Ask A Buddhist

[Vouthon]

BTW prior to Vatican II there have been some mentions from Catholics of Buddhism.

St Clement of Alexandria, in the 2nd century CE, had high praise for Buddha:

“…Among the Indians are those philosophers who follow the precepts of Buddha, whom, on account of his extraordinary sanctity, they have raised to divine honours…”

***— Saint Clement of Alexandria (c.150 – c. 215), Stromata (Miscellanies), Book I, Chapter XV, Church Father ***

Perhaps he had heard of Mahayana since I’m quite sure that no Therevada Buddhists “have raised to divine honours” the Buddha

But yes, there is the recognition from this Father of the Catholic Church of his great holiness.

He mentioned Buddhism once more in his Writings in the context of “philosophy” which he believed was divinely inspired by God and that all races of people had their own attestations to this universal truth (all religions have divine inspiration):

“…Philosophy is a clear image of truth, a divine gift…Before the advent of the Lord, philosophy helped the Greeks to attain righteousness, and it is now conducive to piety; it supplies a preparatory teaching for those who will later embrace the faith. God is the cause of all good things…The way of truth is one. But into it, as into a perennial river, streams flow from all sides. We assert that philosophy, which is characterized by investigation into the form and nature of things, is the truth of which the Lord Himself said, “I am the truth.”…Thus philosophy, a thing of the highest utility, flourished in antiquity among the barbarians, shedding its light over the nations. And afterwards it came to Greece. First in its ranks were the prophets of the Egyptians; and the Chaldeans among the Assyrians; and the Druids among the Gauls; and the Sramanas among the Bactrians; and the philosophers of the Celts; and the Magi of the Persians, who foretold the Saviour’s birth, and came into the land of Judaea guided by a star. The Indian gymnosophists are also in the number, and the other barbarian philosophers. And of these there are two classes, some of them called Sramanas, and others Brahmins…”

***- Saint Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - c. 220), Church father ***

I believe that “Sramanas”, whether Bactrian or Indian, were his chosen name for Buddhists Clement is saying that divine inspiration also extended to Buddhist philosophy.

 

[notself]

This is why meditation is such a big deal in Buddhism.

I don’t understand why Catholic parishes neglect this part of Catholic Theology. Although I am certain it helps to learn meditation in a monastery, I have learned many techniques through the Internet through audio dhamma talks and through YouTube.

I am not certain if this site allows links to other sites but google DhammaTube and scroll down until you find " A. Jayasaro - Buddhist Meditation. There are 14 short talks on meditation. I don’t believe any of it contradicts Catholic dogma.

 

[rossum]

BTW prior to Vatican II there have been some mentions from Catholics of Buddhism.

The Church went even further than that. At one point it canonised the Buddha and made him a saint, see Baarlam and Josaphat:

The story is a Christianized version of one of the legends of Buddha, as even the name Josaphat would seem to show. This is said to be a corruption of the original Joasaph, which is again corrupted from the middle Persian Budasif (Budsaif=Bodhisattva).

Unfortunately he got de-saintified (?) in the recent bonfire of the legendary saints.

rossum

 

[notself]

Most sacred:
The Void’s immobility
that makes all move,
retaining its tranquility.

He has not lived in vain
who learns to be unruffled
by loss, by gain,
by, joy, by pain.

You are not real, Death,
for I die every minute
and am reborn in the next
into life infinite

The sage does not fear death.
To often has he died
to ego and its vanities,
to all that keeps man tied.

At the end of that
which we call history
God is who IS:
for Him there is no past
nor future yet to be

Where is my dewelling place? Where I can never stand.
Where is my final goal, toward which I should ascend?
It is beyond all place. What should my quest then be?
I must, transcending God, into the desert flee…"

• Angelus Silesius (1624 – 1677), Catholic mystic

Majjhima Nikaya 131 Bhaddekaratta Sutta ‘A Single Excellent Night’
(Bhikkhus Nanomoli and Bodhi trans.)
“Let not a person revive the past
Or on the future build his hopes;
For the past has been left behind
And the future has not been reached.
Instead with insight let him see
Each presently arisen state;
Let him know that and be sure of it,
Invincibly, unshakeably.
Today the effort must be made;
Tomorrow Death may come, who knows?
No bargain with Mortality
Can keep him and his hordes away,
But one who dwells thus ardently,
Relentlessly, by day, by night -
It is he, the Peaceful Sage has said,
Who has had a single excellent night.”

 

[Vouthon]

Majjhima Nikaya 131 Bhaddekaratta Sutta ‘A Single Excellent Night’
(Bhikkhus Nanomoli and Bodhi trans.)
“Let not a person revive the past
Or on the future build his hopes;
For the past has been left behind
And the future has not been reached.
Instead with insight let him see
Each presently arisen state;
Let him know that and be sure of it,
Invincibly, unshakeably.
Today the effort must be made;
Tomorrow Death may come, who knows?
No bargain with Mortality
Can keep him and his hordes away,
But one who dwells thus ardently,
Relentlessly, by day, by night -
It is he, the Peaceful Sage has said,
Who has had a single excellent night.”

