Ask A Buddhist

[Contarini]

The big problem here is that the trilemma doesn’t address at all any historical criticism of the new testament at all.

It presupposes either an uncritical acceptance of the NT or a considered rejection of the more skeptical historical-critical challenges.

It just makes too many assumptions to be workable.

It’s been pressed into service (and saddled with the pompous and ridiculous title “trilemma”) by over-zealous apologists who are trying to make it do work it wasn’t originally designed for.

Lewis was using it rhetorically to get 1940s British folks who thought of themselves as pious Christians but believed in a kind of Deist moralism to recognize that their interpretation of the New Testament’s Jesus was completely untenable.

It still works when people adopt the same kind of approach, reading the New Testament as if it just presented Jesus as a good man who should be imitated.

I agree with you that it doesn’t work as a general proof, at least not in that form.

I do think there’s a good case to be made that the most reasonable historical interpretations of Jesus indicate him to have had a conception of his own importance and mission that goes beyond what we normally expect from a “great teacher.”

Edwin

 

[Kam_Fanaian]

Here is something:

“After my decease, first will occur the five disappearances. And what are the five disappearances?
• the disappearance of attainments [to Nirvana],
• the disappearance of the Dharma [the practices of Buddhism],
• the disappearance of learning [loss of men who follow the Dharma],
• the disappearance of the symbols [the outward forms, the robes and practices of Buddhism],
• the disappearance of the relics [of the Buddha] …”

– The Surangama Sutra.

I suspect that this reference may not be completely accurate. There is a Surangama sutra, and there is a Surangama samadhi sutra, which are often confused. I suspect that this fragment is actually from the Surangama samadhi sutra. Whichever one this is, it is a Mahayana source, rather than the Theravada which Bakmoon is more familiar with.

It is a standard of Buddhism that everything changes and Buddhism is no exception. Buddhism will eventually disappear, and be refounded by the Maitreya.

rossum

Hi rossum

There is nothing explicit here at all regarding the Maitreya’s coming coinciding with the disappearance of Buddhist teachings.

If I may, I’d like to submit the full passage:

"…‘I am not the first Buddha Who came upon this earth, nor shall I be the last. In due time another Buddha will arise in the world, a Holy One, a supremely enlightened One, endowed with wisdom in conduct, auspicious knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a Master of angels and mortals. He will reveal to you the same eternal truths which I have taught you. He will preach to you His religion, glorious in its origin, glorious at the climax and glorious at the goal, in spirit and in the letter. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure, such as I now proclaim.’ His disciples will number many thousands, while Mine number many hundreds.’
Ananda said,

‘How shall we know Him?’
The Blessed One replied:
‘He will be known as Maitreya, which means He Whose name is "kindness.’"

A disciple asked Buddha,

“Is not Amitabha, the Infinite Light of Revelation, the Source of innumerable miracles?”
And the Blessed One replied:
“Amitabha, the Unbounded Light, is the Source of Wisdom, of virtue, of Buddhahood. The deeds of sorcerers and miracle mongers are frauds, but what is more wondrous, more mysterious, more miraculous than Amitabha?”-Amitayus Sutra
Note: The name “Amitabha” – is very similar to the title “Baha’u’llah”. The word “ABHA” (“most glorious”) is the superlative form of the word BAHA (Glory).
“But Master,” continued the disciple, “is the promise of the happy region vain talk and a myth?”
“What is this promise?” asked Buddha, and the disciple replied,

“There is in the West a Paradisian country called the Holy Land, exquisitely adorned with gold and silver and precious gems. There are pure waters with golden sands, surrounded by pleasant walks covered with large lotus flowers. Joyous music is heard, and flowers rain down three times a day. There are singing birds whose harmonious notes proclaim the praises of religion and in the minds of those who listen to their sweet sounds, remembrance arises of the Buddha, the law and the brotherhood. No evil birth is possible there, and even the name of hell is unknown. He who fervently and with a pious mind repeats the words ‘Amitabha Buddha’ will be transformed to the happy region of this holy land, and when death draws near, Buddha with His saintly followers will stand before him, and there will be perfect tranquility.”
“In truth,” said Buddha, “there is such a happy paradise. But the country is spiritual and is accessible only to those that are spiritual. You say it lies in the West. This means look for it where He Who enlightens the world resides.”

