Topic: Is Dependent Origination compatible with Orthodoxy

[sakura95]

I have been posting truckloads of nonsense here recently. So I suppose it's time for me to be more serious.

Quite recently I've been doing reading about Buddhism. And thus I came across the Dependent Origination.

To simply put, Dependent Origination means that every event is caused by multiple causes and conditions. It is not "cause and effect" to say since what it is trying to reflect IMO(not the Buddhist's) is how chaotic and indeterminate reality actually is.

From this we get the sense that things are empty of inherent existence. This is to say that there's no entity that is unchanging and unaffected by causes and phenomenon. Proceeding from this, we get the Buddhist doctrine of the 12 links to explain suffering and the doctrine of the No Self.

Of course what I'm more interested in is how the Hua Yen School interprets this calling it instead the "interpenetration of all phenomena". Unlike how the Indians view this, the Hua Yen School's perspective on the Dependent Origination is not pessimistic. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Buddhism is fatalistic like Calvinism. It's just pessimist, having a rather bleak view of the human condition and reality itself seeing it as "empty" though it doesn't mean that what things external to us are not real.

To understand how the Hua Yen School views the Dependent Origination, we must understand how they view reality. To the Hua Yen School, reality consists of 4 Dimensions which are,
a)Existence(Shih)
b)Emptiness(Li)
c)Non interference of Shih and Li
d)Non interference of all entities in Shih

All of these are considered to be "one" and can be expressed through the analogy of the Statue of the Golden Lion where,
Gold=Li
Shape of the Lion=Shih

The Shape of the Lion is the result of conditioning by the craftsman, through which we get the character of the lion. The gold itself here have no nature of its own since it is just the color of the statue.

The Dependent Origination then is the shape of the lion, the craftsman represents the interdependent causes which arises all the phenomena which would be Dependently Originated from these causes.

From here if we look at the shape of the lion, there's no "gold" since what we are perceiving is the form which the statue take that is of a lion. This means that there is phenomena/existence but there is no emptiness.

We can also look at the gold but we would not perceive the lion. So there is no phenomena/existence, only emptiness.

Given both are true then the Li and Shih overlap each other in a form of synergy. This is what (c) means.

(d) refers to to how each and every entity that exists causes each other and the totality of them placed together which is the interpenetration of all phenomenon.

So I suppose this is the Hua Yen view of Dependent Origination put out simplistically. It makes sense to me and I'm quite tempted to adopt this position. But I worry that it might be heterodox. So hence my question.

Also, do any of the Church Fathers hold to this view of reality or something similar?

[Porter ODoran]

What do you think?

[Minnesotan]

I have been posting truckloads of nonsense here recently. So I suppose it's time for me to be more serious.

Quite recently I've been doing reading about Buddhism. And thus I came across the Dependent Origination.

To simply put, Dependent Origination means that every event is caused by multiple causes and conditions. It is not "cause and effect" to say since what it is trying to reflect IMO(not the Buddhist's) is how chaotic and indeterminate reality actually is.

From this we get the sense that things are empty of inherent existence. This is to say that there's no entity that is unchanging and unaffected by causes and phenomenon. Proceeding from this, we get the Buddhist doctrine of the 12 links to explain suffering and the doctrine of the No Self.

Of course what I'm more interested in is how the Hua Yen School interprets this calling it instead the "interpenetration of all phenomena". Unlike how the Indians view this, the Hua Yen School's perspective on the Dependent Origination is not pessimistic. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Buddhism is fatalistic like Calvinism. It's just pessimist, having a rather bleak view of the human condition and reality itself seeing it as "empty" though it doesn't mean that what things external to us are not real.

To understand how the Hua Yen School views the Dependent Origination, we must understand how they view reality. To the Hua Yen School, reality consists of 4 Dimensions which are,
a)Existence(Shih)
b)Emptiness(Li)
c)Non interference of Shih and Li
d)Non interference of all entities in Shih

All of these are considered to be "one" and can be expressed through the analogy of the Statue of the Golden Lion where,
Gold=Li
Shape of the Lion=Shih

The Shape of the Lion is the result of conditioning by the craftsman, through which we get the character of the lion. The gold itself here have no nature of its own since it is just the color of the statue.

