The Human Self, One, Irreplaceble

"I would know you in order to know myself."

The word person has great significance. "Today our way of thinking about people is defined in quantity...so many thousands, millions...yet there is always one, human person indivisible." That person is unique, irreplaceable, the creation of which remains a metaphysical mystery.
Persons may be described and regarded as form, physical bodies, not unlike other bodies, both animate and inanimate. However in the individual a development takes place. The development of thought, knowledge and intellect takes place on a deeper level in the person.
All are on the developmental plane as persons. Even the least gifted person whom we may meet belongs to this great human reality of the person in development.

Is each human person really created in the image and likeness of God, the Creator? While man may not deny his link to nature, and resemblance to the world known in past times as the animal world, it is not possible to integrate all that a person possesses without recognition of the "something more" that defines him.
The something more which defines him may be called the conscience. A person is, in the view of theologian and philosopher, Karol Wotjyla in fact, conscience. The conscience provides the definitive structure which differentiates the person from other elements in the created world. It is the basis of the definitive and unrepeatable I.

A story that comes out of the World War II era, one from a Polish concentration camp, recounted by Max Kolbe regarding his own execution by a camp executioner. Both he and the executioner were human beings, each presumably with a conscience. On one hand, one is one admired and esteemed for his faith and courage in horrible circumstances; the other is a person to be rejected by others of every faith, scorned and repudiated.

The greatness or smallness of a person is first developed within his conscience. When considering this notion, we must look to the ends of its development, that is in death. Is then death the full ends of a person? Is it in fact a defining reality? The materialism of the world sees death as an end, so much so that a person's life is a steady progression towards its inevitable end in death, beyond which there is nothing.
The Judeo-Christian tradition teaches in the Tanakh or Old Testament book, Genesis, "You are dust, and to dust you will return."
But if death is really the final end, then what happens to lead one to a final heroic act of faith and courage, and another to play the part of executioner, halting a life?
What about good and evil?
The French thinker and writer, Jean Paul Sartre wrote that man aspires to that which he defines as God, "even if this is an empty word, so that it is a useless passion." Yet persons are multidimensional. They develop slowly, unevenly; they develop judgment and wisdom over time. That development is the beginnings of eternal life.
In the course of a person's development he comes to know that there is a tree, if you like, of good and evil; he finds that at any turn he may choose good or evil. This knowledge, these decisions, and actions are of value. They present a person with either the good, or the evil as value.
Indeed human life is lived between good and evil. Human beings are great because they can freely choose, they possess what Augustine of Hippo called, free will.
 Despite the will and the ability to choose, man, in knowledge, has chosen evil; he has played the executioner. In a certain sense, the ability to choose evil testifies to man's greatness in freedom.

Yet freedom calls, requires something of the chooser. It exacts a price. In evil we are cut off from the source of life, from love, from co-union with the Creator. The created are then exceeded in the bounds of the "tree."
The God of the Bible remains steadfast in regard to his creations. He does not cut himself off from them; he is more like the story of a lover seeking his beloved, the Song of Songs, his lost child. He looks everywhere for him.
His first and last thoughts are for the Beloved, his creation. The precepts of the Bible, of the Buddha, have come into the world to lead the Way to our redemption, our enlightenment, to our peace, our joy, our rest in the One.
--paraphrased from The Way to Christ by Karol Wojtyla

The Doctrine of Suchness and the Dharmakaya

"The light of Dharmakaya is like unto the full moon..." 
--Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism, by D.T. Suzuki.

Considering the "doctrine of Suchness," D. T Suzuki writes, "it appeared to all speculative to be of use in everyday human lives... it must pass through some practical modification before it fully satisfies our spiritual needs...
this modification of pure reason is necessary from the human point of view; because mere abstraction is pointless, lifeless without tangible content; as such it cannot satisfy our spiritual cravings with empty abstraction...
the truth is, religious consciousness, first of all, demands fact...
on the other hand if logic be all important, then sentiment follows its trail in a dry, arid void...

The truth is, that in this life,  the will predominates, and the intellect sub-serves... abstraction is good for the exercises of the intellect, but questions of life and death must have something more than theories...
it must be a faith born of the innermost consciousness of our being...
What practical transformations then has the doctrine of Suchness, in order to meet the religious demands, to suffer?"

God. Buddhism does not use the word God often, if at all.
 While not to be judged as atheism, Buddhist thought outspokenly acknowledges the presence in the world of a reality which transcends all limits, yet is everywhere, immanent, manifesting itself in full glory, and by which we live and have our being...
The religious object of Buddhism is generally thought of as "Dharmakaya," "Vairochana," or "Amitabha," several of its names.