“Your description,” Buddha continued, “is beautiful; yet it is insufficient and does little justice to the glory of the Holy Land. The worldly can speak of it in a worldly way only, they use worldly similes and worldly words. But the Holy Land in which the holy live is more beautiful than you can say or imagine. However, the repetition of the name ‘Amitabha Buddha’ is meritorious only if you speak it with such devout attitude of mind as will cleanse your heart and attune your will to do works of righteousness. He only can reach the happy land whose soul is filled with the Infinite Light of Truth. He only can live and breathe in the spiritual atmosphere of the Western Paradise who has attained enlightenment.”

The Holy Land obviously refers to the land now known as Israel. I’d like to offer you a re-enactment of the description that the Buddha provided all those years ago.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TerracesBenGurion2.jpg

My friends, the Maitreya has come to guide the world to universal union.

Kam

 

[followingtheway]

AIUI, the Catholic Church recognises the difference between dulia and latria. In theory a Buddhist can only offer the equivalent of dulia, respect or reverence, to the Buddha. In practice, I suspect that the difference between that and praying is non-existent.

The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35. He died age 80, at his parinirvana. The current status of the Buddha is one of the unanswerable questions listed in scripture. Any attempt to describe parinirvana is domed to failure, because mere human words are incapable of doing so.

One of the best descriptions comes from the Bodhisattva Vimalakirti:

Then the Bodhisattva Manjushri said to Vimalakirti, “We have all given our teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the the entrance into the principle of nonduality.”

Thereupon Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.

The Bodhisattva Manjushri applauded Vimalakirti: “Excellent! Excellent, noble sir! This is indeed the entrance into the nonduality of the Bodhisattvas.”

There are dozens of gods, demons, gandhabbas, kinnaras etc. in the Theravada scriptures. There are tens of thousands of gods, demons, gandharvas, kinnaras etc. in the Mahayana scriptures. Mara is the approximate equivalent of Satan, he attempted to prevent the Buddha attaining enlightenment.

There are six traditional destinations: deva, asura, human, animal, preta and hell-being. Devas and asuras are gods. The two are sometimes merged to give five destinations. Pretas are also called ‘hungry ghosts’, and live an unhappy life being perpetually hungry, but not as unhappy as in the hells; perhaps a bit like the Catholic purgatory. Pretas and asuras originated from the Indian background and are less mentioned in China and Japan.

All destinations are temporary, including the heavens and the hells. There is a finite reward for a finite good deed, and a finite penalty for a finite bad deed. The Abhidharmakosha lists 27 heavens and 16 hells, eight hot and eight cold.

The exception is someone who is enlightened at death. They attain final nirvana, parinirvana.

rossum

Excelent questions again! I am pleasantly surprised to get such interest in my thread and get to know so many wonderful people. Thank you every body. Keep the questions commin’!

1. Usually when you see people “praying” to the Buddha, they aren’t actually addressing the Buddha. They are usually chanting something to themselves for some sort of benefit. For example, when I prostrate before a Buddha image, I do some chanting about the various qualities of the Buddha and make the resolution to be more like him. Other sects chant various mantras that are believed to have an innate ability to transform the chanter for the better.

That being said, some people do actually directly address the Buddha and ask for favors and such. Some sects of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism see these beings as still existing in some trancendental way and being able to help people, whereas in Theravada Buddhism (The kind I follow) this kind of thing is largely seen as a form of superstitious folk religion that is just based on misunderstanding. This is because Theravada Buddhism teaches that when an enlightened being dies and enters into Parinibbana, which is a trancendental and unconditioned state, it is impossible to contact or speak with such a being anymore.

1. There are various beings that are what some would call supernatural such as hell beings and heavenly beings. However they aren’t really that different from us. They eventually grow old and die and are part of the same cycle of rebirth as us. We can be reborn in the heavens or in hell or any of these things based on our actions.

Mara is often portrayed similarly to a demon, but that is only in a sense of him tempting the Buddha. There are varied opinions as to who Mara is. The classical view is that he is actually a relatively high ranking being in one of the heavenly realms, but it is also widely held that Mara is just an allegorical figure who symbolizes the temptations that go on in our own hearts.

1. When one dies, one is reborn into another life. It could be in hell, as an animal, as a petta spirit, as a human, or as a being in heaven. This is mostly based on our deeds.