The Dependent Origination then is the shape of the lion, the craftsman represents the interdependent causes which arises all the phenomena which would be Dependently Originated from these causes.

From here if we look at the shape of the lion, there's no "gold" since what we are perceiving is the form which the statue take that is of a lion. This means that there is phenomena/existence but there is no emptiness.

We can also look at the gold but we would not perceive the lion. So there is no phenomena/existence, only emptiness.

Given both are true then the Li and Shih overlap each other in a form of synergy. This is what (c) means.

(d) refers to to how each and every entity that exists causes each other and the totality of them placed together which is the interpenetration of all phenomenon.

So I suppose this is the Hua Yen view of Dependent Origination put out simplistically. It makes sense to me and I'm quite tempted to adopt this position. But I worry that it might be heterodox. So hence my question.

Also, do any of the Church Fathers hold to this view of reality or something similar?

The concepts of Shih and Li seem very analogous to the matter and form in hylomorphism, with which the Church Fathers were certainly aware of.

[sakura95]

What do you think?

I don't know. But this can be used to show how reality itself is synergistic in nature to back up Orthodoxy's understanding of Synergy against the monergistic tendency of Protestantism.

[sakura95]

I have been posting truckloads of nonsense here recently. So I suppose it's time for me to be more serious.

Quite recently I've been doing reading about Buddhism. And thus I came across the Dependent Origination.

To simply put, Dependent Origination means that every event is caused by multiple causes and conditions. It is not "cause and effect" to say since what it is trying to reflect IMO(not the Buddhist's) is how chaotic and indeterminate reality actually is.

From this we get the sense that things are empty of inherent existence. This is to say that there's no entity that is unchanging and unaffected by causes and phenomenon. Proceeding from this, we get the Buddhist doctrine of the 12 links to explain suffering and the doctrine of the No Self.

Of course what I'm more interested in is how the Hua Yen School interprets this calling it instead the "interpenetration of all phenomena". Unlike how the Indians view this, the Hua Yen School's perspective on the Dependent Origination is not pessimistic. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Buddhism is fatalistic like Calvinism. It's just pessimist, having a rather bleak view of the human condition and reality itself seeing it as "empty" though it doesn't mean that what things external to us are not real.

To understand how the Hua Yen School views the Dependent Origination, we must understand how they view reality. To the Hua Yen School, reality consists of 4 Dimensions which are,
a)Existence(Shih)
b)Emptiness(Li)
c)Non interference of Shih and Li
d)Non interference of all entities in Shih

All of these are considered to be "one" and can be expressed through the analogy of the Statue of the Golden Lion where,
Gold=Li
Shape of the Lion=Shih

The Shape of the Lion is the result of conditioning by the craftsman, through which we get the character of the lion. The gold itself here have no nature of its own since it is just the color of the statue.

The Dependent Origination then is the shape of the lion, the craftsman represents the interdependent causes which arises all the phenomena which would be Dependently Originated from these causes.

From here if we look at the shape of the lion, there's no "gold" since what we are perceiving is the form which the statue take that is of a lion. This means that there is phenomena/existence but there is no emptiness.

We can also look at the gold but we would not perceive the lion. So there is no phenomena/existence, only emptiness.

Given both are true then the Li and Shih overlap each other in a form of synergy. This is what (c) means.

(d) refers to to how each and every entity that exists causes each other and the totality of them placed together which is the interpenetration of all phenomenon.

So I suppose this is the Hua Yen view of Dependent Origination put out simplistically. It makes sense to me and I'm quite tempted to adopt this position. But I worry that it might be heterodox. So hence my question.

Also, do any of the Church Fathers hold to this view of reality or something similar?

The concepts of Shih and Li seem very analogous to the matter and form in hylomorphism, with which the Church Fathers were certainly aware of.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of Hylomorphism before. So since the Church Fathers are aware of this, I guess the Dependent Origination isn't heterodox.

[Volnutt]

I have been posting truckloads of nonsense here recently. So I suppose it's time for me to be more serious.

Quite recently I've been doing reading about Buddhism. And thus I came across the Dependent Origination.

To simply put, Dependent Origination means that every event is caused by multiple causes and conditions. It is not "cause and effect" to say since what it is trying to reflect IMO(not the Buddhist's) is how chaotic and indeterminate reality actually is.