In the west, scholars very often translate the Dharmakaya to mean "body of the law." This interpretation, while in current use, is not very accurate, and often the source of serious misunderstandings by Western thinkers.
Today, as the term is now used, especially by those practitioners in the Eastern regions (of  origin), often misunderstanding the meaning of "Dharma." These basic misunderstandings of doctrine accounts chiefly for the failure to recognize Mahayanaism as central to all developed Buddhist thought.
"If we were to always translate dharma by law, it seems to me that the whole drift of our treatise would become unintelligible," wrote Suzuki.

To Mahayanists, Dharma means many things, depending upon context. Words such as thing, substance, being, reality--both specific and general, are effective renderings for dharma then. The Dharmakaya is effectively rendered as both an intelligence, and a spirit. Thus terms such as God and All are not always sufficient to its original meaning.

The Dharmakaya is described by Suzuki as not exactly equivalent to suchness: "it is a soul, a willing and knowing being, one that is will and intelligence, thought and action." It is not understood as an abstract principle or a metaphysical principle like suchness, but is a living spirit, manifesting itself in nature and in thought... There is no place in the universe where this body does not prevail...
It is free from all opposites and divisions, yet works in all things to lead them to enlightenment."

It is not a mere abstraction, standing apart from this world. Dharmakaya is a spiritual existence, absolutely real, true and the reason for all beings; it is the upaya, free from struggles or compulsions; it is beyond understanding.
It is love; the body of all beings is the Dharmakaya, and the Dharmakaya is the body of all beings...And, as we enter further into the will and spirit of the Dharmakaya, this will becomes freely our own; a realization of the free will of the Dharmakaya.
We move towards the supreme goodness; every good we do is absorbed into the universal store of merits, no more or less than Dharmakaya. Every existence, a reflection of Dharmakaya, worthy of its all embracing love.

Confucius, the Meaning of Ren and Yi

"If what you don't want for yourself, you shouldn't to do others, then you would like others to do for you what you would indeed like for yourself." --Confucius (also K'ung Fuzi), ancient Chinese philosopher

While "the gentleman understands Yi, the small/mean man understands Li," wrote Confucius, Analects IV:16.
Here in the United States many of us grow up with the occasional, "Confucius said..." and sometimes responding with laughter. But what did Confucius really say? Why does it matter at all?
In his book, The Ways of Confucianism by David S. Nivens, Philosopher and Sinologist, writes that Confucius remains important now as then, forming a sort of moral compass with principles to guide one in positive and fruitful pathways.
The practice of Confucianism is heavily invested in what is virtue, being Ren and doing Yi. In other words, one is mostly to be concerned with Xiao, honor, along with Ren love, charity and Yi, right conduct.

Nivens takes these base ideas and draws them out over the milenia of Chinese practice. He investigates virtue in the form of  De, the power or charisma of a king or ruler who practices without force or violence. Insisting this is key to understanding the philosophy of Confucius he compares the practice of De with an example, "Humans typically feel gratitude for gifts. However in some societies, this feeling becomes magnified so that my gratitude to you comes to seem like force... De was originally this "force" kings acquired through their willingness to make sacrifices to the ancestors and to the spirits..."
However, here it 's important to be cognizant of the difference between gifts given freely and those given to obtain a measure of force. True De is in contact with humility, generosity and virtue, generally.

To do good in Confucius' view, one must be in possession of this virtue, free of simple, unrestrained self-interest. In contrast, Chinese philosopher, Mozi in an attitude of "consequentialism," takes the tack of an extreme voluntarist, or one who willingly 'scratches your back, so you will scratch my own.' Mozi then is the quintessential anti-Confucianist.
Confucius argues that virtue is every one's business and everyone is to strive within this virtue. Thus Confucius also falls into the business of enforcing the bolstering of, what the West calls, the 'weakness of the will.' "So the problem of weakness of the will enters into Chinese moral philosophy in general," writes Nivens.

 Nivens, a scholar in his own right, posits some interpretations of the ancient Chinese texts rather than mere erudition of them.  Within his book, he examines Neo-Confucianism through the study of Wang Yang Ming, another influential, early Chinese Buddhist-influenced  philosopher. "For Wang, self-cultivation is a matter of escaping the obscuration [enigma] of selfish desires, and attending  instead to the voice of one's true self.
Because one's true self is in identification with the universe... self cultivation results in the unity of all things [harmony]." So in Wang's Neo-Confucianist view, harmony with the universe, openness in mind and heart to the nature of things, the persistence of spontaneity and joy, even while in mourning, is expressive of the action of one's true, authentic self.

