Having Answers?

[tariki]

Tariki

Here's a nice quote ...

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."

 

This, I think. is true of dead authors and poets regardless of expiration date. So with your TS Elliot quote I wonder if it means the same to you as it does to me?

 

I describe myself neither as Buddhist nor Christian and yet I recognize the their effects on our societies and societal effects on me. Nor am I a deist or panentheist ... I am sure these concepts have affected me too. As for pantheism ... It can't rule it out.

 

So what is your take on Batchelor's position that Buddhism if fundamentally agnostic?

I'm content that Stephen Batchelor makes sense of Buddhism for me.

 

Those texts considered fundamental, and often claimed to represent the historical word of the Buddha, state that the "heartwood of the Dharma" is an "unshakeable deliverance of mind". ( Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation )

 

As I see it, a mind committed to any metaphysical belief system CANNOT be free, and sets itself up to be "shaken" by reality.

 

"Agnosticism" for me, as for Stephen Batchelor ( and he has helped me see this ) leads to a metaphysics of empathy - rather that a metaphysics of hope and fear. We can LIVE truly. As I see it, any "master" words can only "be true" in the empathic moment. Afterwards they enter the treacherous sea of language. Someone once said that the truth dies with each zen master, "the rest they put into their books".

[thormas]

It seems rather self-evident and known in experience that human beings are not merely things, along side of other things, that are encountered in the universe. We are more....more than mere things, more than objects. I am is not it is.

 

There are various hypotheses that have and continue to be made and then investigations undertaken of the human body in an effort to preserve and prolong human life. In these cases, the body is seen as a thing but the person whose body is being examined or investigated, is not and is not treated as (just) a thing. This seems to be evident in the care given when the results of the investigation are delivered and sometimes even the distance that some medical professionals try to maintain when delivering that news. The body is investigated, the person is treated with concern - because the person ....is recognized as more; this is, seemingly, a given. Also, we have 'issues' with those among us who treat other human beings as things or objects: the objectification of a woman, the bullying of a transgender person as an object of scorn, a child pornographer, the serial killer's fetish that he values at the expense of a human life, and on and on.

 

So, agreeing with Steve, there is a need to have a hypothesis, investigate and thus have evidence to build a body of knowledge on with further hypotheses and investigations. However, people (unless they're wacky) don't investigate their wife/husband, children, friends or (most) relatives nor could one ever truly know them by having a hypothesis about them and then investigating it. Again, sure, let's have a medical investigation or examination if someone's kid has a physical, emotional or mental problem and/or difficulty, but getting to' know' that kid will take more than that. To know them, another has to participate, has to 'be' in their lives, in them! Human beings are not, first and foremost, objects to be investigated, we are subjects who can be truly known (and know another) in relationship.

 

Steve, as you say "we apparently have a brain that is capable of a sort of participative sharing of emotions with others; an ability to empathize with another person's suffering or joy. We sense when something is not quite right with a spouse, friend, and so on." But still, the actual sharing of emotions, the empathy and our sensing is done in relationship. And, following your thought, I, too, have had dogs since I was a kid, have 2 now, love them like crazy and agree that they can sense when things aren't quite right and exhibit guilt feelings from time to time. However (and please include the address of those closest to you in your response so I can copy them), I don't and never will 'know' the dog (or relate to it) like I know my wife, my daughter (this, of course means more presents under the tree for me:}) or my best friends.

I disagree that it is 'the "more" that we believe in that keeps us imprisoned by self.' Rather, and again, it seems evident that the ones who fail to see 'more' in their fellow human being than things/objects, are imprisoned in themselves (never truly participating or being in another's life) and/or literally imprisoned. And it is those human being who truly give themselves to another by participating and being in their lives, that are truly free and interestingly enough have become even More. Stretching words a but here but if human is not merely something you are but something you do, then those who give, participate, even 'leave self behind' because they are for another, are 'more' Human. And isn't this also self-evident in our words and actions: we say of the hero cop, the fireman on 911, the soldier who sacrifices self for another, the brother who gives a kidney for a sister, 'what a fine human being, what a good man/woman,' we hold them up as examples for us all; they are among the most human of us. And of the rapist, the killer, the terrorist, we say, ' what an animal, they're a beast, they are in-human.' We, recognizing their objectification of others, treating others as things (to be disposed of), has left them bereft of their humanity and we recognize their lost of 'humanness' in our words.