From this we get the sense that things are empty of inherent existence. This is to say that there's no entity that is unchanging and unaffected by causes and phenomenon. Proceeding from this, we get the Buddhist doctrine of the 12 links to explain suffering and the doctrine of the No Self.

Of course what I'm more interested in is how the Hua Yen School interprets this calling it instead the "interpenetration of all phenomena". Unlike how the Indians view this, the Hua Yen School's perspective on the Dependent Origination is not pessimistic. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Buddhism is fatalistic like Calvinism. It's just pessimist, having a rather bleak view of the human condition and reality itself seeing it as "empty" though it doesn't mean that what things external to us are not real.

To understand how the Hua Yen School views the Dependent Origination, we must understand how they view reality. To the Hua Yen School, reality consists of 4 Dimensions which are,
a)Existence(Shih)
b)Emptiness(Li)
c)Non interference of Shih and Li
d)Non interference of all entities in Shih

All of these are considered to be "one" and can be expressed through the analogy of the Statue of the Golden Lion where,
Gold=Li
Shape of the Lion=Shih

The Shape of the Lion is the result of conditioning by the craftsman, through which we get the character of the lion. The gold itself here have no nature of its own since it is just the color of the statue.

The Dependent Origination then is the shape of the lion, the craftsman represents the interdependent causes which arises all the phenomena which would be Dependently Originated from these causes.

From here if we look at the shape of the lion, there's no "gold" since what we are perceiving is the form which the statue take that is of a lion. This means that there is phenomena/existence but there is no emptiness.

We can also look at the gold but we would not perceive the lion. So there is no phenomena/existence, only emptiness.

Given both are true then the Li and Shih overlap each other in a form of synergy. This is what (c) means.

(d) refers to to how each and every entity that exists causes each other and the totality of them placed together which is the interpenetration of all phenomenon.

So I suppose this is the Hua Yen view of Dependent Origination put out simplistically. It makes sense to me and I'm quite tempted to adopt this position. But I worry that it might be heterodox. So hence my question.

Also, do any of the Church Fathers hold to this view of reality or something similar?

The concepts of Shih and Li seem very analogous to the matter and form in hylomorphism, with which the Church Fathers were certainly aware of.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of Hylomorphism before. So since the Church Fathers are aware of this, I guess the Dependent Origination isn't heterodox.

My understand of hylomorphism is not very good, but I've seen it used to deny any kind of mind-body dualism. Indeed, if the soul is dependent on matter, doesn't that at least imply soul sleep?

[sakura95]

I have been posting truckloads of nonsense here recently. So I suppose it's time for me to be more serious.

Quite recently I've been doing reading about Buddhism. And thus I came across the Dependent Origination.

To simply put, Dependent Origination means that every event is caused by multiple causes and conditions. It is not "cause and effect" to say since what it is trying to reflect IMO(not the Buddhist's) is how chaotic and indeterminate reality actually is.

From this we get the sense that things are empty of inherent existence. This is to say that there's no entity that is unchanging and unaffected by causes and phenomenon. Proceeding from this, we get the Buddhist doctrine of the 12 links to explain suffering and the doctrine of the No Self.

Of course what I'm more interested in is how the Hua Yen School interprets this calling it instead the "interpenetration of all phenomena". Unlike how the Indians view this, the Hua Yen School's perspective on the Dependent Origination is not pessimistic. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Buddhism is fatalistic like Calvinism. It's just pessimist, having a rather bleak view of the human condition and reality itself seeing it as "empty" though it doesn't mean that what things external to us are not real.

To understand how the Hua Yen School views the Dependent Origination, we must understand how they view reality. To the Hua Yen School, reality consists of 4 Dimensions which are,
a)Existence(Shih)
b)Emptiness(Li)
c)Non interference of Shih and Li
d)Non interference of all entities in Shih

All of these are considered to be "one" and can be expressed through the analogy of the Statue of the Golden Lion where,
Gold=Li
Shape of the Lion=Shih

The Shape of the Lion is the result of conditioning by the craftsman, through which we get the character of the lion. The gold itself here have no nature of its own since it is just the color of the statue.

The Dependent Origination then is the shape of the lion, the craftsman represents the interdependent causes which arises all the phenomena which would be Dependently Originated from these causes.

