Ask A Buddhist

[patrick457]

Now this is how the version in the Jatakas go:

This story the Master told in Jetavana about a landowner whose father was dead. This man on his father’s death was overwhelmed with sorrow: leaving all his duties undone, he gave himself up to his sorrow wholly. The Master at dawn of day looking out upon mankind, perceived that he was ripe for attaining the fruit of the First Path. Next day, after going his rounds for alms in Sāvatthi, his meal done, he dismissed the Brethren, and taking with him a junior Brother, went to this man’s house, and gave him greeting, and addressed him as he sat there in words of honey sweetness. “You are in sorrow, lay Brother?” said he. “Yes, Sir, afflicted with sorrow for my father’s sake.” Said the Master, “Lay Brother, wise men of old who exactly knew the eight conditions of this world, felt at a father’s death no grief, not even a little.” Then at his request he told a story of the past.

Once upon a time, at Benares, a great king named Dasaratha renounced the ways of evil, and reigned in righteousness. Of his sixteen thousand wives, the eldest and queen-consort bore him two sons and a daughter; the elder son was named Rama-paṇḍita, or Rama the Wise, the second was named Prince Lakkhaṇa, or Lucky, and the daughter’s name was the Lady Sītā.

In course of time, the queen-consort died. At her death the king was for a long time crushed by sorrow, but urged by his courtiers he performed her obsequies, and set another in her place as queen-consort. She was dear to the king and beloved. In time she also conceived, and all due attention having been given her, she brought forth a son, and they named him Prince Bharata.

The king loved his son much, and said to the queen, “Lady, I offer you a boon: choose.” She accepted the offer, but put it off for the time. When the lad was seven years old, she went to the king, and said to him, “My lord, you promised a boon for my son. Will you give it me now?” “Choose, lady,” said he. “My lord,” quoth she, “give my son the kingdom.” The king snapt his fingers at her; “Out, vile jade!” said he angrily, “my other two sons shine like blazing fires; would you kill them, and ask the kingdom for a son of yours?” She fled in terror to her magnificent chamber, and on other days again and again asked the king for this. The king would not give her this gift. He thought within himself: “Women are ungrateful and treacherous. This woman might use a forged letter or a treacherous bribe to get my sons murdered.” So he sent for his sons, and told them all about it, saying: “My sons, if you live here some mischief may befall you. Go to some neighbouring kingdom, or to the woodland, and when my body is burnt, then return and inherit the kingdom which belongs to your family.” Then he summoned soothsayers, and asked them the limits of his own life. They told him he would live yet twelve years longer. Then he said, “Now, my sons, after twelve years you must return, and uplift the umbrella of royalty.” They promised, and after taking leave of their father, went forth from the palace weeping. The Lady Sītā said, “I too will go with my brothers:” she bade her father farewell, and went forth weeping.

These three departed amidst a great company of people. They sent the people back, and proceeded until at last they came to Himalaya. There in a spot well-watered, and convenient for the getting of wild fruits, they built a hermitage, and there lived, feeding upon the wild fruits.

Lakkhaṇa-paṇḍita and Sītā said to Rāma-paṇḍita, “You are in place of a father to us; remain then in the hut, and we will bring wild fruit, and feed you.” He agreed: thenceforward Rāma-paṇḍita stayed where he was, the others brought the wild fruit and fed him with it.​

 

[patrick457]

Thus they lived there, feeding upon the wild fruit; but King Dasaratha pined after his sons, and died in the ninth year. When his obsequies were performed, the queen gave orders that the umbrella should be raised over her son, Prince Bharata. But the courtiers said, “The lords of the umbrella are dwelling in the forest,” and they would not allow it. Said Prince Bharata, “I will fetch back my brother Rāmapaṇḍita from the forest, and raise the royal umbrella over him.” Taking the five emblems of royalty, he proceeded with a complete host of the four arms to their dwelling-place. Not far away he caused camp to be pitched, and then with a few courtiers he visited the hermitage, at the time when Lakkhaṇa-paṇḍita and Sītā were away in the woods. At the door of the hermitage sat Rama-paṇḍita, undismayed and at ease, like a figure of fine gold firmly set. The prince approached him with a greeting, and standing on one side, told him of all that had happened in the kingdom, and falling at his feet along with the courtiers, burst into weeping. Rama-paṇḍita neither sorrowed nor wept; emotion in his mind was none. When Bharata had finished weeping, and sat down, towards evening the other two returned with wild fruits. Rama-paṇḍita thought—“These two are young: all-comprehending wisdom like mine is not theirs. If they are told on a sudden that our father is dead, the pain will be greater than they can bear, and who knows but their hearts may break. I will persuade them to go down into the water, and find a means of disclosing the truth.” Then pointing out to them a place in front where there was water, he said, “You have been out too long: let this be your penance—go into that water, and stand there.” Then he repeated a half-stanza:

“Let Lakkhaṇa and Sītā both into that pond descend.”

