Ask A Buddhist

[Bakmoon]

I am sorry. It is just when you said about the diet and everything. I was just trying to lighten things up a bit.

But in all honesty I didn’t make the shirt. That is a true story. But again my bad, Forgive me.

Apology is fully accepted. No hard feelings

 

[Bakmoon]

Yes I understood it and it is the thought that is a sin. Let me show you.

Improper sexual thoughts.

Mt. 5:28 You have heard it said You shall not commit adultery. But I say this if a man LOOKS a a woman Lustfully he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

If your right eye should be your downfall tear it out, and throw it away, for it will do you less harm to lose one part of yourself then have your whole body thrown into hell.

If you have these improper sexual thoughts you have already sinned.

Here is my response.

1. Catholic Moral Theology teaches that sin requires an act of the will. The mere arising of temptation cannot therefore be sin. Note that the verb ‘looks’ which you have capitalized is an active verb is used, rather than the verb ‘sees’.
2. Even if the arising of this in the mind is sin, this technique can still be used to resist the urge and prevent the sin from persisting in the mind, causing future mental sin, and also preventing one from acting on one’s urge.

 

[Bakmoon]

You must have missed my point. Which is where is this meditation going to help me in forgiving my sin?

Once you have had the thought you are in a state of venial sin. How do I get out without repentance? Meditation will not save my soul? But prayer and repentance will.

Meditation will not stop my thoughts, but by the Grace of God and prayer it can.

let me show you!

Romans 5:20 To put in my words there is no sin that can trump the grace of God. God can overpower any sin with his grace.

I never said the meditation would forgive sin, only that it would help resist sin. Even if the mere arising of the thought is sin, this technique can be used to resist the urge to prevent one’s self from continuing to sin, which is surely a good thing.

I am also not saying that a Catholic should use this as his only line of defense, but rather it could be one of the tools in the toolbox. One could pray for the strength to resist, wear the scapular, and frequently go to Confession, and still use this technique when temptation arises.

 

[rinnie]

I must counter this

1. Catholic Moral Theology teaches that sin requires an act of the will. The mere arising of temptation cannot therefore be sin. Note that the verb ‘looks’ which you have capitalized is an active verb is used, rather than the verb ‘sees’.
2. Even if the arising of this in the mind is sin, this technique can still be used to resist the urge and prevent the sin from persisting in the mind, causing future mental sin, and also preventing one from acting on one’s urge.

I am going to have to call you on that.

Mortal sin requires an act of will.

Venial sin is less serious when we disobey the moral law but
without full knowledge or without complete consent.

So I strongly disagree with you on this.

And I also disagree that we can use this technique to resist the urge. The urge is still sin, it must be repented and only God’s grace can help us to rid ourself of the sin.

 

[notself]

rinnie,

Why do you persist in thinking that mediation has anything to do with repentance or forgiveness?

One can meditate as a tool to control the arising of thoughts which may lead to an occasion of sin but meditation is not to be used as a path to forgiveness or repentance. I and others have repeated this several times. What don’t you understand?

 

[Contarini]

Yes I understood it and it is the thought that is a sin. Let me show you.

Improper sexual thoughts.

Mt. 5:28 You have heard it said You shall not commit adultery. But I say this if a man LOOKS a a woman Lustfully he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

If your right eye should be your downfall tear it out, and throw it away, for it will do you less harm to lose one part of yourself then have your whole body thrown into hell.

If you have these improper sexual thoughts you have already sinned.

Rinnie, with all due respect I believe you’re reflecting the views of some Protestants here, but not Catholic theology.

In Catholic theology, don’t you need the consent of the will to commit a sin?
If there’s imperfect consent there’s a venial sin (if, for instance, one takes a momentary pleasure in the lustful thought before rejecting it); if there’s full consent there’s a mortal sin.

Temptation, in Catholic theology, does not automatically mean sin.

