Greetings all! It’s good to see some activity on this thread.
The differentiation between God’s “essence”, as He is in himself and incommunicable, and “energies”, as He communicates Himself to create and relate, is the esential difference between Christian East and Christian West according to David Bradshaw in his incredible book “Aristotle East and West:Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom”. He asserts that without these concepts there is an unbridgeable chasm between God and His creation and God can communicate with man only by means of created things. Bradshaw chronicles these respective developments in Western and Eastern scholars and theologians as they struggled to understand Aristotle’s use of the term “energy” and Christ. The West simply did not grasp all the nuances of the Greek allowing for the Divine and Created to co-exist within each other--interpenetration. I am not a philosopher as David is so I may not present his argument very well. I admit to having a great deal of difficulty understanding some large sections of his work.
The idea of God as He in whom we “live, and move, and have our being” as you quoted seems to more than imply the Orthodox understanding to me and such can be found in both ante and post Nicene Fathers.
I am chewing on the geometric equation posted by gwe1549. Interesting.
It reminds me of some of the things I’m trying to read about quantum physics. It is inescapable therein to conceive of anything as being geographically distant and unconnected (the principle of “entanglement") and as even qualitatively different within the “unified field”. With the differentiation betwen Creator and Created, a qualitative difference exists but both can co-occur such as the concept of interpenetration indicates. The idea of location being in but not of space and time is interesting.
I am not a physicist but these ideas seem to co-exist with Orthodox ideas of essence and energies, interpenetration, and deification quite well.
My question is regarding Buddhism’s end goal. Does “Oneness” completely destroy individuality and person? From what little I know it seems to but I’m sure this is probably a simplistic stereotype and I don’t want to do that. Stacy’s comment taken from her perceptions after hearing a Buddhist representative speak seems to imply that as well.
The Tibetan Book of the Dead is an interesting read. It is written as a guide for the soul after death. Its intent is to keep the soul from falling off the path to nivana and into rebirth. If a person studied it before death they should be able to distinguish between those paths that may appear attractive but should be avoided and the one path that a person must stay on to reach liberation. The question that this book raises for me is: Will we be able to recognise heaven when we die without having experience a fortaste or a foresight of it before death. There is the idea in the church fathers that in eternity a person in hell may be standing right next to a person in heaven, that the Love of God may shine through us or burn us depending on our abillity to perceive it and receive it. Those who have eyes to see, see. Those who have ears to hear, hear. Those whose eyes and ears are pure can see and hear.
A question: How do Paul’s experience of being crucified with Christ and yet living, but not he but Christ living in him and the Buddhist Oneness relate to one another.
Another question: How much self identity when we realize not only that we are image of God but, also, His very likeness? What is His likeness that we are?
Apoem I wrote about an experience I had at age 4.
The Seed Pod
A very long, long time ago when I was very young
I opened up a seed pod and found in it the SON
And finding HIM has set my course, HE’s named the race I run
I’ve been away for a while and have done nothing toward even making an educated guess at this question. But it seems to be an essential one and correlates with the question I posed above about “Oneness” and individuality. I have some Buddhist books available to me so I’ll see what I can find.
Does anyone know a Buddhist who would be willing to talk with us? Here in East Tennessee they are few and far between.
I just discovered this forum - so I hope that I’m not too late to jump into this discussion about Buddhism.....I’m a new Orthodox Christian - Chrismated in April 2006 - but my background includes Evangelical Christianity and a number of years as a Mahayana Buddhist - I’ve studied Tibetan and Japanese Buddhism.
When I was introduced to Orthodox Christianity I thought that it had copied the Buddhist teachings - after all, I thought, Buddha had appeared on earth about 500 years before Christ. However, as I did research I discovered that Mahayana Buddhism, with its teachings on the Compassionate or Bodhi Mind, and the teachings of the Bodhisattva (the Buddhist concept of savior) - was not actually fully developed until the 8th Century C.E. - as I compared Orthodoxy and Buddhism I kept noticing common themes that despite different terminology - really meant the same thing.
One of these teachings was the Buddhist teaching on the various “bodies” or “emanations” of the Buddha. The underlying essence of all the Buddhas (In Mahayana there are mutliple Buddhas - not just Sakyamuni) is the Dharmakaya - which is defined as “timeless, permanent, devoid of characteristics and free from duality.” This dovetails very nicely into the Apopathic theology of Eastern Orthodoxy - “God is one in essence and absolutely unknowable.” God, in Orthodoxy, is above all nature; not abeing because He is above all beings.
Buddhism speaks of Divine Beings and offers prayers to these beings - although most Buddhists may claim to be atheists - the reality of their practices are full of bowing before divine beings and seeking salvation from the compassionate. In Mahayana there is a Buddha called Amitabha (Amida in Japanese) whose name is chanted (a practice called Nembutsu) and glorified as the Lord of Light and Life who delivers all to the Pure Land. Sure sounded like Jesus Christ to me!!!!
