A Buddhist critique of Catholic mysticism. Catholic rebuttal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicHere_Hi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CatholicHere_Hi

Guest
Hi everyone! This is my first post, so hopefully it’s a good one! 🙂

Here is one particular critique from a Buddhist source attempting to disprove the experience of Catholic mystics as a form of proof leading to God’s existence. Before anyone starts though. I just want to clarify that I am a Catholic. I’m not a Buddhist. Just seeking some answers to somewhat valid points made by our Buddhist author here 🙂

I am interested in hearing the Catholic’s take on these experiences. I’m assuming it’s more than just confusion due to a contrast in sense perception:

Here are some of the statements made the work. Forum rules won’t allow me to post a link since I’m new, but it is called Buddhism and the God-idea by Nyanaponika Thera

The contrast between these states and normal conscious awareness is so great that the mystic believes his experience to be manifestations of the divine; and given the contrast, this assumption is quite understandable. Mystical experiences are also characterized by a marked reduction or temporary exclusion of the multiplicity of sense-perceptions and restless thoughts, and this relative unification of mind is then interpreted as a union or communion with the One God.

The Buddhist meditator is advised to view the physical and mental factors constituting his experience (such as the ones mentioned above) in the light of the three characteristics of all conditioned existence: impermanency, liability to suffering, and absence of an abiding ego or eternal substance. This is done primarily in order to utilize the meditative purity and strength of consciousness for the highest purpose: liberating insight. But this procedure also has a very important side-effect which concerns us here: the meditator will not be overwhelmed by any uncontrolled emotions and thoughts evoked by his singular experience, and will thus be able to avoid interpretations of that experience not warranted by the facts.

Hence a Buddhist meditator, while benefiting by the refinement of consciousness he has achieved, will be able to see these meditative experiences for what they are; and he will further know that they are without any abiding substance that could be attributed to a deity manifesting itself to the mind. Therefore, the Buddhist’s conclusion must be that the highest mystic states do not provide evidence for the existence of a personal God or an impersonal godhead. Pretty strong claim
 
Last edited:
Of course. There’s no doubt that some people have had mystical experiences and that doesn’t prove anything. The catholic rebuttal is that Jesus actually resurrected from the dead and performed miracles. He wasn’t a Muhammad type who just came up with stuff. The existence of God can be proven through looking around yourself and drawing the conclusion that everything had a creator and therefore there had to be a first cause since time itself had a beginning. This coupled with the historical reality of the resurrection is why it’s reasonable to believe in God
 
Last edited:
This piece is really loaded. In their conclusion, the writer claims that the piece is not meant to be polemic.
They have been mentioned here chiefly for the purpose of defining the Buddhist position, and not to serve as a topic of speculation and argument. Such involvement can only divert attention and effort from what ought to be our principal object: the overcoming of greed, hatred and delusion where they are found in the here and now.
Click to expand...
“delusion” ?? What is that referring too? Buddhist mystics?

And here it is. The reason for the writing. Religion bad, Buddhism good. Right, because the communist atheist dictatorships of the 20th Century didn’t kill anyone. Oh wait…it was about 100 million people or something wasn’t it? Yea, I think it was the “god-concept” that stoped all that killing, so… It will also be the “god-concept” that stops babies from being killed…60 million and counting so far. What has Buddhism done?
We cannot, however, close our eyes to the fact that the God-concept has served too often as a cloak for man’s will to power, and the reckless and cruel use of that power, thus adding considerably to the ample measure of misery in this world supposed to be an all-loving God’s creation. For centuries free thought, free research and the expression of dissident views were obstructed and stifled in the name of service to God.
Click to expand...
Here’s the link:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html
 
Last edited:
Of course, once God is removed from the equation, anybody could make up any arguments to disclaim the Catholic mystical experience. However, how does the Buddhist critique explain the fact that mystics were seen doing supernatural things like levitation (e.g. St. Joseph of Cupertino) or mind reading/bilocation (Padre Pio) or all sorts of miracles and supernatural things, which obviously were experienced by other people (some unbelievers, some hardcore critics)? Could someone, mistaking disillusions for God be able to heal another person? The Buddhist critique should also be able to take into consideration documented supernatural events associated with the disillusioned ‘catholic mystic’ and disprove them right?
 
