A
- Status
A
aspirant
Guest
In Buddhism, Nirvana is the Ultimate Reality or Absolute Truth. Some Buddhists call it the “ground of being,” uncreated and deathless. The enlightened experience it, but human words cannot comprehend it, which is why most of the language used to describe it is apophatic, e.g. “not this, not that.” It is not reducible to “an end result.” As one Buddhist scholar puts it: “Truth is not a result or an effect. It is not produced like a mystic, spiritual, mental state… TRUTH IS. NIRVANA IS… There is a path leading to Nirvana. But Nirvana is not the result of this path. You may get to the mountain along a path, but the mountain is not the result, not an effect of the path. You may see a light, but the light is not a result of your eyesight.”
L
LayingHands
Guest
Actually, they must be compatible because they come from the same foundations…Buddhism, Judasium and Christianity and Catholics all originated from the FIRST WISDOM-RELIGION TRINITY, look up Brahma and the Trimurti of INDIA! Can’t say any of the forerunners listed were ever around, over 15,000 years ago. The Chaldeans, the “Pyramid” builders had written religious Oracles, but, ALL were originated with the religions of INDIA.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.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
The Muslims have a tradition that Adam lived in Sri Lanka.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
The point would be that what I call “me”, and what I know of “me”, is conditioned by the presence of various cravings, fears, delusions, and such – or, in Catholic terms, concupiscence. Such a “me” cannot in itself produce a “me” free of cravings, fears, delusions, and such. However, this “me” can “co-operate” with those other persons (called Buddhas, or Bodhisattvas, or Arhats, or what not) who are free of cravings, fears, delusions, and such – and this “co-operative engagement” can lead to the offering of this “me” into the fire of Nibbana.What do you mean by this? What is the overall point?
But I can do none of this on my own. Thus, taking refuge is essential.
S
Steven_John
Guest
There is difference between being Catholic and being Christian. If i asked a Christian fellowship group where i live can you be Buddhist and Christian they would flip.
A Catholic priest very recently told me that nearly everyone goes to heaven so if i asked him you may be able to be of any or of all religions.
Catholics i know seek a kind of refuge in people they don’t know and i have seen Buddhists do the same.
if i look at the Catholic catechism i would have to say while Catholics and Buddhists have some similarities the difference would prohibit one from being both but as humans i doubt any would have full understanding of both.
I find Catholic religion very precise and Buddhists to be very vague.
I love the “free of desire” aspiration a great paradox as a Buddhist on the road to enlightenment would desire it.
To be a Zen Buddhist is to define ones self different to Orthodox Buddhists. Does this mean that Zen Buddhists are telling me they are of the wrong opinion given that Orthodox means “having the right opinion”. If one argues that there is no right opinion every one is right and it is not wrong for me to kill your child.
Without knowing there is right there is no enlighten to aspire to.
*
Allah knows best what is right and will show us what is wrong.*
i know i am kicking around words but Catholics and Christians would know from the word, if you say yes mean yes or just say what you mean.
It seems to me that this is actually easier said than done, thanks be to Allah He looks at our hearts not our words. The only possible proposed exception to this I can think of is for natively Arabic speaking Muslims.
Bless ya all pray well and stay well.
A Catholic priest very recently told me that nearly everyone goes to heaven so if i asked him you may be able to be of any or of all religions.
Catholics i know seek a kind of refuge in people they don’t know and i have seen Buddhists do the same.
if i look at the Catholic catechism i would have to say while Catholics and Buddhists have some similarities the difference would prohibit one from being both but as humans i doubt any would have full understanding of both.
I find Catholic religion very precise and Buddhists to be very vague.
I love the “free of desire” aspiration a great paradox as a Buddhist on the road to enlightenment would desire it.
To be a Zen Buddhist is to define ones self different to Orthodox Buddhists. Does this mean that Zen Buddhists are telling me they are of the wrong opinion given that Orthodox means “having the right opinion”. If one argues that there is no right opinion every one is right and it is not wrong for me to kill your child.
Without knowing there is right there is no enlighten to aspire to.
*
Allah knows best what is right and will show us what is wrong.*
i know i am kicking around words but Catholics and Christians would know from the word, if you say yes mean yes or just say what you mean.