So, what is meant by the 'more?' A thing is in some way complete, there is no possibility. A rock, a tree, a lizard, a horse, even my beloved dogs - they are what they are, all they are 'meant' to be. The living thing can grow to adulthood, can learn things, including tricks, they can 'love' and sense my needs, but my dog is complete. Human being has an open space before him/herself. She/he is capable of more, not only doing but being more. Human is not merely a species, a thing we are, it is a possibility we can become. We are more: it is our possibility.

Edited December 17, 2016 by thormas

[thormas]

Tariki,

 

I agree that ".... a mind committed to any metaphysical belief system CANNOT be free, and sets itself up to be "shaken" by reality."

 

However, if a mind uses a philosophical system or language to be able to hear, understand, see Reality, then it not a belief system: it is faith, which is properly understood as response (a self-giving) to the self-giving of Reality. And such giving of self is the only way to be free.

 

I will one day have to listen to Batchelor but for me, empathy is understanding/sharing with another, while compassionate concern is the movement to the other. If a metaphysics of empathy gives self to the other, then they are one.

[tariki]

Tariki,

 

I agree that ".... a mind committed to any metaphysical belief system CANNOT be free, and sets itself up to be "shaken" by reality."

 

However, if a mind uses a philosophical system or language to be able to hear, understand, see Reality, then it not a belief system: it is faith, which is properly understood as response (a self-giving) to the self-giving of Reality. And such giving of self is the only way to be free.

 

I will one day have to listen to Batchelor but for me, empathy is understanding/sharing with another, while compassionate concern is the movement to the other. If a metaphysics of empathy gives self to the other, then they are one.

 

Perhaps "stirred" if not "shaken".........

 

As I understand it, Buddhist non-duality is not that "all is one", rather that "all is not two". Which are just words again, but needs must.

 

For me, all is a by-product of seeing/wisdom. Wisdom defined as "the mind/heart thirsting for emanciation seeing direct into the heart of reality" (Conze) Once we "see" then there are no "master words" that suit more than others. The Dharma is for "crossing over, not for grasping".

 

A catholic scholar, Heinrich Dumoulin, has written.....

 

Whether, on its deepest ground, being is personal or impersonal, is something that humans will never be able to plumb by their rational powers. Here we face a decision which one makes according to one's own tradition and upbringing, and still more according to one's faith and experience. The Christian sees ultimate reality revealed in the personal love of God as shown on Christ, the Buddhist in the silence of the Buddha. Yet they agree on two things: that the ultimate mystery is ineffable, and that it should be manifest to human beings. The inscription on a Chinese stone figure of the Buddha, dated 746, reads......

 

"The Higest truth is without image.

If there were no image at all, however, there would be no way for truth to be manifested.

The highest principle is without words.

But if there were not words at all, how could principle possibly be revealed?"

 

Well, my grandaughter, not yet three, is not to be fooled. After a year or so of "grandad's special pizza" she saw through the whole thing.........."THATS not pizza, thats cheese on toast". And Grandad, chastened, retired to the kitchen to lick his wounds.

[romansh]

It seems to me that emptiness is the 'place' where all questions disappear. Without a question, there is no answer ... just pure being. Perhaps less, not more is better?

 

To me it seems a question of what is? Rather than thinking it is more or less.

 

The process of science moves towards what is ... scientists may want more or perhaps less.

Edited December 18, 2016 by romansh

[romansh]

I'm content that Stephen Batchelor makes sense of Buddhism for me.

 

Those texts considered fundamental, and often claimed to represent the historical word of the Buddha, state that the "heartwood of the Dharma" is an "unshakeable deliverance of mind". ( Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation )

 

As I see it, a mind committed to any metaphysical belief system CANNOT be free, and sets itself up to be "shaken" by reality.

 

"Agnosticism" for me, as for Stephen Batchelor ( and he has helped me see this ) leads to a metaphysics of empathy - rather that a metaphysics of hope and fear. We can LIVE truly. As I

see it, any "master" words can only "be true" in the empathic moment. Afterwards they enter the treacherous sea of language. Someone once said that the truth dies with each zen master, "the rest they put into their books".

 

Yes I get it ... I am not maligning Batchelor's Buddhism ... that is for the more orthodox Buddhists (rendering unto Caesar so to speak),

 

Batchelor in opposition to the Buddhist orthodoxies does not believe in free will (and reincarnation at least not in the traditional sense). As far as I can tell Batchelor is doing what the Buddhist texts say we should do: Examine the world and live our "results".

 

I am more in line with Batchelor than I am with Buddhism ... if you see what I mean.