One word sufficed, into the water they went, and stood there. Then he told them the news by repeating the other half-stanza:

“Bharata says, king Dasaratha’s life is at an end.”

When they heard the news of their father’s death, they fainted. Again he repeated it, again they fainted, and when even a third time they fainted away, the courtiers raised them and brought them out of the water, and set them upon dry ground. When they had been comforted, they all sat weeping and wailing together. Then Prince Bharata thought: “My brother Prince Lakkhaṇa, and my sister the Lady Sītā, cannot restrain their grief to hear of our father’s death; but Rama-paṇḍita neither wails nor weeps. I wonder what can the reason be that he grieves not? I will ask.” Then he repeated the second stanza, asking the question:

“Say by what power thou grievest not, Rāma, when grief should be?
Though it is said thy sire is dead grief overwhelms not thee!”

Then Rāma-paṇḍita explained the reason of his feeling no grief by saying,

"When man can never keep a thing, though loudly he may cry,
Why should a wise intelligence torment itself thereby?

"The young in years, the older grown, the fool, and eke the wise,
For rich, for poor one end is sure: each man among them dies.

As sure as for the ripened fruit there comes the fear of fall,
So surely comes the fear of death to mortals one and all.

"Who in the morning light are seen by evening oft are gone,
And seen at evening time, is gone by morning many a one.

"If to a fool infatuate a blessing could accrue
When he torments himself with tears, the wise this same would do.

"By this tormenting of himself he waxes thin and pale;
This cannot bring the dead to life, and nothing tears avail.

"Even as a blazing house may be put out with water, so
The strong, the wise, the intelligent, who well the scriptures know,
Scatter their grief like cotton when the stormy winds do blow.

"One mortal dies—to kindred ties born is another straight:
Each creature’s bliss dependent is on ties associate.

"The strong man therefore, skilled in sacred text,
Keen-contemplating this world and the next,
Knowing their nature, not by any grief,
However great, in mind and heart is vext.

“So to my kindred I will give, them will I keep and feed,
All that remain I will maintain: such is the wise man’s deed.”
In these stanzas he explained the Impermanence of things.

When the company heard this discourse of Rāma-paṇḍita, illustrating the doctrine of Impermanence, they lost all their grief. Then Prince Bharata saluted Rāma-paṇḍita, begging him to receive the kingdom of Benares. “Brother,” said Rāma, “take Lakkhaṇa and Sītā with you, and administer the kingdom yourselves.” “No, my lord, you take it.” “Brother, my father commanded me to receive the kingdom at the end of twelve years. If I go now, I shall not carry out his bidding. After three more years I will come.” “Who will carry on the government all that time?” “You do it.” “I will not.” “Then until I come, these slippers shall do it,” said Rāma, and doffing his slippers of straw he gave them to his brother. So these three persons took the slippers, and bidding the wise man farewell, went to Benares with their great crowd of followers.

For three years the slippers ruled the kingdom. The courtiers placed these straw slippers upon the royal throne, when they judged a cause. If the cause were decided wrongly, the slippers beat upon each other, and at that sign it was examined again; when the decision was right, the slippers lay quiet.

When the three years were over, the wise man came out of the forest, and came to Benares, and entered the park. The princes hearing of his arrival proceeded with a great company to the park, and making Sītā the queen consort, gave to them both the ceremonial sprinkling. The sprinkling thus performed, the Great Being standing in a magnificent chariot, and surrounded by a vast company, entered the city, making a solemn circuit right-wise; then mounting to the great terrace of his splendid palace Sucandaka, he reigned there in righteousness for sixteen thousand years, and then went to swell the hosts of heaven.​

This stanza of Perfect Wisdom explains the upshot:

“Years sixty times a hundred, and ten thousand more, all told,
Reigned strong-armed Rāma, on his neck the lucky triple fold.”