From here if we look at the shape of the lion, there's no "gold" since what we are perceiving is the form which the statue take that is of a lion. This means that there is phenomena/existence but there is no emptiness.

We can also look at the gold but we would not perceive the lion. So there is no phenomena/existence, only emptiness.

Given both are true then the Li and Shih overlap each other in a form of synergy. This is what (c) means.

(d) refers to to how each and every entity that exists causes each other and the totality of them placed together which is the interpenetration of all phenomenon.

So I suppose this is the Hua Yen view of Dependent Origination put out simplistically. It makes sense to me and I'm quite tempted to adopt this position. But I worry that it might be heterodox. So hence my question.

Also, do any of the Church Fathers hold to this view of reality or something similar?

The concepts of Shih and Li seem very analogous to the matter and form in hylomorphism, with which the Church Fathers were certainly aware of.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of Hylomorphism before. So since the Church Fathers are aware of this, I guess the Dependent Origination isn't heterodox.

My understand of hylomorphism is not very good, but I've seen it used to deny any kind of mind-body dualism. Indeed, if the soul is dependent on matter, doesn't that at least imply soul sleep?

Mine too, but matter and form in hylomorphism seems similar to the Dependent Origination.

How does the Dependent Origination entail that the soul is dependent on matter?

[Volnutt]

Doesn't look like it does (you'd know better than I lol!)

I think I can see hyloporphism would imply it, though.

[sakura95]

Well only in terms of matter it is similar it appears. Since given that matter is something that is relative to something else. Other than that there doesn't seem to be any similarities. I'm unsure if this means objects causing each other(not A cause B but rather how each object is interconnected with each other).

I'm unsure if hyloporphism have to imply "emptiness" or not. If it does then the Dependent Origination doctrine would imply soul-sleep. If not then it shouldn't be a bother.

At the meantime, I'm trying to read up more about the Hua Yen School to understand them better.

[sakura95]

I read more about the Hua Yen School and turns out they are Idealists who believe that the reality we perceive is pretty much a dream. Like a painting conjured by the mind.

Is Berkeley's Idealism even acceptable by Orthodox standards?

[Volnutt]

I read more about the Hua Yen School and turns out they are Idealists who believe that the reality we perceive is pretty much a dream. Like a painting conjured by the mind.

Is Berkeley's Idealism even acceptable by Orthodox standards?

I don't think so, but then I'm not an authority.

[sakura95]

I read more about the Hua Yen School and turns out they are Idealists who believe that the reality we perceive is pretty much a dream. Like a painting conjured by the mind.

Is Berkeley's Idealism even acceptable by Orthodox standards?

I don't think so, but then I'm not an authority.

I've heard that St Gregory of Nyssa is an Idealist. He believed that the world was "projected" by God or something like that.

[Volnutt]

I read more about the Hua Yen School and turns out they are Idealists who believe that the reality we perceive is pretty much a dream. Like a painting conjured by the mind.

Is Berkeley's Idealism even acceptable by Orthodox standards?

I don't think so, but then I'm not an authority.

I've heard that St Gregory of Nyssa is an Idealist. He believed that the world was "projected" by God or something like that.

I have no idea. But one Church Father does not a doctrine make.

[sakura95]

I read more about the Hua Yen School and turns out they are Idealists who believe that the reality we perceive is pretty much a dream. Like a painting conjured by the mind.

Is Berkeley's Idealism even acceptable by Orthodox standards?

I don't think so, but then I'm not an authority.

I've heard that St Gregory of Nyssa is an Idealist. He believed that the world was "projected" by God or something like that.

I have no idea. But one Church Father does not a doctrine make.

True, but I don't necessarily have to make the assumptions the Hua Yen School makes to embrace the Dependent Origination since there's plenty of viewpoints in Buddhism itself. I just hope I don't have to side with the Theravada on this one. Their interpretation of this is deterministic.

At least the Hua Yen ain't Solipsists though.

[Volnutt]

Why do you care so much about harmonizing Buddhist philosophy with Christianity? What if it at the end of the day, they just aren't compatible?

[sakura95]

Why do you care so much about harmonizing Buddhist philosophy with Christianity? What if it at the end of the day, they just aren't compatible?

It must've been my reverence for Buddhism I guess.