The passage from the Sermon on the Mount to which you refer is indeed understood by some Protestants to mean that the mere occurrence of a lustful thought in the mind is sinful. But the passage says “look at a woman to lust after her,” which in the Catholic interpretation as I understand it implies a deliberate choice to lust.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

I never said the meditation would forgive sin, only that it would help resist sin. Even if the mere arising of the thought is sin, this technique can be used to resist the urge to prevent one’s self from continuing to sin, which is surely a good thing.

I am also not saying that a Catholic should use this as his only line of defense, but rather it could be one of the tools in the toolbox. One could pray for the strength to resist, wear the scapular, and frequently go to Confession, and still use this technique when temptation arises.

How? How can meditation resist sin? If that were true God would have told us to meditate. But he did not. The only way to resist sin is to become Christ like.

There is no man on this earth besides Jesus and the Blessed Mother who have resisted sin.

And meditation without Christ at the center is never a good tool for the tool box.

Yes one could pray, and go to confession and would not need this tecnique when temptation arises because if the sin is in ones heart he must repent and ask for Grace to have the sin removed.

That is where we are in full disagreement.

1 James says it is our personal desires that leads us to sin. And there is no where that state meditation leads us from sin.

It is Christ and his death on the cross that takes away our sin, and his mercy that leads us away. If we pray and have Christ at the center why do we need to meditate as Buddha taught?

We are to Pray as God our Father taught us. We should begin with the perfect prayer. The Our Father.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie, with all due respect I believe you’re reflecting the views of some Protestants here, but not Catholic theology.

In Catholic theology, don’t you need the consent of the will to commit a sin?
If there’s imperfect consent there’s a venial sin (if, for instance, one takes a momentary pleasure in the lustful thought before rejecting it); if there’s full consent there’s a mortal sin.

Temptation, in Catholic theology, does not automatically mean sin.

The passage from the Sermon on the Mount to which you refer is indeed understood by some Protestants to mean that the mere occurrence of a lustful thought in the mind is sinful. But the passage says “look at a woman to lust after her,” which in the Catholic interpretation as I understand it implies a deliberate choice to lust.

Edwin

Edwin I am quite clear on what venial sin is, I mentioned it quite awhile ago. But looking at a woman in a lustful way is indeed venial sin. Acting out on that lust is indeed Mortal sin.

Venial indeed can lead to Mortal sin,

But thinking it is indeed a sin, but not the same as acting out on it. Unless of course you continue to stare at her in the lustfull way etc. and then its just as bad. But you can react on it the way you choose.

 

[Contarini]

You must have missed my point. Which is where is this meditation going to help me in forgiving my sin?

Once you have had the thought you are in a state of venial sin. How do I get out without repentance?

I don’t think there’s any such thing as a “state of venial sin” in Catholic theology. Can you show me where such a concept occurs in official Catholic teaching?

I understand what a state of mortal sin is–that is to say, a state in which one is cut off from God’s grace.

What exactly is a state of venial sin?

Certainly one should repent of venial sins. But the kind of meditation the Buddhists are talking about is a way of reducing the temptation so that one will not commit further venial sins. (As I said in my previous post, I dispute your claim that just having an involuntary thought constitutes a venial sin in itself, but even if it did the meditation in question would still be useful.)

As I and several others have tried to show you previously on this thread, you’re repeatedly taking a position that downplays the value of “natural” means in anything connected to Christian faith and morals.

I suppose you will next say that anger management techniques are pointless because the sin of anger can only be dealt with by repentance?

Techniques for helping one resist urges to overeat are pointless because the sin of gluttony can only be dealt with by repentance?

And so on, and so forth.

It doesn’t make sense and it’s not backed up by anything in Catholic teaching I’m aware of.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

rinnie,

Why do you persist in thinking that mediation has anything to do with repentance or forgiveness?

One can meditate as a tool to control the arising of thoughts which may lead to an occasion of sin but meditation is not to be used as a path to forgiveness or repentance. I and others have repeated this several times. What don’t you understand?