[romansh]

It seems rather self-evident and known in experience that human beings are not merely things, along side of other things, that are encountered in the universe. We are more....more than mere things, more than objects. I am is not it is.

....

So, what is meant by the 'more?' A thing is in some way complete, there is no possibility. A rock, a tree, a lizard, a horse, even my beloved dogs - they are what they are, all they are 'meant' to be. The living thing can grow to adulthood, can learn things, including tricks, they can 'love' and sense my needs, but my dog is complete. Human being has an open space before him/herself. She/he is capable of more, not only doing but being more. Human is not merely a species, a thing we are, it is a possibility we can become. We are more: it is our possibility.

 

It is self evident that the Sun rises in the East.

 

As to the last paragraph ... A tree is some how complete? Billions of years of evolution and it becomes complete in your three score and ten? It took the Big bang and who knows how many suns to make that complete rock.

 

Completeness is an aberration while the second law of thermodynamics still holds.

[tariki]

Yes I get it ... I am not maligning Batchelor's Buddhism ... that is for the more orthodox Buddhists (rendering unto Caesar so to speak),

 

Batchelor in opposition to the Buddhist orthodoxies does not believe in free will (and reincarnation at least not in the traditional sense). As far as I can tell Batchelor is doing what the Buddhist texts say we should do: Examine the world and live our "results".

 

I am more in line with Batchelor than I am with Buddhism ... if you see what I mean.

 

Just happened to hit this small section of Stephen Batchelors latest book......"Sometime.....after ( the Buddha's death ) Buddhism seems to have taken a metaphysical turn. By adopting a language of truth, Buddhists moved from an engaged agency with the world to the theorizing stance of a detached subject contemplating epistemic objects........they shifted.....from prescripton to description, from pragmatism to ontology, from skepticism to dogmatism."

 

Batchelor then asks why this happened.

 

Maybe because our instinct is to "grasp" rather than "pass over".

[JosephM]

Thormas,

It seems to me if your dog is complete then so are you. Is one evolving and the other not?

Joseph

[romansh]

Just happened to hit this small section of Stephen Batchelors latest book......"Sometime.....after ( the Buddha's death ) Buddhism seems to have taken a metaphysical turn. By adopting a language of truth, Buddhists moved from an engaged agency with the world to the theorizing stance of a detached subject contemplating epistemic objects........they shifted.....from prescripton to description, from pragmatism to ontology, from skepticism to dogmatism."

 

Batchelor then asks why this happened.

 

Maybe because our instinct is to "grasp" rather than "pass over".

 

I can't help thinking because we live in a psychic world, we ask questions like why (purpose or what was the cause?). To make sense of the world and act in it, we have to have a model of it. And here I mean we have a model regardless of its shallowness.

 

Anyway, with what I think you are trying to say, I agree ... its what we do with our model rather than any faith we may have in it that counts. But if like Batchelor you have a tendency to dismiss free will ... all this acting on our models etc tends to have a quality of internal regression and iteration. Of course all this is fine if we understand that we have no [free] choice.

[SteveS55]

"Just happened to hit this small section of Stephen Batchelors latest book......'Sometime.....after ( the Buddha's death ) Buddhism seems to have taken a metaphysical turn. By adopting a language of truth, Buddhists moved from an engaged agency with the world to the theorizing stance of a detached subject contemplating epistemic objects........they shifted.....from prescripton to description, from pragmatism to ontology, from skepticism to dogmatism.'"

 

I think Batchelor is right on target, Tariki. From what I can tell from the Pali Canon, the Buddha didn't really get into ontological issues. He seems to me to be the supreme existentialist. He was all about eliminating suffering (to the extent possible) in this life, and not worrying about what may come. There are in Buddhism, certain "unanswerables" the Buddha refused to discuss, and these have to do with ontological issues.

 

Emptiness, as a metaphysical question, may be interesting to ponder and reflect upon, but it has very little relevance in our day-to-day life. The longer I think about it and read what others have to say about it, the more I think emptiness simply points to existence as "process"; every "thing" within our perceptual field interdependent with every other thing. Such a "realization", I suspect, frees us of the burden of notions which send us down every rabbit hole imaginable.

 

Steve

[thormas]

Not denying the Big Bang, the many suns, the reality of evolution or the laws of thermodynamics but the tree in the yard is fully a tree: it is complete - in some real way. Its 'tree-ness' is not before it, its possibility is actualized (not withstanding what was before or will be after what is now a tree) or, perhaps, another way to say it is that it has no possibility; it is done (saying this I also fully recognize that trees grow but growth does not result in greater tree-ness.

