Nature of God is also Sunyata?

[Geof Nanto]

Underneath we are all dealing with the same spiritual reality. However the conceptual framework gives rise to different ways of expressing inner experience. Hence I find it insightful to compare the descriptions from different religious perspectives. That’s why I particularly like Meister Eckhart’s (non)description of the Godhead. To me the ineffable experience he’s trying, with some small success, to express in Christian terms is the same experience that Sunyata refers to within the Buddhist conceptual framework.  

 

(I write this as someone who's much more comfortable and familiar with the conceptual framework of classical Daoism.)  

[SirPalomides]

A quote from On the Divine Names by Dionysius the Areopagite:

 

The Universal Cause which filleth all things is the Deity of Jesus, whereof the parts are in such

wise tempered to the whole that It is neither whole nor part, and yet is at the same time whole and

also part, containing in Its all-embracing unity both part and whole, and being transcendent and

antecedent to both. This Deity is perfect in those Beings that are imperfect as a Fount of

Perfection; It is Perfectionless in those that are perfect as transcending and anticipating their

Perfection; It is the Form producing Form in the formless, as a Fount of every form; and it is

Formless in the Forms, as being beyond all form; It is the Being that pervades all beings at once

though not affected by them;and It is Super-Essential, as transcending every being; It sets all

bounds of Authority and Order, and yet It has Its seal beyond all Authority and Order.It is the

Measure of the Universe;and it is Eternity, and above Eternity and before Eternity. It is an

Abundance in those Beings that lack, and a Super-Abundance in those that abound; unutterable,

ineffable; beyond Mind, beyond Life, beyond Being; It supernaturally possesses the supernatural

and super-essentially possesses the super-essential.And since that Supra-Divine Being hath in

loving kindness come down from thence unto the Natural Estate, and verily took substance and

assumed the name of Man (we must speak with reverence of those things which we utter beyond

human thought and language), even in this act He possesses His Supernatural and Super-Essential

Existence—not only in that He hath without change or confusion of Attributes shared in our human

lot while remaining unaffected by that unutterable Self-Emptying as regards the fullness of His

Godhead, but also because (most wonderful of all wonders!) He passed in His Supernatural and

Super-Essential state through conditions of Nature and Being, and receiving from us all things that

are ours, exalted them far above us

[Geof Nanto]

Some further thoughts....

 

Getting back to the question of the OP, the Christian God as normally understood is clearly not Sunyata in that he has definite characteristics (considered masculine, to name but one) and has an agenda to uphold.  What I see Meister Eckhart was trying to do was to explain the arising of his Christian God within the immeasurably vaster 'empty' oneness of Sunyata that he had experienced.  Furthermore, what he attempts to speak of using the term 'Godhead' is familiar to me because it sounds like Dao. So now I've drawn another parallel. Godhead, Sunyata, Dao. I'm interested in other people's insights into this. 

 

@SirPalomides

 

It will take me a while to properly read and digest your above post. The terms used in Christian language are foreign to me.  

[SirPalomides]

Actually almost all of that language is Platonism. Christian theology is very much a development of Platonism. The main departure from classic Platonism is the doctrine of the incarnation but even that is discussed with Platonic and Aristotelian concepts.
 

I should also say God is not essentially male in orthodox Christianity, except insofar as a person of the Trinity incarnated as a male human. Referring to God as “He” is a matter of convention and sometimes metaphor (there are also feminine metaphors for God).

[Geof Nanto]

 

Bindi, I'm replying here rather than on the "Differences between Daoist and Buddhist understanding of emptiness" thread, because my wish here is not to engage in a discussion about the differences between Buddhist, Daoist and Christian conceptualizations. Although I consider philosophies / theologies vital as anchors for our human consciousness, I’m also interested in the underlying oneness of spiritual experience that underpin the words. And as all these three terms, Godhead, Sunyata and Dao, are words for our deepest ineffable experience, to try to distinguish them on the basis of characteristics which they don’t have is meaningless outside of our very real need to to create conceptual houses and cities in which to live because we need their shelter. 

 

When I was younger I had more energy and much need for such conceptual understanding. To this end, engaging in Dao Bums discussions has helped me enormously in both gaining increased conceptual clarity and in moving through my need for it. Now at almost 66 years of age and after 20 years of living close to nature, this poem attributed to Zen nun, Ryōnen Gensō (1646-1711) makes perfect sense to me:

 

Sixty-six times have these eyes beheld the
changing seasons of Autumn.
I have said enough about moonlight;
ask me no more.
Only listen to the voice of pines and cedars
when no wind stirs.

 

(And fortunately no one is asking me anyway unless I choose to engage.) 
 

[liminal_luke]

16 minutes ago, Yueya said:

 

 

Sixty-six times have these eyes beheld the
changing seasons of Autumn.
I have said enough about moonlight;
ask me no more.
Only listen to the voice of pines and cedars
when no wind stirs.

 

(And fortunately no one is asking me anyway unless I choose to engage.) 
 

 

If the "voice of pines and cedars" could take human form and post on this forum the resulting posts would share much in common with your own.

[steve]

On 3/1/2020 at 1:09 PM, ralis said:

This discussion has been in this forum before which went nowhere!  

 

I recall and don't miss the Buddhist wars here in the past,

we really haven't gone down that road lately.

