Are Buddhism and Catholicism compatible with each other?

[Melek]

Here’s an overview of Buddhism.

Buddhism is a path of practice and spiritual development leading to Insight into the true nature of life. Buddhist practices such as meditation are means of changing oneself in order to develop the qualities of awareness, kindness, and wisdom. The experience developed within the Buddhist tradition over thousands of years has created an incomparable resource for all those who wish to follow a path — a path which ultimately culminates in Enlightenment or Buddhahood.

Because Buddhism does not include the idea of worshipping a creator god, some people do not see it as a religion in the normal, Western sense. The basic tenets of Buddhist teaching are straightforward and practical: nothing is fixed or permanent; actions have consequences; change is possible. Thus Buddhism addresses itself to all people irrespective of race, nationality, or gender. It teaches practical methods (such as meditation) which enable people to realise and utilise its teachings in order to transform their experience, to be fully responsible for their lives and to develop the qualities of Wisdom and Compassion.

There are around 350 million Buddhists and a growing number of them are Westerners. They follow many different forms of Buddhism, but all traditions are characterised by non-violence, lack of dogma, tolerance of differences, and, usually, by the practice of meditation.

I have always heard that you can be Catholic and Buddhist at the same time. Buddhism in the western sense is more of a philosophical view on life rather than a religion. Since there is no worshiping, can’t you be Catholic and Buddhist? Buddha taught that to end suffering one must end desire which is similar to some of the concepts that Christ taught.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\I have always heard that you can be Catholic and Buddhist at the same time.\

**Not from Catholics or those who know what either is about.

Catholicism believes in the existence of God.

Buddhism denies this.

\Buddha taught that to end suffering one must end desire which is similar to some of the concepts that Christ taught.\

No resemblance whatsoever. Christ never taught anything about ending desire, but to desire the right things.

The closest Buddhism comes to Christianity in this regard is the heresy of quietism, which teaches we should desire nothing, not even eternal salvation.**

 

[The_Fool]

I was always trying to figure out how someone who claims to be both would explain the uniqueness of Christ. Reincarnation also seems to clash with Christian doctrine(although one may argue Buddhists do not believe in reincarnation). In my experience, some also tend to view time in a cyclical rather than linear model. There are also a number of other issues which come up depending on how they are defined. I understand some text avoid using the word emptiness simply because it’s so negative and translations never catch the entire meaning of a word. Then again, the opinion of someone better informed would be appreciated.

 

[rossum]

Here’s an overview of Buddhism.

Buddhism is a path of practice and spiritual development leading to Insight into the true nature of life. Buddhist practices such as meditation are means of changing oneself in order to develop the qualities of awareness, kindness, and wisdom. The experience developed within the Buddhist tradition over thousands of years has created an incomparable resource for all those who wish to follow a path — a path which ultimately culminates in Enlightenment or Buddhahood.

It is possible to combine elements of both Catholicism and Buddhism, the two religions’ moralities are very similar for instance. The theories standing behind the two religions are very different and I do not see them as compatible.

For example, your quote correctly says, “nothing is fixed or permanent”. God is not permanent, heaven is not permanent, hell is not permanent, you and I are not permanent. AIUI none of that is compatible with Catholicism.

By all means follow some Buddhist practices if you find them helpful – in general I see Christianity as lacking in meditation techniques – but I do not think that it is possible to be fully Catholic and fully Buddhist at the same time. Buddhism sees everything as possessed of the Three Marks: impermanent, suffering and soulless. Catholicism asserts that some things are permanent, some things are not suffering and that some things have souls.

“Impermanent are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

“Sorrowful are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

• Dhammapada 20:5-7

rossum

 

[Brendan]

Buddism denies the very fundamental nature of God, that God is an om(name removed by moderator)otent, transcendant being.

Buddism, in it’s various forms, is either atheistic, denying the existance of God altogether, or pantheistic, that the Divine essence it part of nature, not the creator of nature.

So no, they are not compatable, they are about as far apart on the most fundamental issue as two positions can be.

 

[geekborj]

Here’s an overview of Buddhism.

I have always heard that you can be Catholic and Buddhist at the same time. Buddhism in the western sense is more of a philosophical view on life rather than a religion. Since there is no worshiping, can’t you be Catholic and Buddhist? Buddha taught that to end suffering one must end desire which is similar to some of the concepts that Christ taught.

While there are similarities between Buddhism and Catholicism, this does not mean that Buddhism is also correct. I would still stand within the Catholicism and rather adopt the Buddhist philosophy making them more Catholic. I believe that the Church believes that there are some elements of Truth in other “belief systems” but the Catholic Faith is the only one that contains the fullness of Truth. For example the meditational approach to “conversing” with God is one possible good practice as long as these don’t involve Buddhist’s “saints.”