Anyway - I hope this helps (if it doesn’t confuse first!!!)
NOTE: I’ve attached an image that I refer to as a Buddhist Icon of the Trinity (It’s a classic Pure Land Buddhist Painting)
Could you talk some about the question I raised above?
“My question is regarding Buddhism’s end goal. Does “Oneness” completely destroy individuality and person? From what little I know it seems to but I’m sure this is probably a simplistic stereotype and I don’t want to do that. Stacy’s comment taken from her perceptions after hearing a Buddhist representative speak seems to imply that as well.”
I would appreciate any information you can give.
I am also interested in hearing more about your journey through Buddhism to Orthodoxy.
“Does “Oneness” completely destroy individuality and person? “
Is one that is debated between the various schools of Buddhism actually. The Theravadin schools speak in various ways about “personal” enlightenment - (I see this as being somewhat parallel to the Evangelical Christian idea of individualized salvation.) Whereas the Mahayana school speaks of enlightenment being more universal - i.e. The Bodhisattva ideal - achieving enlightenment for oneself so that you may save others - which is more the view of the Orthodox.
The core principle behind the idea of “Oneness” is the Buddhist teaching of Anatman or Anatta. This refers to the Buddhist belief that there is no soul or eternal self. So, upon attainment of enlightenment, which can be described as Nirvana (Annihilation of this “self-clinging") or “Oneness” as one loses oneself to the unmanifest reality. The problem I saw in this, is that in practice most Buddhists don’t really believe this - for example, the concept of Reincarnation, as it pertains to the re-embodiment of enlightened beings, like the Tibetan Buddhis practice of searching out the reincarnations of deceased Lamas, implies - no matter how skillfully they spin it, “something” apparently lives on - “something” that can re-incarnate, and bears the memory and personhood of the deceased, beyond the grave.
Also, given that the Buddha attained Oneness while still living (as any Buddhist would confess) poses an interesting question to this teaching. In many schools of Buddhism, they teach that there are innumerable Buddhas - all of whom are venerated (I might say “worshipped") as being eternal. Given that Buddha denied being anything but a human being - it definately implies that personality or personhood continues into eternity.
There is a lot more to this discussion than I can get into here....but let’s continue. I’ll tell you about my personal journey in another posting. OK?
I’ll finish with a quote from one of my favorite writers - St. Nikolai of Ochrid, from his wonderful book “Prayers By The Lake" - it speaks to the unity of all the prophets and teachers, and how they prepared the world for the arrival of the Messiah - Jesus.
The royal son of India teaches my soul to empty herself completely of every seed and crop of the world, to abandon all the serpentine allurements of frail and shadowy matter, and then--in vacuity, tranquility, purity and bliss--to await nirvana. Blessed be the memory of Buddha, the royal son and inexorable teacher of his people!
I was sure that my mostly uninformed stereotypes were off target and now I can vaguely see just how much.
I am interested in how the idea of reincarnation and “Oneness” intersect given that there is supposedly “no soul or eternal self”. Are you aware of any writings by Buddhists on this question specifically?
This corresponds to the diffuculty many have with the concept of panentheism. How can God be “in” all things but not “be” all things and specifically within individuals. And how can all creation be “one” and there still be individual beings. I, of course, have little trouble holding this “Mystery” intension but many break themselves against it.
I have gotten into a to date one-sided dialogue with some Anglicans about this on Virtueonline.org. The so-called “classical Theism” positing that God intervenes in creation from the “outside” is the opposing view. Of course, this kind of Theism seems to inextricably lead to dualism and perhaps a modified Deism in my opinion and appears to be an attempt to explain things so rationally as to remove “Mystery” from the equation. The classical heretics did this and got into much trouble. So far no one has answered my question about what “outside” means. If this is “geographical” that is simply unacceptable. It is is an “outside” refering to “essence” then we are back to Orthodoxy.
I will wait for your story and your reply.
Thanks again for joining us and for the beautiful prayer from St. Nikolai.
Neal, the subtle differences between Pantheism and Panentheism are so very important and often, as you say, result in people “breaking themselves against the mysteries.”
What I find in classic Buddhist literature is a lot of reference to “mystery.” For example, there is the concept of Sunyata, or “emptiness” - which deals with the whole issue of the formless nature of matter that underlies its form. The “mysteries” are often liturgically expressed through the chanting of the “Heart Sutra,” and others.
“Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. Form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form.” - Heart Sutra
When I first began to investigate Orthodoxy - Apopathic Theology seemed somehow to “explain” this dichotomy - if not the “mystery.” After all, don’t the opening verses of the Bible imply this balance between formless emptiness and existence with form?
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. - Genesis 1:1-2"
The creation came from nothingness into an existence that was formless and void. Sure sounds like “Sunyata” to me!!!