The Master having ended this discourse, declared the Truths, and identified the Birth: (now at the conclusion of the Truths, the land-owner was established in the fruit of the First Path “At that time the king Suddhodana was king Dasaratha, Mahāmāyā was the mother, Rāhulā’s mother was Sītā, Ānanda was Bharata, and I myself was Rāma-paṇḍita.”​

 

[patrick457]

Oops. I mean “Rama gains the throne,” not Sita.

 

[Vouthon]

The biggest difference in my opinion would be that Buddhism is an atheistic religion, whereas almost all forms of Hinduism are theistic.

While I fully understand the rationale - historically speaking - of referring to Buddhism as an atheistic religion, given the Astika and Nastika distinctions enunciated by brother Patrick, which were made by the orthodox Brahmanic priests to refer to heterodox or sramana movements, I hesitate to do so in the modern, 21st century post-enlightenment context, since for the majority of Westerners - and indeed probably the majority of Muslims - “atheism” does not refer only to the denial of a belief in a Supreme Divine and Personal Being from which the cosmos sprang but rather carries with it materialistic philosophies, which deny any ultimate existential meaning to reality and human history (nihilism), or any afterlife/conciousness, or sentiments of irrreligion/anti-religious secularism and the like which are all very far from Buddhism and could give quite the wrong impression.

Buddhism does, nonetheless, recognise the existence of devas. They are not worshipped and indeed they are subject to the same cycle of samsara (birth, rebirth, karma) as every other life form, and indeed their way of life (intense luxury, pleasure, bliss) I have heard could be a barrier to enlightenment. Nonetheless they do exist so in this sense I am not sure if Buddhism could even be called “non-theist”.

Mahayana seems to muddy the waters even more with the concept of the Trikaya doctrine or three bodies of the Buddha (Unmanifest, Manifest as light and Manifest in Time and Space), where the Buddha is viewed as a kind of formless Ultimate Reality or Ground of reality and Anatta is expressed, quite paradixically, in a “positive” sense (ie the Buddha Nature). Once again, a Creator God (as in Jainism) is rejected - but is this really “atheism” in the sense we understand it nowadays (think the early 20th century Bertrand Russel and modern day Sam Harris, Dawkins).

 

[TheAtheist]

While I fully understand the rationale - historically speaking - of referring to Buddhism as an atheistic religion, given the Astika and Nastika distinctions enunciated by brother Patrick, which were made by the orthodox Brahmanic priests to refer to heterodox or sramana movements, I hesitate to do so in the modern, 21st century post-enlightenment context, since for the majority of Westerners - and indeed probably the majority of Muslims - “atheism” does not refer only to the denial of a belief in a Supreme Divine and Personal Being from which the cosmos sprang but rather carries with it materialistic philosophies, which deny any ultimate existential meaning to reality and human history (nihilism), or any afterlife/conciousness, or sentiments of irrreligion/anti-religious secularism and the like which are all very far from Buddhism and could give quite the wrong impression.

Ah, something i can actually comment on with a measure of experience.

Vouthon is correct in some sense - atheism in its most modern context implies materialism which is rejected by most world religions including Buddhism…except for that branch of “Protestantized” Buddhism advocated by Stephen Batchelor and has resonances with Sam Harris’ interests.

That being said, the atheist “movement” (oh how i loathe that word), is hardly a uniform phenomena. I know that certain religious groups and denominations prefer to think of it like some sort of oncoming apocalyptic wave.

The view is decidedly a lot less grandiose from where i’m sitting.

I think the implosion of the forums on Richard Dawkins.net a few years ago kind of signals the problems inherent in such characterizations.

Mahayana seems to muddy the waters even more with the concept of the Trikaya doctrine or three bodies of the Buddha (Unmanifest, Manifest as light and Manifest in Time and Space), where the Buddha is viewed as a kind of formless Ultimate Reality or Ground of reality and Anatta is expressed, quite paradixically, in a “positive” sense (ie the Buddha Nature). Once again, a Creator God (as in Jainism) is rejected - but is this really “atheism” in the sense we understand it nowadays (think the early 20th century Bertrand Russel and modern day Sam Harris, Dawkins).

Oh the whole Trikaya issue and the Buddha-Nature issue in Mahayana has created some wonderful debates in the past 2 decades.