Hence, always check with the Catholic Faith, whether a Buddhist philosophy is still Christian. Science is compatible with the Catholic Faith, but putting Science above the revealed Truth is simply absurd.

 

[Ghosty]

By all means follow some Buddhist practices if you find them helpful – in general I see Christianity as lacking in meditation techniques

Just a small point, but Apostolic Christianity is actually full of meditation techniques. Protestant traditions tend to lack them, but Catholicism and the various Orthodox traditions have quite a few. The Rosary is perhaps the well known, though there are others such as contemplative prayer that are quite widespread, especially among monastic communities.

Peace and God bless!

 

[James_S_Saint]

Actually a Buddhist who doesn’t become a Christian in heart at least, hasn’t done his Buddhism thing quite right.

 

[rossum]

Just a small point, but Apostolic Christianity is actually full of meditation techniques. Protestant traditions tend to lack them, but Catholicism and the various Orthodox traditions have quite a few. The Rosary is perhaps the well known, though there are others such as contemplative prayer that are quite widespread, especially among monastic communities.

Agreed, your point about Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox Christianity is well made. Both the Rosary and the Jesus Prayer can be used as meditative practices as well as some of the non-specific Buddhist ones such as counting breaths.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Actually a Buddhist who doesn’t become a Christian in heart at least, hasn’t done his Buddhism thing quite right.

“Love others as you love yourself.” - Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra 91

rossum

 

[Daedelus76]

Buddism denies the very fundamental nature of God, that God is an om(name removed by moderator)otent, transcendant being.

Buddhism and Christianity have different presuppositions. The idea of “creation” and the created/uncreated distinction doesn’t apply to Buddhism. There are ontological concepts in some of Buddhism similar to Aristotle’s or Aquinas’ “First Cause” though; they do not directly play a role in Buddhist practice, however.

And not all Christian theologies would say God is a completely transcendent being. That kind of view of God actually lends itself very well to mechanistic deism, though.

Ending desire sounds bad but from the Buddhist POV, forcing people to desire the impossible (moral perfection) and telling them they’ll go to Hell if they don’t would be seen as cruel and maybe even evil. This is no doubt a charicature of Christianity but it’s how Buddhists tend to view Christian morality, either grace is too cheap (get to heaven free) or its caught up in dogmatic moralism where there is a danger of spreading suffering to other people. Buddhism as practice is far more existential and less moralistic. In addition, a Buddhist would say the only real compassion a person can have is when a person is relatively free from desires.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Ending desire sounds bad but from the Buddhist POV, forcing people to desire the impossible (moral perfection) and telling them they’ll go to Hell if they don’t would be seen as cruel and maybe even evil.

Ending “desire” or “wants” in Buddhism is a step. It is a humbling of the mind and emotions so as to be able to finally see clearly and wakeup. It is not the final goal or state. The final goal is to bring harmony to ALL “desires within” such that none are felt as “a desire”, but rather an unified urging toward an obvious path to take. “The Lord is my Shepard. I shall not want.” But did that mean nihilism? I don’t think so.

 

[Hieronymous]

Hi. I follow both Catholicism and Buddhism.

By Buddhism, I understand that there was a man of spiritual insight known as the Buddah, so realised life is suffering, and the answer to this is meditiation to control one’s own mind, compassion to all sentient beings, as well as right behavior. Coming to an emotionally stable state, I think, is what was meant by nirvana.

The boddhisatva vows, as I know them are:

“Beings are numberless;
I vow to free them.
Delusions are inexhaustible;
I vow to end them.
Dharma gates are boundless;
I vow to enter them.
The Awakened Way is unsurpassable;
I vow to embody it.”

I do not know how one follows this without believing in a God who directs karmic life.

By Christianity I understand the belief that a man came who claimed to be the Son of God. He taught us to be compassionate to others, and gave us sacraments through which we share in the love of God. Those who are baptized and live a good life will go to a Heaven in the afterlife where they dwell in the love of God. A Catholic Christian may also be taught that suffering has spiritual merit.

I see nothing in Christianity which denies the truths of Buddhism. I see nothing in Buddhism which denies the truths of Christianity. We learn more and more about God and the life of the spirit throughout the ages … perhaps.

