The Questions that we ask and don't ask in our various worldviews and that may be useful for those interested in attending Heartland's Theology Institute 2003 .

This is a by-product (really just my personal notes) that grew out of my interreligious dialogue with some religious naturalists but which I think could be helpful for East-West Contemplative Dialogue.

Well, this should mark my return to Shalomplace Forums after Easter break 2003

pax, amor et bonum
jb

Well, this should mark my return to Shalomplace Forums after Easter break 2003

Oh crap. And now it feels like summer break has ended and school is starting once again. I hope the test on this material is of the multiple choice variety.

Welcome back - I guess. And if I need any smiley faces or winkie things then I haven't done a very good job of communicating my utter lack of�I mean�total joy and respect for Johnboysian metaphysics.

Ahem ... Mr. Nelson ... It's okay to chew gum and even to dip Yoko's pigtails into the inkwells on your desk. However, would you kindly retrieve your handout for the class grading rubric? Good. Now, there you will find that you will not be graded for regurgitating the right answers in my class. Rather, you will be quizzed on whether or not you know all of the questions .

Truly,
jb

The most bare-boned �theism� is an atheistic scientific materialism , which might be considered to dwell strictly within the domain of science, asking of reality only those questions dealing with the space-time-matter-energy plenum or where-when- what-how ?

I've always considered the "how" question to be inherently "that-ist" and therefore also "who-ist". That the inverse square rule of gravity seems to pertain still does not tell me "how" it does so. Even the deepest that I've been able to delve into quantum physics theory (and speculations) deals with the "how" in terms of the lowest energy states and stuff like that. In this regard the forces are shown not to be forces, per se, but merely that certain things cancel themselves out at the smallest scales. This "how", I suppose, still leads to a "that" which then leads to the deeper "why" and thus the "who" or "what", even if that "what" is a more impersonal "who". What?

This worldview categorically rejects both the meaningfulness and answerability of the other questions and, hence, the validity of the other domains of knowledge.

What you see is all there is under this worldview even though seeing is inherently subjective and untrustworthy. From a Buddhist perspective (if not many others) there is no "red" in an apple. Nothing at all about the composition of the apple, not its texture, nor any chemical components or arrangements, imply redness. Not even the wavelengths of light that selectively reflect off the surface of the apple contain any sort of redness. The redness is all in our minds. That science describes something is indisputable. I find it rather ironic though that science first does not describe itself very well, that is does not acknowledge its own limits nor its own unstated philosophies and beliefs. That does not automatically make other beliefs valid or even possible but it does seem to validate the idea of taking a leap of faith. Thanks, science!

That science describes something is indisputable. I find it rather ironic though that science first does not describe itself very well, that is does not acknowledge its own limits nor its own unstated philosophies and beliefs.

Well, as far as proving its own axioms within its own system ... there is this fellow named Godel ... ... and as far as how things are versus that things are (or that this here or that there is), Wittgenstein was correct: "thatness" is where the mystical resides for us all.


jb

Welcome back, JB, and thanks for the plug about the theology institute.

I've added your essay to the growing stack of reading to catch up on. Looking forward to it, and I'll see you in La. soon. Beer and oysters again?

Modern belief-systems like Marxism and Darwinism boil down to a single unproved, and unprovable, proposition: that all phenomena, including Homo sapiens, can be explained entirely by natural science.

I'm going to finish reading that, hopefully tomorrow. But I think Phil will understand (due to an ongoing conversation elsewhere) when I say that religion isn't just an influence that must be "tolerated." It is something that is NEEDED. I recognize this from my view as one who is most interested in the political and social repercussions of religion living alongside politics and not one who is "thumping the Bible". Religion without limits can lead to something like the Taliban. Fortunately we had some very wise people who set up our system of government and undue religious influence need not be feared. It should, at least in my opinion, be respected for the vital role it is has played in giving us this system that has done a great job of guaranteeing freedom for all, religious or otherwise. Which brings me to my main point: We are in great danger if we expunge religion from our lives and view mankind as the sole source of all knowledge and wisdom � and this is true WHETHER OR NOT GOD REALLY EXISTS. For when we make ourselves gods of sorts we are then apt to have a morality that is tied to lesser ideas and lesser individuals whose concerns are more likely to be with the acquisition of money, power or property rather than justice. Where is the restrain on man if he believes that his actions are answerable to no one? Where is the wisdom and justice of man if he believes that those with talent, money, power or privilege are destined to rule instead of acknowledging that we are all co-equals on a very basic level?