I remember a friend of mine passing me a rather interesting monograph about a few Soto Zen monks who were adamant that the concept of the Buddha-Nature was actually a “Atman” snuck in through the backdoor. Apparently its a debate that tends to resurface again and again.

I always make it a point when ever i find a visiting monastic from any branch of the Buddhist Tree to inquire about the nature of that final entity within the Trikaya, the Dharmakaya Buddha.

My spreadsheet of tabulated responses is still growing.

 

[notself]

I remember a friend of mine passing me a rather interesting monograph about a few Soto Zen monks who were adamant that the concept of the Buddha-Nature was actually a “Atman” snuck in through the backdoor. Apparently its a debate that tends to resurface again and again.

I always make it a point when ever i find a visiting monastic from any branch of the Buddhist Tree to inquire about the nature of that final entity within the Trikaya, the Dharmakaya Buddha.

My spreadsheet of tabulated responses is still growing.

What does your spread sheet tell you about responses from Theravada monks on Dharmakaya? I would think that they would agree with the Zen monks that Buddha-Nature is Atman.

Do I know you from the Richard Dawkins forum?

 

[rinnie]

Did you read my quote from Aquinas? Let me give it again.

St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, the Doctor of the Church whose philosophy was declared to be the “perennial philosophy” at the Second Vatican Council and whose teachings are required to be studied as part of theological training seminarians go through to become priests held that imperfect happiness can be the result of human effort. Just look at the emphasized lines in my quote. That is clearly what it says.

Of course any kind of happiness is a result of human effort. Every single kind of Grace given to us has to be combined with human effort.

As the word of God tells faith without works is fruitless.

But what does human effort combined with the grace of God, have to do with human effort Alone. It does not.

Happiness although in this world is all imperfect still is a grace from God and is combined with human effort.

Without the grace of God human effort is not enough. Or to state this more clearly natural powers as you call it is what we call grace. And natural power of man is not possible without the Grace of God. Nothing is possible without the grace of God.

As I stated earlier every breath we take is given to us by the grace of God.

 

[Vouthon]

On the whole Trikaya issue and the Buddha-Nature issue in Mahayana has created some wonderful debates in the past 2 decades.

I remember a friend of mine passing me a rather interesting monograph about a few Soto Zen monks who were adamant that the concept of the Buddha-Nature was actually a “Atman” snuck in through the backdoor. Apparently its a debate that tends to resurface again and again.

I always make it a point when ever i find a visiting monastic from any branch of the Buddhist Tree to inquire about the nature of that final entity within the Trikaya, the Dharmakaya Buddha.

My spreadsheet of tabulated responses is still growing.

My dear brother/sister Atheist

I agree with you that one cannot generalize regarding atheism. It is not some kind of homogenous “movement” (sorry to use it again ), for want of a better word, like the more narrow and defined parameters of Secular Humanism which almost has a kind of “established religion” veneer to it. Atheism is more personalistic, and I am quite sure that each atheist will exhibit different opinions/views/beliefs.

As concerns Buddha Nature, I hear you

I must admit that when I first read the Nirvana Sutra, one of the major texts of Mahayana Buddhism, it shattered my - already - uncertain and vague understanding of the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta with its references to a “true Self”. This was a couple of years ago, and I was struggling enough as it was trying to understand the doctrine of no-self as I could grasp it from the Pali Canon (the only text of which I have ever read fully prior to this thread being the exquisite gem of wisdom that is the Dhammapada.) My understanding of Buddhism back then was limited to the sublime moral teachings of the Noble Eightfold Path and the Four Noble Truths, coupled with the verses of the Dhammpada and the life of the Buddha as I had read it in various popular books. The charming story of his journeys out of the palace, where his father had made him live a sheltered, enclosed life with no awareness of death, suffering, old age etc. and the deep turmoil which the awareness of these disturbing realities caused him, and then his fleeing from the palace and leaving his beautiful young wife Yasodhara and son Rahula - which to me seemed like the most poignant and heart-breaking illustration of Jesus’ teaching that we must be willing to sacrifice even our family ties and everything for the Kingdom within - up to his severe, ascetic austerities and then his enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree, where he was tempted by Mara and the passions, to his revelation of the Middle Way.

