Ask A Buddhist

[Contarini]

Okay lets begin with suffering. We are taught to not put an end to our suffering

Really? There will be suffering in heaven?

And you misunderstand what Buddhists mean by suffering. Remember that the Buddhist sacred texts weren’t written in English–many Buddhists don’t like to translate “dukkha” as “suffering.” it’s a particular kind of suffering, resulting from selfish craving.

It is a great mystery.

Indeed. So why don’t you treat it as one? You speak as if you understand all about it–as if you know exactly what Buddhists mean by “avoiding suffering” and what Christians mean by embracing suffering and thus know that the two things are contradictory.

It says if you are ATTACHED to ANYONE or ANYTHING you will never attain Nibbana. How could a Christian ever not be Attached to Christ? It is not possible, even the throught of asking us to not be attached to Christ is a horrible thought.

In 2 Corinthians 5:16, St. Paul speaks of not “knowing Christ according to the flesh.” This is certainly a rather cryptic statement–John Wesley’s interpretation may not be entirely correct, but it’s probably worth thinking about (I particularly wish that all modern evangelicals who sing praise choruses would read the sermon I just linked to!). But at least possibly what he’s talking about is similar to what Buddhists mean by “attachment.”

Think of it this way: when you say you are “attached” to Jesus, are you attached to the real Jesus or to your idea of Jesus?

Why did Jesus tell St. Mary Magdalene “Don’t touch me” after his resurrection?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I never said it did, Bakmoon said Christ dd not say t pray for Grace to grant us the power to resist sin. Yes he did.

No, you are misquoting him. Perhaps you should check next time to make sure you’re quoting people correctly. I have fallen into this trap myself on occasion.

Here’s what Bakmoon said (the “he” of course is Jesus):

Bakmoon:

He did NOT say “Pray for the grace to resist, but don’t bother striving against the urge because grace will resist it for you.”

That’s just sound Catholic teaching, rinnie. If you’re really disagreeing with this, then I think you’re what would once have been called a “Quietist,” which is an unorthodox position. It’s not orthodox Catholicism to say that grace simply replaces free will and makes striving unnecessary.

The Catholic view, at least what I was taught is that nohing is possible without God and his grace.

Of course. I agree with that entirely. But you seem to be saying that therefore our efforts are irrelevant, and that is absolutely not Catholic teaching.

You must have Christ at the center or you can be swayed away from him by a false spirit.

Rinnie, if you are really going to throw out non-Christian teachings on ethics and psychology, you have to throw out pretty much all of Aquinas, because Aquinas drew heavily on Aristotle’s teachings on these issues, while of course correcting Aristotle in the light of revelation.

I’ve been suggesting on this thread that Christians could profitably do the same thing with Buddhism.

Do you give any validity to modern secular psychology at all? It seems to me that by your standards you shouldn’t–it’s actually far more troubling than either Aristotelianism or Buddhism, because these are pre-Christian systems while modern secular psychology, in nearly all its forms, is post-Christian and to some degree arguably anti-
Christian. (You may simply reject secular psychology, and in that case this is irrelevant!)

God can make truth known through non-Christian sources. That’s well established in the Catholic tradition.

Virtue can be found outside the Christian tradition. That too is well established in Catholicism.

God is at work everywhere, not just among people who explicitly recognize the Christian faith.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

And also there is no way to can recognize any sinfull thoughts without the Grace of God.

Well, that’s not what Aquinas thought. Aquinas thought that a person could resist any specific sin through natural means alone (although over time a person not assisted by grace would fall into mortal sin). I hesitate to put too much weight on this, because I’m not sure Aquinas was right–but then I have a broader understanding of how grace works than Aquinas, so the nature/grace distinction works a bit differently.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

Edwin back to sins. You asked venial from mortal. Here is the difference.

The easiest way I can think to explain it is Murder and pre-meditated murder.

Lets us a person that is gay for instance.