This is absolutely stunning in its beauty and profundity. Did the Buddha say this?

The Buddha is saying basically the exact same as the Catholic mystic. Put aside past experiences, let the past go and don’t set your mind to the future, embrace the Sacrament of the Present Moment - “the Eternal Now” as the Catholic mystics Meister Eckhart, Johannes Tauler and Blessed Jan Van Ruysbroeck called it.

The present moment is the closest thing to Timelessness. Time is an illusion created by conditioned mind. Step over the line, through the present moment, and find eternity and Immeasurable Being in the here and now. The Islamic mystic Rumi said, “The Sufi is the son of the present moment”. Catholics call this “The Sacrament of the Present moment”.

A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace…every moment is a sacrament, in every moment, in the quiet stillness of the Eternal Now we can find the Ground.

The best way to embrace the present moment is to recognise the impermanence of all things.

Everything is in a state of becoming within time, emptying upon emptying. The way I would compare it is to rivers coming out from a sea and returning back again in one unending cycle of outflowing and back-flowing. All rivers return to the sea but the sea is never full.

This I feel is the message of the biblical book of Ecclesiastes:

In Ecclesiastes Koheleth writes:

“…Emptying upon emptying! - said the Preacher - Emptying upon emptying! Everything is impermanent…All rivers empty into the sea, yet the sea never fills; indeed the waters rise and return to the river’s mouth that they might flow yet again…Nothing lasts, everything is transient, and all effort to the contrary is a needless gasping for air…Everything in this world has its moment, a season of ripening and falling away…Moments of birthing and moments of dying; moments of planting and moments of reaping…Moments of seeking and moments of losing…I have looked deeply into this human affliction. Everything is beautiful in its moment but the ripening is hidden from your mind…Reality’s flow is endless, moment to moment nothing is added and nothing is taken away, and its sole purpose is to open you to wonder…The fate of all life is forever the same: from dust arising to dust returning…”

***- The Book of Ecclesiastes, Bible ***

It is sheer folly to try to grasp, cling to, or hang on to the moment. Instead of lamenting its passing, there is another way.

Compare this with this (from the only Buddhist text I really know):

“…All conditioned things are impermanent. The one who knows and perceives this fact ceases to be miserable. This is the way of purity of vision…”

- Buddha, the Dhammapada

Once the idea of permanence is cast aside, we are free to experience divine reality in each moment as it arrives and falls away, that out-flowing and back-flowing. Everything is like breath, a chasing after the wind. The reality of reality is emptiness. Everything is empty.

We all want the world to function on our time. Reality is not like this and living like it were, when it isn’t, causes needless suffering. We have to be always awake to the demands of the present moment which might not be what we want it to be.

But we have no power over this out-flowing and back-flowing; that is, over this emptiness and transcience at the heart of material reality. It is like the wind, it blows wherever it chooses and we cannot chase after it once it has fled, nor contain it, or trap it. We have to accept it for what is and try and move with its flow or else suffer the consequences of living in the illusion that we can have power over the flow.

This is the dilemna that hits us. We cannot stop the ceasless flow of emptying time. It is completely unaffected by our pain, hopes, fears, concerns and keeps on ceaslessly giving in each moment of time, in rapid sucession, forever and ever.

It becomes agnozing to realize how powerless we truly are. Impermanence is the only constant. Change, emptying, ceaseless moving forth and back, is all there is. If we cling to past moments, or long for imaginery future ones, we experience suffering because there is no satisfaction to be found in temporal reality because all is impermanent, empty, ever-changing, ever-moving. This material reality is not the Unconditioned Absolute. It is nothing. Emptiness.

Standing within our Ground, where we find the Absolute Unconditioned One revealed to us in the present moment, we detach ourselves from self and created things. The wearisome succession of life and death, of past and future, of emptying upon emptying no longer oppresses us or holds us captive because we are freed from it and dwell in the Unconditioned Absolute accepting every moment as it arises and falls away, giving no thought for past or future, existing in the Eternal Now.

You wrote above:

The term “the ground” can be compared to bhavanga-sota. Bhavangha-sota can be defined as the undercurrent forming the condition of being. In the Abhidhamma commentaries it is defined as the foundation or condition of existence having the nature of a process, literally a flux or stream. It certainly isn’t identical to “the ground” as described by Angelus Silesius but there are similarities.

Could “the ground” be defined as the divine process of existence?

Could this be similar?

