Ask A Buddhist

[Michael19682]

I think it does make sense to have such a section. I think St. Augustine said something once to the effect that Doctrine is defined largely out of a need to distinguish it from false teachings. This also promotes a healthy spirit of dialectic which lies at the very heart of the Scholastic Method.

You have my agreement on practical morality.

(On a side-note, iloveangels, I responded to you in post 363. I don’t know if you missed it or not.)

Now I’ll put in my two cents, Bakmoon. You are correct about the sense it makes for such a section in the forums. ephesians 1:10 tells us about “the summing up of all things in Christ.” If our religion is to be truly universal, it must answer the questions of other religions and fulfill the problems of their daily life also. You mention Saint Augustine. He was enormous on Charity. Christ was also (he fed people fish and bread, both ordinary and divine).

The only part of this threads I disagree with is it’s title. I’m not sure it is good etiquette to presume that the religion not hosting the forum has answers that the host does not. And this occurs in Buddhist use of words, which are in debate bent to suit the needs of the guest. A lot like saying, “I’ll bring some food to the potluck dinner.” Then getting to a party where all the food is laid out and saying “See that dish, the bread? The one that all the saints and Jesus brought in? I know how to make it too: so let that be my contribution.” Such a scenario is problematic, even in your own house (though I suppose you might be seen as joking in that case).

 

[patrick457]

Thank you for your post. I’m learning a great deal about Mahayana. What is especially interesting is the mentions of Vishnu and Shiva in the dharanis.

There’s actually quite some information on the dharani in Lokesh Chandra’s The Thousand-armed Avalokiteśvara. Given how the standard version by Bhagavaddharma is actually corrupt in a few places (Chandra postulates that he either worked from a defective text or heard a sloppy recitation) there is some uncertainty about the original words, but to quote again:

悉陀夜。娑婆訶。
摩訶悉陀夜。娑婆訶。
悉陀喻藝。室皤囉夜。娑婆訶。
那囉謹墀。娑婆訶。
摩囉那囉。娑婆訶。
悉囉僧阿穆佉耶。娑婆訶。
娑婆摩訶阿悉陀夜。娑婆訶。
者吉囉阿悉陀夜。娑婆訶。
波陀摩羯悉陀夜。娑婆訶。
那囉謹墀皤伽囉耶。娑婆訶。
摩婆唎勝羯囉耶。娑婆訶。

Siddhāya svāhā
Mahāsiddhāya svāhā
Siddha-yogeśvarāya svāhā
Narakindi = Nīlakaṇṭhāya] svāhā
Maranara / Vāraha-mukhāya] svāhā
Sirasiṃha / Narasiṃha]-mukhāya svāhā
Svā[ha (sic) … pad]ma?-hastāya svāhā
Cakra-hastāya svāhā
Padma-hastāya svāhā
Narakindi = Nīlakaṇṭha]-vyāghrāya svāhā
Ma[hā]bali-Śankarāya svāhā

To the siddha, svāhā
To the great siddha, svāhā
To the lord of siddha yogis, svāhā
To Nīlakaṇṭha, svāhā
To the boar-faced one, svāhā
To the the man-lion-faced one, svāhā
To the holder of the lotus (?), svāhā
To the holder of the discus, svāhā
To the holder of the lotus, svāhā
To Nīlakaṇṭha the tiger, svāhā
To the mighty Śaṅkara, svāhā

Amoghavajra’s translation/transcription of the sutra actually has a description of the iconography of ‘Nīlakaṇṭha Avalokiteśvara’ appended to it, which describes Avalokiteśvara having three faces: a ‘peaceful, compassionate face’ (wearing a crown with the image of the buddha Amitayus/Amitabha on it - common in portrayals of Avalokiteśvara) flanked by a lion’s head and a boar’s (reminiscent of the common iconography of Vishnu from the Kashmir region), carrying a mace, a lotus flower, a discus, and a conch shell on each of his four arms (again, the iconographical attributes of Vishnu), draped in deer and tiger skins and wearing a black serpent as a sacred thread (attributes of Shiva; cf. the Mahabharata, where Shiva appears to one of the characters in a terrifying form: “Round his loins was a tiger-skin dripping with blood, and he had a black deer for his upper garment. He had for his sacred thread a large snake. His arms were long and massive and held many kinds of uplifted weapons…”).