JB, that Einstein article was marvelous! I'll bet you found it especially refreshing after trying to dialogue with scientific materialists.

Second, the Catholic philosophers of the Middle Ages formulated a realist metaphysics, without which science is impossible. Catholics believe in the reality of matter; the physical world is not simply a veil of illusions, as the Eastern religions would have it, but an order of being that has its own dignity and built-in laws. Buddhist science for this reason is a nonstarter.

Third, Christians believe that history is linear and not, as Eastern religions hold, cyclical. Only a universe with a beginning, middle, and end is hospitable to irreversible physical processes like the second law of thermodynamics. The work of Newton and Einstein would have been impossible without this simple assumption.

I was just thinking last week how those kinds of points needed to be brought out in the theology institute in Great Bend in July. This article had some other good stuff I can use. Thanks.

From Brad: We are in great danger if we expunge religion from our lives and view mankind as the sole source of all knowledge and wisdom � and this is true WHETHER OR NOT GOD REALLY EXISTS. . .

It seems you're pointing out the importance of transcendental values, and I agree. And it's true, they need not be rooted in specifically religious convictions. Natural law and philosophy can go a long ways to establishing the reality of duties and meaning. It just all seems to work out better if natural law and philosophy have some connection with an ultimate Source of existence to validate their reality.

Where is the wisdom and justice of man if he believes that those with talent, money, power or privilege are destined to rule instead of acknowledging that we are all co-equals on a very basic level?

As an old saying puts it, the only way to truly affirm the "brotherhood of men" to to recognize the Fatherhood of God. Apologies for the non-inclusive language, but the concept is valid anyway.

Catholics believe in the reality of matter�the physical world is not simply a veil of illusions, as the Eastern religions would have it, but an order of being that has its own dignity and built-in laws. Buddhist science for this reason is a nonstarter.

I'm not sure of the "official" Buddhist position on the reality of matter, but I'm not in agreement with the "veil of illusions" description. That misses the point and I think, particularly if this describes the Buddhist position, is just a wrong interpretation of it. What I would say the Buddhist position would be is that we are forever cloaked by our senses to direct contact with physical reality. But just because insects and humans perceive the color of a flower differently does not mean that some "flower thing" doesn't exist. It seems the Buddhist position is quite aware of this with the (I think) Zen saying of: First there is a mountain. Then there is no mountain. Then there is.

JB, that Einstein article was marvelous!

Agreed. 99% of the article I agreed with but it�s that 1% that is most interesting. While I am aware the evolution is not quite as cut-and-dried as scientists would like to think, or have us think, it�s hardly surprising to me, given the relative rarity of fossils, that we have so many gaps. Just the mechanism of genetics alone is suggestive enough that new species are created over time just like they say they are. But one should be aware of the prejudices of the scientists, and evolution is a perfect example of this. There are enough interesting events and facts, such as the Cambrian explosion, to suggest, if not that evolution is false, that it is more incomplete and unproven than scientists themselves would concede.

re: Buddhism and reality

I think there are several conversations going on between Buddhism and reality, all very much related but all very distinguishable.

Buddhism may be asking of reality the classical philosophical questions:

Dear Reality, Should I be a rationalist (affirming a priori truth) or empiricist (denying a priori truth), an idealist (mind-dependent) or realist (mind-independent)? Should I place my emphasis on esse (existence) or essence (quiddity, etc)?

Buddhism may also ask of reality the post-modern questions: Should I be a pragmatist (reality is what works) or existentialist (reality is whatever one chooses)?

I think classical philosophy would classify most Buddhist thought as rationalistic idealism or Kantian thought, this as contrasted to rationalistic realism or Platonist thought, to empiricistic realism or Aristotelian thought (Aquinas) and empiricistic idealism or Humean thought.

I don't think that classical philosophy really handles Buddhism very well because the emphasis in Buddhism is on trying to lead one into a nondual experience of reality and its literature focuses on leading one into such an experience, existentially, and not so much into leading one into an essentialistic philosophical grasp of reality by asking ontological questions. To the extent that Buddhist writing and teaching efficaciously leads one into the nonconceptual and ineffable nondual experience, it would be expected that one might have some difficulty articulating the experience conceptually.

Buddhism might transcend classical philosophy in these regards and might more appropriately be classified with the postmodern philosophies, certainly moreso pragmatistic than existentialist (it is not nihilistic). For these reasons, perhaps, Nagarjuna may often be associated with thinkers like Deridda and Wittgenstein and their deconstructive approaches.