They have the urge or desire for the same sex. Now that is venial. But on the same token, they cannot help what they feel. Is wanting to have sex with another of the same sex a sin? Yes it is. Wanting to have sex with them is venial sin.

But it is not MORTAL or ACTUAL sin until they give into the sin and commit it. They know very well its goes against the law of Christ but they do it anyway.

From what I have understand the Pope said they cannot help what they feel, but they can help on how they react on it. So you pray for the grace to overcome this heavy cross you are asked to carry.

Can the feeling go away? With the Grace of God yes it can. But can the person cure themself by meditation alone. NO, Not from what I have learned.

If that person prays for Grace to overcome it, and God grants the Grace it can happen. But there are times God does not always say yes, But the bottom line is we have the free will to not Commit the sin, but we can’t always meditate the feeling away.

It can only come from prayer and Grace, and thats if your will is the same as Gods will,

 

[notself]

In all honesty, not being a fan of the word ‘Spiritual’, and not being one to use it myself, I don’t really know how it should be used. There doesn’t seem to be any Pali word in the Suttas that is used similarly to the word ‘spirituality’. If I had to use the word, I would probably define it as meaning ‘pertaining to the meditative path which leads to Nibbana.’ but I probably still wouldn’t like using it because it is such a fuzzy term, and it is often just a buzz word for New Agers to bat around.

Maybe my response wasn’t very “Spiritual” but I hope it was at least “Enlightening”
(Stupid pun, but I couldn’t resist)

Bakmoon, Michael19682,

I agree. The word spiritual does not work as a proper expression of Buddhist thought. To me as to you, Michael, spiritual connotes a divine spirit and a quest for understanding and union with that the divine. Buddhists are not on a quest of spirituality. They are on a Path leading to the ending of suffering - to nibbana which does not represent a union with anything or anyone.

Buddhism is not actually a religion in the way religion is thought of in the West. It is not spiritual in the way the term is understood in the West. There is not god or idol to be worshipped. There is no outside party to give salvation.

 

[Bakmoon]

I finally thought of a few good questions.

What is up with the Dalai Lama consulting spirits? I’ve learnt about the state oracle of Tibet a few months ago and it creeps me out.

Also what is Shamballa? I have read something about it being a place in the spiritual realm.

Tibetan Buddhism is a partial mixture of Tantric Buddhism as it was originally practiced in northern India the 600’s and of the native animistic religion of pre-Buddhist Tibet. The use of the oracle is vestigial from the days of pre-Buddhist Tibet when such oracles were used by the leaders. As the Dalai Lama became the temporal leader of Tibet, such Oracles became part of court. That’s basically how it came to be.

It creeps me out, too. I think it is extremely dangerous to open yourself up to interacting with spirits, especially trying to get them to enter your body. You are just begging to get possessed if you do that.

Various mythologies in Tibet seem to talk about something like Shambhala. In my understanding, it was probably also a pre-Buddhist myth, but based on a real location in eastern Kazakhstan that is supposed to be very lush in comparison with the rugged mountains of Tibet. This myth was then transformed in significance with the rise of the Kalachakra practices which reinterpreted it as being symbolic of a pure land, or symbolic of the body and mind. That’s about all I have heard about it.

 

[Bakmoon]

Huh? Actually he did.

James 4:6 God opposes the proud but he accords his favor to the humble. Give into God then, resist the devil and he will run from you.

The nearr we are to God, the nearer God will come to you.

Humble yourself before the Lord and he will lift you up.

Actually, your quote supports my position, because it states that one should BOTH rely on God (Give into God…) AND resist the Devil (…resist the Devi…) rather than relying on grace to do it all.

 

[notself]

I finally thought of a few good questions.

What is up with the Dalai Lama consulting spirits? I’ve learnt about the state oracle of Tibet a few months ago and it creeps me out.

Also what is Shamballa? I have read something about it being a place in the spiritual realm.

Yeah, what is up with the Dalai Lama consulting spirits and using oracles? Such things are most likely a cultural component that has been absorbed into the practice of Buddhism in Tibet. Such things are considered wrong livelihood for Theravada monastics. The bold is mine. It is a partial list of Wrong Livelihood.