 

[Vouthon]

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

Brother/sister iloveangels

“…The Indians are our brothers, and Christ has given his life for them…All the races of the world are humans, and of all men and of each individual there is but one definition, and this is that they are rational. All have understanding and will and free choice, as all are made in the image and likeness of God … All the peoples of the world are humans. All the races of humankind are one. Thus the entire human race is one…”

- Bartolomé de las Casas (c. 1484–1566) Catholic Bishop, defender of rights of native Americans, abolitionist and social reformer

I fully endorse the “Non-Catholic religions” forum here. The word Catholic means “universal”, “all-embracing”, “all-encompassing”, “from the whole”. How on earth then could we turn this place into an exclusive, “Catholics-only” club - and not open it out to ecumenism (other Christians) and interfaith dialogue (other religions) especially in light of the fact that the most recent Ecumenical Council (Vatican II) bids us to do just that?

In Catholicism Love is held to be all-embracing, never confined, never differentiated, never partial as Pope Leo XIII and the great Dominican mystic Tauler explained:

“…The maternal love of the Catholic Church embraces all people…It is the industrious guardian of the teachings of its Founder [Jesus] who, by His words and those of the apostles, taught men the fraternal necessity which unites the whole world. From Him we recall that everybody has sprung from the same source, was redeemed by the same ransom, and is called to the same eternal happiness…”

- Pope Leo XIII, CATHOLICAE ECCLESIAE, 1890

“…This beard has many hairs, but they all make up one beard, so that they all receive the benignant oil that flows into it. That hair, however, that would separate itself from the whole, be it ever so small, would receive not a single drop of the precious charism. The same is true of love. As long as it is all-encompassing, as long as it shares its graces without making distinctions, it will remain the precious and mellifluous chrism of all good; but as soon as you exclude anyone or anything from your love, you receive nothing of this oil. Beloved, take very good care that your love embraces everyone. Show charity toward all and deprive no one of his peace!..”

- Johannes Tauler (c.1300-1361), Catholic mystic and Dominican

In addition all mankind are brothers and sisters (as Pope Leo XIII suggested above in saying “fraternal necessity”), sharing the same Image of God which makes us all one:

“…What a wonderful vision, which makes us contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God…This divine law of solidarity and charity assures that all men are truly brothers, without excluding the rich variety of persons, cultures and societies…”

- Pope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus (On the Unity of Human Society) October 12, 1939

“…For those who believe in God, all human beings, even the least privileged, are sons of the universal Father who created them in his image and guides their destinies with thoughtful love. The fatherhood of God means brotherhood among men: this is a strong point of Christian universalism, a common point, too, with other great religions and an axiom of the highest human wisdom of all times, that which involves the promotion of man’s dignity…”

***- Pope Paul VI ***

In 1916, in the midst of the First World War, American Jews petitioned Pope Benedict XV on behalf of the Polish Jews. To this the pontiff responded in a private letter, also published in the Jesuit journal “Civilta Cattolica”, denouncing antisemitism:

The Supreme Pontiff… as Head of the Catholic Church, which, faithful to its divine doctrines and its most glorious traditions, considers all men as brothers and teaches them to love one another, he never ceases to indicate among individuals, as well as among peoples, the observance of the principles of the natural law, and to condemn everything that violates them. This law must be observed and respected in the case of the children of Israel, as well as of all others, because it would not be conformable to justice or to religion itself to derogate from it solely on account of divergence of religious confessions

“…All of humankind is but one family, dispersed over the face of the whole earth; all men are brothers, and ought to love each other as such. May shame and infamy overtake those impious wretches who seek a cruel unnatural glory in the blood of their brothers, which is their own blood…All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers…”

