Ask A Buddhist

[notself]

I was not attempting to discredit Buddhist beliefs, I was simply attempting to explain why the ideas of creation and beginning are so important in Western thought but are not of particular importance in Eastern thought.

I didn’t take your post that way. You are correct that Western and Eastern thought are different in many ways.

 

[rinnie]

You are confusing the Limbo of the Infants with the Limbo of the Fathers. The Limbo of the Fathers was the place was the holding place for the souls of the just who came prior to Jesus. The Limbo of the Infants was believed to be a part of hell, and therefore eternal.

Either way however, both were thought to be a part of hell. Just check the Summa Theologica question 69 article 5 where it says:

“I answer that, The abodes of souls after death may be distinguished in two ways; either as to their situation, or as to the quality of the places, inasmuch as souls are punished or rewarded in certain places. Accordingly if we consider the limbo of the Fathers and hell in respect of the aforesaid quality of the places, there is no doubt that they are distinct, both because in hell there is sensible punishment, which was not in the limbo of the Fathers, and because in hell there is eternal punishment, whereas the saints were detained but temporally in the limbo of the Fathers. On the other hand, if we consider them as to the situation of the place, it is probable that hell and limbo are the same place, or that they are continuous as it were yet so that some higher part of hell be called the limbo of the Fathers. For those who are in hell receive diverse punishments according to the diversity of their guilt, so that those who are condemned are consigned to darker and deeper parts of hell according as they have been guilty of graver sins, and consequently the holy Fathers in whom there was the least amount of sin were consigned to a higher and less darksome part than all those who were condemned to punishment.”

But the Church never had an official teaching of limbo for babies, But when they did speak of Limbo that is what they believed it to be. A complete happiness but was not heaven.

To this day the Church does not have an official teaching for un-baptised babies.

But to the point the RCC never condemned babies to hell which was not what they ever thought limbo was. Hell is PERMAMENT separation from God forever and torture.

What kind of torture, We truly do not know. But I believe the true torture is knowing God and still rejecting him, THe true darkness always stays from the light.

Just like the blackest color of black, any light takes the true darkness away.

I have no idea of these parts of hell you are speaking of. You either reject God and have eternal separation from him or you accept him and have him in your life.

It seems now you are seeing the devil playing fair now or something. Saying the real bad ones go here, the less evil here, etc. Hell is eternal separation from Christ Period. That is the whole person of hell, the person has pure evil in their heart period and are made of no goodness. I have no idea of what you are talking about. Jesus never taught that.

Again there is no such thing as hell and limbo probally being the same thing, When you die you either reject or accept Christ period. Nothing you are saying was ever or is Catholic teaching.

And Purgatory was never hell, nor limbo, nor never was. So lets not bring it. Purgatory is still not hell, it is a tempory state, a final cleaning period or whatever you want to call it for heaven. But there is great happiness in purgatory also because you know your next stop is indeed heaven, Eternal life with Christ. The suffering is seeing God feeling the complete love being with him, and the suffering to be with him again.

 

[rinnie]

To my knowledge only Zen Buddhism actually talks about “emptying the mind” and even then it is talking about emptying the mind of distractions.

And talking about wanting a clear mind is very different than wanting an empty mind. What’s wrong with developing mental clarity?

Fair enough. Lets get to the Point then, What kind of Buddhism meditation are you talkng about. There has to be a name for it. What Exactly is the name of meditation you are talking about.

I know you had given us some kind of name, I forget off the top of my head, but did look it up, on many sites and got the same exact answer I questioned you about.

So give me the exact name of the Buddhism you are speaking of. Thanks.

 

[Vouthon]

The language of Saint Teresa’s words is very theistic but nevertheless can we not detect some things in common with Buddhism (Ie freedom from selfish attachment, still mind, joy):

“…Her heart is full of joy with love,
For in the Lord her mind is stilled.
She has renounced every selfish attachment
And draws abiding joy and strength
From the One within.
She lives not for herself, but lives
To serve the Lord of Love in all,
And swims across the sea of life
Breasting its rough waves joyfully…”

- Saint Teresa of Avila (1515 – 1582), Catholic Carmelite mystic and Doctor of the Church

 

[Bakmoon]

Fair enough. Lets get to the Point then, What kind of Buddhism meditation are you talkng about. There has to be a name for it. What Exactly is the name of meditation you are talking about.

I know you had given us some kind of name, I forget off the top of my head, but did look it up, on many sites and got the same exact answer I questioned you about.