"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such “animal” arts as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; **reading omens and signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets]; interpreting dreams; **reading marks on the body [e.g., phrenology]; reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations, oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains, ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips; geomancy; laying demons in a cemetery; placing spells on spirits; reciting house-protection charms; snake charming, poison-lore, scorpion-lore, rat-lore, bird-lore, crow-lore; fortune-telling based on visions; giving protective charms; interpreting the calls of birds and animals … [The list goes on and on] — DN 2
accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html#livelihood

I think but do not know that Shamballa is something like Pure Land. Again this is not a term used in Theravada.

 

[rinnie]

Actually, your quote supports my position, because it states that one should BOTH rely on God (Give into God…) AND resist the Devil (…resist the Devi…) rather than relying on grace to do it all.

How can my quote support your position. Grace comes from one source. God. So how could you rely on grace and grace only it it comes only from God?

This meditation you speak states you can not have an attatchment to anyONE or anyTHING?

God is the ANYONE. He is God the Father the creator of heaven and Earth. Jesus is a Person. SO he is some ONE.

 

[rinnie]

That doesn’t say that you don’t resist sinful urges.

I don’t think what you are saying is orthodox from a Catholic perspective.

We have free will, and we are expected to use it. Mental disciplines that help us avoid tempting thoughts play an important role, though of course they aren’t going to keep us from sin by themselves.

The whole concept of the seven deadly sins originated in monastic spirituality, in which monks were taught how to recognize and avoid different kinds of sinful thoughts.

From an orthodox Christian perspective, the critique of the Buddhist approach would be not that it wouldn’t work in avoiding lust, but that by itself, without reliance on God’s grace, it would simply cause a person to fall into the sin of pride.

Edwin

Also Edwin not only pride, but you can be led to a false spriit. But the bottom line is it still cannot be practiced by us, because it does not have GOD at the center.

 

[Bakmoon]

You are to purify YOURSELF of all desires and realize absolute selflessness.

If you are ATTACHED to ANYONE or ANYTHING you will NEVER attain Nibbana.

Okay lets begin with suffering. We are taught to not put an end to our suffering, we are taught that suffering is what brings us closer to Christ. It is a great mystery.

There was a Priest that said that a great friend of his was dying the most horrible death, he was also a Priest said to be a wonderful caring person. Loved by all, And dying from a horrible cancer at a young age. The other Priest was at his bed side praying and telling him how he wished his suffering could end.

The Priest so no, you don’t understand the Joy that I achieved in this suffering. It is my way of joining my pain to the death of Christ on the Cross. As bad as the physical sufffering is, the Joy of spending this time with my Lord who is here with me with all of this physical suffering could never compare the Joy of my mental state.

We are all called to take up our cross as Christ has, to carry it, to go to him for help in carry it. We are not told to try to end it, escape it, we are told to embrace it and God will get us through this. In the end any suffering we have done, makes us stronger, more compassionate and more able to be like Christ and help others. What kind of person could we be, if we tried to escape what Christ is trying to teach us?

It says if you are ATTACHED to ANYONE or ANYTHING you will never attain Nibbana. How could a Christian ever not be Attached to Christ? It is not possible, even the throught of asking us to not be attached to Christ is a horrible thought.

So now my big question if this def, is true, how could it even be possible for this to help us? How could we even un-connect ourself with Christ in this meditation if you cannot be attached to anyone? That is my big question?