“…When we have become seeing…Behold! here all human works and active virtues must cease…the infinite Undifferentiation of the Godhead is so dark and so naked of all image…a melting and dying into the Nudity of pure Being; where all the names…and all conditions, and all living images…are absorbed into infinite simplicity…If we are lost to ourselves…we sink [into] ourselves eternally and irretrievably…And this down-sinking is like a river, which without pause or turning back pours ever into the sea; since this is its proper resting place…And this befalls beyond time; that is without before or after, in an Eternal Now…the home and beginning of all life and all becoming…Eternal rest, Unconditioned Dark, the Nameless Being, the Superessence of all created things, and the simple and infinite Bliss…”

***- Blessed Jan Van Ruysbroeck (1293 – 1381), Catholic mystic ***

 

[Vouthon]

This is why meditation is such a big deal in Buddhism.

I don’t understand why Catholic parishes neglect this part of Catholic Theology. Although I am certain it helps to learn meditation in a monastery, I have learned many techniques through the Internet through audio dhamma talks and through YouTube.

I am not certain if this site allows links to other sites but google DhammaTube and scroll down until you find " A. Jayasaro - Buddhist Meditation. There are 14 short talks on meditation. I don’t believe any of it contradicts Catholic dogma.

My dear brother/sister Notself

I will go and check out those videos on DhammaTube and tell you what I think.

Thank you very much!

BTW check the previous page for my reply to that excellent quote you provided me with as a parrallel to Angelus Silesius!

 

[Vouthon]

The Church went even further than that. At one point it canonised the Buddha and made him a saint, see Baarlam and Josaphat:

The story is a Christianized version of one of the legends of Buddha, as even the name Josaphat would seem to show. This is said to be a corruption of the original Joasaph, which is again corrupted from the middle Persian Budasif (Budsaif=Bodhisattva).

Unfortunately he got de-saintified (?) in the recent bonfire of the legendary saints.

rossum

Ah yes I know about this

The Eastern Catholics still celebrate Saint Josaphat’s - or should I say Gautama Buddha’s - feastday and the Orthodox have churches dedicated to him.

It would appear to me that the Catholic Church has recognized, in directly and by pure chance, in the tale of Josaphat and Barlaam that the Buddha lived a life of heroic virtue and hence was worthy enough to be liturgically venerated on the 27th November under the name “Josaphat” which is derived from Boddhisattva.

Robert Ellsberg concludes this way: “So by this curious route, the Buddha
became a Christian saint who inspired later generations of Christians to
pursue the path of enlightment. Rather than disavow Sts. Barlaam and
Josaphat as figures of legend, it might be better to celebrate them as
patron saints for an age of interreligious dialogue.”

He isn’t “un-canonised” just de-emphasised. I would re-emphasise him

 

[Vouthon]

This is an Eastern Orthodox/Eastern Catholic Saint of more modern times who also praised Buddha (and founders of other world religions):

"…All the prophets have from the beginning cried out to my soul, imploring her to make herself a virgin and prepare herself to receive the Divine Son into her immaculate womb;

Imploring her to become a ladder, down which God will descend into the world, and up which man will ascend to God,

Imploring her to drain the red sea of sanguinary passions within herself, so that man the slave can cross over to the promised land, the land of freedom.

The wise man of China admonishes my soul to be peaceful and still, and to wait for Tao to act within her. Glory be the memory of Lao-tse, the teacher and prophet of his people!

The wise man of India teaches my soul not to be afraid of suffering, but through the arduous and relentless drilling in purification and prayer to elevate herself to the One on high, who will come out to greet her and manifest to her His face and His power. Glorious be the memory of Krishna, the teacher and prophet of his people!

The royal son of India teaches my soul to empty herself completely of every seed and crop of the world, to abandon all the serpentine allurements of frail and shadowy matter, and then in vacuity, tranquillity, purity and bliss to await nirvana. Blessed be the memory of Buddha, the royal son and inexorable teacher of his people!

The thunderous wise man of Persia tells my soul that there is nothing in the world except light and darkness, and that the soul must break free from the darkness as the day does from the night. For the sons of light are conceived from the light, and the sons of darkness are conceived from darkness. Glorious be the memory of Zoroaster, the great prophet of his people!.."

- Saint Nicholai Velimirovic (1880 - 1956), Prayers by the Lake

 

[rossum]

My dear brother/sister Notself

I will go and check out those videos on DhammaTube and tell you what I think.

Thank you very much!

BTW check the previous page for my reply to that excellent quote you provided me with as a parrallel to Angelus Silesius!

For a Christian meditation, you may also wish to look at Saying the Jesus Prayer.

If you do, then please pay attention to Bishop Ware’s advice:

“But those who have no personal contact with starets [a teacher] may still practice the Prayer without any fear, so long as they do so only for limited periods - initially, for no more than ten or fifteen minutes at a time - and so long as they make no attempt to interfere with the body’s natural rhythms.”

That is good advice for anyone starting meditation without a teacher.

rossum

 

[Vouthon]

For a Christian meditation, you may also wish to look at Saying the Jesus Prayer.

