthcoming.
When it comes to the notion of morality, I find no issue in my
personal practice, such things being innate. And, even though I no
longer practice Buddhism; my path is quite similar in this area. So,
for me, morality flows quite naturally and integrally as it does for
Buddhists. If you are not aware about how morality manifests in
Buddhism compared with Christianity, here is a short overview that
should help clarify the issue for you because it addresses both
systems with input from both.
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/morality1.htm
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages