Ask A Buddhist

[Contarini]

But it still does not change the question I asked before. We are not talking about science. We are talking about Religion.

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

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

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

I am asking you to take this challenge.What is one truth found in Buddhism that was not given in Christianity? Thats my question. And I never got an answer.

I am not saying there is not one, But I don’t know one. Do you?

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

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

But here are my tentative suggestions:

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

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

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

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

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

This is another problem. How can we compare them to Christianity when we don’t even know which form.

Simple: avoid overgeneralizations and deal with specific traditions!

Zen is the easiest to “blend” because it doesn’t make the sharp metaphysical claims of Theravada and doesn’t have the devotional practices found in Vajyrayana and other Mahayana traditions. But this can be illusory: witness the example of Thew Forrester, who was elected bishop of Northern Michigan in my denomination and (rightly, in my opinion) not confirmed by the Episcopal Church as a whole. Fr. Forrester+ practiced Zen, which I don’t have a problem with in principle–but he had then redefined a number of basic Christian beliefs in a manner clearly influenced by Zen.

Edwin

 

[Bakmoon]

I use that anologue because events are a chain. Future events follow past events. Are you sayings events don’t have a cause, that any random thing can happen at any random moment? How did the infinite cycle start without an initial state?

I am saying that you are using the recursion argument to prove that an infinite chain of events cannot exist, but this is flawed because recursive functions require an initial value by definition. Thus, they are not analogous.

In a way, I can give a counterexample to your scenario with recursive functions.

f= f(n-1) +1

Define Y as the range of f, in other words the set of all this function’s output values (you probably know what range means, but since it is a technical term I explained it for the benefit of readers who forgot all their math )

Let us define as part of the definition of this function that 0 is a member of set Y.

This leaves us with a well defined recursive function with no ‘base’ as you say. We can even make deductions about this function and its domain and range. We can deduce that the range and the domain are both the same, namely the set of integers. Therefore this function is a reversible one, so it has an inverse function as well.

Even though this function has no base, we can discern a number of properties about it, in spite of the fact that it has an infinite regress in it.

 

[Lokabrenna]

Zen is the easiest to “blend” because it doesn’t make the sharp metaphysical claims of Theravada and doesn’t have the devotional practices found in Vajyrayana and other Mahayana traditions.

Even Zen has its variations. Rinzai Zen places more emphasis on solving a koan than Soto Zen, for instance. Soto is definitely the more popular of the two.

 

[ebonykawai]

It is my understanding that in Hinduism a mantra is the name of a god and is contemplated on by the meditator. This is not the case in Theravada.

The only mantra I am familiar with is the word Buddho which is a variation on Buddha. One says the syllable bud, “u” like good, on the intake of breath and dho, like go, on the exhalation of breath. It is no different than counting breaths. It assist the mediator in the stilling of discursive thought.

Tibetan Buddhist may have a whole other take on mantras, but I don’t know a thing about Tibetan Buddhism. Too many rituals and levels of practice for me.

The “take” on mantra is the same in all traditions for those who understand what a mantra actually is.

Mantras are revealed groups of words/sounds that may or may not have a particular meaning in any particular language. Some can be translated and some are very abstract and cannot be translated into any particular meaning. Mantras, especially those of particular traditions or lineages, were revealed to the ancient seers/sages, who then passed them down to their students, and so on, until the present day.

A mantra, then, is sound that was given by the Divine/Infinite as a means of turning the mind to the Divine/Infinite, and eventually connecting again with the Divine/Infinite. In our practices, be they meditation, ritual, prayer, mindful movement, etc., we generally begin with a support so that the mind can rest. Mindful movement can be that support. Once the mind is resting, we then turn toward a more refined element, such as breathing to get the mind deeper into rest. Then we refine again, using concentration, then again etc, and usually the final refinement is the use of mantra. Practices lead us from the gross to the subtle. The most subtle (generally) is mantra, because it has the closest connection to the Infinite and was given by the Infinite.

That’s what mantra is. Some traditions have changed it to suit their purposes, but this is how it is explained in the Vedas, the earliest religious texts known to man.

 

[notself]

Yours is a great description of the Hindu/Vedic use of mantras. Thanks.

