A
Agni
Guest
There is no Catholic teaching that says that if someone has been taught the dogmas of the Church, and then rejects them, that that person will definitively not be saved.
- Status
V
Vouthon
Guest
J
Jesusissacred
Guest
Rinnie, they don’t believe in God, a divine being who is omniprescent, omniscience, etc. Nirvana is something to attain that can be done yourself through being a good person, meditating, etc.
It’s more like perfecting your own spirit, that’s what they believe.
B
Bakmoon
Guest
I thought that Heresy was a mortal sin.
N
notself
Guest
Are you saying that my immortal soul is not in danger because of my lack of faith? Are you saying that it doesn’t matter what I believe or disbelieve? If so, then why all the fuss?
By the way, I don’t believe in an immortal soul, just to clear things up.
V
Vouthon
Guest
My dear brother Bakmoon
“…It is false that we say to anyone that he is damned. To do so would be false to our general doctrine…We are persuaded that all of those who with sincerity remain in their errors, who through inculpable ignorance believe themselves in the way of salvation . . . are children of the Catholic Church. Such is the opinion of all divines from St. Augustine…”
***- Nicolas-Sylvestre Bergier, (1715 – 1790), celebrated French Catholic theologian ***
This doesn’t mean that we are religious indifferentists. We naturally believe the Catholic Church to have the fullness of Truth. It is nonetheless a recognition that we cannot judge another’s human being’s conscience. While objectively to turn away from the Truth is a serious matter, subjectively we do not know what is going on in that person’s head. They might be sincerely seeking the truth but unable to perceive that their birth religion is the Truth.
This was explained rather well by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a somewhat eccentric German Catholic polymath/genius who was known to be able to quote swathes of Catholic theology from ancient documents off-by-heart, in 1952:
“…The Catholic has the duty of forming, educating and training his conscience…Yet the Catholic who has lost his faith and who honestly accepts the teachings of another religious body commits a mortal sin if he does not publically embrace whatever religion he believes in. Father O’Karr very wisely points out that George Bernard Shaw was very much mistaken when he claimed Saint Joan of Arc for Protestantism. It was precisely her defiance of ecclesiastical authority and her strict adherence to her conscience which made her canonization (elevation to sainthood) possible within Catholicism…According to Catholic theology it is, therefore, quite likely that Jan Hus’ soul went straight to heaven after his death, provided he sincerely believed in his own views, however erroneous [he rebelled against Catholic dogma and was a heretic]…”
Only God can judge the sincerity of someone’s heart and intentions. But Catholicism has always maintained that: “nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God” (Catholic Enycloepedia)
According to Catholic doctrine one is bound to follow even an erroneous conscience.
This is an excerpt from the volume 1 of the four volumes work on moral theology by Germain Grisez. Joseph Boyle, John Finnis, and William E. May were some notable figures who helped Grisez in the making of his book entitled The Way of the Lord Jesus. Grisez was a key figure in the drafting of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor.
He writes:
There is a great difference between someone who loses his faith but has made a genuine search after truth and one who “cares little for truth”.
Only God can discern this.
A
Agni
Guest
N
notself
Guest
rinnie,
What are your thoughts on all of this. In post #417 you said to me:
What are your thoughts on all of this. In post #417 you said to me:
M
Michael19682
Guest
I tentatively disagree with all of the assertions you make in this reply. My question is: if you are interested in making it clear to me: How do you define change? Perhaps this question seems a bit pre-emptive, but unless we can agree upon some definition then I’m afraid we have between us an insurmountable impasse and no further discussion is possible.
Before I conclude I might add that Buddha Dharma itself is unchanged, or, at least has never been reported to have undergone change. Thus, as a further aside, you will ultimately have to contend with the possibility that whatever change you say it might undergo may actually involve a complete reversal of its own position on change - in the same way that a linear transformation on a graph can change the slope of a line from zero to undefined by the adjustment of a single variable…
R
rossum
Guest
Change is difference over time. If X changes then X at time T1 is not the same as X at time T2 for some values of T1 and T2: X(T1) ≠ X(T2)
It has undergone change. The Buddha always took into account his audience when he preached. His followers do the same now. Their preaching is different according to their audience. Since modern audiences are not the same as ancient audiences, the preaching is different.
In the future the entire Buddhist religion will disappear, yet more change.
One of the basics of Buddhism is that things change. Buddhism itself is no exception to that.
rossum
M
Michael19682
Guest
Even if God didn’t create the universe as you suggest, he’s great enough to be thanked and praised; and, rather than exult in my blissful, wonderful nature as a source of inspiration, I would ask for his forgiveness as a reprieve for my “negative karma”. To me the idea you suggest puts a lie in God’s mouth; something that on faith and priniciple could not be true.