 

[James_S_Saint]

By “Lord Buddha” they are usually referring to Prince Gautama. The word “Buddha” meant “the wise” or “the bud of spirit”. “Buddha” doesn’t actually refer to a specific person, but rather the concept of “the wise” or “the enlightened”. Technically in this regard, Jesus was a Buddhist although having nothing to do with the practice and teachings of Buddhism. The truly enlightened all think alike and thus all preach similar things. The atheist likes to claim that Jesus stole ideas from others, but that is just the naive thought that an idea can only come into Man from one person and must then be dispersed from there. Only one person can invent the wheel or the pyramid. Everyone after that obvious copied that one.

 

[MBF]

Many disparate faiths may share some similar values or beliefs.

My wife is studying reincarnation and has collected a small library of books addressing this theory. Last month she found she had inadvertantly procured from Half Price Books a Hare Krisna book about reincarnation. Another purchase made at the same time was literature from dealing from a Taoist perspective (she has not read this yet). And she is actually trying to investigate and learn more of her childhood faith (Buddhism).

Discerning that certain key elements of two different faiths are similar does not necessarily mean you can embrace the entirety of both. In trying to do so, you may find yourself trying to reconcile contradictions in doctrine that would ultimately lead you from the true form of such faith.

 

[AJTheMan]

Ending “desire” or “wants” in Buddhism is a step. It is a humbling of the mind and emotions so as to be able to finally see clearly and wakeup. It is not the final goal or state. The final goal is to bring harmony to ALL “desires within” such that none are felt as “a desire”, but rather an unified urging toward an obvious path to take. “The Lord is my Shepard. I shall not want.” But did that mean nihilism? I don’t think so.

It is also craving (or “desire”) which leads to renewed existence. To end all cravings and attachments while practicing rightly can liberate you from the cycle of rebirth.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I have something of a semi-syncretic tendency - Buddhism is a rather dispirate form of theism, I have to say, as far as I understand it. It’s also fairly adaptable. Christianity is probably less flexible, although certainly there is tremendous variety in emphasis between the various different forms, and even within them (certainly I find this to be true in Catholicism)

Regarding meditation, I remember reading how it was banne, but I think the difference between meditation and ritual prayer, contemplaton etc. is largely semantic, so I see little argument there.

As I understand it, the Buddhist concept of God varies wildly, and whether the source is something that can even be termed such is the kind of question that determines different forms of Buddhism. In the west, we mostly only really hear the zen version, which, as I understand it, is largely idealistic in nature of interpretation of spirituality, and both closer to what you could consider atheism/materialism than could be compatible with Christianity and rather too atheistic to boot. There are, I think, more points of similarity in other forms of Buddhism - although I doubt compatability could ever be total

 

[Ahimsa]

It is also craving (or “desire”) which leads to renewed existence. To end all cravings and attachments while practicing rightly can liberate you from the cycle of rebirth.

Of course, “you” can never “end” cravings. When “craving” ends, it just ends – with or without “you”.

 

[AJTheMan]

Of course, “you” can never “end” cravings. When “craving” ends, it just ends – with or without “you”.

What do you mean by this? What is the overall point?

Too often do Buddhists speak in vague riddles to explain teachings. They make really good teachings by the Perfected One seem incomprehensible.

 

[aspirant]

Based on my studies, I believe there are more points of commonality than many Christians or Buddhists I have encountered suspect. There are also real differences.

In the first category, to choose one example, I have come to think that the Buddhist concept of anatta (sometimes translated as not-self, empty of self, etc.) is not so alien to Christian thinking as it first appears (to both Christians and Buddhists). When I investigated what Buddhists really mean by this term, as opposed to what some Westerners have suggested they mean, I find that it is really an objection to the idea that things of this world (what we would call “creatures”) exist of themselves. Converting it into Western philosophical parlance, anatta or “not-self” means that things of this world, including human persons, are composite, temporal, and contingent beings. Once we get past the barrier of dissimilar language, Catholics do not disagree with Buddhists about the essential point.

That doesn’t mean, of course, that all of our apparent differences are merely semantic. I think there are some real differences. Even when I get past some common Western mistakes regarding the Buddhist concept of rebirth, for example, I still don’t think I can agree with it.

I would caution applying the Buddha’s words about “God” to a Christian understanding of God. Remember, Socrates was called an “atheist” not because he denied that there is a God, but because he denied the gods of Greece; Socrates was a theist. The Buddha was speaking in a Hindu context, not a Judeo-Christian one. I would not go quite so far as to claim the Buddha was a theist, but neither would I call him an atheist or agnostic as we Christians understand those terms. The Buddha’s concept of Nirvana, when I take the time to really examine it, seems too similar to the Western concept of God for me to really call him an atheist.