I used to challenge my Theistic friends with statements like - “If nothing existed before God created the Universe - then the only “raw material” could have been Himself - therefore God’s nature must be inextricably woven into the fabric of the Universe!!” Paul’s words in Romans 8:22 to the effect that the Creation “groans” for salvation also fuels the idea that the material world has suffered the fall - just as humanity did. I think one of the subtle differences between Panentheism and Pantheism is that the former emphasizes the divine presence in creation, while the latter blurs the line between that which is created and the creator. Neither view can express the full truth - for it truly is unknowable.
We can only “know” about creation from revelation - I think that’s why it is in the Creed. The Creed does not affirm what is obvious - it affirms what cannot be known except by revelation. So I think the Buddhists - in their wisdom - simply declare pre-existence to be “nothingness” - or “mystery” because there can be no direct experience of it.
Neal, just an addendum. You had asked if there were any books on Buddhism that I could recommend.
Probably, one of the best books on the basics of Buddhist teachings (with a balanced view across many schools) is “The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching” by Thich Nhat Hanh. Although primarily Zen in association T’hay is very “ecumenical” in his teaching of Buddhism (if I can use that word??)
His explanation of Sunyata (Emptiness) is splendid. He says:
“We are empty of a separate, independent self. We cannot be by ourselves alone. We can only inter-be with everything else in the cosmos......Emptiness does not mean nonexistence. It means Interdependent Co-Arising, impermanence, and nonself.” p. 146
To me, this balances perfectly with the Orthodox teaching that we are not intended to exist in independence. “It is not good for man to be alone” - we are saved by joining a community (the Church) and sustained by the love of God, which is manifest in community (The Holy Trinity). God is three in one, not independent. Buddhism teaches the three jewels - Buddha, Dharma and Sangha - said another way: Truth - Teachings - Community (or Church) - which is exactly what Orthodoxy is - life in community following the Master’s teachings.
Sorry if I rambled, but I find this “stuff” exciting!
There are many other books - but this one is probably the best “easy to read” overview.
"Ramble” on my friend. I find this stuff exciting too!
I would add that in Orthodoxy it is entirely impossible to exist “individually” because all of the cosmos is a single organism. We will either help sanctify it by God’s grace or we will help corrupt it by living outside grace. Try as we might we cannot be individuals. CS Lewis description of hell in The Great Divorce views it as a mass of individuals who cannot exist together but cannot entirely escape each other either. This is why “for as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive” and why Christ “enlightens every man who comes into the world”. We would have to agree that we can only “inter-be”. Of course this doesn’t exactly answer the question of how they deal with the apparent paradox between “oneness” and whatever the “individual” something exists that is reincarnated. Do you know of any passage specifically attempting to explain this?
As I have read in the few Buddhist books I have I have also been amazed at the similarities and even more amazed as I reflect on the “fruit” of devoted Buddhist practice. How much more of the “fruit of the Spirit” could one see? And since “good” comes only from God then the “good” there has to be from Him.
I am particuarly interested in the correlations between Judeo/Christian meditative practice and Buddhist meditative practice. I also use some of these techniques within the Christian paradigm with the college students I counsel in the Carson Newman counseling center where I work.
forgive my ignorence, but what exactly do you mean when you refer to Orthodox. I think there are different kinds, like Greek Orthodox, and Russian Orthodox maybe others also. Do they all believe pretty much the same things and how do they compare to Catholic and Protestant? I don’t mean to get off topic but maybe you could quickly help me to uderstand better.
Prom - my apologies - sometimes it’s hard to remember that these interchanges are posted on a message board. By Orthodox we were referring to the Eastern Orthodox Church which is made up of separate autocephalous, or self-governing Churches. As you say there are various ethnically oriented Orthodox Churches - Antiochian, Russian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian, and North American. However, the ethnicity does not define the Church (We are all one in Christ) - The term Orthodox means “Right Worship” and generally identifies the Church as that which the Bible is based on - the Church based on the faith delivered “once for all to the saints” (Jude 3.)
There are a lot of wonderful websites that can do a much better job than I can of explaining the fullness of the Orthodox Church - i.e. http://www.oca.org, has some great resource material for more information. Another great site is http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/. There are also some excellent Podcast resources - one such resource is “Our Life In Christ” - website is http://ourlifeinchrist.com. They’ll even send you an Orthodox Study Bible for free!!!
The “Our Life In Christ” website has a wonderful saying:
“The Orthodox Church is evangelical, but not Protestant. It is orthodox, but not Jewish. It is catholic, but not Roman. It isn’t non-denominational - it is pre-denominational. It has believed, taught, preserved, defended and died for the Faith of the Apostles since the Day of Pentecost 2000 years ago.”
I was formerly an Evangelical Protestant - rejected it, became Buddhist, and through Buddhism discovered the ancient, original, unbroken teachings of the Orthodox Church standing beyond all of them - I’ll post my story one of these days. Please check it out - once you get past all the unnecessarily confusing ethnic stereotyping that have been attributed to the Orthodox Church over the centuries - you’ll find great beauty and truth in it.