1. We need to be very careful with how we use terminology. The Buddhist scriptures weren’t composed in English, and so our English terms aren’t ever going to be totally precise. That which is done away with at Nibbana isn’t desire, but something called Tanha. This word literally means thirst, and it means not simply desire, but desire that is based on greed, hatred, and delusion. Desires which are not based on these things aren’t destroyed. For example, the Buddha spent 45 years teaching after his attainment of Nibbana. He did this out of a desire to help others. It is mistaken to say that all desires must be destroyed.
2. The same thing needs to be said about attachment. The Pali term you are approximating is the word Upādāna, which also implies a basis in greed, hatred, and delusion.
3. Next, the term suffering. This is the trickiest one, because the first translations of Buddhist texts sort of used the term suffering in error, and Buddhists have been complaining ever since about the mistranslation. The Pali word here is Dukkha, which means something like discontent, or dissatisfaction. It can refer to physical suffering, but this is a more specific meaning that generally isn’t the case when the word is used.

With your example of the young Priest dying of cancer, it would be true that he had physical suffering, but that doesn’t mean that he has to suffer mentally. From what it sounds like, to the contrary, he was able to bear it with and even finally be at peace with it.

1. I am not saying that a Catholic should try to use Buddhist meditation to attain Nibbana or even believe in Nibbana. Rather, I am saying that a Catholic may use meditation to enjoy a measure of natural happiness that falls short of Nibbana and that this isn’t heretical. I am not advocating blending the religions together, but answering the question of whether or not a Catholic can practice Buddhist meditation without falling into heresy.

 

[SteveVH]

Actually, your quote supports my position, because it states that one should BOTH rely on God (Give into God…) AND resist the Devil (…resist the Devi…) rather than relying on grace to do it all.

Since “grace”, by definition, is a gift from God we must rely on God in order to obtain grace. It is through grace that we resist evil and the source of that grace is God, not ourselves. You cannot have one without the other.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

But we are also to resist the urge to sin with the will. One is not to rely totally on Divine Grace to repulse sin, correct? Divine Grace given to help one resist the urge to sin does not mean that one should not also strive with effort against this urge. As you brought up, Jesus said:

“If your right eye should be your downfall tear it out, and throw it away, for it will do you less harm to lose one part of yourself then have your whole body thrown into hell.”

He did NOT say “Pray for the grace to resist, [SIGN]but don’t bother striving against the urge because grace will resist it for you.”

[/SIGN]

I will say I indeed missed the last part, But it makes no sense to me.

Why would someone pray for grace to resist sin, and then refuse to use the Grace you are praying for?

Praying for grace of course is what helps us to resist sin, but when we are given grace we still have the free will to accept or reject it. I never disagreed with that. Ever.

But back to my question how can you strive to resist the urge if you don’t have the grace and accept it from God to resist it.

We still keep comming back to the same question, How can meditation do anything for you without God or his grace to help you?

We seem to be going in circles. It would be better if you answered that for me.

 

[rinnie]

Since “grace”, by definition, is a gift from God we must rely on God in order to obtain grace. It is through grace that we resist evil and the source of that grace is God, not ourselves. You cannot have one without the other.

Amen Steve, I have been saying this the whole entire time.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Yeah, what is up with the Dalai Lama consulting spirits and using oracles? Such things are most likely a cultural component that has been absorbed into the practice of Buddhism in Tibet. Such things are considered wrong livelihood for Theravada monastics. The bold is mine. It is a partial list of Wrong Livelihood.

I think but do not know that Shamballa is something like Pure Land. Again this is not a term used in Theravada.

I am glad that Buddhism shuns the occult and witchcraft. I think that and idolatry is one reason that there is demonic oppression in India.

 

[rinnie]

1. We need to be very careful with how we use terminology. The Buddhist scriptures weren’t composed in English, and so our English terms aren’t ever going to be totally precise. That which is done away with at Nibbana isn’t desire, but something called Tanha. This word literally means thirst, and it means not simply desire, but desire that is based on greed, hatred, and delusion. Desires which are not based on these things aren’t destroyed. For example, the Buddha spent 45 years teaching after his attainment of Nibbana. He did this out of a desire to help others. It is mistaken to say that all desires must be destroyed.
2. The same thing needs to be said about attachment. The Pali term you are approximating is the word Upādāna, which also implies a basis in greed, hatred, and delusion.
3. Next, the term suffering. This is the trickiest one, because the first translations of Buddhist texts sort of used the term suffering in error, and Buddhists have been complaining ever since about the mistranslation. The Pali word here is Dukkha, which means something like discontent, or dissatisfaction. It can refer to physical suffering, but this is a more specific meaning that generally isn’t the case when the word is used.