In Luke 18:10, we have an account of the situation, and there are many others:
"Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.
11 The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity - greedy, dishonest, adulterous - or even like this tax collector.
12 I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’
13 But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’
14 I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
Jesus can actually and directly affect our “karma” and Heaven is as you know the ultimate fulfillment of that promise - for all who want it.
M
Michael19682
Guest
Well, what if the Buddha changes his teaching on change? Will Buddhists accept it if he says “Now you will be told the truth because you are prepared for it: The creator of all this is beyond change!”
N
notself
Guest
I think rossum misspoke. The Buddha did express his teachings differently to different audiences based on the knowledge of the audience. He spoke in similes to laypeople and mostly about sila, morality. He spoke with more subtle language to those who were ordained and well educated in the dhamma. However the basis for the teachings was the same.
What the Buddha said was all conditioned things change. Since the dhamma is unconditioned, it does not change. One could consider the laws of physics as being unconditioned in a way. The laws of physics exist and are in force whether there is anyone to understand them or not. The laws of physics are not conditioned on a knower. The dhamma is not conditioned on a knower.
P
patrick457
Guest
Another question: how are Theravadin bhikkus ordained? (For some reason I thought of this question when watching Kung Fu movies, you know the ones with clean-shaven Chinese monks with incense burn marks on their head)
M
Michael19682
Guest
If it is both unconditioned and arose as a dynamic teaching delivered from the Buddha’s mind, how do we know the difference between it’s two possibilities; since the statement “Dhamma is unconditioned, it does not change ,” is part and parcel of the dynamic nature of the teaching, which as you and others admit, depended on the capacity of the audience. The Buddha darma (dhamma) creates an unresolvable paradox in this respect and such can be resolved, as one example, by the Vedanta of Maya - both “is and is not”. You should be encouraged however, because the Buddhist contribution to the doctrine of change has earned the coinage of a new term “Buddhanta”.
Thank you for engaging in this most lively exchange!
C
ComeHome2Rome
Guest
Why do some Buddhists worship the fat buddha and some worship the skinny one?
Was there a Feast Day or something yesterday? I visited the local Buddhist temple, of the fat buddha, on our way home from Church because my exchange student from France had never seen one. The sanctuary was empty, but there was something going all in the hall below with lots of food laid out in a way that would be impossible for people to get to to get it and the people were standing facing the food and chanting. What did we witness?
N
notself
Guest
The style of teaching changes just as the style of any teaching changes depending on an audience. Brian Greene explains physics to laypeople differently than he explains it to graduate students of physics. No paradox. Vedanta “is and is not” does not apply.
Totally off topic, here’s a bit of Brian Greene for you.
youtube.com/watch?v=BB1B42HYvZg
B
Bakmoon
Guest
Theravadin ordinations are rather ho-hum. The candidates kneel before the preceptor and the monastic quorum and do a lot of chanting in Pali, the language of the scriptures, with some prostrations thrown in, and then its over. Here’s a link to a translation of the liturgy for it.
buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/ordination1.htm
There is no dramatic laying on of hands or anything similar to it in the Theravada tradition.
The reason why Chinese monks do the incense burn on the forehead thing is that way back in China many centuries ago, there was a problem with laypeople dressing up as monks and collecting money as donations (East Asian monks follow a set of rules that allows them to handle money, unlike Theravada monks) and then pocket the money, allowing people to make a lot of money just through glorified begging.
The Emperor then decreed that all monks must brand their foreheads with a pattern of dots so that they would be recognizable, and it worked, because laypeople couldn’t brand themselves, dress as monks, get the money, and pretend they didn’t do it because they would still have the brand marks, and people would wonder why he had them if he hadn’t ordained.
B
Bakmoon
Guest
The “Fat Buddha” as he is known as affectionately in the west is a depiction of the semi-legendary Chinese monk known as 布袋 (Bùdài) which literally means sack cloth. He is regarded as a saint by the Chinese, and some believe him to be an emanation of the Bodhisattva Maitreya, who will be the next Buddha.
Culturally, he plays an almost identical role in Chinese Culture as Santa Clause (St. Nicholas) does in western culture, carrying a large sack full of toys and candy to give to good little children. He is distinct from the historical Buddha, who lived in India much longer ago.
The event you saw was probably some sort of festival, and they were probably just blessing the food before going in to eat. That’s just a guess, though.
B
Bakmoon
Guest
I would hold that the Dhamma isn’t a “thing” in any meaningful sense. It is a set of principles that describe how things operate.
Sorry for jumping in on your exchange, but I thought my two cents would be helpful.
- Status