If you do, then please pay attention to Bishop Ware’s advice:

“But those who have no personal contact with starets [a teacher] may still practice the Prayer without any fear, so long as they do so only for limited periods - initially, for no more than ten or fifteen minutes at a time - and so long as they make no attempt to interfere with the body’s natural rhythms.”

That is good advice for anyone starting meditation without a teacher.

rossum

Thank you for that excellent link Rossum!

And for the brilliant advice from Bishop Kallistos Ware. I love his books on Orthodoxy! I am very much a ‘fan’ of his writings.

Thanks again! It is appreciated.

 

[notself]

The following is from Wiki and is all I could find on the wording of the Jesus Prayer.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. (a very common form) (Sometimes “τον αμαρτωλόν” is translated “a sinner” but in Greek the article “τον” is a definite article, so it could be translated “the sinner.”)
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me.[33] (a very common form in the Greek tradition)
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me. (common variant on Mount Athos)[3]
Jesus, have mercy.[34]
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us.[35]
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy on me, a sinner.[36]

There is a meditative practice called Metta that is one of the most common forms of meditation in Theravada Buddhism. This is the sutta on which the meditation is based. It is one of my favorite suttas.

Snp 1.8 PTS: Sn 143-152
**Karaniya Metta Sutta: The Buddha’s Words on Loving-Kindness **
translated from the Pali by The Amaravati Sangha © 2004–2012

This is what should be done
By one who is skilled in goodness,
And who knows the path of peace:
Let them be able and upright,
Straightforward and gentle in speech,
Humble and not conceited,
Contented and easily satisfied,
Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways.
Peaceful and calm and wise and skillful,
Not proud or demanding in nature.
Let them not do the slightest thing
That the wise would later reprove.
Wishing: In gladness and in safety,
May all beings be at ease.
Whatever living beings there may be;
Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,
The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,
The seen and the unseen,
Those living near and far away,
Those born and to-be-born —
May all beings be at ease!

Let none deceive another,
Or despise any being in any state.
Let none through anger or ill-will
Wish harm upon another.
Even as a mother protects with her life
Her child, her only child,
So with a boundless heart
Should one cherish all living beings;
Radiating kindness over the entire world:
Spreading upwards to the skies,
And downwards to the depths;
Outwards and unbounded,
Freed from hatred and ill-will.
Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down
Free from drowsiness,
One should sustain this recollection.
This is said to be the sublime abiding.
By not holding to fixed views,
The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision,
Being freed from all sense desires,
Is not born again into this world.

One meditates using Metta by first wishing Metta to oneself. One can use what ever words convey the meaning of the sutta. These are what I use.

May I be well and happy
May I be safe and free from harm
May I be free from anger and ill will
May I be at peace
May my heart be filled with loving kindness.

It is important to start with oneself when contemplating metta because the change that comes from this meditation is a change that oneself needs in order to deal with others with Metta.

Next one focuses on ones family, friends, teachers, community keeping individuals in mind, saying:

May my spouse be well and happy
May my spouse be free from harm
May my spouse be free from anger and ill will…etc.

Next one focuses on anyone who is an irritant to your peace. One should pick the persons who most offend you or who have caused you harm. You may find that your mind will struggle a bit at first. That is a reflection of the harm that hatred causes to your mind. This will dispel that anger.

May (name) be well and happy…etc.

It takes at least a half an hour maybe a full hour of metta meditation to go through all of the categories. One can just spend time focusing on oneself or ones enemy or any catagory and still have excellent results.

Questions?

 

[notself]

The present moment is the closest thing to Timelessness. Time is an illusion created by conditioned mind. Step over the line, through the present moment, and find eternity and Immeasurable Being in the here and now. The Islamic mystic Rumi said, “The Sufi is the son of the present moment”. Catholics call this “The Sacrament of the Present moment”.

A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace…every moment is a sacrament, in every moment, in the quiet stillness of the Eternal Now we can find the Ground.

I’m going to break up your post so we can discuss specific items in it as compared to Buddhist concepts.

It is my understanding from the above, and other comments in your post, that “ground” is soul-like and eternal. It is a “space” full of grace and the divine. Please correct me if my understanding is flawed.

I found a description of bhavanga-sota and I think it clarifies that we may be talking about two separate things that have some characteristics in common but never the less are different concepts. The following is from a rather long and complex essay called The Fundamentals of Buddhism by Nyanatiloka Mahathera. The essay is actually a small online book in a PDF file, here is the link. accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanatiloka/wheel394.html#ch3
I have only quoted parts of the section on bhavanga-sota for the sake of brevity.