With your example of the young Priest dying of cancer, it would be true that he had physical suffering, but that doesn’t mean that he has to suffer mentally. From what it sounds like, to the contrary, he was able to bear it with and even finally be at peace with it.

1. I am not saying that a Catholic should try to use Buddhist meditation to attain Nibbana or even believe in Nibbana. Rather, I am saying that a Catholic may use meditation to enjoy a measure of natural happiness that falls short of Nibbana and that this isn’t heretical. I am not advocating blending the religions together, but answering the question of whether or not a Catholic can practice Buddhist meditation without falling into heresy.

I know what you are saying and I hate to sound like a bad record but HOW! In order to reach this peak and for it to work you cannot be attached to anyone or anything.

Now how can it be possible, and what would be the purpose. You have do un-attach yourself from God. Thats heresy in my book!

 

[rinnie]

I am glad that Buddhism shuns the occult and witchcraft. I think that and idolatry is one reason that there is demonic oppression in India.

I personally believe there are two things in this world Good and Evil.

God and the devil.

You either are with God or Against him. God said you cannot be lukewam!

 

[Bakmoon]

Since “grace”, by definition, is a gift from God we must rely on God in order to obtain grace. It is through grace that we resist evil and the source of that grace is God, not ourselves. You cannot have one without the other.

I bring the matter up because rinnie is holding to the position that one cannot use various natural (as opposed to supernatural) techniques along side grace to help resist sin and temptation. I am not arguing that these means are sufficient, but that they may be helpful to Catholics.

 

[Contarini]

[/sign]

I will say I indeed missed the last part, But it makes no sense to me.

Why would someone pray for grace to resist sin, and then refuse to use the Grace you are praying for?

Praying for grace of course is what helps us to resist sin, but when we are given grace we still have the free will to accept or reject it. I never disagreed with that. Ever.

Then I don’t see your objection to a mental technique that helps one resist temptation.

But back to my question how can you strive to resist the urge if you don’t have the grace and accept it from God to resist it.

We still keep comming back to the same question, How can meditation do anything for you without God or his grace to help you?

We seem to be going in circles. It would be better if you answered that for me.

But it’s a straw-man question.

No one can do anything without God. Period. We wouldn’t exist without God.

If you are defining “grace” in the specific Western Catholic sense of “sanctifying grace,” then as I said in a previous post, St. Thomas Aquinas says that you can resist any specific mortal sin and do various other naturally good things without grace in that sense. I wouldn’t put a huge amount of weight on this, since I’m not sure I’m entirely a Thomist on this point. But you have one of the greatest theologians of the Church squarely against you if you are arguing that one cannot avoid any specific sin without grace.

The bigger question that we keep coming back to is how Buddhist meditation or other things can be valuable if they do not explicitly presuppose Christianity.

And I have pointed out over and over again that the Church has frequently drawn from the wisdom of non-Christian traditions.

So it’s not that your question hasn’t been answered, but that you ignore the answers.

"Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Also Edwin not only pride, but you can be led to a false spriit.

What is a “false spirit”? Is it possible for a false spirit to work through anything other than sin?

I don’t think so.

So I find your addition pointless. The only thing to fear is sin. Period.

But the bottom line is it still cannot be practiced by us, because it does not have GOD at the center.

Everything has God at the center.

And many things that we use on a daily basis do not explicitly presuppose God and may well have been developed by people who didn’t explicitly believe in God.

Do you refuse to use any medical treatment not developed by a Christian with an explicit acknowledgment of God somehow embedded in the treatment?

Your position simply doesn’t make sense. You don’t seem to have examined its implications at all.

God is the creator and sustainer of everything, whether people explicitly recognize this or not.

Edwin