Ask A Buddhist II

[Yeshua_Adonai]

Close, but not quite. Buddhism teaches that even without the mind, the chair exists, but all it has is its properties such as weight, shape, color, height, etc… and that it doesn’t have the property of “Chair-ness” because "Chair-ness is a concept which exists in the mind. The chair is real, but it doesn’t literally have the property of “chair-ness” in the same sense as it has the properties of weight, size, shape, etc…

I should have clarified;

I did not mean to convey that the chair does not exist without a conscious observer. But thank you for your further exposition.

Shalom!

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

My friends,

May I ask, what lead you to Buddhism? Were you of another world view before following the Buddha? What made you change?

( In as little words as possible )

Shalom!

 

[notself]

notself,

May I first say that I appreciate your appetite for being a kind and loving person; this is the road to life, and I am glad you are on it.

My predicament is still the justification in the Buddhist system for being loving and kind. What is the purpose in these acts of loving kindness in Buddhism?

As a talmidim of Yeshua I find purpose in being kind and loving, helping the lowly, the poor, because these are simply, the right things to do. They are acts of divine life, and as Yeshua showed us, these things lead to happiness and peace in life because this is how life is meant to be, as it will be in the restored creation.

I just can’t wrap my head around a justification for doing these things as a Buddhist.

( Please forgive me, when I said no characteristics, I meant, the attachments to life, the things that cause suffering )

Shalom!

Thank you for explaining.

I wish to be kind, sympathetic, compassionate and to have equanimity because these are the right thing to do. These things lead to happiness and peace in this life and to nibbana. Morality is the bed rock of Buddhist practice. Without morality (which includes virtue) no progress is possible. Morality, along with concentration, leads to detachment from greed, aversion, and delusion which are the things which cause suffering/stress.

I don’t think our motivations are that far apart. We want to be happy.

 

[Bakmoon]

My friends,

May I ask, what lead you to Buddhism? Were you of another world view before following the Buddha? What made you change?

( In as little words as possible )

Shalom!

I was raised as a Lutheran, but left Christianity after not being able to find a justification for the existence of God and historical analysis of the Bible. I then studied several of the various forms of Hinduism for a year, but ultimately didn’t find any of them satisfying for some reason. I then studied the different forms of Buddhism for about a year which I found interesting, but I couldn’t decide on what form of Buddhism to convert to and practice. I decided to go with Theravada Buddhism because its scriptures are the oldest and its scriptures are practical rather than being philosophical.

 

[notself]

Patrick457,

Please continue your explanations of the Vedic beliefs. They are very helpful and I must admit that I am rather intrigued by “that god” Rudra. Is Rudra worshipped by Hindus today? What sort of offering would be made to him?

How about female gods, were there none in the Vedic pantheon?

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

Thank you for explaining.

I wish to be kind, sympathetic, compassionate and to have equanimity because these are the right thing to do. These things lead to happiness and peace in this life and to nibbana. Morality is the bed rock of Buddhist practice. Without morality (which includes virtue) no progress is possible. Morality, along with concentration, leads to detachment from greed, aversion, and delusion which are the things which cause suffering/stress.

I don’t think our motivations are that far apart. We want to be happy.

Indeed!

Happiness is what we all want, or at least, should want!

I think I am losing you however on my specific concern; how do we define “good” and “bad” without a transcendent G-d who provides a moral compass from which we can judge?

If a man raped his 5 year old child, and then subsequently murdered his wife, how can Buddhism provide a reason for why this is a “bad” thing to do?

Shalom!

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

I was raised as a Lutheran, but left Christianity after not being able to find a justification for the existence of God and historical analysis of the Bible. I then studied several of the various forms of Hinduism for a year, but ultimately didn’t find any of them satisfying for some reason. I then studied the different forms of Buddhism for about a year which I found interesting, but I couldn’t decide on what form of Buddhism to convert to and practice. I decided to go with Theravada Buddhism because its scriptures are the oldest and its scriptures are practical rather than being philosophical.

Bakmoon,

Thank you for your short and sweet reply! Perfect length my friend

You say you left because you weren’t able to find justification for G-d and historical analysis of the scriptures? Could you elaborate on those two?

Just curious

Shalom!

 

[notself]

Indeed!

Happiness is what we all want, or at least, should want!

I think I am losing you however on my specific concern; how do we define “good” and “bad” without a transcendent G-d who provides a moral compass from which we can judge?

If a man raped his 5 year old child, and then subsequently murdered his wife, how can Buddhism provide a reason for why this is a “bad” thing to do?

Shalom!

We covered this. The man harmed another. No matter how much he enjoyed the act, it was wrong because he harmed others. Of course he harmed himself as well. Please read the sutta I posted a few posts back. The sutta begins with a question to Rahula, “What is a mirror for?”

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

We covered this. The man harmed another. No matter how much he enjoyed the act, it was wrong because he harmed others. Of course he harmed himself as well. Please read the sutta I posted a few posts back. The sutta begins with a question to Rahula, “What is a mirror for?”

notself,

The question then becomes, what is “harm” really? I agree that the Golden rule is generally a good one to follow, Yeshua himself offered one much the same, but the problem is, who defines this “harm” or “non-harm?”

You may tell me it was wrong, but I may say, it wasn’t. Who are you to tell me otherwise?

Shalom!

 

[notself]

My friends,

May I ask, what lead you to Buddhism? Were you of another world view before following the Buddha? What made you change?

( In as little words as possible )

Shalom!

I was raised and educated as a Catholic. My family is very devout. Around the age of 14 I just didn’t believe in the Church. I have no idea why, belief just stopped. Of course I still attended Mass out of respect for my family. I was even married in the Church. I explored other Christian religions, but nothing.

I read and re-read the Tao Te Ching and believe it to be one of the most profound books in existence. But, Taoism as a religion … nothing.

Then I ran across the book, “What the Buddha Taught” by Walpola Rahula. It’s available online. Just Google the title. Reading that book was like drinking a cool glass of water on a hot day. It spoke to my heart and I have been studying and practicing Theravada Buddhism ever since.

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

I was raised and educated as a Catholic. My family is very devout. Around the age of 14 I just didn’t believe in the Church. I have no idea why, belief just stopped. Of course I still attended Mass out of respect for my family. I was even married in the Church. I explored other Christian religions, but nothing.

I read and re-read the Tao Te Ching and believe it to be one of the most profound books in existence. But, Taoism as a religion … nothing.

Then I ran across the book, “What the Buddha Taught” by Walpola Rahula. It’s available online. Just Google the title. Reading that book was like drinking a cool glass of water on a hot day. It spoke to my heart and I have been studying and practicing Theravada Buddhism ever since.

notself,

That seems a very common tale; especially in the more traditional churches. Did any of the doctrines dissuade you as well? Such as eternal hell? (pretty big one for most)

A question for you; who was Yeshua to you? And who do you see him as now?

Shalom!

 

[Bakmoon]

notself,

My predicament is still the justification in the Buddhist system for being loving and kind. What is the purpose in these acts of loving kindness in Buddhism?

Shalom!

I think that it is because moral action ultimately leads to happiness.

This isn’t a selfish justification when you think about it, because the pursuit of happiness is the reason why people do everything. We look after our basic needs to pursue happiness. We seek entertainment to pursue happiness. We go after friendship and family to pursue happiness. As Aristotle said (although I am probably paraphrasing here) “Happiness is the end to which all things aim.” Aristotle also held to the view that ethics is based on seeking happiness. Catholicism also teaches that the purpose of man is to enjoy happiness too, though in the context of enjoying the presence of God as the Beatific Vision.

For example, the Baltimore Catechism states:

Why did God make us?

God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven.

Baltimore Catechism Lesson 1 Question 3

 

[notself]

notself,

The question then becomes, what is “harm” really? I agree that the Golden rule is generally a good one to follow, Yeshua himself offered one much the same, but the problem is, who defines this “harm” or “non-harm?”

You may tell me it was wrong, but I may say, it wasn’t. Who are you to tell me otherwise?

Shalom!

I think you know the answer to you question. There are millions of atheists in the world. There are as many kind, gentle, compassionate atheists as there are believers. If belief in a god made one good, then all Christians would be good. We both know that’s just not true.

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

I think you know the answer to you question. There are millions of atheists in the world. There are as many kind, gentle, compassionate atheists as there are believers. If belief in a god made one good, then all Christians would be good. We both know that’s just not true.