So give me the exact name of the Buddhism you are speaking of. Thanks.

I follow Theravada Buddhism and we have many types of meditation, but the most commonly used one (and so probably the type that a Catholic would be most interested in) is called Anapanasati, which means mindfulness of breathing. There are different interpretations on exactly how to do it, but it’s a form of meditation based on being aware of one’s breathing. Here is the instructions on how to do it given in the Pali Canon. I know some of them are a bit cryptic and need some explanation, but here they are:

"[1] Breathing in long, he discerns, ‘I am breathing in long’; or breathing out long, he discerns, ‘I am breathing out long.’ [2] Or breathing in short, he discerns, ‘I am breathing in short’; or breathing out short, he discerns, ‘I am breathing out short.’ [3] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.’[3] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.’ [4] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.’[4] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.’

"[5] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in sensitive to rapture.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out sensitive to rapture.’ [6] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in sensitive to pleasure.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out sensitive to pleasure.’ [7] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication.’[5] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out sensitive to mental fabrication.’ [8] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in calming mental fabrication.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out calming mental fabrication.’

"[9] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in sensitive to the mind.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out sensitive to the mind.’ [10] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in satisfying the mind.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out satisfying the mind.’ [11] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in steadying the mind.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out steadying the mind.’ [12] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in releasing the mind.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out releasing the mind.’[6]

"[13] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in focusing on inconstancy.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out focusing on inconstancy.’ [14] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in focusing on dispassion.’[7] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out focusing on dispassion.’ [15] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in focusing on cessation.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out focusing on cessation.’ [16] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in focusing on relinquishment.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out focusing on relinquishment.’

Source: accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn54/sn54.006.than.html

Some of these steps might be tied to Buddhism a little bit too much for a Catholic to fully practice, but you could just cut those steps out. I definately think that the first four steps are not problematic. Following these steps can be used to gain great peace and rest.

 

[notself]

Here is meditation in plain English by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/breathmed.html
He recommends starting with Metta, but I left that part out since some feel it is not useful.

Sit comfortably erect, in a balanced position. You don’t have to be ramrod straight like a soldier. Just try not to lean forward or back, to the left or the right. Close your eyes,

Bring your attention to the sensation of breathing. Breathe in long and out long for a couple of times, focusing on any spot in the body where the breathing is easy to notice, and your mind feels comfortable focusing. This could be at the nose, at the chest, at the abdomen, or any spot at all. Stay with that spot, noticing how it feels as you breathe in and out. Don’t force the breath, or bear down too heavily with your focus. Let the breath flow naturally, and simply keep track of how it feels. Savor it, as if it were an exquisite sensation you wanted to prolong. If your mind wanders off, simply bring it back. Don’t get discouraged. If it wanders 100 times, bring it back 100 times. Show it that you mean business, and eventually it will listen to you.

If you want, you can experiment with different kinds of breathing. If long breathing feels comfortable, stick with it. If it doesn’t, change it to whatever rhythm feels soothing to the body. You can try short breathing, fast breathing, slow breathing, deep breathing, shallow breathing — whatever feels most comfortable to you right now…

Once you have the breath comfortable at your chosen spot, move your attention to notice how the breathing feels in other parts of the body. Start by focusing on the area just below your navel. Breathe in and out, and notice how that area feels. If you don’t feel any motion there, just be aware of the fact that there’s no motion. If you do feel motion, notice the quality of the motion, to see if the breathing feels uneven there, or if there’s any tension or tightness. If there’s tension, think of relaxing it. If the breathing feels jagged or uneven, think of smoothing it out… Now move your attention over to the right of that spot — to the lower right-hand corner of the abdomen — and repeat the same process… Then over to the lower left-hand corner of the abdomen… Then up to the navel… right… left… to the solar plexus… right… left… the middle of the chest… right… left… to the base of the throat… right… left… to the middle of the head…[take several minutes for each spot]

If you were meditating at home, you could continue this process through your entire body — over the head, down the back, out the arms & legs to the tips of your finger & toes — but since our time is limited, I’ll ask you to return your focus now to any one of the spots we’ve already covered. Let your attention settle comfortably there, and then let your conscious awareness spread to fill the entire body, from the head down to the toes, so that you’re like a spider sitting in the middle of a web: It’s sitting in one spot, but it’s sensitive to the entire web. Keep your awareness expanded like this — you have to work at this, for its tendency will be to shrink to a single spot — and think of the breath coming in & out your entire body, through every pore. Let your awareness simply stay right there for a while — there’s no where else you have to go, nothing else you have to think about… And then gently come out of meditation.