To some extent, the postmodern critique was good hygiene for classical philosophy and revealed that rationalism, empiricism, idealism and realism were insufficient descriptors of reality. To me, the empiricistic realism of Aristotle and Aquinas best answered the postmodern critique and, in doing so, the critical rationalism of Popper and critical realism emerged. I suppose it could be said that classical philosophy constructed our approach to reality, that postmodernism deconstructed our approach to reality and that critical realism reconstructed our approach to reality. Most modern scientists are critical realists and this is true for the atheistic, theistic and nontheistic scientists.

So, if we concede to Buddhism that it is not really a naive idealism (and I think we should), then the question remains, that if it is postmodernistic then, is it reconstructive? Does the nondualism of Zen buddhism differ from the Hindu advaita vedanta? I think the answer is yes, Buddhism is reconstructive, hence a realism, neither nihilistic nor purely idealist. How, then, does it differ from critical realism?

Well, first, let us restate its reconstructive aspect: First there is a mountain (constructive), then there is no mountain (deconstructive), then there is (reconstructive). This is not a philosophical tussle between realism and idealism, both of which are constructive enterprises. Rather, this is a commentary on premodernism versus modernism, which resolves postmodernistically, critiquing classical philosophy's approach to realism vs idealism. So, the key to where Buddhism stands with respect to critical realism does not reside in asking ontological questions per se because Buddhism may have been implicitly an empiricistic realism all along.

Ontologically, then, Buddhism affirms that reality is real and our approach to reality should be both empiricistic and realistic. How then does it differ from critical realism? It goes back to the question I listed above but did not address yet: Should I place my emphasis on esse (existence) or essence (quiddity, etc)?

Buddhism looks at esse, existence, as primary. Existence is real. Existence is emphasized. Essence is what we see in everyday awareness; things are differentiated. What is absolutely real, however, is undifferentiated. In everyday awareness, we see the mountain and its essence. In enlightenment, we see existence, alone, of the mountain and all else. In post-experiential reflection, the mountain emerges as neither subject nor object but presents itself purely existentialistically, nondualistically, its essence receding, all essence somewhat left behind, no distinctions even possible between this or that esse. Essence is suppressed. Esse is not.

This focus on esse, then, would present certain problems for doing science, which focuses on essences, if not for the fact that Buddhism can and does speak of essence. Science and Thomism, however, can encounter problems of their own in relating to reality, by allowing existence or esse to recede or to be left behind in an essentialism, concretizing and reifying essences. So, it is not that Buddhism doesn't acknowledge the essence of everyday awareness, it just doesn't consider essence primary where ultimate reality is concerned. Critical realism doesn't have to deny esse, for its part, but only deemphasizes it and considers essence primary where reality is concerned. The fundamental properties of reality, for science and phenomenology, are space, time, matter and energy, and, for some, also consciousness, or essences. The fundamental property of reality for Buddhism is being itself, or existence, or esse.

There are tradeoffs for emphasizing essence over esse or esse over essence. Zen loses its ability to articulate the realism of Buddhism, perhaps a realism as has truly experienced the ground of our being, has truly encountered that place within where we see God in the mirror of our truest self, though only as an image. Science, philosophy and metaphysics can lose their ability to pierce through the concepts of esse and essence in order to encounter esse subsistens, in order to distinguish between contingent being and necessary being, between received existences and unreceived or self-subsisting existence, dwelling too much in its essentialistic perspective.

Zen sees no analogue between the mirror image and self having lost sight of essences; all esse is therfore self-subsisting. Science sees no analogue between the mirror image and self having lost sight of esse; all esse is therefore self-subsisting. Science and Buddhism (and some pantheisms and nontheistic Hinduisms) can thus both be materialist monisms, though for different reasons.

See God, Zen and the Intuition of Being - Chapter 5 by Arraj , especially this imaginary conversation between Maritain and Izutsu:

quote:

Izutsu: There is no nihilism in Zen. When we speak of the absolute as Nothingness, it is not mere emptiness. When we speak of the non-subsisting character of the tree, we are not idealists. Nothingness is the "plenitude of being, for it is the urgrund of all existential forms." (27) In everyday awareness things are closed, seen essentialistically, if you will. Then in the process of enlightenment they are reduced to absolute undifferentiation or nothingness, and when they emerge from this nothingness they are ontologically transparent or open. Both subject and object are abstractions from the field of actus. "Nothing is to be regarded as self-subsistent and self-sufficient." (28) Zen wants to see the nonarticulated field articulating itself.