 

However, man or woman are different. On one hand, obviously, a human can only be a human (won't be a tree, rock, dog, etc.) so, in one sense, a human too is complete. However, most of us recognize that in another way, man is not complete; he is all possibility waiting to be actualized (or not). This possibility is not whether one becomes an astronaut, an engineer, a lawyer, etc. but whether and to what degree, a man or a woman become 'truly human.' This Human-ness is the possibility before each of us that is yet to be actualized (and saying this does not deny the reality that some mental, psychological, sociological or perhaps even physical factors can impede or even prevent actualization of what is possible). As, I said earlier, I think this is self-evident (consciously or unconsciously) an accepted reality in everyday life. We recognize that the murderer, the rapist and the terrorist have failed to become, failed to be Human and we affirm this in our language, our descriptions of them: animal, beast, inhuman. And, we celebrate and hold up as a model, an example (a possibility) for all, those among us who have act-ualized their possibility: those among us who are truly Human.

 

In some real way, thing-ness (tree, sun, planet, rock, horse) is given and complete in the first and all moments of the thing. Human-ness is before us; the possibility is given, the actualization is yet-to-be. I suggest this is obvious and self-evident to people, to most people. And, with some introspection and some further discussion on it, the response is, "of course."

 

I am obviously, as been said of such language in this or another thread, stretching the language to fit the reality. If you don't agree, that is obviously, fine.

Edited December 18, 2016 by thormas

[thormas]

Joseph, there is indeed evolution going on for all, the dog might lose its tail in the next X amount of time and we might no longer need hair on our heads (or anywhere). However, my comments were not mean to be about evolution as it could be said of the future tree (or what the tree will become), or about any 'thing,' that it is complete. However, for humans, with or without hair, their possibility is still before them waiting to be actualized (perhaps more a completing than a completion). I think:)

Edited December 18, 2016 by thormas

[JosephM]

Thormas,

Are you saying that we as humans have a possibility of actualization that a dog ( or any other creature ) does not have? Did we all not come from the same source? Our appearances admittingly seems different but ... What makes us 'more' that the other creature is complete but we humans are not ?

[tariki]

I instantly recoil from the idea that at core I am a "being" to be "actualised". All such teleological approaches seem to threaten what I would call the empathy of each moment - a moment that knows nothing but itself.

 

Eckhart said "Love has no why"

 

To say that the "why" of a human in some sense sets us apart creates the very duality that is the source and heart of suffering ( dukkha )

Edited December 18, 2016 by tariki
"Heart" of suffering, not "geart"!

[romansh]

Eckhart said "Love has no why"

 

To say that the "why" of a human in some sense sets us apart creates the very duality that is the source and heart of suffering ( dukkha )

 

"Why" has two general distinct meanings ... purpose and cause. Purpose is a strange and uncertain beast ... cause while generally is understandable it too is uncertain and I suppose strange.

 

So does love have no cause? Even in Buddhism dependent origination suggests there is a cause? Evolutionary psychology certainly does.

[thormas]

Tariki, not having your familiarity with Buddhism but loving Eckhart, my understanding is: Love, that has no why (or is its own why), empowers us to be 'truly Human' or, as you say, to "Live truly."

 

"We can LIVE truly" in the empathy of each moment, in Love that has no why. However it seems obvious that not all men and women "Live truly:" not all love, the empathy of each moment is not only threatened but ignored, even lost. All I'm saying is that the 'possibility' of Living truly is not (always) actualized, realized or made real. So I don't understand the recoil and I am left with a question: how is empathy, empathy if, in each moment, it know only itself? Love, in my understanding goes out from itself, empities itself, rather it knows the other, and thus becomes Itself. Anyway could just be the limitation of language.

 

There is not a duality, there is One but if we are talking about Love, it goes out to or for ....other? It can't go out to self for then it would hoard Love and not be Love or empathy in every moment. My old college professor has said there is not a multiplicity of beings, rather there is a multiplicity of persons in Being. So One and Many but One? Seemingly a paradox but if Love and if we can live truly, then it would seem that Unity in diversity is a higher form of Beauty, than unity in sameness (which could not be Love??).

 

As for suffering, if Being (for lack of a better 'word') remained unified in Self, I guess there would be no creation and there would be no suffering. However Love, by its very nature is vulnerable, entails risk and the possibility of suffering.