The term bhavanga-sota, is identical with what the modern psychologists, such as Jung, etc., call the soul, or the unconscious, thereby not meaning, of course, the eternal soul-entity of Christian teaching but an ever-changing subconscious process. This subconscious life-stream is the necessary condition of all life. In it, all impressions and experiences are stored up, or better said, appear as a multiple process of past images, or memory pictures, which however, as such, are hidden to full consciousness, but which, especially in dreams, cross the threshold of consciousness and make themselves fully conscious….
Thus this subconscious life-stream, or bhavanga-sota, can be called the precipitate of all our former actions and experiences, which must have been going on since time immemorial and must continue for still immeasurable periods of time to come. Therefore what constitutes the true and innermost nature of man, or any other being, is this subconscious life-stream, of which we do not know whence it came and whither it will go. As Heraclitus says: “We never enter the same stream. We are identical with it, and we are not.” Just so it is said in the Milindapañha: “na ca so, na ca añño; neither is it the same, nor is it another (that is reborn).” All life, be it corporeal, conscious or subconscious, is a flowing, a continual process of becoming, change and transformation. No persistent element is there to be discovered in this process. Hence there is no permanent ego, or personality, to be found, but merely these transitory phenomena….
Thus a real understanding of the Buddha’s doctrine of kamma and rebirth is possible only to one who has caught a glimpse of the egoless nature, or anattata, and of the conditionality, or idappaccayata, of all phenomena of existence. Therefore it is said in the Visuddhimagga (Chap. XIX):
Everywhere, in all the realms of existence, the noble disciple sees only mental and corporeal phenomena kept going through the concatenation of causes and effects. No producer of the volitional act or kamma does he see apart from the kamma, no recipient of the kamma-result apart from the result. And he is well aware that wise men are using merely conventional language, when, with regard to a kammical act, they speak of a doer, or with regard to a kamma-result, they speak of the recipient of the result

.

As one can see from the above, bhavanga-sota is a process at the most basic level. In this sense it is a not a noun, ground, but a verb, processing. When one through meditation reaches the level of this subtle processing one understands what the Buddha is teaching regarding impermanence, not-self, cause and result, and the process of rebirth.

I feel I am doing a poor job of this explanation. My processing is more than a little foggy because of my medication. However, the little bit of research that I’ve done for this post has gotten me closer to seeing the possibility of rebirth as actually existing. Who knows, one day I may actually believe in rebirth. The Buddha’s disciple, Ananda, eventually did.

I look forward to your comments.

 

[Bakmoon]

Hesychasm is wonderful. Its of course the other side of the Catholic coin - Eastern Catholicism no less important than the Western mystics. Eastern Orthodox mystics say that one should never trust thoughts. According to the Hesychasts thoughts are not really you that is your deepest being. They are a distraction from your true self. In Orthodoxy the goal is to become aware of thoughts and then let them go and focus on your breathing. This way you begin to see thought-patterns that are pulling you in certain directions and keeping you from stillness within.

Thats the goal of Hesychasm That stillness is the Ground beyond time and place.

Fascinating. It sounds quite similar to how I practice Anapanasati , aka mindfulness of breathing, only with a different doctrinal framework. Can you point me to any good reasources that give detailed instructions in the practice of Hesychastic prayer? I want to compare techniques and states.

I already know the teaching on the appearance of the Tabor Light during such prayer and the identification of this with the uncreated energies of God, and I find this particularly interesting as Classical Theravadin Meditation texts speak of the appearance of lights called Nimitas just before entering into very deep states of meditation called the Jhanas.

 

[rinnie]

“Religion” in a theologically neutral sense has proven impossible to define. I challenge the idea that different rules apply to “religion” than to other forms of knowledge.

What are we talking about here? We aren’t talking about rival claims to revelation. We’re talking about Buddhist claims to have wisdom that
a. helps people live well, and
b. helps people free themselves from selfish craving and the resulting suffering and find inner peace.

I see no reason to exclude the possibility that Buddhism might have things to teach us on these points, just as other wisdom traditions (and science is just another wisdom tradition, or collection thereof) have taught us much in the past and continue to do so.

It’s not a question that I think we can answer definitively at this point. It took Christians quite a while to figure out what we had to learn from Platonism and Aristotelianism (and indeed there are those who think that we learned “too much” and need to unlearn some of those lessons), even though early Christians shared a cultural context with pagan philosophers, spoke the same language, etc. Today Christianity and Buddhism have had centuries upon centuries of separate development, and they are rooted in very different cultural and linguistic traditions–not to mention hostilities arising from various historical conflicts and cultural prejudices (Western disdain for “Orientals,” Asian resentment of Western colonialism, etc.).

It may take us a while–as in centuries–to come up with anything remotely like definitive answers. All the reason to work on the issue seriously and not let premature answers (whether positive or negative) shut off the inquiry.