Again: The fundamental properties of reality, for science and phenomenology, are space, time, matter and energy, and, for some, also consciousness, or essences. The fundamental property of reality for Buddhism is being itself, or existence, or esse. To me, Buddhism thus comes closer to describing ultimate reality through its apophatic denial of essences as being primary, because they are not. The kataphatic affirmation of the reality of essences can be combined with such an apophatic denial to yield the "essential" distinction between esse and esse subsistens.

God is esse is true, kataphatically but only metaphorically and analogically.

God is not esse is true apophatically and literally.

Unitively, God is neither esse nor not esse because God is a wholly different type of esse, esse subsistens, which as the Buddhists know, existentially, is perfect unity, oneness, which as Christianity teaches, essentiallistically, through creatio ex nihilo, pours out esse and essence in great diversity.

And that's why I think so many Buddhists make excellent scientists. We just mustn't confuse their ascetical practices and literature with ontological treatments per se. Now, how is it that advaitan Hindus can make good scientists? Well, for all sorts of reasons.

In the final analysis, if science hasn't flourished in this or that culture under this or that worldview or within this or that religion, it may have less to do with the inadequacy of any underlying metaphysic and moreso to do with what that religion, culture or tradition suggests that one ought to do with one's time, talent, treasure and technology.

Could be that some religions reinforce a quietism through their over-emphasis of the affective and apophatic while others reinforce a rationalism through their over-emphasis of the speculative and kataphatic. This may reveal how Buddhism and Western Science might best critique one another. Some fall prey to encratism (over-emphasis of apophatic and speculative) and pietism (over-emphasis of affective and kataphatic).

I suppose it all boils down to nurturing those tensions that reality reveals cannot be resolved and to properly collapsing those that can be resolved. Some paradox and ambiguity is inherent and very real and some is seeming and only apparent. Some is essential. Some accidental. Which is which? That's the crux. That's the rub.

Well, I can't have Thallo siphoning off our Shalomplace customers so I thought I'd serve up a good old fashioned thalloesque post, which defends Brad at that.

pax,
jb

The "Questions Cosmologies Ask of Reality" spreadsheet or matrix was intitally somewhat narrowly conceived as having an x-axis derived from Maritain's "Degrees of Knowledge" and a y-axis as derived from aspects of Merton's comparative mysticism. Actually, the matrix might be more broadly conceived to consist of an x-axis representing epistemology and a y-axis representing ontology. In other words, the matrix represents different philosophical systems.

Which epistemologies are deemed valid on the x-axis are determined by the ontological positions implicit in the various aspects of reality being considered on the y-axis. The x-axis thus explicitly represents phenomenology, science, metaphysics and theology and the y-axis implicitly sets forth attributes of reality or aspects of being that correspond to the ontological positions derived from various combinations of stances taken toward realism, idealism, rationalism, empiricism, pragmatism and existentialism.

For our purposes, it is understood that natural theology can be done within the epistemological domains of phenomenology, science and metaphysics while the domain of theology refers to revealed theology. It is not simply a matter of which domains of knowledge are deemed valid or invalid but also a matter of which domains are emphasized or deemphasized.

Without distinguishing between validity and emphasis, Religious Naturalism thus seems to dwell within the domains of phenomenology and science, invalidating or deemphasizing metaphysics and revealed theology. This would seem to include Pantheisms, Zen Buddhism and advaitan Hinduism and other religious but nontheistic approaches to reality. Scientific materialism would dwell exclusively in the domain of science, invalidating or deemphasizing other domains to varying degrees from one person's perspective to the next. Objectivism, a dualistic naturalism, would dwell within phenomenology and science as well as metaphysics, considering consciousness an immaterial reality, however natural. The Abrahamic Traditions and some theistic Hinduisms would dwell within all of the epistemological domains, variously emphasizing or deemphasizing the types of questions asked of reality and answering same differently. Protestant Christianity mostly dwells within the domains of theology and science, invalidating any approach to reality that involves either natural theology or mysticism. Deism disregards all of revealed theology and much of natural theology except for its minimalistic metaphysical conclusions.

Although it is essentially nothing more than a mnemonic device or heuristic, there are many insights to be gleaned from the matrix. One insight I wish to point out is the possibility for extensive dialogue between those traditions that dwell exclusively within the domains of phenomenology and science. It is my belief that, by dwelling exclusively within these two domains, one will be almost algorithmically driven to nondualism or monism. It is also my belief that Buddhism and Religious Naturalism are more closely related than many suspect.