Interesting. :yup: One last question. I’ve heard people describe Buddhism as a “philosophy” and “atheistic”. But, from what I’ve read here there is a spiritual/supernatural side to Buddhism rather than just the physical/natural aspect. So would those people who describe Buddhism as atheistic/a philosophy be wrong?

 

[Bakmoon]

Interesting. :yup: One last question. I’ve heard people describe Buddhism as a “philosophy” and “atheistic”. But, from what I’ve read here there is a spiritual/supernatural side to Buddhism rather than just the physical/natural aspect. So would those people who describe Buddhism as atheistic/a philosophy be wrong?

I would just say they have a different definition of the term religion and so exclude Buddhism from their list of religions, and so end up labeling it a philosophy instead. You can get the same problem with other belief systems too, like Epicureanism and so forth.

 

[rossum]

The Holy Land obviously refers to the land now known as Israel.

I’m afraid you are mistaken here. The more usual translation of sukhavati is “Pure Land”, and it is not located on the planet Earth, which is an impure land. It is situated on a different planet many light years away. The mention of the Amitabha Buddha in your text is a marker of a Pure Land text. You do not say, but I suspect it is taken from one or other of the Pure Land sutras. See Pure Land Buddhism for a fuller description.

My friends, the Maitreya has come to guide the world to universal union.

I am afraid not. The Maitreya Buddha is not here yet, though it would be nice if he was.

rossum

 

[rossum]

One last question. I’ve heard people describe Buddhism as a “philosophy” and “atheistic”. But, from what I’ve read here there is a spiritual/supernatural side to Buddhism rather than just the physical/natural aspect. So would those people who describe Buddhism as atheistic/a philosophy be wrong?

Buddhist scriptures certainly contain gods and other immaterial beings. However, they are not of any great importance, and can be safely ignored. That means that in practice some forms of Buddhism are effectively atheist. Western Buddhism tends to follow that line, while the Eastern forms tend to allow a greater role for the supernatural element. I suspect this may be a reaction to the Abrahamic religions commonly found in the West.

There is a controversial book, ‘Buddhism Without Beliefs’ by Stephen Batchelor, which attempts to construct a non-supernatural version of Buddhism. It has some interesting and useful ideas, but I do not think it completely succeeds.

Buddhism provides a large range of techniques form which you can select the ones that work for you. If you want Bodhisattvas to worship, then they are there. If you want to stick to the material, then you can do that as well. Everyone must find what works best for them at the moment.

rossum

 

[BeaumontAlum]

I was born and raised a Catholic but as an adult I have explored many different religions. I too enjoy the casual study of different religions in my spare time, I almost majored in World Religion and Theology. I have always had a respect for Buddhism and a slightly more person connection to it than other religions as I am a lover of nature and the idea of encompassing the universe as a whole. My roots in Christianity have not waivered, so leavingswitching religions is not really an option for me, so I guess my question is as a Buddhist and with whatever knowledge you have of Catholicism, can there be a personal ‘merging’ of the two? I know my fellow Catholics will probably feel like that is not possible but I would like your opinion.

 

[InJesusItrust]

The reason why I don’t find the analogy convincing is that there are also mathematical analogies that would conclude that a regress is possible. For example, let us assume that an infinite regress is not possible. Consider the number line, an infinitely large and continuous ordered set of all real numbers. Each number in this set possess the property of having numbers before it and numbers after it. There can be no first number on the line, because such a number would have numbers before it, thus not being the first number, and therefore by contradiction, we have proved that such a number does not exist. Because the line has no first number (analogous to F(1) in your example), we have an infinite regress, and therefore by our first premise, the number line cannot exist. However, the number line does exist in standard mathematics, and therefore, by contradiction, we have demonstrated that an infinite regress is possible. Q. E. A.

This number line analogy approximates the argument about the eternal universe much better, because from the perspective of general relativity, the space time of an eternal universe behaves the same way. In fact, I can convert the argument about the number line into an argument about the space-time of my mentioned eternal universe model. Here’s my best shot at it:

Let us assume that an infinite regress is not possible. Consider the 4 dimensional space-time structure of an eternal universe, which is a 4 dimensional Riemann manifold. Each event in this manifold possesses the property of having events in its past light cone and in its future light cone. (Let us assume here that this manifold is free from causal loops to make it more analogous to a line) There can be no event which occurs prior to all others in the temporal dimension, because such an event would have events in its past light cone, therefore not occurring prior to all other events in the temporal dimension, so by contradiction, we have proved that such an event does not exist in this manifold. Because there is no event which occurs prior to all others in this manifold (analogous to F(1) in your example, we have an infinite regress, and therefore by our first premise, the manifold cannot exist.

