A question for Buddhists

[billcu1]

I’m sorry. You would have to provide a valid reference for
the last statement as it is patently false application of the quote.
He never stated the Church did not contain all that is
necessary.
The reason is, you as a Catholic professing her fullness, if the Church, containing within her womb,
the Real Presence of Christ, is somehow deficient and is
NOt the end/be all of salvation, it is a direct accusation
that Christ Himself is somehow deficient as well.
Now why do you suppose a Buddhist would waste his
time becoming equal to a deficient God? Doesn’t that
defeat your purpose? And if as a professing Catholic that the Church
contains all that is necessary, why be Buddhist?
scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

I am not saying that the church doesn’t have fullness. I’m not saying Christ is deficient. I am just saying in that last statement the church has said they (as I understand it) from a quote by Francis, if he’s being interpreted right; has said the church isn’t the only way to salvation. What about places the gospel hasn’t reached?

But I see things in the church that are not necessary. We have been saved from that the church doesn’t seem to have a clue about. For example aging. A curse that we need not endure. No one has to age. You can look like your 20 and be 1,000 years old. Many have this teaching. The church hasn’t been let in on the teaching evidently. God’s people have this promise. If you don’t understand this or don’t know anything about it…Well one must ask one’s self some questions why. The people of the body of Christ do not age. The question is what part of the body are you.

 

[marywarfield]

I am not saying that the church doesn’t have fullness. I’m not saying Christ is deficient. I am just saying in that last statement the church has said they (as I understand it) from a quote by Francis, if he’s being interpreted right; has said the church isn’t the only way to salvation. What about places the gospel hasn’t reached?

But I see things in the church that are not necessary. We have been saved from that the church doesn’t seem to have a clue about. For example aging. A curse that we need not endure. No one has to age. You can look like your 20 and be 1,000 years old. Many have this teaching. The church hasn’t been let in on the teaching evidently. God’s people have this promise. If you don’t understand this or don’t know anything about it…Well one must ask one’s self some questions why. The people of the body of Christ do not age. The question is what part of the body are you.

Well first I think you would have to suffer from conceit or
vanity enough to want to stay looking 29. How in the
world is that meaningful in either Buddhism or
Catholicism? Go get a hair plugs then.

 

[Grym]

@billcu1

What exactly is required in order not to age and grow old in this world?

How do you look like 20 for a 1000 years?

Are these 2 separate questions or the same one?

Personally I think that the first is an impossibility but that the second might be reachable…

/Victor

 

[Grym]

How in the
world is that meaningful in either Buddhism or
Catholicism?

Is it not one of the promises och christianity? Everlasting life? Or so I thought?

/Victor

 

[billcu1]

Well first I think you would have to suffer from conceit or
vanity enough to want to stay looking 29. How in the
world is that meaningful in either Buddhism or
Catholicism? Go get a hair plugs then.

This is not for selfish reasons. This is to fulfill in a fuller extent what Shantideva spoke. And be careful with the church in some things that are not so important, as Jesus warned:

"This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
In vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines human precepts.

You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.”
He went on to say,
“How well you have set aside the commandment of God
in order to uphold your tradition!
…"

 

[billcu1]

Is it not one of the promises och christianity? Everlasting life? Or so I thought?

/Victor

I personally have seen no fruits. I see sickness, aging, death and such. These things the Buddha said need not be. Of course he died of a poison mushroom, so some say. There are different versions and opinions. I seriously doubt he didn’t know what was up when fed it. Rama on the other hand was taken into the heavens. No death or anything. But that’s a different story.

 

[billcu1]

@billcu1

What exactly is required in order not to age and grow old in this world?

How do you look like 20 for a 1000 years?

Are these 2 separate questions or the same one?

Personally I think that the first is an impossibility but that the second might be reachable…

/Victor

Life is centered around Kidney energy. It comes from mother and father. It depletes and one grows old. If you want to stay and do work for God. This depletion must stop. It can be reversed.

 

[marywarfield]

Is it not one of the promises och christianity? Everlasting life? Or so I thought?

/Victor

You are kidding right? You are in it to look 20?
I’ve heard a lot of reasons for following religions but not that one.

 

[marywarfield]

Life is centered around Kidney energy. It comes from mother and father. It depletes and one grows old. If you want to stay and do work for God. This depletion must stop. It can be reversed.

Ok got it. A troll thread. Later.

 

[billcu1]

Life is centered around Kidney energy. It comes from mother and father. It depletes and one grows old. If you want to stay and do work for God. This depletion must stop. It can be reversed.

Ever heard of the 8 immortals of Chinese “mythology”. Ok now maybe we can get back to buddhism. There was quite a distraction there with Mary. She just doesn’t get it.

 

[billcu1]

Is it not one of the promises och christianity? Everlasting life? Or so I thought?

/Victor

Lets get back to Buddhism. I am sorry for the distraction Mary was. Anyone finally want the floor?