I don’t know how much clear I can make it. Nothing about Meditation can help you if it is not Christ Centered.

We are taught to always have Christ in the Center of all that we do, and think, etc.

 

[rinnie]

I don’t think there’s any such thing as a “state of venial sin” in Catholic theology. Can you show me where such a concept occurs in official Catholic teaching?

I understand what a state of mortal sin is–that is to say, a state in which one is cut off from God’s grace.

What exactly is a state of venial sin?

Certainly one should repent of venial sins. But the kind of meditation the Buddhists are talking about is a way of reducing the temptation so that one will not commit further venial sins. (As I said in my previous post, I dispute your claim that just having an involuntary thought constitutes a venial sin in itself, but even if it did the meditation in question would still be useful.)

As I and several others have tried to show you previously on this thread, you’re repeatedly taking a position that downplays the value of “natural” means in anything connected to Christian faith and morals.

I suppose you will next say that anger management techniques are pointless because the sin of anger can only be dealt with by repentance?

Techniques for helping one resist urges to overeat are pointless because the sin of gluttony can only be dealt with by repentance?

And so on, and so forth.

It doesn’t make sense and it’s not backed up by anything in Catholic teaching I’m aware of.

Edwin

Edwin go to the CCC it shows you the difference between the 2.

I am saying that overcoming any Sin has to come from the Grace of God.

Now you tell me what technique do you feel can overcome any sin without the Grace of God? That is what I am saying, and I do not know any clearer way of saying it.

Think of the 7 deadly sins Edwin, Is gluttony is among them.

Are we not taught we must repent the sin before we can be forgiven for it?

 

[Bakmoon]

I’ve just brought up the issue of the will in venial sin at the Moral Theology forum with a request for quotes from official council documents and other major sources, so I will get back to you on this point when that question gets resolved.

 

[rinnie]

Edwin we have to be on different schedules. My husband gets home in about ten minutes and we are working on a house and getting ready to sell or rent it.

So for the next month of so as soon as he gets home and all day Sat and Sun, we are working on it.

But ask me anything, don’t think I am ignoring you, I promise I will answer tommorow.

God Bless.

 

[rinnie]

I’ve just brought up the issue of the will in venial sin at the Moral Theology forum with a request for quotes from official council documents and other major sources, so I will get back to you on this point when that question gets resolved.

Go to the CCC it should help also.

 

[Bakmoon]

Edwin go to the CCC it shows you the difference between the 2.

I am saying that overcoming any Sin has to come from the Grace of God.

Now you tell me what technique do you feel can overcome any sin without the Grace of God? That is what I am saying, and I do not know any clearer way of saying it.

Think of the 7 deadly sins Edwin, Is gluttony is among them.

Are we not taught we must repent the sin before we can be forgiven for it?

But we are also to resist the urge to sin with the will. One is not to rely totally on Divine Grace to repulse sin, correct? Divine Grace given to help one resist the urge to sin does not mean that one should not also strive with effort against this urge. As you brought up, Jesus said:

“If your right eye should be your downfall tear it out, and throw it away, for it will do you less harm to lose one part of yourself then have your whole body thrown into hell.”

He did NOT say “Pray for the grace to resist, but don’t bother striving against the urge because grace will resist it for you.”

 

[notself]

Leaving meditation aside for a moment, lets consider this talk by Buddha to his son, Rahula. I have edited this quote to avoid posting a sutta which is fairly long. For those of you who wish to read the entire sutta the link is below.

MN 61 **Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta: Instructions to Rahula at Mango Stone **
translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

“What do you think, Rahula: What is a mirror for?”
“For reflection, sir.”
"In the same way, Rahula, all actions are to be done with repeated reflection.

"Whenever you want to do an [mental, verbal or bodily] action, you should reflect on it: ‘This action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful action with painful consequences, painful results, then any action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction… it would be a skillful action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any action of that sort is fit for you to do.