See? The number line argument much more closely analogues the eternal universe than your example of recursive functions.

I don’t understand the manifold argument because I’m not so learned but I don’t think the number line is a perfect anologue. Causality of events depend on prior events so I think recursion is an analogue that demonstrates that an intial state is needed for the infinite cycle to ever take place.

 

[notself]

I was born and raised a Catholic but as an adult I have explored many different religions. I too enjoy the casual study of different religions in my spare time, I almost majored in World Religion and Theology. I have always had a respect for Buddhism and a slightly more person connection to it than other religions as I am a lover of nature and the idea of encompassing the universe as a whole. My roots in Christianity have not waivered, so leavingswitching religions is not really an option for me, so I guess my question is as a Buddhist and with whatever knowledge you have of Catholicism, can there be a personal ‘merging’ of the two? I know my fellow Catholics will probably feel like that is not possible but I would like your opinion.

There is no conflict that I can see in practicing Buddhist teachings on morality or concentration. There are a lot of useful tips in the suttas on specifically how to go about leading a moral life and developing the concentration to do so. However, Buddhism has no god, no intercessory prayer, no grace, no forgiveness, no eternal soul, no salvation through the grace or merits of third parties. If one sees these things as necessary to find salvation, then Buddhism will not work.

I was raised Catholic and attended parochial schools. I can’t say I am an expert on the faith, but I remember the basics.

 

[rinnie]

No. I left Christianity before embracing Buddhism

What do you feel that you get from Buddhism that you cannot get from Christ and his Church?

Do you believe in God the Almighty? Have you ever believed?

 

[rinnie]

There is no conflict that I can see in practicing Buddhist teachings on morality or concentration. There are a lot of useful tips in the suttas on specifically how to go about leading a moral life and developing the concentration to do so. However, Buddhism has no god, no intercessory prayer, no grace, no forgiveness, no eternal soul, no salvation through the grace or merits of third parties. If one sees these things as necessary to find salvation, then Buddhism will not work.

I was raised Catholic and attended parochial schools. I can’t say I am an expert on the faith, but I remember the basics.

Lets see, no God, no forgiveness, no prayer, no grace from God, no eternal life. No salvation. whats left?

And how can tips help you into leading a moral life? All things come from God through God and with God,

I cannot even imagine thinking you can do anything without his Grace, So anotherwards in buddism you are indeed your own god?

 

[rinnie]

There is no conflict that I can see in practicing Buddhist teachings on morality or concentration. There are a lot of useful tips in the suttas on specifically how to go about leading a moral life and developing the concentration to do so. However, Buddhism has no god, no intercessory prayer, no grace, no forgiveness, no eternal soul, no salvation through the grace or merits of third parties. If one sees these things as necessary to find salvation, then Buddhism will not work.

I was raised Catholic and attended parochial schools. I can’t say I am an expert on the faith, but I remember the basics.

There is no MAJOR Conflict. Then you go on and tell what all of the major conflicts are

 

[notself]

There is no MAJOR Conflict. Then you go on and tell what all of the major conflicts are

You added a word (major) that does not appear in my post. When you stop laughing try reading my post again.

 

[rinnie]

You added a word (major) that does not appear in my post. When you stop laughing try reading my post again.

okay conflict. Not Major conflict. But conflict. But I still find it amusing forgive me, but you say there is no conflict and then the next sentence you name many

 

[rossum]

I was born and raised a Catholic but as an adult I have explored many different religions. I too enjoy the casual study of different religions in my spare time, I almost majored in World Religion and Theology. I have always had a respect for Buddhism and a slightly more person connection to it than other religions as I am a lover of nature and the idea of encompassing the universe as a whole. My roots in Christianity have not waivered, so leavingswitching religions is not really an option for me, so I guess my question is as a Buddhist and with whatever knowledge you have of Catholicism, can there be a personal ‘merging’ of the two? I know my fellow Catholics will probably feel like that is not possible but I would like your opinion.

It is certainly possible to meld Buddhist practice into Catholicism. Buddhist theory is rather too different, as this thread has shown.