First, let me identify where I think there may be some confusion. I think that most philosophers would distinguish Buddhism from other religious naturalisms by claiming that Buddhism is an idealist monism rather than a realist monism. For instance, Buddha might get categorized among the Kantian thinkers as a rationalist idealist and Nagarjuna among the Humean thinkers as an empiricist idealist. Nagarjuna might also be characterized as a deconstructionist among the postmodernists like Derrida and Wittgenstein. I think the postmodernist label is the best descriptor for Buddhism and I think the idealist labels are incorrect, at least for some forms of Buddhism. Here's why.

Buddhism ultimately makes a definitive conclusion about reality. Implicit in its conclusion that reality is nondual is Buddhism's conclusion that realty is also real. Buddhism, in fact, emphasizes esse or existence. Existence is primary. What it deemphasizes is essence or quiddity. Its deemphasis (or even denial) of differentiated reality does not amount to idealism. Rather, Buddhism is making a statement about reality, distinguishing between what is essential, in this case existence or esse, and what is accidental, in this case essence. Here, Buddhism is collapsing the essential into esse, viewing absolute being as undifferentiated. The nondualism that results is much closer to being a materialist monism than any type of idealism and may simply be proscribing any unwarranted reification of qualia, like any other naturalistic account of reality. In this regard, Buddhism might be considered to have provided science its own distinctive postmodern critique and may have provided realism an adequate answer to its critique by idealism. Buddhism might, therefore, properly nestle itself within such a critical realism as inhabited by other religious naturalisms.

Still, there are obvious distinctions between Buddhism and other religious naturalisms. Let me speak to their origins. What these hermeneutics have in common is nondualism and, if I am correct, also a materialist monism as well as a critical realism. Where Buddhism differs, however, from a more Western religious naturalism, is in its approach to nonduality. In a nutshell, Buddhism arrives at nonduality through a natural mysticism, or what Maritain calls a mysticism of the self. Its ascetical disciplines and doctrinal precepts set forth, if you will, rules for this journey toward natural mysticism, in our consideration, let's say a journey toward Zen enlightenment. Zen thus arrives at nonduality experientially. Nonduality becomes a conclusion one feels in her bones and in his marrow. It is an existential conclusion in favor of the nondual nature of reality that is nonconceptual, nondiscursive, apophatic and a litany of other terms that go along with this type of consciousness (as set forth in the matrix, in fact). It can be described phenomenologically, however, only with a great deal of difficulty because of the ineffability of the experience. It can be measured, perhaps, as a unitary state of consciousness, such as in the work of the late D'Aquili as continued by Newberg.

At the same time, there is another approach to the nondual nature of reality as described by Maritain and, likely, as suspected by most of you. It is the path of philosophical contemplation, which is taken via ordinary awareness through concepts and discursive thinking. This is set forth as the more difficult path, immersed as humans are in ordinary awareness with its attention to differentiated reality, essence and quiddity. It requires considerable meditative thought, even a tenacity, and may have its own affectivity. This path also deals with the distinctions between esse and essence or an "intuition of being", a being moreso viewed in terms of quantity rather than quality, of quanta rather than qualia, of emergentistic properties rather than ontological discontinuities. Like the natural mysticism of Buddhism, this philosophical contemplation of Western religious naturalism arrives at nondualism, discarding essence as a "thing in itself", phenomenologically and scientifically. Differentiated reality thus does not translate into ontological discontinuity.

Why then has Buddhism been considered an idealism, at worst, a mere postmodern critique, at best, rather than the critical realism it might really be in dialogue with other religious naturalisms? It is because the Buddhist literature and lexicon is oriented toward leading one through ascetical disciplines and doctrinal precepts that are existentialistic and experiential rather than essentialistic and academic. The Buddhist literature, its metaphysical koans and its philosophical paradoxes, does not set forth an ontology and does not comprise a metaphysics. Rather, it is intended to lead one to enlightenment, to an intuitive grasp of nondual reality in an experiential way. One might surmise that people immersed in Eastern cultures would more quickly come to an intuition of being via the route of natural mysticism or Zen enlightenment due to their dominant mode of consciousness, which is more apophatic, trophotropic, intuitive, using conjunctive awareness. Conversely, one would think that Westerners would arrive at their intuition of being and nonduality via philosophical contemplation due to their dominant mode of consciousness, which is more kataphatic, ergotropic, rational, using disjunctive awareness. At any rate, one might improperly conclude that Buddhism is an idealism by reading its literature as a metaphysical narrative rather than as a phenomenological guide.