 

[AndrewRaZ]

Fascinating topic! I have to confess I haven’t read all of it, because there is so much!

I have a question, if it please the gentlemen and ladies present. I had a professor with a huge fascination in far-Eastern religions last semester ('far eastern (from our western position). He was attempting to explain the basics of a very broad and diverse group of eastern religions.

Anyways, the part that really confused me was where the self meets Nibbana (Nirvana). Atman is the self, the conscious being. Brahman is the universe, or the cosmos, or even more broadly, the ultimate reality. The confusing part is the famous phrase “atman is brahman.”

Based on our discussion and lecture in class, this is what I was able to put together:

If the self is atman, but atman is maya (illusion). Atman is not separate from brahman, and so Nibbana is not the enlightenment of the self as such, but enlightenment that atman is maya, an illusion, not distinct from brahman. So the enlightenment of Nibbana is actually not an enlightened life, but the ceasing of existence of the self. But if atman is brahman, and any distinction is only illusion, then even reincarnation itself is an illusion. There can be no reincarnation if there is no atman-self to reincarnate.

The maya (illusion) of atman is where suffering comes from, because we want to hold on to the illusion of the distinct self, and fear of the loss of self, which is illusion, causes pain and suffering in the world. “All life is suffering” the Buddha says. It is suffering, because it is maya.

I’m sure I’m missing something. Would you care to clarify for me? Maybe it’s going to take a big fat book to do so, but I’d appreciate any help.

 

[notself]

Fascinating topic! I have to confess I haven’t read all of it, because there is so much!

I have a question, if it please the gentlemen and ladies present. I had a professor with a huge fascination in far-Eastern religions last semester ('far eastern (from our western position). He was attempting to explain the basics of a very broad and diverse group of eastern religions.

Anyways, the part that really confused me was where the self meets Nibbana (Nirvana). Atman is the self, the conscious being. Brahman is the universe, or the cosmos, or even more broadly, the ultimate reality. The confusing part is the famous phrase “atman is brahman.”

Based on our discussion and lecture in class, this is what I was able to put together:

If the self is atman, but atman is maya (illusion). Atman is not separate from brahman, and so Nibbana is not the enlightenment of the self as such, but enlightenment that atman is maya, an illusion, not distinct from brahman. So the enlightenment of Nibbana is actually not an enlightened life, but the ceasing of existence of the self. But if atman is brahman, and any distinction is only illusion, then even reincarnation itself is an illusion. There can be no reincarnation if there is no atman-self to reincarnate.

The maya (illusion) of atman is where suffering comes from, because we want to hold on to the illusion of the distinct self, and fear of the loss of self, which is illusion, causes pain and suffering in the world. “All life is suffering” the Buddha says. It is suffering, because it is maya.

I’m sure I’m missing something. Would you care to clarify for me? Maybe it’s going to take a big fat book to do so, but I’d appreciate any help.

It is my understanding that what you are describing is Hindu belief. It certainly is not Buddhist. The two share certain words so some find it easy to confuse the them.

 

[rinnie]

I follow Theravada Buddhism and we have many types of meditation, but the most commonly used one (and so probably the type that a Catholic would be most interested in) is called Anapanasati, which means mindfulness of breathing. There are different interpretations on exactly how to do it, but it’s a form of meditation based on being aware of one’s breathing. Here is the instructions on how to do it given in the Pali Canon. I know some of them are a bit cryptic and need some explanation, but here they are:

Source: accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn54/sn54.006.than.html

Some of these steps might be tied to Buddhism a little bit too much for a Catholic to fully practice, but you could just cut those steps out. I definately think that the first four steps are not problematic. Following these steps can be used to gain great peace and rest.

See there is my point then why bother?

Check this out What is the ground of being to Theravada. This is like my favorite part.

Budda stated there is NO such thing not even in Nibbama itself that could be regarded as the root cause ( the ground of being) of all things.

Now it get better then the Budda uses the term self when he states by oneself no evil is done, by one self evil is done. What is that!

ANY form of Buddhism is incomptible with Christianity. Ontological Monism ( zen takes the cake) but it is not Trinitarian there is no persistent self. Go figure.

Best part, Wait for it, So the self that makes decisons is different from he self that carries them out. So now we undermind moral responsibility.

Things like this blow my mind and make like no sense.