It should also take into account the drastic changes in many saints personal lives. Look at Augustine, Ignatius of Loyola, Francis, and on and on. How about the work St. Mother Teresa did, or Xavier or Joan of Arc? All you have to do is survey the lives of our many saints and you ought to be able to conclude that something is working.
 
Why do you feel the need to rebutt (regardless of the content).

I think it is very deep and doesnt contradict anything I believe in as a daily mass going Catholic.
 
Last edited:
Buddhists start with a different set of premises about ultimate truth. As such, they interpret mystic experiences differently.

A Buddhist who has an idea of a god or gods in meditation is seen as experiencing a barrier to authentic enlightenment. No different than retaining an abiding sense of ego or self. Hence Buddha’s cryptic instruction to kill Buddha if you should meet him on the road. If you arrive at the idea of god in your Buddhist meditation, even conceptualizing him as Buddha himself, you still aren’t there yet, as it were, in achieving a completely enlightened state. That idea must be metaphorically killed in your mind, along with the idea of having a “small” (personal) mind or self at all, before you can progress. Even then, there is still a ways to go. But that is even further down the Buddhist rabbit hole.

Beyond the idea of a god or gods, the idea of specific “creator” god is even further irrelevant to a Buddhist. The world exists to the Buddhist. That world is being experienced by the Buddhist meditator, and it has specific qualities (impermanence, suffering, attachment, etc.). That is enough for the Buddhist. Questions about “why does the world exist, and who created it” are unanswerable in Buddhism and are seen as not worth even asking. They are further barriers to enlightenment.

In Catholic or any deistic mysticism, achieving a unitive state with God is the end, because we believe He exists. That is the rebuttal.

Buddhists take a lot on faith too, so don’t let them fool you. For example, rebirth and karma.
 
They are simply wrong. They, having had no such mystical experience, nor even seeking it, are not speaking from their mouths. They desire nothingness, but they cannot be nothing once they have been something.

Anti-Catholic Buddhism! That’s a new one! Could it just be a knee-jerk response to the rapid growth of the faith in Asia?

Yes, I think so.
 
CatholicHere_Hi said:
Hi everyone! This is my first post, so hopefully it’s a good one! 🙂

Here is one particular critique from a Buddhist source attempting to disprove the experience of Catholic mystics as a form of proof leading to God’s existence. Before anyone starts though. I just want to clarify that I am a Catholic. I’m not a Buddhist. Just seeking some answers to somewhat valid points made by our Buddhist author here 🙂

I am interested in hearing the Catholic’s take on these experiences. I’m assuming it’s more than just confusion due to a contrast in sense perception:

Here are some of the statements made the work. Forum rules won’t allow me to post a link since I’m new, but it is called Buddhism and the God-idea by Nyanaponika Thera

The contrast between these states and normal conscious awareness is so great that the mystic believes his experience to be manifestations of the divine; and given the contrast, this assumption is quite understandable. Mystical experiences are also characterized by a marked reduction or temporary exclusion of the multiplicity of sense-perceptions and restless thoughts, and this relative unification of mind is then interpreted as a union or communion with the One God.

The Buddhist meditator is advised to view the physical and mental factors constituting his experience (such as the ones mentioned above) in the light of the three characteristics of all conditioned existence: impermanency, liability to suffering, and absence of an abiding ego or eternal substance. This is done primarily in order to utilize the meditative purity and strength of consciousness for the highest purpose: liberating insight. But this procedure also has a very important side-effect which concerns us here: the meditator will not be overwhelmed by any uncontrolled emotions and thoughts evoked by his singular experience, and will thus be able to avoid interpretations of that experience not warranted by the facts.