 

[billcu1]

@billcu1

What exactly is required in order not to age and grow old in this world?

How do you look like 20 for a 1000 years?

Are these 2 separate questions or the same one?

Personally I think that the first is an impossibility but that the second might be reachable…

/Victor

When people lived in the Bible for 900 years. That was translated as years. It was really “Shars” or a period of a couple thousand years multiply that by 900. Some of those people are still alive. They fake deaths and such like Charlemagne who was put to sleep. But we were talking about Buddhism right?

 

[Grym]

You are kidding right? You are in it to look 20?
I’ve heard a lot of reasons for following religions but not that one.

I am not in “it” at all I am a buddhist. I said I thought that was one of the things Christians were promised?

Are they not?

Buddhists are on looking for not being reborn.

/Victor

 

[Grym]

I personally have seen no fruits. I see sickness, aging, death and such. These things the Buddha said need not be. Of course he died of a poison mushroom, so some say. There are different versions and opinions. I seriously doubt he didn’t know what was up when fed it. Rama on the other hand was taken into the heavens. No death or anything. But that’s a different story.

IMO. Buddha never promised everlasting life. He promised an end to sickness, old age and death. By which is meant the the death and rebirth of the self.

But according to mythology there will come a golden age before the next Buddha where the lifespan of humans are like those in the old biblical storys or even longer.

/Victor

 

[rossum]

IMO. Buddha never promised everlasting life. He promised an end to sickness, old age and death.

Correct.

By which is meant the the death and rebirth of the self.

If you are born, then you will die. If you are reborn then you will re-die again. The point of attaining nirvana is that you are not reborn. Being born again is to suffer yet another death. Birth is the cause of death, so if you wish to avoid death then avoid birth.

rossum

 

[billcu1]

IMO. Buddha never promised everlasting life. He promised an end to sickness, old age and death. By which is meant the the death and rebirth of the self.

But according to mythology there will come a golden age before the next Buddha where the lifespan of humans are like those in the old biblical storys or even longer.

/Victor

Now the way I understand it the next Buddha will be the 5th and that will be Maitreya the bodhissatva. The will be 104 Buddhas in the entire age. But of course Tilopa Naropa and Milarepa and Marpa were all spoken of as Buddhas too. Not bodhissatvas.

 

[rossum]

Now the way I understand it the next Buddha will be the 5th and that will be Maitreya the bodhissatva. The will be 104 Buddhas in the entire age. But of course Tilopa Naropa and Milarepa and Marpa were all spoken of as Buddhas too. Not bodhissatvas.

Different schools have different counts, and it depends where you start from. Starting from Dipankara Buddha as 1, Gautama Buddha is about number 28 and Maitreya Buddha will be number 29.

YMMV

rossum

 

[Grym]

Dont care really. I do not plan to stick around for that long. Until the next Buddha that is. .

 

[CrossofChrist]

It’s been about a week since I’ve been here and I think I owe a response or two.

Creation yes. The buddhas are beyond creation nor are they a part of it.

From a Catholic perspective this is clearly incorrect. I thought you were trying to show how Buddhism and Catholicism were compatible in this respect, which is why I started commenting about this in the first place. My mistake.

It wasn’t meant too. Heaven for example is not the end all but just the beginning. A place where we perfect ourselves more and grow into greater.

Heaven is traditionally believed to be the fulfillment of our perfection, by being fully incorporated into the Body of Christ and attaining the beatific vision. Purgatory might be better described as the place where we become perfected.

When you’re no longer a part of creation you are pure actual without potential as our philosopher said.

Here’s where Buddhist (and Eastern religions) and Aristotelian-Thomistic (and really all monotheistic religious) views of reality conflict. We are creation and can’t become noncreation. The pure Act is unchangeable, and creation (us) becoming pure Act is nonsensical, since then the one who is actual would have potency and not be solely act. Otherwise the solution to the question of why things are in movement isn’t solved.

The church is part of the body.

The Church is the Body. Christ and the Church are one.

All are not called to this.

As often as the sacrifice of the cross in which Christ our Passover was sacrificed, is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried on, and, in the sacrament of the eucharistic bread, the unity of all believers who form one body in Christ (8) is both expressed and brought about. All men are called to this union with Christ, who is the light of the world, from whom we go forth, through whom we live, and toward whom our whole life strains. (Lumen Gentium 3)

All you are saying is pure catholicism and as a catholic I cannot argue with that.

That’s all I’m trying to do.

As a buddhist and seeker I see much more.

and earlier you also said

Catholicism doesn’t get into the real meat of things.

From the Catechism:

*65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.
27*

And from CCC 67: Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment

So from a Catholic perspective Catholicism is “the real meat of things” because Jesus is the “real meat”. Anything claiming more or less will not only see less than the fullness of the truth but fails to understand what the message of Christianity really is.

Thanks for following.

You’re welcome.

And sorry everyone for derailing my own thread. Just wanted to give a proper response.