It seems to me that this is actually easier said than done, thanks be to Allah He looks at our hearts not our words. The only possible proposed exception to this I can think of is for natively Arabic speaking Muslims.
Bless ya all pray well and stay well.
A
aspirant
Guest
Oh, gosh, I don’t think they’re vague. They love numbered lists and discussing the meaning(s) of words, for example.
S
Steven_John
Guest
peace and blessings,Oh, gosh, I don’t think they’re vague. They love numbered lists and discussing the meaning(s) of words, for example.
I have reflected and prayed on what you offer.
I am of poor language skills.
After prayer i offer, I find Catholic religion very narrow and Buddhists to be very wide.
I praise and thank G-d for you help.
Pray well and stay well
G
Greg27
Guest
I think with respect to both religions, both are quite different in their fundamental beliefs and philosophies. I think it is wrong to equate one with the other. While I think in some ways (especially in the mystical tradition of Catholicism) the spirituality may converge, I still think there are enough differences to make the two religions very easy to differentiate from each other, even as an uneducated person.
T
tafan
Guest
I won’t comment on the compatibility of the two religions. I will ask a question. Why? If you are a catholic, what is it you need from buddism that is lacking from catholism. The catholic faith is very rich, it has a myriad of orthodox practises ranging from meditative prayers to charismatic groups. It has a wealth of teaching on all aspects of life (social justice, human sexuality, etc). It has a large spiritual history with great saints who have given us specific paths to enrich our lifes, eg St Ignatius’s spiritual excersizes, which more than compete with anything in buddism. Finally, it has the sacraments which provide a font of grace and a means to salvation.
What are you people missing in your catholic faith that you have to seek out buddism?
What are you people missing in your catholic faith that you have to seek out buddism?
H
Holly3278
Guest
How could Buddhism and Catholicism possibly be compatible with each other? I don’t see how they could be!
A
aspirant
Guest
I don’t recall anyone saying that something was missing. There are other reasons to be familiar with other people’s faiths.
T
tafan
Guest
Of course there are reasons to study other religions, but I was directly my quesitons at those who are doing so in order to actually follow the religion or are trying to follow both religions(eg hieronymous). Maybe I should have been specific as to who I was addressing the question. And it is a serious quesiton. What is missing in catholocism that they feel they need and how much did they search the richness of catholocism for the answer?
S
Steven_John
Guest
I think to see the difference in the two a good place to look is the parables of the prodigal son.
A
AJTheMan
Guest
You consider Nibbanna the ultimate reality of Buddhism?
I suppose it depends on what you consider ultimate reality. To me, the Four Noble Truths, Impermanence, and inter-connectedness of beings come to mind when I think “Ultimate reality.” Not Nibbanna. Nibbanna is the goal but not the core reality, IMO. The Four Noble Truths will show you more into the ways of reality than dreaming of Nibbanna ever will.
Very well said. We should remember that before the Prince Siddattha came, renewed existence was almost guaranteed unless we were to be born into the Brahmin Caste. Now we have a Refuge. Now we have a Path. Now we have the reality that no matter what caste we are in, we can find liberation from Saṃsāra – as proven by the Awakened One himself. He wasn’t born a Brahmin and yet he was finally able to rid himself of the attachments that kept him to this life.
You are entirely correct. I need to go take refuge once more.
A
aspirant
Guest
So many Buddhists have written and told me.
I guess not all Buddhists agree.
In fairness, they are not talking about “dreaming of” Nirvana. They’re talking about Nirvana.
G
grace_singh
Guest
no, you can not.
many of the virtues of Buddhism are very admirable, and wholly compataible with Christian virtues. but the Christian virtues spring from and matter exactly because of Christ, not the Buddha.
the Buddha preached that desire is the root of all suffering, and that the ceasing of desire and hence “illusion” of individual selfhood (Nirvana) is the goal of human spirituality. whereas Christ tells us that we are seperated from God by our sin, that faith in Him reconciles us to our Creator and frees us from the power of sin, and that being alive in Christ enables us to live for and fellowship with our Creator, which is why we are here.
the Buddha leaves God wholy out of the picture, and took a very agnostic approach to God, or to gods. but Christian theology begins and ends with God as the creator, guide, and goal of our human lives. God became a Man and died for us, and rose from the dead so that in Him (Christ) we can be alive to God and free to really know Him and live for Him, as we ought to.
one does not need to be a Buddhist if one is already in Christ, and living for Him.
