Excellent advice. Someone who had a very superficial understanding of the Trinity might think that Christians worshipped three Gods. Do not make an equivalent mistake when arguing with a Buddhist. You need to understand what you are arguing against.It would be better for you to educate yourself in Buddhist theology/understanding rather than just reciting someone else’s work if you don’t understand what you’re saying.
This is from Thomas Merton:So, what’s the insight? It is unable to be described in words. It’s sort of an experience. They cannot go back because of how convinced they are. So, what is going on, you may ask.
[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything – without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.
I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).
The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya … everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …
It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.
From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton
Just to take the first two of the Canon’s arguments. Buddhism has lots of gods, so a divine origin is nothing special. Buddhism originates from an enlightened Buddha, which is special. Yes, gods can be enlightened as well as being gods, but the Christian God is definitely not enlightened. He kills far too many people to be enlightened. Just compare how many people (and animals) the Abrahamic God killed with the number of people the Buddha killed.Here are some Christian arguments against buddhism according to Canon A. Boulenger.
- It doesn’t have Divine origin (wasn’t established by God Himself)
By what standard? By Christian standards, Buddhist metaphysics is flawed. By Buddhist standards, Christian metaphysics is flawed: for example, Christian metaphysics does not deal with nirvana, a major flaw.
- Its metaphysics is flawed
Thank you for replying. Two comments here.Just to take the first two of the Canon’s arguments. Buddhism has lots of gods, so a divine origin is nothing special. Buddhism originates from an enlightened Buddha, which is special. Yes, gods can be enlightened as well as being gods, but the Christian God is definitely not enlightened. He kills far too many people to be enlightened. Just compare how many people (and animals) the Abrahamic God killed with the number of people the Buddha killed.
Buddhism has an enlightened origin; Christianity does not.
That list I wrote has many examples of flawed metaphysics in buddhism.By what standard? By Christian standards, Buddhist metaphysics is flawed. By Buddhist standards, Christian metaphysics is flawed: for example, Christian metaphysics does not deal with nirvana, a major flaw.
In general the Canon is judging Buddhism by Christian standards, so Buddhism comes second. Those arguments will not work with a Buddhist, since we start with a different set of, Buddhist, standards. By Buddhist standards, Christianity comes second.
You need to find a common set of standards, free from specifically Christian assumptions, to argue against Buddhism. Given that Buddhism is a Dharmic religion, not an Abrahamic religion, there are a lot of automatic assumptions among Christians that do not apply to Buddhism. The Canon’s first point is a good example. He assumed that a divine origin is automatically good. It is in Christianity, not so in Buddhism.
This is incorrect. There are gods in both the Pali Canon and in Mahayana sutras. The Buddha ascended into heaven at one point to preach to the gods there. The Buddhist gods are not particularly important, and can be ignored if you want, but they do exist.Actually, by the history of it, you’ll notice buddhism has no gods originally
You are making a Christian assumption here, and that assumption is wrong. When someone is killed they are reborn into another life, they do not stop being. The way to stop being is to attain enlightenment before you die; that way you are not reborn.Second, you said the Christian God isn’t enlightened. Then solve this puzzle for me, please: if ‘not being’ is the goal of buddhism, how come the Christian God killing people isn’t a good thing?
If you had read something about Buddhism you would have found the Parable of the Arrow:One is buddhism not caring about a First Cause in the order of causality.
– Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63[The Buddha said:] "It is as if, Malunkyaputta, a man is shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison, … and the wounded man were to say ‘I will not have the arrow taken out until I know the caste of the man who shot it, … his tribe … his clan … his village … his height etc.’ [many questions omitted here] That man would die Malunkyaputta, before he learned all that he wanted to know.
"In exactly the same way, Malunkyaputta, any one who says ‘I will not lead the religious life under the Blessed One until the Blessed One explains to me whether the universe is eternal, whether the universe is not eternal, whether the universe is finite, whether the universe is infinite etc.’ [many questions omitted here] That person would die Malunkyaputta, before I had ever explained all this to that person.
“The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.”
Well I don’t know if there are any examples.That is a very pertinent thing. I was looking through the writing of Thomas Merton who is relevant here (quoted below).Is that factually correct?
Has there never been a case of somebody experiencing Stream Entry who later “fell away” from Buddhism?
BUT - Merton also stated this in Seeds of Contemplation, which he later edited out in New Seeds of Contemplation.This is from Thomas Merton:
Then in New Seeds of Contemplation, it is edited:If, like the mystics of the orient, you succeed in emptying your mind of every thought and every desire, you may indeed withdraw into the center of yourself and concentrate everything within you upon the imaginary point where your life springs out of God: yet you will not really find God. No natural exercise can bring you into vital contact with Him. Unless He utters Himself in you, speaks His own name in the center of your soul, you will no more know Him than a stone Knows the ground upon which it rests in its inertia.