Ideas like reincarnation are already not compatible with Christianity. But in the end, my goal is to able to take what is good and logical from Buddhism and synthesize it with Orthodox Christianity.

[Volnutt]

Why do you care so much about harmonizing Buddhist philosophy with Christianity? What if it at the end of the day, they just aren't compatible?

It must've been my reverence for Buddhism I guess.

Ideas like reincarnation are already not compatible with Christianity. But in the end, my goal is to able to take what is good and logical from Buddhism and synthesize it with Orthodox Christianity.

Fair enough.

[sakura95]

At the meantime, I'm entertaining myself with that journal about St Maximus the Confessor you linked to in the thread about Predestination before continuing my readings into the Hua Yen School.

[ialmisry]

At the meantime, I'm entertaining myself with that journal about St Maximus the Confessor you linked to in the thread about Predestination before continuing my readings into the Hua Yen School.

what was that (the St. Maximos part)?
Somewhere I have something on St. Maximos that resembles your OP

[orthonorm]

Where are Jetavan and Iconodule?

To the OP: no way, no how.

[Volnutt]

At the meantime, I'm entertaining myself with that journal about St Maximus the Confessor you linked to in the thread about Predestination before continuing my readings into the Hua Yen School.

what was that (the St. Maximos part)?
Somewhere I have something on St. Maximos that resembles your OP

This article http://www.verujem.org/maksim_ispovednik/Naturally%20and%20by%20grace%20Maximus%20the%20Confessor%20on%20the%20operation%20of%20the%20will.pdf

[sakura95]

Where are Jetavan and Iconodule?

To the OP: no way, no how.

Why?

The Hua Yen School seems to be Theistic. They believed that the Buddha's mind(One Mind) created all the other Minds. Everything is said to be manifestations of this One Mind.

We can take the "One Mind" to be God.

[sakura95]

At the meantime, I'm entertaining myself with that journal about St Maximus the Confessor you linked to in the thread about Predestination before continuing my readings into the Hua Yen School.

what was that (the St. Maximos part)?
Somewhere I have something on St. Maximos that resembles your OP

Can you provide some insight about this resemblance?

[Porter ODoran]

Why do you care so much about harmonizing Buddhist philosophy with Christianity? What if it at the end of the day, they just aren't compatible?

It must've been my reverence for Buddhism I guess.

Ideas like reincarnation are already not compatible with Christianity. But in the end, my goal is to able to take what is good and logical from Buddhism and synthesize it with Orthodox Christianity.

Why not Hinduism? Buddha's Enlightenment of the Hindu religion abstracted it and rarified it to a degree we wouldn't see again, in human thought, until the European Enlightenment. The denominations that followed him almost immediately added a great deal of human content or it's unlikely the religion could have gone anywhere. Why remain (altho I know it is what you're familiar with) -- why remain with the sterile extraction from the original teeming field, Hinduism?

[sakura95]

Why do you care so much about harmonizing Buddhist philosophy with Christianity? What if it at the end of the day, they just aren't compatible?

It must've been my reverence for Buddhism I guess.

Ideas like reincarnation are already not compatible with Christianity. But in the end, my goal is to able to take what is good and logical from Buddhism and synthesize it with Orthodox Christianity.

Why not Hinduism? Buddha's Enlightenment of the Hindu religion abstracted it and rarified it to a degree we wouldn't see again, in human thought, until the European Enlightenment. The denominations that followed him almost immediately added a great deal of human content or it's unlikely the religion could have gone anywhere. Why remain (altho I know it is what you're familiar with) -- why remain with the sterile extraction from the original teeming field, Hinduism?

True but it's the same with Hinduism as well. It's simply the evolution of the ancient Vedic religions and is very varied. I guess the same variety can be said of Buddhism as well.

But given that I grew up with Buddhism and was a cultural one as a child(I didn't know anything except reincarnation), I figured I might as well explore and learn more about the religion I used to identify with.

[Porter ODoran]

Why do you care so much about harmonizing Buddhist philosophy with Christianity? What if it at the end of the day, they just aren't compatible?

It must've been my reverence for Buddhism I guess.

Ideas like reincarnation are already not compatible with Christianity. But in the end, my goal is to able to take what is good and logical from Buddhism and synthesize it with Orthodox Christianity.