To avoid all evil,
to cultivate good,
and to cleanse one’s mind -
this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

• Dhammapada 14:5

To avoid all evil: Basically follow the Ten Commandments. There are only five points for lay Buddhists:

• to avoid injury to living things.
• to avoid taking what is not given.
• to avoid sensual misconduct.
• to avoid false and malicious speech.
• to avoid intoxicants.

to cultivate good: “Love others as you love yourself.” – Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra, 91

to cleanse one’s mind: Meditate. Either mindfulness of breathing or a Christian meditation, like the Jesus Prayer or the Rosary. If you are interested in “encompassing the universe as a whole”, then the four brahmaviharas may prove useful: universal love, universal compassion, universal sympathetic joy and universal equanimity.

All of this is useful and, as far as I can see, none of it is against Christianity.

rossum

 

[notself]

okay conflict. Not Major conflict. But conflict. But I still find it amusing forgive me, but you say there is no conflict and then the next sentence you name many

Read my post one more time. I said there didn’t appear to be a conflict in two distinct areas, morality and concentration. After that I I started a new sentence listing all the areas where I did see a conflict. Would it have helped you if I had put a line brake between the two sentences? I realize that sometimes people find it difficult to read from a computer screen.

I hope this clears things up.

 

[Bakmoon]

I was born and raised a Catholic but as an adult I have explored many different religions. I too enjoy the casual study of different religions in my spare time, I almost majored in World Religion and Theology. I have always had a respect for Buddhism and a slightly more person connection to it than other religions as I am a lover of nature and the idea of encompassing the universe as a whole. My roots in Christianity have not waivered, so leavingswitching religions is not really an option for me, so I guess my question is as a Buddhist and with whatever knowledge you have of Catholicism, can there be a personal ‘merging’ of the two? I know my fellow Catholics will probably feel like that is not possible but I would like your opinion.

You wouldn’t be able to do it with the doctrines of the religions because they contradict one another. It is possible however to adapt Buddhist practices for various purposes, even though the purposes would be different.

For example, some psychiatrists have created simplified forms of meditation based Buddhist meditation simply for the purpose of improving one’s psychological health. If you practice Buddhist meditation for the purpose of attaining natural happiness and stress relief, then it shouldn’t conflict with Catholic teaching, although you would need to change some of the basic beliefs about meditation and possibly tweak some techniques of it if that might be too closely intertwined with Buddhist doctrine to make sense in a Catholic mindset.

 

[notself]

Lets see, no God, no forgiveness, no prayer, no grace from God, no eternal life. No salvation. whats left?

And how can tips help you into leading a moral life? All things come from God through God and with God,

I cannot even imagine thinking you can do anything without his Grace, So anotherwards in buddism you are indeed your own god?

Your statement and questions demonstrate that Buddhism and Catholicism cannot really be merged except in the very narrow areas I previously described.

In answer to your last question,

So anotherwards in buddism you are indeed your own god?

I think this answers your question.

By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another. -Dhp.165

 

[Bakmoon]

Lets see, no God, no forgiveness, no prayer, no grace from God, no eternal life. No salvation. whats left?

You wouldn’t be able to actually mix Buddhism and Catholicism, obviously. But I think it may be possible to adapt some meditation techniques so that they would be designed only to produce natural happiness (as opposed to supernatural happiness which the Catholic Church holds comes only from God) and therefore may be possible for a faithful Catholic to practice.

 

[rinnie]

It is certainly possible to meld Buddhist practice into Catholicism. Buddhist theory is rather too different, as this thread has shown.

To avoid all evil,
to cultivate good,
and to cleanse one’s mind -
this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

• Dhammapada 14:5

To avoid all evil: Basically follow the Ten Commandments. There are only five points for lay Buddhists:

• to avoid injury to living things.
• to avoid taking what is not given.
• to avoid sensual misconduct.
• to avoid false and malicious speech.
• to avoid intoxicants.

to cultivate good: “Love others as you love yourself.” – Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra, 91

to cleanse one’s mind: Meditate. Either mindfulness of breathing or a Christian meditation, like the Jesus Prayer or the Rosary. If you are interested in “encompassing the universe as a whole”, then the four brahmaviharas may prove useful: universal love, universal compassion, universal sympathetic joy and universal equanimity.

All of this is useful and, as far as I can see, none of it is against Christianity.

rossum

How can you follow the ten commandments when you never made it past the first one?

I AM the LORD YOUR GOD.