My dear friend,

I don’t think you are realizing the argument I am making here; it isn’t that non theist’s can’t be good people without G-d. It’s that, without G-d, there is no reason, justification, ultimate base on which to stand on your beliefs of upholding kindness and loving acts.

Let me try and break it down for an easier digestion.

Here goes;

Most people would agree that there is such a thing as right or wrong, good or evil acts.

If you concede this point, you must then concede that, for us to be able to judge correctly what is in fact right, or wrong, there must be a law on which we can base these assumptions.

If you concede this point, you must then concede that, for this law to have any meaningful effect, there must be a law giver who upholds the law, giving it it’s meaning and validity.

Do you follow me so far?

The dilemma all non-theists face is this; without a transcendent G-d to uphold a moral law, there is absolutely no logical foundation on which to base your actions to be kind and loving. You’re act of loving kindness is no different than for the mad man to declare his murder of 100 people.

There is no way to get around this my friend.

Shalom!

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

I think that it is because moral action ultimately leads to happiness.

This isn’t a selfish justification when you think about it, because the pursuit of happiness is the reason why people do everything. We look after our basic needs to pursue happiness. We seek entertainment to pursue happiness. We go after friendship and family to pursue happiness. As Aristotle said (although I am probably paraphrasing here) “Happiness is the end to which all things aim.” Aristotle also held to the view that ethics is based on seeking happiness. Catholicism also teaches that the purpose of man is to enjoy happiness too, though in the context of enjoying the presence of God as the Beatific Vision.

For example, the Baltimore Catechism states:

Bakmoon,

See my post to notself, I sort of go over this thread

Shalom!

 

[notself]

notself,

That seems a very common tale; especially in the more traditional churches. Did any of the doctrines dissuade you as well? Such as eternal hell? (pretty big one for most)

A question for you; who was Yeshua to you? And who do you see him as now?

Shalom!

Are you saying that fear of hell is a reason for faith? That sounds more like superstition than faith. No, I am not afraid of hell and never have been.

While I was a child I saw him as Baby Jesus, and later as the suffering Jesus. By the time I was in my late 20’s I didn’t believe in any god. So now I think of gods as symbols of security and comfort. I see all gods as equal in this.

 

[notself]

My dear friend,

The dilemma all non-theists face is this; without a transcendent G-d to uphold a moral law, there is absolutely no logical foundation on which to base your actions to be kind and loving. You’re act of loving kindness is no different than for the mad man to declare his murder of 100 people.

There is no way to get around this my friend.

Shalom!

Atheists are never the less good even though there is no god.

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

Are you saying that fear of hell is a reason for faith? That sounds more like superstition than faith. No, I am not afraid of hell and never have been.

While I was a child I saw him as Baby Jesus, and later as the suffering Jesus. By the time I was in my late 20’s I didn’t believe in any god. So now I think of gods as symbols of security and comfort. I see all gods as equal in this.

My friend,

I did not intend that statement in that manner, please forgive me. What I meant was, did that doctrine dissuade you from believing in G-d through Yeshua because of it’s horrible implications?

( I should state, I do not believe in an eternal hell, it isn’t supported by scripture, nor am I Catholic, for clarifications sake )

Shalom!

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

Atheists are never the less good even though there is no god.

My friend,

I am afraid you are missing my point.

Did I not explain it clearly?

Shalom to you

 

[JoeBowen7]

Shalom again Joe,

Sorry if my answer wasn’t as to the point as I intended it to be.

What I meant to convey is that issues of G-d’s nature such as the one you mentioned, are not things which are necessary for a believer in Yeshua to know.

The revelation of G-d through Yeshua was perfect, and the most important parts of that revelation, IE; His atoning death, the commandment to Love G-d and your neighbor as yourself, and the hope of resurrection, and life beyond this one, were abundantly clear.

It is important to realize that G-d’s revelation to mankind was and is perfect. That men, fallible as we are, can’t interpret certain aspects of G-d’s nature, has no bearing on the fact that his revelation in Yeshua HaMashiach was and is His perfect image resting in a human being.

Shalom!

If the revelation were perfectly understood, wouldn’t there be only one Church and not hundreds of ecclesial communities all teaching different things.