Still, why do some consider Buddhism and other Eastern religions as nonstarters as far as science goes? Well, again, primarily because its literature gets improperly interpreted. Even then, if its implicit metaphysics is congruent with a critical realism and therefore consonant with science, why the predominance of scientific advance in the West? I think this answer resides in the difference in manners by which Buddhism and religious naturalism proceed from is to ought, from the given to the normative, from the descriptive to the prescriptive. Clearly, all of the religious naturalisms, including Buddhism, should be able to accomodate science with logical consistency, internal coherence, external congruence, interdisciplinary consilience and hypothetical and cognitive consonances? The differences in metaethical endeavors between Buddhism and western religious naturalisms likely derive from alternate emphases wherein Buddhism stands on the face of our diverse essentialistic reality focusing inward at unitive existentialistic being, wherein western religious naturalisms stand in the center of unitive existentialistic being looking outward at diverse essentialistic reality. Both are in touch with e pluribus unum or unity in diversity. Buddhism, however, ends up placing its ethical emphasis on internal mastery (internal environment) and enlightenment, on being at the expense of doing. Alternately, western cultures have placed their ethical emphases on external mastery, on doing at the expense of being. That would better explain their different preoccupations, not their respective metaphysics. This would actually be good news for scientific advances in the East. The western fundamentalisms of the Abrahamic traditions would thus be the greater obstacles to good science and not, rather, Zen Buddhism or even advaitic Hinduism, which may have some parallels metaphysically and existentially with the script I have set forth for Zen Buddhism as a religious naturalism.

Buddhism critiques science with its emphasis on mindfulness and awareness, with its holistic thrust, with its noetic clarity and perceptual expansion, with its reconciling, nonreductionistic approach and sense of the sacred. Science critiques Buddhism with its emphasis on mastery of the external rather than internal environment, with its atomistic thrust, with its narrowed attentional field and perceptual contraction, with its polarizing, dichotomizing, reductionistic approach and ability to articulate its findings and strategies.

In conclusion, Western religious naturalisms might wholly comprise science's best answer to the Buddhist critique. A Thomist critique of the religious naturalisms would involve an attempt at further penetrating the intutition of being thereby deriving a further nuancing of esse and essence to propose a transcedent selfsubsisting esse. Such a consideration is beyond my current scope.

JB, those are pro-grade reflections you're sharing, and your spreadsheet should be required study for anyone taking philosophy today. We've talked about much of this before, only I can see just how deeply your ongoing study and dialogue with others of a philosophical bent has led you. As I say, pro-grade material. It's always nice to see that Christianity can hold its own at that level.

- - -

I like the way you keyed in on the Esse - Essence vantage point to address the issue of Buddhists and other Eastern religions notion that physical reality is "illusion."

Another apsect of this, I believe, is that they are also saying that what we see as reality isn't really reality, but our pre-conceptions and projections. A mind that is preoccupied--especially with anxiety and stress--is a distorting filter between the senses and the deep self. Hence, we do not see reality *as it is,* but AS WE ARE. And that, my friend, is indeed illusion. The elimination of such is a chief concern of all Eastern religions, and is an essential part of Christian spirituality as well. As Jesus noted, how can we see and judge rightly when we have a "plank" in our eyes?

I'm not doubting that there are references in Eastern religions which come across as a denial of the ontological reality of the physical universe. There are! Only, there is such a poorly developed philosophical tradition in many Eastern groups that they aren't always as careful about distinguishing between the essential and existential as we would like.

Still, when one reads Zen poetry, there is little doubt that they affirm the reality of creation. They see it in the context of Esse, but that makes it all the more splendid! Esse might eclipse essence at times, but only for short times; the rest of the time, essence is understood to be a specific expression of existence, much as the Thomists believe . . . which is why our mutual friend, Dr. Arraj, sees such promise in using St. Thomas and Maritain to dialogue with Zen.

I had for some time suspected that your dialogue with Eastern traditions is, in many respects, analogous to my dialogue with the nontheistic religious naturalists. Now I suspect they are not always analogous. Rather, they are often identical. That's it in a nutshell. I will, ergo, now send them pdf registrations for the Theology Institute forthwith.

Boy, John (he he), that's quite a complete and thoughtful answer to what I thought was just a little tributary subject. I won't try and pretend that I understand even half of it but it is most impressive. (My lack of understanding, at least in this context, is to be considered evidence in favor of the quality, complexity and comprehensiveness of a thought.)

I'm not doubting that there are references in Eastern religions which come across as a denial of the ontological reality of the physical universe. There are! Only, there is such a poorly developed philosophical tradition in many Eastern groups that they aren't always as careful about distinguishing between the essential and existential as we would like.