"While you are doing an [mental, verbal or bodily] action, you should reflect on it: ‘This action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both… you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not… you may continue with it.

"Having done an [mental, verbal or bodily] action, you should reflect on it: ‘This action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it… you should exercise restraint in the future.

But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction… it was a skillful action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful qualities.
accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html#rahula

This type of discipline requires one to think before acting, observe the situation while acting, and review the results of actions. It is a lesson that would be good to teach kids. Rahula was seven years old when the Buddha taught him this lesson. It’s a good standard for adults as well.

Of course this advice requires someone who is observant, self disciplined, and responsible. It wouldn’t work for those who are always making excuses for their actions.

 

[notself]

Gotta love Gandharan art. That emaciated Shakyamuni there is iconic: it was the picture that was chosen for the Buddha in my high school ethics textbook.

I know about it. (I was the one who asked about Nichiren after all. ) I’m actually asking about how a Theravadin would view the aforementioned passages.

Sorry, I seem to have missed quite a few posts from various members.

What did you learn in high school about Buddhist ethics. I would assume that the topic was just touched if the book was covering world ethics.

I have tried to read the Lotus Sutra on several occasions. As you know, the full thing is quite long. It strikes me as an attempt to cover all the teachings of the Buddha in one sutra. I just kept noticing what was left out. Is the Lotus Sutra read as a stand alone, or are other sutras commonly read in addition to it?

 

[patrick457]

rossum,

Thank you for your corrections. I was unaware that Mahayana uses the Pali word Tipitaka. I just assumed they called their canon something else. What are the baskets of the Mahayana Tipitaka?

Dear all, Tipitaka means “three baskets” in Pali.

Yep, 三蔵 when translated into Chinese. AFAIK the term is used in a more loose sense in Mahayana: even though texts are classified in a variety of ways and thus there could be more ‘baskets’ than three the corpus of Buddhist scriptures as a whole are still called Tripitaka.

I can’t speak for Tibetan Buddhism, but I think that the multi-volume Taisho Tripitaka has most of the texts of the East Asian Buddhist canon.

 

[iloveangels]

Sorry, I seem to have missed quite a few posts from various members.

What did you learn in high school about Buddhist ethics. I would assume that the topic was just touched if the book was covering world ethics.

I have tried to read the Lotus Sutra on several occasions. As you know, the full thing is quite long. It strikes me as an attempt to cover all the teachings of the Buddha in one sutra. I just kept noticing what was left out. Is the Lotus Sutra read as a stand alone, or are other sutras commonly read in addition to it?

I have no idea what Buddhists are doing in the Catholic Answers Forums. Yeah, I know there’s a non-Catholic section. I have no idea why they have that either. Weirdness.

That said, I don’t think your ethics on a practical level are probably any worse or better than anyone else’s in here. I"m a Catholic convert and I’ve worked with many Buddhists too, and I haven’t seen any concretely outstanding models of morality in either place, to be honest.

[Yes, I know both systems have their idealized moral people (saints and gurus and whatnot), but most of the everyday proponents of both systems you better not turn your back on. JMHO.]

 

[patrick457]

Sorry, I seem to have missed quite a few posts from various members.

What did you learn in high school about Buddhist ethics. I would assume that the topic was just touched if the book was covering world ethics.

Well you know, the standard stuff. A little historical background, Buddha’s life, his views, and a little about the distinction between Mahayana and Theravada.

I have tried to read the Lotus Sutra on several occasions. As you know, the full thing is quite long. It strikes me as an attempt to cover all the teachings of the Buddha in one sutra. I just kept noticing what was left out. Is the Lotus Sutra read as a stand alone, or are other sutras commonly read in addition to it?

AFAIK the Lotus Sutra proper is often considered to be part of a tripartite work (法華三部經, the Threefold Lotus Sutra), more specifically its main body. The other two are the Innumerable Meanings Sutra (無量義崙經) and the Samantabhadra Meditation Sutra (普賢經), which acts as prologue and epilogue respectively.