My understanding of Buddhism, then, was not philosophical or all that deep - the metaphysical teachings of Nagarjuna, for example, and the doctrine of Annata were both lost to me. I was more interested in Zen Buddhism when I was thirteen and fourteen. In fact I went through a “fad” when I read nothing but Suzuki and the paradoxical poetry of the Zen masters Ikkyu, Basho, Dogen and Ryokan. I even incorporated zazen meditation into my prayer life. My parents would walk in and I’d be sitting on a cushion with my legs in that (visibly painful) posture with my palms clasped at my tummy in the “cup” shape. It didn’t hurt me, since I have always had very lithe knees, but I think it was stupid of me in hindsight since I should have strived for something more serene and “comfortable”.

In other words, my understanding of Buddhism was a hodge-podge of Dhammpada/Pali, Mahayana and a good dose of Zen without any true comprehension of the deeper doctrines of the religion - this added to my reading of Sufi love poetry, the Upanishads, the Tao te Ching and the Catholic mystics - as you can imagine I was rather spiritually confused and bombarded by so many conflicting ideas, all held together by my adherence to Catholic dogma, which created a kind of “fence” beyond which I wouldn’t pass (I was glad it was there or God knows where I would have ended up!).

I had initially come to the conclusion that Buddhism was via negativa or what Christians would call “apophatic” in its approach to reality, such that the overtly - even boldly - positive terminology of this sutra/sutta shocked me and kind of sent my poor brain back to the “drawing board”. For example, when in the Sutra the Buddha declares:

“…In truth there is Self (Atman?) in all dharmas [which is] indestructible like a diamond…if the non-eternal is made away with [in Nirvana], what there remains must be the Eternal; if there is no more any sorrow, what there remains must be Bliss; if there is no more any non-Self, what exists there must be the Self; if there is no longer anything that is impure, what there is must be the Pure…”

***- Nirva Sutra ***

I was like -

My reading of other religious scriptures only added to my confusion. I was reading Teresa of Avila at the time and she, of course in her “Interior Castle”, described the soul in very similar terms to how the Mayahana do the Buddha Nature - as a “diamond”:

“…I thought of the soul as resembling a castle, formed of a single diamond or a very transparent crystal, and containing many rooms…[We] learn nothing of our nature except that we possess bodies, and only to realize vaguely that we have souls, because people say so and it is a doctrine of faith. Rarely do we reflect upon what gifts our souls may possess, Who dwells within them, or how extremely precious they are. Therefore we do little to preserve their beauty; all our care is concentrated on our bodies, which are but the coarse setting of the diamond, or the outer walls of the castle…”

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

Throughout, St. Teresa reveals the soul as a multi-faceted diamond with the ultimate spiritual truth of our being to be found in the very centre, once one has pulled away all the layers veiling the deepest core from sight.

Naturally my young, impressionable mind put two and two together - the Mahayana speak of the “Buddha Nature” underlying all dharmas as being like a “diamond”, Saint Teresa uses the same imagery and therefore they both must be saying the same thing or pointing at the same moon from different vantage points, at least.

I have only started to regain confidence in my understanding of Anatta from the incredibly informative postings of brother Bakmoon and sister Notself, who have cleared up a lot of my confusion regarding the more metaphysical teachings of the Buddha which were lost to me when I was younger and rather more spiritually “promiscuous” .

Prior to this thread - I just couldn’t get my head around some of this, and the Mahayana doctrine of Buddha Nature still makes little sense to me in the context of the clear Pali Canon denial of Atmam which is so central a pillar of Buddhist “dogma” (If one can use such a term, I’m thinking through a Catholic lens here).

I believe that the Mahayana know how it fits with Annatta - I just wish that I knew too! Gonna someone get me in on the secret already!?!!

 

[Bakmoon]

Of course any kind of happiness is a result of human effort. Every single kind of Grace given to us has to be combined with human effort.

As the word of God tells faith without works is fruitless.

But what does human effort combined with the grace of God, have to do with human effort Alone. It does not.

Happiness although in this world is all imperfect still is a grace from God and is combined with human effort.

Without the grace of God human effort is not enough. Or to state this more clearly natural powers as you call it is what we call grace. And natural power of man is not possible without the Grace of God. Nothing is possible without the grace of God.

As I stated earlier every breath we take is given to us by the grace of God.

We seem to be running in circles. Let me restate my central point, and we can move on to the other issues after it is dealt with.