Well said. Jim, I believe following Maritain, points out the need to discern between writings that are generally speculative versus practical. He points out that this is true whether one is reading John of the Cross or Buddhist literature, these contrasted, say, with Thomas Aquinas. Since the overall thrust of Buddhism is moreso practical rather than speculative, the safer route might be to downplay those ontological statements because 1) as you pointed out, if it is truly metaphysical speculation, it won't be very fully developed philosophically 2) it could be only seemingly speculative and 3) even if it is actually speculative, it won't be nuanced in Western conceptualizations anyway. This dialogue makes for one sticky widget!

pax,
jb

Boy, John (he he), that's quite a complete and thoughtful answer to what I thought was just a little tributary subject. I won't try and pretend that I understand even half of it but it is most impressive. (My lack of understanding, at least in this context, is to be considered evidence in favor of the quality, complexity and comprehensiveness of a thought.)

Inasmuch as you have somehow already penetrated through esse to essence to intuit nonduality, and to the extent you have somehow left some of these heady conceptualizations behind, then perhaps you have the advantage? Perhaps you are in far less peril of mistaking the finger of my posts for the moon of your nondual existence.

namaste,
jb

I have spoken of this trinitarian fugal movement before, setting forth various triads. I didn't include some triadic realities on my matrix but they would indeed fit. For instance, body, soul and spirit. Also, for those famiiar with Ken Wilber's holon, made up of the interior individual, exterior indvidual, interior collective and exterior collective, there is some of the same dynamism going on epistemologically. He collapses the exterior individual and exterior collective into the third person or IT. The interior individual is the first person or I. The interior collective is the second person or We (though, technically "we" is first person plural, but nevermind that here). He then corresponds I with beauty, It with truth and We with goodness. Some of this seems oversimplified, facile even, but once fully developed can be quite insightful and very coherent. Another triad that fits are the ministries of priest, prophet and king. IOW, the matrix is really just the index to my book. I can't write the book though because I haven't figured out an outline or table of contents.

Let's see. I think it would have to begin like this.

I. The Created Realm
A. Phenomenology
B. Science
C. Metaphysics
II. The Uncreated Realm
A. Natural Theology
B. Revealed Theology

Or, like this:

I. The Material Realm
A. Phenomenology
B. Science
II. The Immaterial Realm
A. Metaphysics
1. Metaphysics-the created immaterial realm
2. Natural Theology-the uncreated immaterial realm
B. Revealed Theology

*Science could have a place in the immaterial realm if it would like, based on indirect evidence and inductive reasoning, but many would consider such beneath them.

Or, like this:

Buy Peter Kreeft's Summa of the Summa

jb

Inasmuch as you have somehow already penetrated through esse to essence to intuit nonduality, and to the extent you have somehow left some of these heady conceptualizations behind, then perhaps you have the advantage? Perhaps you are in far less peril of mistaking the finger of my posts for the moon of your nondual existence.

Yes, of course. My grasp of non-duality is beyond question. It�s best represented by all those smart fence-sitters who are neither rabidly conservative nor liberal but are moderate, thoughtful people who see both sides of any issue and weigh each question according to its own merits. Or is it when one chooses water balloons over pistols?

Any rumors that I have penetrated Esse are entirely false.

And I see your finger now and I�d hardly call that pointing to the moon. Same to you, buddy.

------

Ice cream is a koan. Eat it too fast and your head may hurt. Eat it too slow and it drips all over your pants.

These Wilberian footnotes are interesting:

quote:

This is from The Eye of Spirit, second revised edition, CW7, note 12 for chapter 11:

The "impassable gulf" is simply another name for the subject/object dualism, which is the hallmark not of Descartes's error but of all manifestation, which Descartes simply happened to spot with unusual clarity. It is still with us, this gap, and it remains the mystery hidden in the heart of samsara, a mystery that absolutely refuses to yield its secrets to anything less than post-postconventional [or nondual] development.
I have repeatedly had people explain to me that the Cartesian dualism can be solved by simply understanding that . . . and they then tell me their solutions, which range from Gaia-centric theories to neutral monism to first-third person interactionism to systems theory [to Whitehead process philosophy]. I always respond, "So this means that you have overcome the subject-object dualism in your own case. This means that you directly realize that you are one with the entire Kosmos, and this nondual awareness persists through waking, dream, and deep sleep states. Is that right?" "Well, no, not really."
The [ultimate] solution to the subject-dualism is not found in thought, because thought itself is a product of this dualism, which itself is generated in the very roots of the causal realm and cannot be undone without consciously penetrating that realm. The causal knot or primordial self-contraction--the ahamkara--can only be uprooted when it is brought into consciousness and melted in the fires of pure awareness, which almost always requires profound contemplative/meditative training. The subject-object duality is the very form of the manifest world of maya--the very beginning of the four quadrants (subject and object divide into singular and plural forms)--and thus one can get "behind" or "under" this dualism only by immersion in the formless realm (cessation, nirvikalpa, ayn, nirvana), which acts to dissolve the self-contraction and release it into pure nondual awareness--at which point, the traditions (from Zen to Eckhart) agree, you indeed realize that you are one with the entire Kosmos, a nondual awareness that persists through waking, dream, and deep sleep states: you have finally undone the Cartesian dualism.
[4] As Nagarjuna demonstrated, the ultimate relation of subject and object cannot be stated in words but only realized with Enlightenment (satori). Any attempt to state the ultimate relation of subject and object by using relative words will fail. This relationship can be shown (with satori), but not said (without satori). This applies only to aspect #3b of the mind-body problem. from Wilber Online

