Dear Friend,
Frankly I’m glad to hear that Buddhism is helping you to live authentically in a world of materialism and greed, and that you found a way in which you can be tolerant and non-judgmental. These are virtues, I believe, that should be present in all religions including the Christian faith in this time of strife and conflict.
You also asked: "Does meaning in life require a higher, transcendent purpose?"
Perhaps, lemme start with some reflections on tolerance and truth…
You are well aware of the law of non-contradiction… Truth by definition is exclusive. If the proposition “What Jesus says is the truth” is true, then it follows that what contradicts his words are wrong. This is, on surface, no more arrogant or offensive than saying "1+1 = 3" is wrong.
However, questions of faith and ethics are much more sensitive and complex than mathematics.
I think a person is not narrow-minded simply because he holds an exclusive view. A person is narrow-minded if he refuses to even consider other views. Or if he holds the truth in a high-handed, proud manner… and people like that can be found in all religions including Christianity and Buddhism.
In fact, everybody holds an exclusive view that implies the opposite is wrong. A relativist who doesn’t hold to absolute truth can be very dogmatic and abusive against those who differ as well.
So there’s a difference between holding an exclusive view and holding it in an offensive way.
It seems to me also that Christianity and Buddhism share similar idea of renunciation of certain ‘worldly things’. The difference appears to be in the motivation behind ‘letting go’.
For Buddhism, we must let go of the things that hold us because desire itself is the
cause of suffering. No desire, no suffering. The enlightened person has seen through
the illusion and at the highest level, no longer is tied down by desire for good or evil, even though he chooses compassion. He’s cool, indifferent in his heart.
For Christianity, desire in itself is not the enemy. In fact, God created us with desires and emotions.
The problem is when we desire less valuable things more than what’s more valuable… or when we desire things in an excessive degree. For example, when we value things more than people… Or we direct our anger at the wrong people or in the wrong degree. Always, we are called to sacrifice a lesser good in order to obtain a greater good. And we’re supposed to pursue that Supreme Good who is God with all the passion and desire we can muster.
I’d agree with you that we need to take the ‘here-and-now’ more seriously, and not only pin all our meaning in the afterlife. For example, religious people in general need to do more for the injustices we see in the world today and not only hope for other-worldly comfort.
Small things like study, work, marriage, drinking teas can be meaningful without an afterlife... (Though it does raise questions about whether an ultimate justice will prevail if there is no concept of a reincarnation or heaven/hell, doesn’t it?)
These things are beautiful and valuable… I think these simple pleasures in life provide us with a clue to our hunger for the Divine.
Even at its most sublime, Huxley says, after reading Shakespeare or listening to Wagner, the heart still asks “Is that all?” There’s this weird thirst that even at life’s most meaningful moments (when we thought our life would be fulfilled) there seems to be a yearning for something deeper, fuller and eternal…
Maybe that’s why Pascal said we have a God-shaped vacuum in our hearts.
And I also think the existentialists like Jean Paul Sartre saw rightly that there is no ultimate meaning in life (and all its little mysteries and pleasures) without God, so we have to create our own meaning via sheer act of will.
"To be is to do"
But I wonder if even this is not a ‘chasing after the winds’ after all? Especially since that meaning is not ‘there’, it is just an illusory invention we made up to infuse meaning in an actually meaningless existence.
It seems to me that's where we end up without God.
Best regards
Dave
PS: About Trinity, let me leave you this comment made by a friend of mine:
“The universe has diverse components which act in harmony. We are made, physically and chemically, of the same elements yet we are so different from other human beings, things and animals. In such diversity, we are interdependent on each other so that the unity cannot be missed.
A painting of many colors produces a harmonious mosaic. An orchestra of many musical instruments produces a symphony, instead of cacophony. If there is unity in diversity in the creation, is it not reasonable to expect unity and diversity in the Creator?”
Frankly I’m glad to hear that Buddhism is helping you to live authentically in a world of materialism and greed, and that you found a way in which you can be tolerant and non-judgmental. These are virtues, I believe, that should be present in all religions including the Christian faith in this time of strife and conflict.
You also asked: "Does meaning in life require a higher, transcendent purpose?"
Perhaps, lemme start with some reflections on tolerance and truth…
You are well aware of the law of non-contradiction… Truth by definition is exclusive. If the proposition “What Jesus says is the truth” is true, then it follows that what contradicts his words are wrong. This is, on surface, no more arrogant or offensive than saying "1+1 = 3" is wrong.
However, questions of faith and ethics are much more sensitive and complex than mathematics.
I think a person is not narrow-minded simply because he holds an exclusive view. A person is narrow-minded if he refuses to even consider other views. Or if he holds the truth in a high-handed, proud manner… and people like that can be found in all religions including Christianity and Buddhism.
In fact, everybody holds an exclusive view that implies the opposite is wrong. A relativist who doesn’t hold to absolute truth can be very dogmatic and abusive against those who differ as well.
So there’s a difference between holding an exclusive view and holding it in an offensive way.
It seems to me also that Christianity and Buddhism share similar idea of renunciation of certain ‘worldly things’. The difference appears to be in the motivation behind ‘letting go’.
For Buddhism, we must let go of the things that hold us because desire itself is the
cause of suffering. No desire, no suffering. The enlightened person has seen through
the illusion and at the highest level, no longer is tied down by desire for good or evil, even though he chooses compassion. He’s cool, indifferent in his heart.
For Christianity, desire in itself is not the enemy. In fact, God created us with desires and emotions.
The problem is when we desire less valuable things more than what’s more valuable… or when we desire things in an excessive degree. For example, when we value things more than people… Or we direct our anger at the wrong people or in the wrong degree. Always, we are called to sacrifice a lesser good in order to obtain a greater good. And we’re supposed to pursue that Supreme Good who is God with all the passion and desire we can muster.
I’d agree with you that we need to take the ‘here-and-now’ more seriously, and not only pin all our meaning in the afterlife. For example, religious people in general need to do more for the injustices we see in the world today and not only hope for other-worldly comfort.
Small things like study, work, marriage, drinking teas can be meaningful without an afterlife... (Though it does raise questions about whether an ultimate justice will prevail if there is no concept of a reincarnation or heaven/hell, doesn’t it?)
These things are beautiful and valuable… I think these simple pleasures in life provide us with a clue to our hunger for the Divine.
Even at its most sublime, Huxley says, after reading Shakespeare or listening to Wagner, the heart still asks “Is that all?” There’s this weird thirst that even at life’s most meaningful moments (when we thought our life would be fulfilled) there seems to be a yearning for something deeper, fuller and eternal…
Maybe that’s why Pascal said we have a God-shaped vacuum in our hearts.
And I also think the existentialists like Jean Paul Sartre saw rightly that there is no ultimate meaning in life (and all its little mysteries and pleasures) without God, so we have to create our own meaning via sheer act of will.
"To be is to do"
But I wonder if even this is not a ‘chasing after the winds’ after all? Especially since that meaning is not ‘there’, it is just an illusory invention we made up to infuse meaning in an actually meaningless existence.
It seems to me that's where we end up without God.
Best regards
Dave
PS: About Trinity, let me leave you this comment made by a friend of mine:
“The universe has diverse components which act in harmony. We are made, physically and chemically, of the same elements yet we are so different from other human beings, things and animals. In such diversity, we are interdependent on each other so that the unity cannot be missed.
A painting of many colors produces a harmonious mosaic. An orchestra of many musical instruments produces a symphony, instead of cacophony. If there is unity in diversity in the creation, is it not reasonable to expect unity and diversity in the Creator?”
Comments
From : Leon Carl Henry