It's nice to see the discussion going somewhere now... 

ironically that somewhere is empty!

 

 

[dwai]

Maybe it is enough to let people understand the unknowable in their own way. I’ve always leaned towards the commonality between traditions rather than the differences (which I feel are at a more superficial level). 
 

At the core of our experiences is awareness. When investigated, it is not possible to find any identifiable traits that could make uniquely awareness yours or mine. So whatever allows us to know and  to experience is not different across the various levels of sentience that appear in the universe. 
 

At the level of phenomena, we find that all phenomena depend on this awareness — hence they are empty of self nature or independent existence.
 

The body and mind too are phenomena, known in the light of awareness.

 

And awareness itself does not have any unique characteristics that makes it identifiable in space or time. Rather, space and time seem to arise in this awareness. So we could say awareness too is empty of “thingness” — though all things appear and disappear in it alone. 
 

Is this God? Is this Dao? Is this Emptiness? All of the above imho.  

[Miffymog]

To paraphrase Douglas Harding's Headless Way.

Take you finger and point at the wall opposite you, describe to yourself the qualities of what it is pointing at.

Then point the same finger towards you (your eyes).

Describe the nature of what it is pointing at

 

Spoiler

Its nature is open empty space - that gets filled up with by the world

 

Edited March 3, 2020 by Miffymog

[tantien]

I'm pretty amused!!! 

 

Of course God is empty of defilements, which I see the first few replies understood. The best jokes in this thread are poking at the reality of the Buddhist-nihilism stereotype, which I grok despite realizing Buddhism is not nihilistic or even in denial of a soul.

 

I think these terms have been defined enough, so I will refrain from the requests for further samadhi on linguistic constipation. Of course emptiness of many things are possible: defilements, perfections, self, etc.

 

I did expect a bit more directness: "Yes, your so-called God is empty!" -- quote from a hypothetical semi-polytheistic buddhist

[Limahong]

On 3/3/2020 at 5:06 AM, Yueya said:

Sunyata refers to within the Buddhist conceptual framework.  

 

Hi Yueya,

 

Sunyata is a word that establishes the Buddhist conceptual framework?

 

If so ~ are there endless mental models within a conceptual framework?

 

- Anand

[old3bob]

what is the sound of one head beating it's brains out against a wall?

[Limahong]

1 minute ago, old3bob said:

what is the sound of one head beating it's brains out against a wall?

 

No word(s) to describe.

 

Feelings? Maybe ~ pain.

[old3bob]

23 hours ago, Limahong said:

 

No word(s) to describe.

 

Feelings? Maybe ~ pain.

 

meant to be a joke although dubious

[Limahong]

1 minute ago, old3bob said:

a joke

 

Hi old3bob,

 

I have taken it thus...

I have followed your postings... on/off... good job.

 

 

 

 

- Anand

 

[tantien]

I've noticed:

-- Many in this thread proclaim to know the answer to my question. 

-- No one said, "I don't know."

-- There isn't really any consensus.

[Limahong]

47 minutes ago, tantien said:

"I don't know."

 

Hi tantien,

 

I FEEL the Divine strongly as a faith and I cannot find any words to...

 

Please advise how can/will "I don't know" fit into how I FEEL.

 

- Anand

 

 

Edited March 10, 2020 by Limahong
Correction

[ilumairen]

3 hours ago, tantien said:

I've noticed:

-- Many in this thread proclaim to know the answer to my question. 

-- No one said, "I don't know."

-- There isn't really any consensus.

 

The answer is dependent upon how the terms are understood and experienced..

[silent thunder]

i mull it over again each time another response arises.

 

And it's consistent.  My response has been and continues to be silence.

 

 

silence that is, aside from these words... to communicate silence.

 

silence: that which is broken, when one speaks its name.

 

sunyata... words often seem tiny, ill suited things to communicate intensely vast concepts, that abide beyond localized mind's ability to render into a model, or map.

 

the word water conveys a notion, but the word will never quench thirst.

the menu is not the meal, the map is not the territory.

 

sunyata

 

 

 

[Limahong]

1 hour ago, silent thunder said:

silence: that which is broken, when one speaks its name.

 

Hi Creighton,

 

Once broken ~ silence can be thunderous.

 

1 hour ago, silent thunder said:

sunyata... words often seem tiny, ill suited things to communicate intensely vast concepts, that abide beyond localized mind's ability to render into a model, or map.

 

Tiny words (though profound) can remain tiny in the wrong context? Such tiny words may then pertain to tiny models for limited maneuver as they are tiny maps?

 

1 hour ago, silent thunder said:

the word water conveys a notion, but the word will never quench thirst.

  

Will this water quench our thirst... a picture more than a 1000 words?

 

 

 

2 hours ago, silent thunder said:

The menu is not the meal...

 

But be my guest...

 

 

Good night.

 

- Anand

 

[silent thunder]

1 hour ago, Limahong said:

 

Hi Creighton,

 

Once broken ~ silence can be thunderous.

 

 

Tiny words (though profound) can remain tiny in the wrong context? Such tiny words may then pertain to tiny models for limited maneuver as they are tiny maps?

 

  

Will this water quench our thirst... a picture more than a 1000 words?

 

 

 

 

But be my guest...

 

 

Good night.

 

- Anand

 

Good knight, my friend!