But here are my tentative suggestions:

1. The basic Buddhist teaching of “noself” has something to teach us, I believe. Our traditional conception of the self is rooted in Plato and Aristotle–and indeed there’s been plenty of tensions between those two definitions. Plato thought the soul was the real self, temporarily “imprisoned” in a body; Aristotle thought that the soul was the “form” of the body. Plato has more in common with the mystical and otherworldly aspects of Christianity, but downplays the body in ways that are incompatible with orthodox Christianity. Aristotle gives us a more richly “embodied” view of the self, but one with little room for immortality and with a view of the good life that is bound up to some extent with material success and well-being. Yet we’ve learned much from both of these traditions. The Buddhist approach doesn’t seem any more incompatible with Christianity, to my eyes, than either of these. (Granted that there are several Buddhist approaches!) The basic idea is that the “self” is impermanent and relational–it’s not a thing that exists in itself independently of others. In its most sophisticated and paradoxical form, in the work of Nagarjuna, the Buddhist view holds that not only the self but all phenomena are “empty” of independent existence.
2. This concept of emptiness leads us to the most obvious apparent conflict between the two traditions: the idea of God. Even here, I think Buddhism has something to teach. After all, as Christians we believe that God is most fully revealed in Jesus. And St. Paul tells us that Jesus’ “exaltation” took place as a result of His “emptying” and His not regarding divinity as “something to be snatched/grasped.” In other words, Jesus is divine not in spite of but because of this emptiness and absence of “grasping.”
   I’m certainly not suggesting that Paul had Buddhist ideas in mind (it’s not historically impossible, but it’s highly unlikely, I think) in using this language, or that we should just plug Buddhist concepts into Christianity. But when we have divine revelation that identifies deity paradoxically with “emptiness” and the absence of “grasping,” and then we have a philosophical (or, if you will, “religious”) tradition that defines reality in terms of emptiness and enlightenment in terms of freedom from grasping/craving–why then, I think we need to look into what that tradition might have to say that would help us understand the revelation we have received.

As you can see, what I’m suggesting in these two cases is that Buddhism has things to offer us that complement what we’ve already received from other non-Christian sources.

These suggestions deal with metaphysics, which is where the most obvious conflicts are. More briefly, here are some of the other things I think we can learn:

1. Buddhist concern for the welfare of “all beings” and not just humans is something Christians need to take seriously. That doesn’t mean that we erase distinctions between humans and other animals, but that we condemn utterly the vicious fantasy of Descartes that animals are just “machines” and take them seriously as living beings capable of suffering and proper objects of our compassion and goodwill. Buddhism has a lot to offer in this regard.
2. Christians sometimes contrast Buddhist “compassion” with Christian “charity” to the detriment of the former. There are linguistic problems with this easy contrast, but more to the point here, the way Christians have sometimes construed charity has been very destructive. We have assumed that we know what is good for the “other” and thus can impose it on the other out of love. Taking a more “negative” approach by emphasizing compassion has some merits. (As with all of these suggestions, I am not saying that we simply adopt the Buddhist approach, of course.)
3. Buddhists have a more extended tradition of reflection on “right livelihood” than we do. Early Christians talked about this issue, but much of it has been downplayed ever since the time of Constantine. Buddhists have thought quite a bit about it. We might benefit from listening to them.
4. As a more specific subset of the former, the Buddhist ethical tradition pays a lot of attention to the effects of violence on the person who commits violence, even if that violence is arguably justified. (I know that this is complex and that there are Buddhist traditions glorifying violence.) Christians (especially Western Christians) often tend to think about ethics primarily in terms of lawgiving and guilt, and the Buddhist approach, which emphasizes what an act does to your consciousness, has value, particularly I think with regard to reflection on violence.
5. And finally and obviously, while Christians do have meditation traditions, Buddhism has put an immense amount of work into developing meditation techniques, and there’s a reason why Christians often feel the need to learn from Buddhists on this. This brings us back to the first point, though. We can’t simply separate these “practical” issues from the metaphysical ones where there’s more apparent conflict. Conservative Christians are right to say that if (as they assume) the Buddhist view of the self is simply wrong, then taking over Buddhist meditation techniques is problematic. So the apparent practical benefits of meditation are one reason to take the Buddhist concept of the self seriously, and at the same time we need to be sure not to rush into practices that aren’t supported by the view of the self we as Christians hold. . . .

In Christ,

Edwin

Thanks Edwin,

 

[rinnie]

There is nothing wrong with you rejecting Buddhism so there is nothing to be sorry about. I was raised Catholic but left its practice when I was about 19.

I check into this site because my very Catholic sister has Catholic friends who occasionally confuse their own opinions with those of actual Catholic dogma. I ask a question now and then myself and always have my questions answered. The site is an excellent resource.

Hi, sorry it took me so long, after the storm found myself into the weekend, Weekends seem to last 5 minutes for me. I am so busy after 4 on Friday.

Anyway here is a question, aren’t you sorry you said ask me anything Okay here is one.

First of all you claim you left the Catholic faith at 19. Do you feel you knew the true Catholic faith? Or do you believe you never knew the faith and just went with the so called flow?