The Struggle for Love: What Do You Live For?

"What if what we long hoped for, does not come? Willingness to risk for a better day"

Continuing in the book Bold Love, Dan Allender, Christian minister and clinical psychologist, observes many things, most especially that love as the Judeo-Christian tradition writes of it, is a "bold love, a harsh mistress, because there's nothing redeeming about a love that just blindly accepts."

In so many ways we are robbed of our birthright, of our natural beauty, present within us from infancy onward. In the Bible from Genesis chapter 3 onward, we read that God has been in a struggle against evil within our midst.
He vexes the serpent, saying, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." Gen.3:15

The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name. Ex. 15:3

This phrase is a part of the Tanakh or Old Testament story about the parting of the Red Sea. Did the sea part? Perhaps, but its symbolism of courage and determination are certainly powerful. It is this same courage and determination needed by each of us as we move forward into our lives--and our loves.
God, as the Bible amply recounts, is not willing to accept any old thing. He wishes, desires, demands us to be the creations of his heart, one with his being. In this, we are called to a love, eternal, cosmic, and nearly unfathomable.

While our perspective may be simply as small as living a better life, his desire for us is a more radical one, that we learn the love of a Creator for his creation.
No small order, and far and away from the notion of "unconditional" love, popularly bandied about these days.

Are we then to be set to fail? The task is so large. No wonder when many think of notions of God, they think of God, the enemy. The one who shows us both what we long for, and what we rather not see at all. Allender writes, "...we will be either lulled into thinking that what we currently enjoy in this life is enough, or lapse into fury for this life not being enough."

Seeking his face, we seek our own. What we love when we are with him is what we fail to see as our own. Love is between he and I; it is not either he or I.
Rather, it is he and I, what exists between us, is made freely and durable, created as the love we realize.

The light in the darkness, brilliantly shown of a love that God has known. He has held his hand for us to steady our climb, he has waited patiently as we fall; our anticipation of what is to come has at times deepened our disappointment. Yet as a kind father, his love remains our own. His love, unconditional continues to be offered and we may continue to seek.

Yet the heart deferred, makes hope a sadness. Admitting that I do not yet see clearly, that I do not yet know, makes way for the greater development of truth in clarity and freedom. I see the reason for my existence and behave accordingly.

What am I living for? Living for the joy of acquisition and power is self serving; living for the good of others is perhaps more in the Way. Yet we can seem to think ourselves to be living in the Way and yet we are not. There are those who convince themselves they are right; their ego has the answer, it is good--for me.

Do you live for freedom? In one sense freedom is the absence of restraint. There is nothing to hinder me to act as I choose. Suppose, however, that you live in a universe that for every choice I might make, the world has already determined the response, responses for which I have no control. I may remain physically free, no one has tied me down or locked me up, but I seem to lack freedom in a more durable and possible sense. While I am free to act as I choose, my choices are not free.

There is another type of freedom says the Christian philosopher and theologian, Augustine of Hippo. In the book, On Free Choice of the Will, translated by Thomas Williams, Augustine writes, "I have freedom to choose in a way that is not determined by any thing outside my control, what Augustine called metaphysical freedom. The view that human beings have metaphysical freedom is also known as libertarianism."

Augustine is one of the great defenders of libertarianism. He says that human beings are endowed with a power called the will. A person can direct his will to go in seemingly limitless directions. His own freedom of direction, then, can be thought of as free choice.

A person may choose for himself money, power, influence, sex, excesses of all types; these choices so mentioned have all been external choices, made by factors outside the person. If so, then a person could not be entirely responsible for them.
But it is not external factors that determine our choices. Rather it is internal states: beliefs, desires, hopes and fears. Since it is the desire, the will of a person and the character which determines one's choices, freedom therefore is not threatened.

Yet a libertarian like Augustine would not be swayed by this. He says that in fact, human beings are rational thinking, and free choice makes them therefore responsible. Because persons have metaphysical freedom in this view, they are capable of making a real difference in the world. We may write our own "scripts." We may be truly in the image of God, the Creator, bringing something into the world that previously did not exist before us.

He says further, "that without metaphysical freedom, there would be no evil, because evil is also a choice, but then the world might be nothing more than a divine puppet show in the absence of free choice.

If there is to be any real goodness, any new and creative acts of love, then there must be metaphysical freedom. This freedom cannot ever be taken; it is of your own free will. What do you live for?
simplemindzen.blogspot.com