 

[SteveVH]

I never said having proper discourse and discussion on religious ideas and their difference was bad or “uncharitable” but even if I did that is impossible because charity has to do with how you do something you can even uncharitably help someone if you do it begrudgingly. Also to correct you last part, this is a catholic site but this is the non catholic forum and no one should not expect to not be challenged on their views but there is a difference in challenging someones views with charity and attacking them and their views. Also respecting other people’s views is a good thing, stop being so arrogant.

I read back through what I had posted and nowhere did I find that I said this thread should not be on the “non-Catholic” forum. My point is that when someone is being challenged on a concept such as infinite regression they should not interpret that challenge as someone being uncharitable. I also don’t know where you got the idea that I do not respect other people’s views. I respect most everyone’s views, with the exception, possibly, of those who call me arrogant.

 

[Bakmoon]

I read back through what I had posted and nowhere did I find that I said this thread should not be on the “non-Catholic” forum. My point is that when someone is being challenged on a concept such as infinite regression they should not interpret that challenge as someone being uncharitable. I also don’t know where you got the idea that I do not respect other people’s views. I respect most everyone’s views, with the exception, possibly, of those who call me arrogant.

Just for the record of those looking back on this post and not reading the whole thing, I wasn’t the one who said that it was uncharitable

 

[Bakmoon]

The “take” on mantra is the same in all traditions for those who understand what a mantra actually is.

Mantras are revealed groups of words/sounds that may or may not have a particular meaning in any particular language. Some can be translated and some are very abstract and cannot be translated into any particular meaning. Mantras, especially those of particular traditions or lineages, were revealed to the ancient seers/sages, who then passed them down to their students, and so on, until the present day.

A mantra, then, is sound that was given by the Divine/Infinite as a means of turning the mind to the Divine/Infinite, and eventually connecting again with the Divine/Infinite. In our practices, be they meditation, ritual, prayer, mindful movement, etc., we generally begin with a support so that the mind can rest. Mindful movement can be that support. Once the mind is resting, we then turn toward a more refined element, such as breathing to get the mind deeper into rest. Then we refine again, using concentration, then again etc, and usually the final refinement is the use of mantra. Practices lead us from the gross to the subtle. The most subtle (generally) is mantra, because it has the closest connection to the Infinite and was given by the Infinite.

That’s what mantra is. Some traditions have changed it to suit their purposes, but this is how it is explained in the Vedas, the earliest religious texts known to man.

I can add a little bit here on the interpretation of those sects of Buddhism that do use mantras.

Some forms of Mahayana Buddhism (I’m getting this description from a teacher of the Gelugpa sect of Tibetean Buddhism) describe enlightened beings (Buddhas and Bodhisattvas) in terms of three aspects. This is known as the teaching of the Three Bodies (Trikaya is the sanskrit term if I’m not mistaken)

In this teaching, there is the Nirmanakaya, the Sambhogakaya, and the Dharmakaya. The Dharmakaya is the formless, incomprehensible aspect of the being, and only Buddhas have this. The Sambhogakaya exists outside of normal time and space and is the archetypal form in which the being appears in visions in, for example. The Nirmanakaya is the physical body.

According to some sects, the being is able to manifest themselves in a Nirmanakaya in different places and times to help people and to teach. A Buddha or Bodhisattva according to one theory of mantra is able to manifest themselves as sound. The sound of that particular being is its mantra. In other words, according to this understanding, the mantra “Om mani padme hum” isn’t directed at the Bodhisattva Chenrezig; it IS Chenrezig, but in the form of sound.

Just as an end note, a lot of sects probably don’t believe this. The Theravada sect certainly doesn’t.

 

[SteveVH]

Just for the record of those looking back on this post and not reading the whole thing, I wasn’t the one who said that it was uncharitable

Nor was my post responding to you. Not sure how you came to that conclusion. I’ve really enjoyed your posts.

Now that I have apparently disrupted the conversation I think it is probably best that I depart. Have at it folks!

Edit: Ah, now I see that it was because I used infinite regression as an example of a topic that you thought I was referring to you. Sorry, I should have made it clear. This had nothing to do with your posts and I apologize for the confusion. God bless.

 

[Kam_Fanaian]

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.

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

rossum

How can you be so sure that the Maitreya has not come yet?