Oh well I guess I am just no myself today:blushing:

Sorry I couldn’t resist. None of this makes sense to a true Christian thats for sure.

Anyhow we believe our soul is indestructible. We believe it lasts forever in our faith.

In Buddhism God is irrelevant. In Christianity God is everything.

In Buddhism you guys reject that a pemannt self or soul exists.

Nope nothing in common.

 

[rinnie]

It is my understanding that what you are describing is Hindu belief. It certainly is not Buddhist. The two share certain words so some find it easy to confuse the them.

Another there are so many forms of Buddhism that I am not sure anyone truly even understand it or can explain it.

Not even Buddha HimSelf!

 

[rinnie]

But in all due respect, I am just messing with you guys. As a Catholic we know how to pray Jesus taught us. We don’t need no breathing instructions or emptying of the mind or self or any of that. Here is how a Catholic Prays.

When we do the sign of the Cross it is in the Name of the Father (we open up our minds) and the Son (we open up our heart) and the Holy Spirit we open up our souls.

We open up our whole body and soul to Christ and when we pray with him and to him, trust me he will take care of the breathing just fine!

 

[Bakmoon]

Now it get better then the Budda uses the term self when he states by oneself no evil is done, by one self evil is done. What is that!

ANY form of Buddhism is incomptible with Christianity. Ontological Monism ( zen takes the cake) but it is not Trinitarian there is no persistent self. Go figure.

Best part, Wait for it, So the self that makes decisons is different from he self that carries them out. So now we undermind moral responsibility.

…

In Buddhism you guys reject that a pemannt self or soul exists.

Nope nothing in common.

1. You are grossly misunderstanding the teaching of Anatta. Anatta doesn’t literally mean “no-self” but “not-self” and it is used as an adjective. The Buddha didn’t teach that there is no such thing as personal identity, but rather that the mind has a tendency to misinterpret reality and identify with various phenomena, and that this identification is in fact conceptual, rather than being objectively real. The Classical formulation of the teaching of Anatta is the phrase “Sabbe Dhamma Anatta” which means “all things are not self”.

Also, where on earth are you getting the phrase “by oneself no evil is done, by one self evil is done.” ? It sounds like something taken out of context or something made up. Can you give me a link to the original source?

1. Theravada Buddhism doesn’t teach ontological monism, and we are not talking about a Catholic trying to be a Buddhist and Christian at the same time, but about whether or not meditation can be used to increase natural happiness.

Can you find anything objectionable in the meditation instructions that Notself and I gave to you? Anything that would be morally wrong for a Catholic to practice purely for the purpose of developing peace and joy?

 

[Bakmoon]

But in all due respect, I am just messing with you guys. As a Catholic we know how to pray Jesus taught us. We don’t need no breathing instructions or emptying of the mind or self or any of that.

I’m not saying that a Catholic needs to practice Anapanasati, but merely that if they want to do so to increase their happiness and peace, it wouldn’t be wrong for them to do so.

And why do you keep talking about emptying the mind? We’ve already covered that topic in detail.

 

[rinnie]

1. You are grossly misunderstanding the teaching of Anatta. Anatta doesn’t literally mean “no-self” but “not-self” and it is used as an adjective. The Buddha didn’t teach that there is no such thing as personal identity, but rather that the mind has a tendency to misinterpret reality and identify with various phenomena, and that this identification is in fact conceptual, rather than being objectively real. The Classical formulation of the teaching of Anatta is the phrase “Sabbe Dhamma Anatta” which means “all things are not self”.

Also, where on earth are you getting the phrase “by oneself no evil is done, by one self evil is done.” ? It sounds like something taken out of context or something made up. Can you give me a link to the original source?

1. Theravada Buddhism doesn’t teach ontological monism, and we are not talking about a Catholic trying to be a Buddhist and Christian at the same time, but about whether or not meditation can be used to increase natural happiness.

Can you find anything objectionable in the meditation instructions that Notself and I gave to you? Anything that would be morally wrong for a Catholic to practice purely for the purpose of developing peace and joy?

Yes, we are taught to pray the way Jesus taught us. In the name of the Trinity. We open our hearts and soul to him. We don’t need this breathing.

The only natural happiness we can get comes from one source GOD ALMIGHTY!! Sorry but you asked!

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,

I’m not sure that you’re responding to the point I was making, which has to do with the relationship between the Buddhist concept of Nirvana and the Christian concept of the Beatific Vision.