 

[Vouthon]

My dear brother/sister Notself

Thank you for your reply!

It is my understanding from the above, and other comments in your post, that “ground” is soul-like and eternal. It is a “space” full of grace and the divine. Please correct me if my understanding is flawed.

“…The God who is without a name is inexpressible, and the soul in its ground is equally inexpressible, as he is inexpressible…For though she sink all sinking in the oneness of divinity, she never touches bottom. For it is of the very essence…that she is powerless to plumb the depths…And here one cannot speak of the soul anymore, for she has lost her nature yonder in the oneness of divine essence. When the soul has lost her nature in the Oneness, we can no longer speak of a ‘soul’ - but of immeasurable Being…Your very something must become nothing, drive all something, all nothing away! Leave place, leave time, and images as well! Go without way on the narrow path, thus you will come to the desert…into the nothing, sink into the bottomless swell!.. If I lose myself, I find you, O goodness beyond being!..”

- Meister Eckhart (1260-1328), Catholic mystic and Dominican priest

“…In the reality, intuitively known by the mystics, we can no longer speak of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, nor of any creature, but only One Being, that is is the super-essence (substratum) of all creatures…”

***- Blessed Jan Van Ruysbroek (1293 – 1381), Catholic mystic ***

“…Our essential nature is uncreated, never-born and free in and for itself. It is found in all creatures, but is not restricted to them; it is outside all creatures, but not excluded from them…”

***- The Cloud of Unknowing (14th-century), classic text of Catholic mysticism ***

“…I discovered myself to be nothing but nothing; an unweighable substance; a sea that cannot be sailed…I find that I exist as nothing but nothing…”

- Thomas A. Kempis (c. 1380 – 1471), Catholic monk and mystic

That is the GROUND It is not a “space” and it is the deepest aspect of our reality. Some call it the Ground “of the soul” but even this demonstrates that it is deeper than the soul and eventually one goes so deep into this image that there no longer any awarenss of a soul but rather of a state of single-minded oneness beyond all forms - the Image of God. So “soul-like” is not an apt description. It is not eternal since eternity posits “time”, succession in time. Rather it is beyond time and so it is a state devoid of time and place.

I would say that ‘it’ (for want of a better word) is not a space but a state. It is inexpressible, ineffable and beyond space/place and time just as (in our eyes) God is inexpressible, ineffable etc. It is beyond all forms, mental images, sensuality, surface personality, emotions, thoughts etc. A person who lives within the Ground is no longer affected by the past nor the future but exists solely in the present moment. He is no longer depressed by bad things, or overjoyed by good things rather he exists in a state of complete detachment from self and all things: in equainimity and in pure, untramelled being. Nothing rocks his inner serenity, even if the world were to be collapsing around him.

The Ground is nameless, so we cannot assign any true name to it which could explain its identity - for it has none.

The Ground is completely empty. But our everyday consciousness is so clouded by emotions and thoughts that we are not aware of it, and thus we don’t recognize it.

When one enters the Ground there are little or even no thoughts. One experiences profound stillness, or calmness. Then emptiness arises.

This is a state of complete unknowing.

“…I have said at times that there is a power in the soul, untouched by time and flesh, which alone is free. Occasionally I have said that it is the guardian of the soul or I have said that it is the light of the soul. Sometimes I have said it is a little spark. But now I say it is neither this nor that… Therefore now call it by a nobler name than ever before, but it repudiates this nobility and this mode and is far above them. It is free from all names, and altogether unimpeded, untrammeled and free from all modes, as God is free and untrammeled in Himself. It is so completely free and simple, as is God, that it cannot in any way be perceived…It is free of all names and void of all forms. It is one and simple, and no man can in any wise behold it…Dear children, you must know that true spiritual life leads to perfect freedom from self and all things…One cares nothing, seeks nothing, has nothing, wants nothing for oneself, but frankly resigns oneself to eternal law. Those who live this life, they verily attain to unity, and to know the truth one has to dwell in unity and be the unity…The highest knowing and seeing is knowing and seeing, unknowing and unseeing…To know anything of self is to know nothing of God, and he who wants God to be his is putting an obstacle in his own way…True detachment means a mind as little moved by what befalls, by joy and sorrow, honor and disgrace, as a broad mountain by a gentle breeze…To talk about the world as being made by God to-morrow, yesterday, would be talking nonsense. God makes the world and all things in this present now…It is in the stillness, in the silence, that the word of God is to be heard. There is no better approach to this Word than through stillness, through silence… Be sure of this: absolute stillness for as long as possible is best of all for you…”

***- Meister Eckhart (1260-1328), Catholic mystic and Dominican priest ***

And thank you for your description of bhavanga-sota - I have much to think about!

 

[rinnie]

The following is from Wiki and is all I could find on the wording of the Jesus Prayer.