What is your evidence?

Kam

 

[Bakmoon]

Nor was my post responding to you. Not sure how you came to that conclusion. I’ve really enjoyed your posts.

Now that I have apparently disrupted the conversation I think it is probably best that I depart. Have at it folks!

Edit: Ah, now I see that it was because I used infinite regression as an example of a topic that you thought I was referring to you. Sorry, I should have made it clear. This had nothing to do with your posts and I apologize for the confusion. God bless.

I know you weren’t referring to me. I just wanted to make sure that if someone were latter flipping through the posts but didn’t read the pages in question, they might have made that mistake because iloveangels and I were just discussing infinite regress just a page or two ago. I should have made that more clear.

 

[Bakmoon]

How can you be so sure that the Maitreya has not come yet?

What is your evidence?

Kam

I know you were asking rossum, but I am fairly sure we would answer similarly, so here is my take.

Firstly, the Buddhist texts do make it quite clear that the Maitreya will not come until the teaching of the Buddha has finally disappeared.

Secondly, the burden of evidence rests on the one who asserts, not on one who denies. You need to present evidence that Bahá’u’lláh is the Maitreya and then we can evaluate that evidence and give a response. We can’t really give a response until then, really.

 

[iloveangels]

Then prove it.

I did. It’s not my fault if you don’t want to hear the truth. Sometimes people find the truth threatening to their own views and refuse to discuss it.

 

[Bakmoon]

I did. It’s not my fault if you don’t want to hear the truth. Sometimes people find the truth threatening to their own views and refuse to discuss it.

Could you provide the post number in which you demonstrate it?

 

[ebonykawai]

According to some sects, the being is able to manifest themselves in a Nirmanakaya in different places and times to help people and to teach. A Buddha or Bodhisattva according to one theory of mantra is able to manifest themselves as sound. The sound of that particular being is its mantra. In other words, according to this understanding, the mantra “Om mani padme hum” isn’t directed at the Bodhisattva Chenrezig; it IS Chenrezig, but in the form of sound.

Just as an end note, a lot of sects probably don’t believe this. The Theravada sect certainly doesn’t.

Yep, as a vajrayana practioner, I agree with this.

Mantra can be used in many different ways, and it’s interpreted differently. In Yoga/Samkhya/Vedanta, it’s a revealed bit of the Divine. In Buddhism, it’s actually pretty close to what the Bible said about Christ: word became flesh, so to speak.

Very interesting to see the subtle changes here and there. I’m lucky, coming from two very different lineages. One the Himalayan tradition of Yoga/tantra, and the other being Drikung Kagyu/Nyingma in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. It’s pretty cool when you see the similarities. We’re all more similar than we are different, in my opinion.

 

[ebonykawai]

I did. It’s not my fault if you don’t want to hear the truth. Sometimes people find the truth threatening to their own views and refuse to discuss it.

LOL, or maybe it’s just not true to them so they disregard what you’re saying. Kind of like what you’ve been doing.

 

[snarflemike]

This thread has gotten too big for me to read all the posts, but I have another question. Is it possible that any being has undergone an infinite number of reincarnations? Why or why not?

 

[iloveangels]

LOL, or maybe it’s just not true to them so they disregard what you’re saying. Kind of like what you’ve been doing.

Ebony,
I’m not interested in being a Buddhist. I just had a couple of questions about Buddhism, which have been answered to my satisfaction.

I worked for years with a Buddhist so I know some things pretty well, but had a few remaining questions, wanted some confirmation of a few points, etc.

I’m interested in the philosophy of religion and the comparative study of religions, but I don’t want to wade thru all this specific stuff about the different schools of practice, and all that. I’m just not very interested in Buddhism as a personal religion for myself. Sorry but that’s the truth.

 

[notself]

Ebony,
I’m not interested in being a Buddhist. I just had a couple of questions about Buddhism, which have been answered to my satisfaction.

I worked for years with a Buddhist so I know some things pretty well, but had a few remaining questions, wanted some confirmation of a few points, etc.

I’m interested in the philosophy of religion and the comparative study of religions, but I don’t want to wade thru all this specific stuff about the different schools of practice, and all that. I’m just not very interested in Buddhism as a personal religion for myself. Sorry but that’s the truth.

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.