Why not Hinduism? Buddha's Enlightenment of the Hindu religion abstracted it and rarified it to a degree we wouldn't see again, in human thought, until the European Enlightenment. The denominations that followed him almost immediately added a great deal of human content or it's unlikely the religion could have gone anywhere. Why remain (altho I know it is what you're familiar with) -- why remain with the sterile extraction from the original teeming field, Hinduism?

True but it's the same with Hinduism as well. It's simply the evolution of the ancient Vedic religions and is very varied. I guess the same variety can be said of Buddhism as well.

But given that I grew up with Buddhism and was a cultural one as a child(I didn't know anything except reincarnation), I figured I might as well explore and learn more about the religion I used to identify with.

Buddha was in no way an evolutionary change in Hinduism. His was a catastrophic abstraction of religion as he understood it, and really an attempt to do away with religion as he understood it (but then an abstraction always is really an annihilation ...).

As for the "evolution of the Vedic religion," isn't that what Hinduism is? Not just in its final content, but in its mechanism, in its very nature -- and is much of what you would be studying to "take ... and synthesize with Orthodox Christianity."

[sakura95]

Buddha was in no way an evolutionary change in Hinduism. His was a catastrophic abstraction of religion as he understood it, and really an attempt to do away with religion as he understood it (but then an abstraction always is really an annihilation ...).

Oops. I was trying to refer to Buddhism's variety in belief when I said that. Not that it was a change in Hinduism.

I can't be too sure whether the Buddha actually tried to do away with religion. If that was his intention then his actions would ironically give birth to a new religion with differing viewpoints and thoughts.

As for the "evolution of the Vedic religion," isn't that what Hinduism is? Not just in its final content, but in its mechanism, in its very nature -- and is much of what you would be studying to "take ... and synthesize with Orthodox Christianity."

Yes it is. But if Hinduism is already so varied in the first place with many schools and changes from its former Vedic religion, then Buddhism would to the Hindus be just another school of their religion that exist.

[Porter ODoran]

Buddha was in no way an evolutionary change in Hinduism. His was a catastrophic abstraction of religion as he understood it, and really an attempt to do away with religion as he understood it (but then an abstraction always is really an annihilation ...).

Oops. I was trying to refer to Buddhism's variety in belief when I said that. Not that it was a change in Hinduism.

I can't be too sure whether the Buddha actually tried to do away with religion. If that was his intention then his actions would ironically give birth to a new religion with differing viewpoints and thoughts.

As for the "evolution of the Vedic religion," isn't that what Hinduism is? Not just in its final content, but in its mechanism, in its very nature -- and is much of what you would be studying to "take ... and synthesize with Orthodox Christianity."

Yes it is. But if Hinduism is already so varied in the first place with many schools and changes from its former Vedic religion, then Buddhism would to the Hindus be just another school of their religion that exist.

I've tried to make my points. An internet forum isn't the best venue for clarity.

[Volnutt]

Ok, here is my attempt to understand St. Maximus' view of the will based on that article.

There are two kinds of will, the thelemic, or natural, will and gnomic will. The thelemic will is a kind of direct or instinctual will that always inclines itself toward what God wants and God's created order. The gnomic will is the will that interacts with all the variety of choices available to us in this life and has to chose between them. The thelemic is a property of one's nature and the gnomic is a property not of one's nature but of one's hypostasis in time. Thus the Three Persons of the Trinity share a thelemic will in their common divine nature and this is the same thelemic that was brought into the Hypostatic Union.

Before the Fall our choices were uncomplicated. Our gnomic wills did not have to deliberate, they just followed our uncorrupted thelemic will that natural sought communion with God in all things. The Fall corrupted our thelemic will and made it impossible to desire God. Now our gnomic will is restricted to choosing from among ungodly options.

Grace begins redeeming our thelemic wills and turning them towards God but our gnomic will is still capable of choosing to cooperate with our being-redeemed thelemic will or not. In eternity, the righteous will not need gnomic wills at all because they will be freed from time and have a direct experience of God and choices will be uncomplicated again.