There is a meditative practice called Metta that is one of the most common forms of meditation in Theravada Buddhism. This is the sutta on which the meditation is based. It is one of my favorite suttas.

One meditates using Metta by first wishing Metta to oneself. One can use what ever words convey the meaning of the sutta. These are what I use.

May I be well and happy
May I be safe and free from harm
May I be free from anger and ill will
May I be at peace
May my heart be filled with loving kindness.

It is important to start with oneself when contemplating metta because the change that comes from this meditation is a change that oneself needs in order to deal with others with Metta.

Next one focuses on ones family, friends, teachers, community keeping individuals in mind, saying:

May my spouse be well and happy
May my spouse be free from harm
May my spouse be free from anger and ill will…etc.

Next one focuses on anyone who is an irritant to your peace. One should pick the persons who most offend you or who have caused you harm. You may find that your mind will struggle a bit at first. That is a reflection of the harm that hatred causes to your mind. This will dispel that anger.

May (name) be well and happy…etc.

It takes at least a half an hour maybe a full hour of metta meditation to go through all of the categories. One can just spend time focusing on oneself or ones enemy or any catagory and still have excellent results.

Questions?

Many

Here is the first problem, IMO. Do you no understand how this is so contrary to Christian faith?

Look at your prayer, or whatever you want to call it. Who exactly are you talking to or trying to reach when you say these thing? Are you not asking for help? From who then?

Think about it, When you say MAY my spouse be well and happy. Rather you want to admit it or not, its asking SOMEONE or SOMETHING for something. Who then if not God?

Do you not see that it is not a valid prayer. Because for a prayer to be valid it must lead to Christ who is the way the ruth and the Life.

Do you not see that you are abandoning the True God for a false god? That is why I believe it is in direct conflict with the first commandment.

I AM the Lord your God, there shall be no other gods before me. The reason I say I AM in big letters, is to show you that I AM is ANOTHER name for the Triune God.

What makes this harder for me to except is the truth was given to you about the ONE TRUE GOD, but you have rejected it. Do you understand that when You reject Christ you have put your soul in mortal danger?

 

[rinnie]

In Buddhist texts, especially Madhyamika texts, “empty” is the translation of the Sanskrit śūnya. This is not the same as “nothing”. A pot can be empty, but it is not nothing. Things are empty of inherent existence, just as a pot may be empty of water. Unfortunately humans have a tendency to attribute inherent existence to things that do not possess it. That leads us into error.

A mirage looks like water, but there is no water there: it is empty of water. It is deceptive. A mirage is not nothing. It looks like water, and nothing would not look like that. Viewing emptiness incorrectly will lead us into error:

If their view of emptiness is wrong,
those of little intelligence will be hurt.
Like handling a snake in the wrong way,
or casting a spell in the wrong way.

– Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 24:11

rossum/QUOTE

See, no offense but things like this make no sense whatsoever to me. Its nothing but double talk, and riddles to me.

 

[Vouthon]

Notself brother/sister

“…The man who is wholly sanctified is so drawn towards the Infinite, that no transitory thing may move him, no corporeal thing affect him, no earthly thing attract him…Go completely out of yourself…God must act and pour himself into us when we are ready, in other words when we are totally empty of self and creatures. So stand still and do not waver from your emptiness…”

- Meister Eckhart (1260-1328), Catholic mystic and Dominican priest

“…If we can learn to let ourselves go, we are in effect letting everything go. Total letting go is the way to gain all things in the God who is the real being of all (Walshe, 2008, sermon 6). ‘He who would save his soul must lose it’ (Mt 16:25) is one of Eckhart’s favourite sayings of the Lord…”

- John Orme Mills OP, 2002

This might give you some food for thought though:

“…This being-unified is alone what matters, because the human person as reason has left behind everything that stands in the way of living in and from this unity. This true equanimity or letting-go is the goal of human life**…Conversion in disposition leads the intellect to the Ground of the soul, whose movement, as a process of reason, reaches its goal in the Absolute**…This goal is nothing other than the ground of the soul…”

***- Stanford Encloepedia ***

A little confusing but take from it what you can It does refer to the Ground as a process at some level but also the goal?

“Letting-go” is the basis of the Ground/state of oneness/awareness of the Image of God.

 

[rinnie]

That doesn’t seem to me to be a common view among Catholic thinkers. Even the great Thomas Aquinas held that there are certain truths (Natural Truths he called them if I am not mistaken) that are knowable purely by means of reason and without the need of supernatural assistance. If I am not mistaken, he even held the existence of God to be a natural truth discoverable through reason without supernatural help.

Actually I believe you are taking what he said out of context. And I believe St thomas is in the same line with as I am with his thinking.

St Thomas believe that knowledge of ANY truth whatsoever man need divine help.

With that said he believe natural capacity to know many things without divine revelation.

So I do not see where he is saying natural reason is not divine help.