I claim that it is acceptable for a Catholic to seek natural happiness (What Aquinas calls imperfect happiness and holds can be the result of human effort) through Buddhist meditation, to which you object that it is improper because Buddhist meditation isn’t centered on Christ. However, there are many things in this life which are not Christ centered which a Catholic may seek natural happiness in, such as art, entertainment, music, friendship, family, material possessions, and other such things which are not centered on Christ either. What makes these non-Christ centered sources of natural happiness acceptable for a Catholic to use to seek natural happiness and yet makes Buddhist meditation unacceptable? This is my central argument, and I haven’t seen a response to it yet.

 

[TheAtheist]

What does your spread sheet tell you about responses from Theravada monks on Dharmakaya? I would think that they would agree with the Zen monks that Buddha-Nature is Atman.

When i did bring it up, or rather the way in which the Theravada use the word Dharmakaya, it was often juxtaposed with Rupakaya and not the other two “kaya” categories from the Mahayana Tri-kaya doctrine.

This Dharmakaya is merely the collection of the Buddha’s doctrines/disciplinary rules and doesn’t hold the err… metaphysical “umph” if you will that the Mahayanists believe in.

Except - i have noted with an encounter with a monk in Bangkok that there exists some sort of movement within the Theravadan system/stream/whatever that acknowledges the Dharmakaya as something more…although he insisted that this was not a traditional viewpoint.

Going to the whole Tathagharba/Buddha-Nature/Atman business -

I should immediately note that the objections raised by the two Soto Zen monks is not something shared by all Soto Zen monastics (although that isn’t to say either that they are the only two - i’m sure there are some who agree). It is a sustained criticism however that the Buddha-Nature is a very “un-Buddhist” concept because it seems to fly in the face of the whole dependent origination idea.

To our Catholic friends laboring through this - the essential objection is that the Tathagharba/Buddha-Nature, some sort of quality that makes it possible for a sentient being to become a Buddha, is very unBuddhist because such a definitive unchangeable quality should not exist in the first place. It looks a little too much like that thing which you call a Soul.

But there also many ways that one can swallow that Tathagharba doctrine and still maintain dependent origination…but that falls back into the whole “What did the Buddha teach/mean when he said…?” problem.

Do I know you from the Richard Dawkins forum?

Nope - i was pretty much a lurker. Part of the reason being what Volthy cites below…

and now we transition…

I agree with you that one cannot generalize regarding atheism. It is not some kind of homogenous “movement” (sorry to use it again ), for want of a better word, like the more narrow and defined parameters of Secular Humanism which almost has a kind of “established religion” veneer to it. Atheism is more personalistic, and I am quite sure that each atheist will exhibit different opinions/views/beliefs.

Full Disclosure - i’m not really a fan of RD on many levels (even professionally, i probably lean more toward EO Wilson’s manner of thinking.

For those who have no clue what i’m talking about —> guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/24/battle-of-the-professors) nor the New Atheists in general.

I tend to merely view them as one of the many reactions prompted by the culture war over evolution and supercharged by the events of 9/11.

Acknowledged - this is inherently part of Internet Culture. Some folks love to debate and feel as if they are representing their tribe against the opposing tribe. Or find groups of like-minded individuals to generate some sense of…what did the anthropologist Benedict Anderson call it? Imagined Communities?

Just doesn’t float my boat so to speak. I was an atheist before there was a movement.

 

[TheAtheist]

In other words, my understanding of Buddhism was a hodge-podge of Dhammpada/Pali, Mahayana and a good dose of Zen without any true comprehension of the deeper doctrines of the religion - this added to my reading of Sufi love poetry, the Upanishads, the Tao te Ching and the Catholic mystics - as you can imagine I was rather spiritually confused and bombarded by so many conflicting ideas, all held together by my adherence to Catholic dogma, which created a kind of “fence” beyond which I wouldn’t pass (I was glad it was there or God knows where I would have ended up!).

As cited by Rossum above, the approach you’ve taken isn’t nothing necessarily out of the norm for Westerners adopting eastern ideas.

I’m sure however, your existence is giving some of my Traditional Catholic acquaintances heart palpitations.

Prior to this thread - I just couldn’t get my head around some of this, and the Mahayana doctrine of Buddha Nature still makes little sense to me in the context of the clear Pali Canon denial of Atmam which is so central a pillar of Buddhist “dogma” (If one can use such a term, I’m thinking through a Catholic lens here).