 

 

Joseph, I am saying that. We have a possibility before us that a 'thing' does not and apparently 'common sense understanding' acknowledges that we are different not only in appearance but in something more important. Now, I do not know or have even thought through whether all creation (i.e. all things) 'move' to the higher being that is human and greater possibility. However, I do like what Tillich said about man reaching back and pulling all of creation along with him.

[SteveS55]

"Now, I do not know or have even thought through whether all creation (i.e. all things) 'move' to the higher being that is human and greater possibility. However, I do like what Tillich said about man reaching back and pulling all of creation along with him."

 

With all due respect to Tillich, Thomas, this all sounds like abstract platitude. What is the apex of "human possibility" in your opinion? And, what is the apex approach?

 

It seems to me that being "fully and truly human" (if there is such a thing), would, by necessity, encompass the experience of the under-belly of human nature; the experience of thieves, murderers, rapists, etc., not in action, but at least in thought. These behaviors fall within the population of human possibilities, but are not considered desirable, and so judgment must enter this equation. Which parts of human experience do we carve out to become "fully human"? And, are we then still "fully human", or something else?

 

Steve

Edited December 19, 2016 by SteveS55

[romansh]

Thomas

Your language for me trips with duality ... physical and more, complete and not complete, becoming truly human.

 

It is interesting

 

rom

[tariki]

Tariki, not having your familiarity with Buddhism but loving Eckhart, my understanding is: Love, that has no why (or is its own why), empowers us to be 'truly Human' or, as you say, to "Live truly."

 

"We can LIVE truly" in the empathy of each moment, in Love that has no why. However it seems obvious that not all men and women "Live truly:" not all love, the empathy of each moment is not only threatened but ignored, even lost. All I'm saying is that the 'possibility' of Living truly is not (always) actualized, realized or made real. So I don't understand the recoil and I am left with a question: how is empathy, empathy if, in each moment, it know only itself? Love, in my understanding goes out from itself, empities itself, rather it knows the other, and thus becomes Itself. Anyway could just be the limitation of language.

 

There is not a duality, there is One but if we are talking about Love, it goes out to or for ....other? It can't go out to self for then it would hoard Love and not be Love or empathy in every moment. My old college professor has said there is not a multiplicity of beings, rather there is a multiplicity of persons in Being. So One and Many but One? Seemingly a paradox but if Love and if we can live truly, then it would seem that Unity in diversity is a higher form of Beauty, than unity in sameness (which could not be Love??).

 

As for suffering, if Being (for lack of a better 'word') remained unified in Self, I guess there would be no creation and there would be no suffering. However Love, by its very nature is vulnerable, entails risk and the possibility of suffering.

 

 

Hello again Thomas

 

Does invoking the word "other" and "seeing" them as living lives without love, does this lead to the resolution of a world of "vulnerability that entails risk"? What is it that causes us to act?

 

Words, words, and yet more words! Are you the only one who can speak of "paradox"? I spoke of Buddhist non-dualism........not that "all is one" but rather that all is NOT two. It was not a Buddhist who spoke of the dewdrop slipping into the shining sea. It is more that the shining sea slips into the dewdrop, but as Nagarjuna wrote, if the word "fire" was the thing itself then our mouth would burn when we said it. In my own Pure Land path, in its symbolism, gold represents tthe undifferentiated nature of enlightenment, while the lotus flower signifies the uniqueness of each individual self. In depictions of the Pure Land there are infinite golden lotus flowers blowing in the wind.

 

How can reality get lost? Words, words and more words. "The raft of the dharma is for passing over, not for grasping". You would seem to imply/fear that we can leap from the raft in mid ocean, well before reaching the Other Shore, thus leaving our world of suffering behind. Yes, so we can. Then we could say that "the journey is home"........where then is the raft, the ocean, the Other Shore?

 

Thomas Merton, a good Catholic, invoked paradox. In his speech on true communion he said that we were already one, but did not know it, that we must become what we are. In another place he spoke of already possessing God, yet how far I have to go to find You in Whom I have alrady arrived.

 

From the Pali texts:-

 

In protecting oneself one protects others

In protecting others one protects oneself

 

I "recoil" to protect myself. We are all speaking from our own perspective. As Rom quoted somewhere, and implied the question, are there a set of "master words" that suit Reality better than others in some definitive way? Do we all need to learn the words? Are they found in a particular book?

[tariki]

 

So does love have no cause? Even in Buddhism dependent origination suggests there is a cause? Evolutionary psychology certainly does.

Buddhism is a bit weak when it comes to beginnings and often it seems difficult to discern ends. Unlike Christianity with its "In the beginning........" and then its various eschatologies, the "last things" AKA the "end times".

