I don't see why full creating members of the resurrected Heavenly Family would not be able to take 'Nirvana holidays' - much as we need to sleep, and enjoy sleeping.
Indeed, since we are God's beloved children whom he naturally wishes to be happy - insofar as this is harmonious with loving creation; Nirvana is part of why Heaven is Heavenly...
In this way the Christian Heaven includes the Eastern Nirvana - whereas by contrast Nirvana-seekers regard Heaven (like the mortal earthly life) as merely maya/ illusion (due to the false perspective of self/ ego).
The situation is Not, therefore, 'symmetrical' between these traditions and aspirations.
Christianity includes Nirvana as a valid albeit 'lower' reality; but Nirvana regards Christianity as mere illusion.
Note: This continues from yesterday's blog post...
The link to the previous post is broken.
WmJas - Fixed...
I think you have the Buddhist concepts of "nirvana" and "heaven" reversed. Buddhist heavens are realms of very low suffering and very high bliss which are stable on a long timescale (although not forever). This sounds more like the sort of passive tranquil oblivion that you ascribe to Buddhist nirvana. Again, the Buddhists I interact with do not regard such a tranquil bliss as a desirable state, but rather more like a trap.
Buddhist enlightenment (progress towards nirvana), especially in the Mahayana tradtions, is associated with a commitment to help all other sentient beings achieve enlightenment as well. This is an extremely active process, with Bodhisattvas incarnating as all manner of beings (human and otherwise) and working tirelessly to help others make spiritual progress.
Note that Buddhists view incarnation as a human to be extremely desirable (more so than incarnation as a heavenly being) because it provides a much better opportunity to achieve enlightenment than other forms.
-- Robert Brockman
@RB - It seems an error to try and get into the details of the many varieties of Eastern relgions as they have developed in different times and places: that is for historians and sociologists. Here I am trying to reveal the essence behind many diverse developments.
I'm afraid I regard the versions of Buddhism you discuss as simply and obviously incoherent - it is, indeed, almost impossible to be coherent when adopting such other-worldly anti-incarnational religions and yet remaining alive and active, and making evaluations.
Yet here-and-now, only coherent religions stand a chance.
Of course, incoherence has been common and extreme in many religions - very much so in Christianity. So because the essential metaphysical work is to be done, one must go beneath them in search of intuitive validity - which includes coherence.
Where is the internal inconsistency? The alignment between the Chan Buddhist group I have been in contact with and your overall strategy seems to be quite high, with the exception of assigning different labels to certain key concepts. Most of the time when you bring up a problem with Eastern religions, it is something that the Chan monks disagree with as well. It is quite uncanny: for example just today you mention that a religion that is anti-incarnational but alive and active is incoherent, and the Chan monks would agree -- they claim that incarnation as a human is a tremendous opportunity to make spiritual progress through vigorous activity.
There's a consistent pattern here where the Chan monks are not in alignment with your general view of Eastern religions in such a way as to make them more aligned with your overall metaphysics. This should be very encouraging -- more indications that you and they are on the right track.
-- Robert Brockman
@RB - Having views about ethics is incompatible - for instance.
Post a Comment