I believe that the Mahayana know how it fits with Annatta - I just wish that I knew too! Gonna someone get me in on the secret already!?!!

The err… i guess you can say “problem” if you want to call it that is that many of the Mahayana doctrines have varying interpretations depending on the tradition that is interpreting them. Oh heck, even within a tradition it gets confusing.

But this shouldn’t be particularly new to you though Volthy.

It would be the equivalent of me asking someone knowledgeable, say Edwin who over the years (and after much vetting by offline compatriots) i’ve learn to trust his posss, “Who is Jesus of Nazareth and what is the Nature of the Incarnation?”

And then ask him to give me an accounting of it across the Non-Chalcedonian, Chalcedonian, Protestant, and Evangelical sects.

We’d be here for a pretty long time.

 

[rinnie]

We seem to be running in circles. Let me restate my central point, and we can move on to the other issues after it is dealt with.

I claim that it is acceptable for a Catholic to seek natural happiness (What Aquinas calls imperfect happiness and holds can be the result of human effort) through Buddhist meditation, to which you object that it is improper because Buddhist meditation isn’t centered on Christ. However, there are many things in this life which are not Christ centered which a Catholic may seek natural happiness in, such as art, entertainment, music, friendship, family, material possessions, and other such things which are not centered on Christ either. What makes these non-Christ centered sources of natural happiness acceptable for a Catholic to use to seek natural happiness and yet makes Buddhist meditation unacceptable? This is my central argument, and I haven’t seen a response to it yet.

I don’t think we are running in circles, I feel I have made my point clear. ALL happiness comes from Christ and his grace rather we center on him or not.

But lets go back to Buddhist meditation for a moment, you admit it is NOT centered on Christ. When a Christian prays we are told we MUST center on Christ.

Now lets go back to the reason for meditation, It is to find peace, to become a better person, etc, correct? Then why would it be acceptable for a Catholic who believes all of these thing’s come from Christ, or for a person like myself tell a brother or sister who is missing something in their life, to turn to Buddhsim meditation, which does not center on Christ?

Would it not make more sense to advice them to go to the Church, or Christian prayer mot Buddhism meditation?

Why would a Catholic tell another Catholic especially a Catholic who has fallen away from Christ and the Church to do Buddhsim Meditation to help them get closer to Christ.

That is what has happened here do you not agree?

 

[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.

See here is a person who admits they were raised Catholic but left the practice. Do you really feel they are honestly here to help a Catholic reach Christ better trhough Buddhism.

Notself claims he is here to learn Catholic dogma.

Well the first thing in Catholic dogma is you should always pray to the Lord your God and have him at the center of all prayer.

That does indeed mean to reject Buddhsim. We have reached the point in this thread, that we agree that Christ is not the center of Buddhism.

The question is can we mix the methods. According to what I have read, it is very dangerous and is not adivsed by the RCC. But this thread did start out about Buddhism and has changed a bit to, you can reject Buddhsim but use some of their methods.

My opinion, is and always has been, how can you mix the methods and use the Buddhism meditation, but then put God in the center of it, be Buddhsim Meditation?

It is said use the method. My question is why? If you are not using the method correctly it is not the true Buddhsim method now is it?

That’s the circle I see this going in.

 

[Bakmoon]

I don’t think we are running in circles, I feel I have made my point clear. ALL happiness comes from Christ and his grace rather we center on him or not.

But lets go back to Buddhist meditation for a moment, you admit it is NOT centered on Christ. When a Christian prays we are told we MUST center on Christ.

Now lets go back to the reason for meditation, It is to find peace, to become a better person, etc, correct? Then why would it be acceptable for a Catholic who believes all of these thing’s come from Christ, or for a person like myself tell a brother or sister who is missing something in their life, to turn to Buddhsim meditation, which does not center on Christ?

Would it not make more sense to advice them to go to the Church, or Christian prayer mot Buddhism meditation?

Why would a Catholic tell another Catholic especially a Catholic who has fallen away from Christ and the Church to do Buddhsim Meditation to help them get closer to Christ.

That is what has happened here do you not agree?

You still haven’t addressed my central argument. Here it is again, somewhat shortened.