 

"No discernable beginning" seems an ongoing mantra of various texts. Dependant origination, as I understand it ( and there seems subtle variations between Theravada and Mahayana ) is not at all about initial causes or beginnings, nor about any sequence of cause and effect. I would see it more as yet another take on "emptiness", that there are no self existent/self explanatory entities that remain through time.

 

"Let go what is before

Let go what is behind

Let go the middle

And get beyond becoming" ( Udana )

 

So even the duality of "being" as opposed to "becoming" would seem to be excluded........nowhere for the mind to cling.

[thormas]

Steve,

 

My first thought to your comment of "being 'fully and truly human' (if there is such a thing), would, by necessity, encompass the experience of the under-belly of human nature; the experience of thieves, murderers, rapists, etc., not in action, but at least in thought," was thinking that to true and fully see, one don't have to experience or imagine being blind, rather some/most of us do 'see' and value it without ever knowing blindness and come to value it more and more. I simply believe and also know in experience that one can be (or know) something without first knowing its opposite. I never knew hate when I was first born and raise in my family but I knew love and I would debate until the cows come home and longer if someone suggested I did not truly know love. Be that as it may...

As for the 'apex,' although I am sure it will be discussed and debated more on this site, I go with the answer of some ancients: the deification of man (and I do not understand this in theistic terms) and the only approach or way is the empathy of the moment or the Love that has no why. As for which parts of human experience do we carve out to become "fully human" - selfishness or self-centeredness (the emptying of self) - the opposite of love. And to rid oneself of selfishness is to be (on the way to being) "fully human."

[thormas]

Thomas

Your language for me trips with duality ... physical and more, complete and not complete, becoming truly human.

 

It is interesting

 

rom

Rom,

 

I know it does; I believe it comes with the territory: man, using language, trying to say something about 'God.' Even here you have a duality in that 'a being' tries to say something about Being, seemingly other and therefore two but the being is 'of' Being and/or Being is manifest in the being, seemingly one (in some way).

 

A favorite quote is from O'Henry: "Tis what I feel but can't define, Tis what I know but can't express."

 

Tariki, I am intrigued by this idea of emptiness: what was or is being emptied and if the point is to (or be) empty, why is there something to be emptied in the first place? If there were 'nothing' or just the 'empty", the emyptying would be accomplished: no before, no behind, no middle. So why would that which is empty even have a situation (for lack of a better word) where one or something would have to "let go?" And if there is that which is empty or that is what is to be achieved and there is the need to 'let go' - we have duality!

Edited December 19, 2016 by thormas

[SteveS55]

"As for the 'apex,' although I am sure it will be discussed and debated more on this site, I go with the answer of some ancients: the deification of man"

 

That's a fair enough answer, Thomas. Theosis it is! That pretty much conforms to the Eastern Orthodox (Greek) and contemplative/

mystical wing of the Roman Catholic Church. Ultimately, in those traditions, deification is brought about through the "uncreated energies" (grace) of God.

 

Steve

[thormas]

Tariki,

 

 

I did not follow your question: "Does invoking the word "other" and "seeing" them as living lives without love, does this lead to the resolution of a world of "vulnerability that entails risk"? What is it that causes us to act?"

 

However:

I am not the only one who can speak of "paradox." And if I follow this, "I spoke of Buddhist non-dualism........not that "all is one" but rather that all is NOT two," then, I like it.

But let me ask, what does - "not that 'all is one' but rather that all is NOT two" mean to you? Are we (you and I) not two? And if not, how not? And could we both not be two and still be one?

 

For me, it is not that reality can get lost but that man, without Love, can lose reality.

 

I agree with Merton: "we were already one, but did not know it, that we must become what we are." Others have said we forget Being (God) and get distracted (perhaps out of necessity??) by the world of beings. Or others that, in creation, there are more beings but not more Being. Yet, even in Merton we have a seeming duality: we are one and, as you indicted, the paradox.

 

Still not sure what 'recoil' means and it appears to be in opposition to the Love that has no why - the opposite of recoiling, it seems.

 

We do all speak from our own perspective but as for a set of "master words," I have always suspected that the Way (Dao), although One, can only be 'heard' and lived in the words of men where it finds them. There is one Word but one hears and responds in their words, in the particularity of their lives and in their books. And it is great fun to grapple and try to understand and see the similarities with other traditions, to try to 'translate' the insights of one into the language of another but, at the end of the day, the Word is not merely to be heard, it must be a lived.

Edited December 19, 2016 by thormas