If being free from time and being directly in the experience of God renders the gnomic will obsolete, then if follows according to St. Maximus that Christ did not even have a gnomic will to begin. His humanity was atemporal and prelapsarian. He had the thelemic will of His divine nature (which is the exact same will as that of the Father and the Spirit) and the thelemic will of His human nature. So, for example, in the Garden of Gethsemane Christ's human thelemic will asked for the cup to be passed from Him out of a natural and blameless fear of death. But because His human will always obeys His divine will without hesitation, the human will snapped out of it and decided to do the will of God.

[sakura95]

Nice summary of St Maximus' model of the Thelemic and Gnomic Will there. I could barely understand reading from the journal itself.

So there's the Thelemic/Natural will which direct itself towards the Good while the Gnomic Will that deliberates due to ignorance and division.

If I'm not wrong the journal you linked to stated that the Fall divides humanity and even the individual person themselves. This made sense to me given that we can see traces of division everywhere, even within our own decision making(I want to but I also don't want to).

[Volnutt]

Nice summary of St Maximus' model of the Thelemic and Gnomic Will there. I could barely understand reading from the journal itself.

So there's the Thelemic/Natural will which direct itself towards the Good while the Gnomic Will that deliberates due to ignorance and division.

If I'm not wrong the journal you linked to stated that the Fall divides humanity and even the individual person themselves. This made sense to me given that we can see traces of division everywhere, even within our own decision making(I want to but I also don't want to).

Yeah, that makes sense.

Assuming I'm right about St. Maximus, of course.

[orthonorm]

Sakura if you want to choose your flavor of Buddhism that doesn't understand it's own underpinnings so you can enjoy syncretic fun, you don't have to ask for our opinion.

Dependent arising and the related notion anatman clearly make no sense within an odox xtian understanding. If you are able to develop an odox ontological account for the trinity that you are able to reconcile with dependent arising and anatman, you've gone far astray and arguably understand both xtian and buddhism so poorly as to be unable to reason with.

This thread asks if green can be red.

[sakura95]

I just want to know is whether or not the idea of the Dependent Origination is compatible with Orthodoxy. I'm not looking at the concept of the "no self" here.

Also, all the Dependent Origination states in a nutshell is that all phenomenon basically have multiple causes and conditions. I'm not looking at anything beyond that in this thread.

[sakura95]

Nice summary of St Maximus' model of the Thelemic and Gnomic Will there. I could barely understand reading from the journal itself.

So there's the Thelemic/Natural will which direct itself towards the Good while the Gnomic Will that deliberates due to ignorance and division.

If I'm not wrong the journal you linked to stated that the Fall divides humanity and even the individual person themselves. This made sense to me given that we can see traces of division everywhere, even within our own decision making(I want to but I also don't want to).

Yeah, that makes sense.

Assuming I'm right about St. Maximus, of course.

It matches the journal so most probably you would be right.

[Volnutt]

Nice summary of St Maximus' model of the Thelemic and Gnomic Will there. I could barely understand reading from the journal itself.

So there's the Thelemic/Natural will which direct itself towards the Good while the Gnomic Will that deliberates due to ignorance and division.

If I'm not wrong the journal you linked to stated that the Fall divides humanity and even the individual person themselves. This made sense to me given that we can see traces of division everywhere, even within our own decision making(I want to but I also don't want to).

Yeah, that makes sense.

Assuming I'm right about St. Maximus, of course.

It matches the journal so most probably you would be right.

Assuming the article is correct in its gloss, of course.

[sakura95]

Reading the actual works of the Saint himself would be a very difficult undertaking. But the journal is practically the same in its understanding of St Maximus as what I read on Monachos.

[Porter ODoran]

Reading the actual works of the Saint himself would be a very difficult undertaking. But the journal is practically the same in its understanding of St Maximus as what I read on Monachos.

If one is not willing to tackle the primary source, one should not allow oneself to be considered any authority on a subject.

[sakura95]

Reading the actual works of the Saint himself would be a very difficult undertaking. But the journal is practically the same in its understanding of St Maximus as what I read on Monachos.

If one is not willing to tackle the primary source, one should not allow oneself to be considered any authority on a subject.

Well, I can't argue with that.

[Porter ODoran]

Reading the actual works of the Saint himself would be a very difficult undertaking. But the journal is practically the same in its understanding of St Maximus as what I read on Monachos.

If one is not willing to tackle the primary source, one should not allow oneself to be considered any authority on a subject.

Well, I can't argue with that.

Then that makes two of us.