Bakmoon:

…[T]here are many things in this life which are not Christ centered which a Catholic may seek natural happiness in, such as art, entertainment, music, friendship, family, material possessions, and other such things which are not centered on Christ either. What makes these non-Christ centered sources of natural happiness acceptable for a Catholic to use to seek natural happiness and yet makes Buddhist meditation unacceptable? This is my central argument, and I haven’t seen a response to it yet.

Once you address this point, I will move on to addressing your point.

 

[rinnie]

You still haven’t addressed my central argument. Here it is again, somewhat shortened.

Once you address this point, I will move on to addressing your point.

I thought I did a long time ago.

But let me do it again.

All good things come from Christ.

Friends, we thank God for our good friends and how he can work through them, and us to help oneanother while on this earth.

Art, When we look at art we thank God for the talent he gave to others to be able to draw, paint, etc and make things beautiful by using his grace. (by the way, one grace I have not either gotten from him, or have not found yet)

Material things. I thank him every day for my home, my car, food on the table. heck the table itself.

So tell me how do you believe that our natural happiness is still not centered on Christ?

I thank him every single day for everything.

My loving husband, my Mom, My kids. brother and sister. I also thank him for taking care of my little Brother who with my Pappa are at home with him.

Show me where we find natural happiness without him at the center? That is what I don’t understand.

 

[Bakmoon]

I thought I did a long time ago.

But let me do it again.

All good things come from Christ.

Friends, we thank God for our good friends and how he can work through them, and us to help oneanother while on this earth.

Art, When we look at art we thank God for the talent he gave to others to be able to draw, paint, etc and make things beautiful by using his grace. (by the way, one grace I have not either gotten from him, or have not found yet)

Material things. I thank him every day for my home, my car, food on the table. heck the table itself.

So tell me how do you believe that our natural happiness is still not centered on Christ?

I thank him every single day for everything.

My loving husband, my Mom, My kids. brother and sister. I also thank him for taking care of my little Brother who with my Pappa are at home with him.

Show me where we find natural happiness without him at the center? That is what I don’t understand.

But these things are Christ centered implicitly (that is to say, they are about Christ indirectly due to their causes, and not because of their explicit content.) and yet you claim that Buddhist meditation is improper as a means for natural happiness because it is not explicitly centered on Christ. This looks to me like a double standard. You could just as well say that Buddhist meditation is implicitly Christ centered just like everything else on that list because it is an act of the mind which comes from God.

 

[rinnie]

But these things are Christ centered implicitly (that is to say, they are about Christ indirectly due to their causes, and not because of their explicit content.) and yet you claim that Buddhist meditation is improper as a means for natural happiness because it is not explicitly centered on Christ. This looks to me like a double standard. You could just as well say that Buddhist meditation is implicitly Christ centered just like everything else on that list because it is an act of the mind which comes from God.

Not for a Christian, Thats what we are talking about are we not? Why Buddhist meditation cannot be for a Christian, or Catholic?

 

[Bakmoon]

Not for a Christian, Thats what we are talking about are we not? Why Buddhist meditation cannot be for a Christian, or Catholic?

I don’t understand the context of your sentence. What isn’t for a Christian?

 

[rinnie]

I don’t understand the context of your sentence. What isn’t for a Christian?

Simple why would you send a Christian or Catholic to Buddhsim meditation since it is not centered on Christ?

Why would a Christian, or Catholic not tell anyone who believes in Christ or is seaching for Christ to pray the way Christ taught us. Why would they be told to go through Buddhsim meditation when it does not center on Christ?

Why not tell them to pray the perfect prayer the Our Father?

I fail to see how someone who is searching for a stronger way to be closer to Christ would be told to do a meditation that is not centered on Christ.

Thats what I don’t get.

 

[Bakmoon]

Simple why would you send a Christian or Catholic to Buddhsim meditation since it is not centered on Christ?

Why would a Christian, or Catholic not tell anyone who believes in Christ or is seaching for Christ to pray the way Christ taught us. Why would they be told to go through Buddhsim meditation when it does not center on Christ?

Why not tell them to pray the perfect prayer the Our Father?

I fail to see how someone who is searching for a stronger way to be closer to Christ would be told to do a meditation that is not centered on Christ.

Thats what I don’t get.

Like I said, for an increase in natural happiness. You could literally apply the same argument you are using here to many other things. Why would a Catholic who believes in Christ go through psychotherapy which is not Christ centered to find relief when all relief comes from Christ? Why use anti-depressants when all joy comes from God?