What I understand the Catechism to teach is that if someone understands the Catholic faith to be true and does not accept it, then they cannot be saved. That would not necessarily apply to someone who simply knew about Christian beliefs–they would have to be convicted in their conscience that Christianity was true.

For instance, to take non-Catholic Christians for a moment, my wife and parents don’t seem to have been so convicted with regard to Catholicism. They seem to me to be Protestants with a good conscience.

I’m a Protestant (well, a Protestant of sorts but lets not quibble about terminology!) with a very bad conscience. I may well fall under the condemnation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I have resisted my deep “tug” toward Catholicism for many years. But that doesn’t necessarily apply to other Protestants who may know as much about Catholicism as I do, but for whatever reason have never experienced that deep, gut-level, terrifying yet thrilling suspicion that it just may be true after all.

And as I understand Catholic teaching, this would apply to non-Christians as well. I would go so far as to suspect that there might be a lot more non-Christians who know about Christianity without being condemned for rejecting it than non-Catholic Christians who reject Catholicism in similarly good faith, because there’s a much bigger gap, obviously, between non-Christian and Christian paradigms than between non-Catholic and Catholic paradigms. There are a whole lot of very significant aspects of any Christian paradigm that point strongly toward Catholicism. Obviously there are things in universal human experience that point toward Christianity, but less obviously.

Edwin

But Edwin, what about rejecting God. Simple as that rejecting God. Is it not true in all Christian teaching that Salvation comes from Jesus Christ.

Now if someone still accepts God the God of Abraham, etc they are indeed accepting Christ but don’t truly understand that. But thats another story.

But where my question is comming from the Parable of he Rich Man, Did Abraham not say if they would listen to the prophets what makes you think they will listen to you.

How do you yourself see that?

 

[rinnie]

I’m not saying that a Catholic needs to practice Anapanasati, but merely that if they want to do so to increase their happiness and peace, it wouldn’t be wrong for them to do so.

And why do you keep talking about emptying the mind? We’ve already covered that topic in detail.

And I disagree with it. If a Catholic wants o increase their happiness and peace Go to GOD! Jesus Christ. You don’t NEED Anapanasati.

Jesus left us the Church, he never said practice Anapanasati. He told us to confess our sins. etc. There is no where in the word of God that we are taught to do this.

The Church does not say if you want to increase happiness and peace do this. they say PRAY as your Father taught you!

 

[notself]

It would be useful if someone having criticisms or comments about Buddhist teachings provided the source for their statements in the form of links or titles of books with page numbers or if they are responding to posts of others then quote the post or provide the post number.

Providing sources for comments also insures that no one is misquoting the words of another which happens occasionally on this thread.

 

[rinnie]

Now its my turn.

You want complete happiness and peace! Go to the Church the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Get the bread of Life. which Christ promised us. This is my Body which is given up for you. eat this bread and you will have eternal life in me.

Try the Christian prayer. Go to stations of the Cross. Especially during lent. Pray the rosary. Confess your sins.

Then let me know how much peace and happiness your feel!

 

[Bakmoon]

The only natural happiness we can get comes from one source GOD ALMIGHTY!! Sorry but you asked!

Do you deny that natural happiness (as distinguished from supernatural happiness) can be increased through self efforts which are not centered on God? This is demonstrably false, as there are non-believers who have natural happiness which they gain through worldly means such as relationships and living virtuously.

Also, St. Thomas Aquinas disagrees with you here if you hold that position. In the Summa Theologica, First part of the Second Part, question 5, article 5 He writes:

Imperfect happiness that can be had in this life, can be acquired by man by his natural powers, in the same way as virtue, in whose operation it consists: on this point we shall speak further on (Q[63]). But man’s perfect Happiness, as stated above (Q[3], A[8]), consists in the vision of the Divine Essence.

To translate his terminology into the terms of our discussion, imperfect happiness= natural happiness and perfect happiness= supernatural happiness.

And if you do not deny that natural happiness (as distinguished from supernatural happiness) can be increased by self-effort, then why is it that Anapanasati cannot increase natural happiness?

 

[AdamP88]

Now its my turn.

You want complete happiness and peace! Go to the Church the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Get the bread of Life. which Christ promised us. This is my Body which is given up for you. eat this bread and you will have eternal life in me.

Try the Christian prayer. Go to stations of the Cross. Especially during lent. Pray the rosary. Confess your sins.

Then let me know how much peace and happiness your feel!

BINGO…Amen