Universalism

[tariki]

Although I am a non-theistic Buddhist, I have become quite an expert on Christian Universalism (technical word apokatastasis) this being the teaching that eventually all will be saved and all things will be reconciled "in Christ". Beware of experts? Yes, well, as I say, I'm a bit of an expert.....😀

My expertise (!) has developed in part from my interest in Interfaith dialogue, an interest now on the wane as most Christians I tend to engage with on various forums have just one starting point i.e. There can be no dialogue between truth (theirs) and error (i.e. anything else) So debate and discussion tends to stall at the first hurdle. But then, as my mentor Thomas Merton has said at some point:-

I have tried to learn in my writing a monastic lesson I could probably have not learned otherwise: to let go of my idea of myself, to take myself with more than one grain of salt................In religious terms, this is simply a matter of accepting life, and everything in life as a gift, and clinging to none of it, as far as you are able. You give some of it to others, if you can. Yet one should be able to share things with others without bothering too much about how they like it, either, or how they accept it. Assume they will accept it, if they need it. And if they don't need it, why should they accept it? That is their business. Let me accept what is mine and give them all their share, and go my way.

Anyway, I'm rambling and waffling as usual. I'm not really seeking to advance the Universalist cause, more at the moment to say what I find problematic about it. This derives from the old comedy show of the late great Spike Milligan, Q6. Many of his sketches ended with some sort of punch line and then dear old Spike would stand ramrod stiff in the middle of the room and start muttering "What do we do now, what do we do now?" 

So Universalism. All are saved, all things are reconciled. But what do we do then? It's a very good question, and our questions can hold greater gold than many an "answer".

In my own rather stumbling Pure Land Buddhist way of "no-calculation" the "journey itself is home", as the Japanese poet Basho has said. There is no final destination. The road goes on forever. And one of my mentors in zen, Dogen, speaks of the present moment being the only moment, "yet there is a movement toward Buddha", an ever opening intimacy with Reality.

Another aspect is the guy (I can't remember who) who said that he would rather constantly pursue Truth rather than actually find it or have it "revealed" to him. What do you do with it when you have found it? Could any final "truth" even be of words?

Well, that is it for now. But I will speak of Christian Universalism when I find the odd moment ( "odd" being, perhaps, the operative word....

 

[romansh]

Saved from what? It does not matter anyway, we were not in danger from that.

While self-imposed labels are useful (sometimes limiting or occasionally misleading) in describing "where we are coming from", I find it strange that we label ourselves in millennia-old doctrines albeit somewhat modified. Being a non-theist Buddhist does that make one a kind of atheist?

From a personal point of views, it is does not hurt to take look at the past and see what conclusions people have come to. But also we should take a look around today. What might have passed as wisdom two thousand or more years ago just might not pass muster today.

[tariki]

I tend to extrapolate from one creed (ancient or modern or inbetween) to another. Find correspondences. So I also look around "today". 

No doubt what passes muster for us today (if anything) and what we might presume to be "wisdom", will be scorned 2000 years from now? Who knows.

But we each have to find our own unique path, time and place. Unique. But though unique, what others have found is of interest. At least to me.

Saved from what? Basically there is nothing that we need to do and yet we cannot do nothing  (after allowing for Camus, who said that our first decision is whether or not to commit suicide!) After that, and deciding against, as Spike said:-

What do we do now?

(Atheist...."a" = not......theist)

For me it still comes down to what is taught in the fundamental Theravada texts. i.e. ALL metaphysical conclusions are inimicable to what that branch of Buddhism called the "holy life":-

So this holy life......does not have gain, honour, and renown for its benefit, or the attainment of virtue for its benefit, or the attainment of concentration for its benefit, or knowledge and vision for its benefit. But it is this unshakeable deliverance of mind that is the goal of this holy life, its heartwood, and its end.

(Majjhima Nikaya)