Even for those grasped by esse vs essence vs esse subsistens - abiding in an awareness (moreso than a conceptual understanding) of essence existing and existence manifesting as essenece, it is one thing to intuit the nonduality and complete identity of all created being, of all non-self-subsisting esse and quite another to let one's awareness of the manifestation of essence, through analogy only, make present the reality of esse subsistens or self-subsisting esse.

Our relationship to esse subsistens can not be one of identity but can only be one of community. Our initial nondual awareness gifts us with a mirror into which we gaze and see our true self, an image of esse subsistens, but an image is only an image. Still, once penetrating through essence to esse even further to esse subsistens there is something of this communal relationship to become aware of and I am not talking of the love relationship aspect of the Divine Communication. I am talking about an act of creating that is ongoing, of primal ground and primal support that necessarily continues, holding contingent being in existence beyond the eternal creatio ex nihilo in a creation continua. This is the insight that can result in such a claim as made by John of the Cross that, even in mortal sin, we do not lose our relationship to God vis a vis immanent being. This creatio continua does not involve identity but opens up our awareness to the fact that the Divine Communication is not solely one manifest as interrelational love vis a vis a type of reciprocity and two-way exchange of agape, eros and philia. The Divine Communication also open us to an awareness of our nonreciprocal receipt of our very being, a relationship that couldnot be severed except on God's end by His fiat. The storge or nature received is not identical and doesn't merely differ in quantity or quality to the transcendent Being, but it is a true image that allows a communal friendship, attraction and love. Once this insight is gained, we realize that we can say such things as material reality is spatial, temporal, material and energetic and that immaterial reality is nonspatial, atemporal, immaterial and nonenergetic. At the same time, when we say that created immaterial reality is nonspatial, atemporal, immaterial and nonenergetic, we do have a sense of what we speak of, because mathematically we can conceive of singularities and particularities, however physicalist or nonphysicalist, that lack one or more of these attributes. When we speak of Uncreated Immaterial Reality and describe it as nonspatial, atemporal, immaterial and nonenergetic, or even as Eternal, we must attain to a noetic clarity thatis aware that we haven't said anything meaningful whatsoever. There are no categories, not even absolute being or uncreated being that convey the essence of esse subsistens. Now THAT is truly NOTHING and this type of NOTHINGNESS is only weakly analogous to the NoThing of Zen, which has penetrated through essence to esse. One can only dance around this stuff and point to nothing without truly saying anything

pax,
jb

So, the nothingness of Zen really describes essence as receding with esse as emerging as primary. Without distinguishable essence, reality truly is nondual, one thing.

The nada of God is not esse lacking essence. It is an esse whose meta-essence is to esse.

Zen's esse is an esse whose meta-essence is to essence.

It would be more appropriate to describe the nothingness of Zen as one thing. Only God is nothing.

About this whole 1st, 2nd and 3rd person stuff, btw, Jesus came and changed Usted to tu , the formal to the familiar.

About this whole 1st, 2nd and 3rd person stuff, btw, Jesus came and changed Usted to tu , the formal to the familiar.

I've heard less obscure jokes on Frasier. J

After reading that last quote about nondualism, JB, I wonder just how real nonduality is. Is it, in fact, just a prolonged pleasurably state of mind, one that most of us come across from time to time, and some just know how to make it last longer through rigorous discipline and training? Is all this other crappola surrounding it simply added on at the end to explain it? Certainly one would expect such an achievement with so much effort involved to be described as elevated or enlightened rather than altered or artificial.

Just a thought. A very cynical thought, perhaps.