Either way, I don’t think it’s fair to say that Nirvana or Stream-entry are states that have to do with contact with God. In other words, Nirvana and enlightenment are NOT the same thing as the theosis or the Beatific Vision in Christianity.If you succeed in emptying your mind of every thought and every desire, you may indeed withdraw into the center of yourself and concentrate everything within you upon the imaginary point where your life springs out of God: yet you will not really find God. No natural exercise can bring you into vital contact with Him. Unless He utters Himself in you, speaks His own name in the center of your soul, you will no more know Him than a stone Knows the ground upon which it rests in its inertia.
That depends what you consider Divine. For example, the Dharma in Buddhism should be considered divine, because it is eternal. The Dharma must, in a sense, be divine, since even gods obey it, so it is above the gods. Furthermore, the Buddha did not invent the Dharma, but rather discovered it.It doesn’t have Divine origin (wasn’t established by God Himself)
I tend to agree with this, though I think it’s far from “simple” to show this. The biggest metaphysical shortcoming of Buddhism is that it fails to account for the contingent nature of existence.Its metaphysics is flawed
I don’t think Buddhism has the notion of a First Cause. The gods to Buddhists are not First Causes, but rather very powerful creatures.it doesn’t care about the existence of a First Cause, which makes it atheist or agnostic (although most modern practitioners are actually panteists or polytheists due to influence from other eastern religions which aren’t originally buddhist)
Yes, agreed. By and large Buddhism is against material development, or at the very least does not consider it an important priority, compared to enlightenment. Maybe it is even a fetter, something that holds you back.it is a religion without social action (focused on religious people and little engagement regarding the laity)
No - I cannot agree with this. This is a complete misunderstanding of Nirvana, which was mistakenly popular amongst Christians 100 years ago or so. Buddhism is not nihilistic, and the Buddha spoke extensively against Nihilism, or considering Nirvana to be extinction. Yes, to your every day self, Nirvana is extinction. But what remains when your every day self is gone is not nothing. What remains is something that cannot be put into words that your everyday self can relate to - hence why the Buddha refused to speak about it. But he did say that:it is pessimistic; it declares that existence is evil and true happiness is getting rid of it by joining nirvana, which is the end of individual existence or like they say, a ‘blown out candle’; it is a place without existence and without love
So if there is this unborn, unbecome, unmade, then clearly this is not impermanent. And this is acceeded to in Parinirvana, after death of the enlightened person.“There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.” (Ud 8.3)
Right, but it is a different concept of God than the Christian. Even in the Bible, other nations are mentioned as worshipping gods - or idols. What Buddhism calls gods are what the Bible calls idols. The Bible uses God to refer to the uncreated, the unborn, the unarising, the eternal. Anything that is not this, is not God as per Christianity.This is incorrect. There are gods in both the Pali Canon and in Mahayana sutras. The Buddha ascended into heaven at one point to preach to the gods there. The Buddhist gods are not particularly important, and can be ignored if you want, but they do exist.
Yeah, exactly as I said… progress can only be made by comparing mystical experiences in Christianity and Buddhism, since Buddhism always ultimately will retreat to “try it and find out for yourself”. So progress can be made if we decipher, in each other’s language, what each mystical states corresponds to. For example, if Christianity can say that Nirvana corresponds to - for example - the contemplation of created Beauty, but cannot access uncreated Beauty - then the Christian God is a step beyond what the Buddha discovered. Then we have to explain how it is possible to end suffering without God. And explore other such matters. This is the way to productive dialogue.you would have found the Parable of the Arrow
Not so much extinction as the realisation that what you thought was your everyday self actually isn’t. It is more like the ‘water’ in a mirage.Yes, to your every day self, Nirvana is extinction.
Well, that is not at all surprising my friend. You list Stoicism in your profile, which is almost identical with Buddhism sans meditation and the metaphysical stuff. Both of them are about relying on yourself, they are closer together than Christianity, which is reliance on Another.But in the meantime I’ve been watching Youtube videos on Buddhism, and I must say that it’s far more compelling than I had ever given it credit for. I can almost see myself adding Buddhism to my profile. (I hope that that wouldn’t offend any true Buddhists)
In typical Buddhist fashion, there is a version which relies (mostly) on another. See Pure Land Buddhism, which relies on the power of the Amida Buddha to get you reborn into a Pure Land, from which it is much easier to attain nirvana for yourself.Both of them are about relying on yourself,