Hence a Buddhist meditator, while benefiting by the refinement of consciousness he has achieved, will be able to see these meditative experiences for what they are; and he will further know that they are without any abiding substance that could be attributed to a deity manifesting itself to the mind. Therefore, the Buddhist’s conclusion must be that the highest mystic states do not provide evidence for the existence of a personal God or an impersonal godhead. Pretty strong claim
Click to expand...
The commentator is simply naive-having never experienced what the mystics have. He seems to insist, in fact, on the superiority of having control of his meditative experience but the Christian mystical experience is incomparably superior simply because it’s beyond the mystic’s control, out of his hands, being orchestrated as it were by a separate being who’s vastly, unfathomably superior to the receiver of the experience. The absolute, ineffable profundity of a mystical experience shatters the objections of someone who, simply, hasn’t “been there” and so doesn’t, because he cannot, know about that of which he nonetheless speaks.
 
Last edited:
I am sorry I don’t quite understand your post. But I pray that you will one day discover the truth of Catholicism.
 
Here’s the thing:
mystic experiences used to provide evidence for God are not as described or just different brain states.

Those are usually apparitions, of Mary, a saint, Jesus, etc., and they usually have something showing that it actually happened, like the marks of the Crucifixion, a smell of roses, etc etc. They are not just altered brainstates or a feeling of oneness.
 
CatholicHere_Hi said:
Therefore, the Buddhist’s conclusion must be that the highest mystic states do not provide evidence for the existence of a personal God or an impersonal godhead.
Click to expand...
To me as a Catholic, this is a big “who cares” because we don’t rely on “mystic states” or other people’s reported apparitions to provide us with “evidence of a personal God or an impersonal godhead” or whatever.

Such mystic states are private revelations and no Catholic is required to believe in them. Catholics can choose to believe in them (unless the Church firmly states that we should NOT believe in a particular case, which has happened from time to time when the Church felt that some purported “mystic” was leading people astray) and in doing so, disagree with what the Buddhist thinks, but Catholics can also choose to not believe in them, in which case there’s nothing to disagree over.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
40.png
CatholicHere_Hi:
Therefore, the Buddhist’s conclusion must be that the highest mystic states do not provide evidence for the existence of a personal God or an impersonal godhead.
Click to expand...
To me as a Catholic, this is a big “who cares” because we don’t rely on “mystic states” or other people’s reported apparitions to provide us with “evidence of a personal God or an impersonal godhead” or whatever.

Such mystic states are private revelations and no Catholic is required to believe in them. Catholics can choose to believe in them and in doing so, disagree with what the Buddhist thinks, but Catholics can also choose to not believe in them, in which case there’s nothing to disagree over.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. But mystics, themselves, can certainly be strengthened in faith because of their experiences, being a “proof” of sorts to them. Either way, the Buddhist’s experiences and the Christian mystic’s experiences are going to be primarily if not totally subjective in nature, so neither can serve as proof to anyone else. But the Buddhist commentator in the OP seems to be saying otherwise.
 
Last edited:
I agree. Buddhists who experience an overwhelming mystic encounter such as you describe are told not attach to it, because ultimately it is not real. These experiences are thus seen as more hurtful than helpful in progressing along the path.

Turning back to the cited article, it is a bit disingenuous to blame the “god idea” for the maladies the author bemoans. Buddhist conceptions have facilitated similar poor results. If there is no me, and no you, then who am I hurting by my bad behavior? Neither of “us” exist. And, in fact, my killing you may help you by allowing a faster reincarnation to a higher state than you would have acheived after a longer life with additionally incurred bad karma. See the Zen community’s approval of atrocities committed by Japan justified under Buddhist principles for an example.

Edit - I also agree that meditative experiences are subjective and cannot prove God exists. The fact that they are even possible is probative (in my opinion, at least). The author has a cart and horse problem. So it is a big “who cares” from a Catholic perspective.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think so. Mystical experiences aren’t conclusive proofs in themselves either.
 
fhansen said:
I don’t think so. Mystical experiences aren’t conclusive proofs in themselves either.
Click to expand...
That’s the thing about supernatural experiences. They are proof to the person experiencing it but they don’t continue forever. Then they become a memory and subject to faith…Even the Resurrection
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top