A
AJTheMan
Guest
Absolutely not. There’s close to ten schools. Each school has it’s ways. Every country practices Buddhism differently. Buddhist in Thailand are fairly superstitious while Buddhists in America and S.Korea are quite secular, lacking metaphysical teachings.I guess not all Buddhists agree.
Buddhism has never been monolithic and I think the Buddha wanted it that way. He encouraged finding the dhamma through research and reason, not blind adherence to social customs. There’s even instances in the Tipitaka in which he discourages belief without practical reason. Faith is not blind.
Now, I respect any person who earnestly practices the Path, even if they disagree in the method.
For more information on Buddist unity, see:
Basic Points Unifying Theravada and Mahayana.
A
AJTheMan
Guest
Yes, there are differences between Buddhist schools. There’s even differences in national practice, with one country practicing one way and another country practicing another. I do not see this as a bad point, though. Sakyamuni Buddha encouraged practical reasoning when discovering the dhamma, as opposed to blind adherence towards one way of thinking. So, don’t get me wrong, I absolutely respect anyone who earnestly practices the Path, no matter their school preference.I guess not all Buddhists agree.
To just provide an example, though, there’s one school in Northern Asia that teaches Faith and Devotion to a man named Amitābha will lead you to a heaven-like place called the “Pure Land.” This type of belief is very unique to this one school. Other groups focus mainly on chants.
I
InquisitiveCath
Guest
Well, there is actually a lot of debate about that, specifically because the West’s knowledge of Buddhism is a bit…skewed i suppose?
What it really comes down to is how one defines Buddhism.
If we were in an Asian country, i could easily flat out and say “No. It is not possible to a Buddhist and a Christian.” But that’s precisely because Buddhism in those various contexts is treated like a religion.
When Buddhism came West in the 19th century, a lot of its religious practices were basically chucked away by Western scholars. They kind of built a false Buddhism of the Texts, or perhaps it would be better to say they overemphasized one aspect of Buddhism and played down many metaphysical commitments that it made, saying they were the “cultural build-up” of many generations.
IE: Buddha was this super smart rationalist figure whose teachings were corrupted by Asian superstition. But we Westerners, we’ve recovered the True Buddhism…
Or something to that effect. With the sole exception of the Tibetan Schools, Buddhism in America and the West tends to fall toward something akin to a personal psychology.
So i guess you could be a Buddhist and a Catholic, just the same way you could be a Freudian, or Jungian, or Cognitive Science person and be a Catholic.
But if you want the “True Dharma,” as one Buddhist monk put it to me, and not “Dharma-lite” - it’s a flat out no.
How to put this: It would be like a Buddhist saying he’s also a Christian but he’s decided not to treat Jesus of Nazareth as a divinity. Only some sort of smart and well meaning person.
What it really comes down to is how one defines Buddhism.
If we were in an Asian country, i could easily flat out and say “No. It is not possible to a Buddhist and a Christian.” But that’s precisely because Buddhism in those various contexts is treated like a religion.
When Buddhism came West in the 19th century, a lot of its religious practices were basically chucked away by Western scholars. They kind of built a false Buddhism of the Texts, or perhaps it would be better to say they overemphasized one aspect of Buddhism and played down many metaphysical commitments that it made, saying they were the “cultural build-up” of many generations.
IE: Buddha was this super smart rationalist figure whose teachings were corrupted by Asian superstition. But we Westerners, we’ve recovered the True Buddhism…
Or something to that effect. With the sole exception of the Tibetan Schools, Buddhism in America and the West tends to fall toward something akin to a personal psychology.
So i guess you could be a Buddhist and a Catholic, just the same way you could be a Freudian, or Jungian, or Cognitive Science person and be a Catholic.
But if you want the “True Dharma,” as one Buddhist monk put it to me, and not “Dharma-lite” - it’s a flat out no.
How to put this: It would be like a Buddhist saying he’s also a Christian but he’s decided not to treat Jesus of Nazareth as a divinity. Only some sort of smart and well meaning person.
- Status