***- Archbishop François Fénelon (6 August 1651 – 7 January 1715) (Let. 30), Catholic mystic ***

And so we find that one of the greatest Catholic mystics, Blessed Jan Van Ruysbroeck could write:

“…Now mark this: God being a common good, and his boundless love being common to all …] his grace is common to all men, whether Pagan or Jew, whether good or evil. By reason of his common love, which God has towards all men, he has caused his name and the redemption of human nature to be preached and revealed to the uttermost parts of the earth. Whoever wishes to turn to Him can turn to Him …] Thus God is a common Light and a common splendour, enlightening heaven and earth and every man, each according to his need…The light of divine grace, which makes man pleasing to God, and through which he merits eternal life, is offered to all men…God’s image supports the essence and personality of all human beings. Every person possesses it totally and undividedly. And so we are all one, united in our eternal image, which is the image of God; an image which is for all of us the origin of life and existence. Our created being is anchored in that image as in its eternal cause…According to his or her creatureliness the human person undergoes the imprint of God’s eternal image without ceasing; just like an untarnished mirror which always reflects the image and which without ceasing renews our knowledge of our appearance with new clarity. This essential unity of our spirit with God does not exist in itself. It rests in God, and flows from God, and hangs in God, and returns to God as its eternal source…”

***- Blessed John Ruysbroeck (1293 – 1381), Flemish Catholic mystic ***

So based upon these teachings from Catholic history, the meaning of the word Catholic and Vatican II, I think that this forum serves a true and fruitful purpose in accordance with Church doctrine.

And tbh the non-Catholics add another layer to CAF. They are, in my opinion, an indispensible part of this online community.

 

[patrick457]

It is not unusual for people in Asia to combine bits and pieces from several traditions into their religious practices. It is my understanding that in Japan people tend to have Shinto weddings and Buddhist funerals. Is that correct?

Yes. Though nowadays some people might choose to get married in a ‘Western’-style wedding - oftentimes in a church or chapel, even if the couple involved are not baptized or have any interest in becoming Christians.

The reason for the so-called phenomenon of ‘funerary Buddhism’ (葬式仏教) here lies in the Edo period, when the Tokugawa shogunate increasingly pursued a policy of isolation and persecuted Christians. It became requirementde facto that people register at their local Buddhist temples (regardless of sect), ostensibly to stop the diffusion of Christianity and help detect suspected covert Christians. Now the danka system, as it was called, was originally a voluntary act, wherein households or danka (檀家, literally ‘benefactor/donor house(hold)’) financially support a temple which, in exchange, provides for their spiritual needs, up to and including funerals. After the ill-fated Shimabara Rebellion of 1637-8 (instigated by peasants, many of whom happened to be Catholic), however, the system became compulsory: people were obligated to become danka of the closest Buddhist temple and temples in turn were ordered to start writing certificates for all their danka. Without the certificates and the records of registration - which were, for all intents and purposes, identity papers and household registries - it was virtually impossible to live or function within society. The danka were thus bound to the temples they were affiliated with to the death: the mandatory funerary rites guaranteed steady cashflow for the temples, helping them with their upkeep. This is basically the reason why cemeteries are ubiquitous within or near the precincts of Japanese temples.

The formalized Shinto-style weddings people are familiar with today is actually a fairly recent product, dating from the Meiji period. Of course, you must remember that for much of Japanese history, Buddhism and Shinto were virtually syncretized (although they never completely fused together): shrines and temples could coexist within the same compound, Buddhist figures could be venerated or even ‘worshipped’ within shrines and vice versa and native deities could adopt a Buddhst garb (true to the idea of honji suijaku), and clergymen could function as temple monks and shrine priests at the same time. Of course as mentioned earlier everything changed when the anti-Buddhist sentiment reached a peak during the Meiji period, when Shinto and Buddhism were officially separated from one another and Buddhists were officially discriminated against by the government (think something like the Dissolution of the Monasteries under Henry VIII).

(Actually, this is one Japanese trait: syncretism is not seen here as something ‘bad’ compared to the West, where pure, unadulterated religion is highly valued and heresy is condemned, which ties in well with the well-known Japanese love of the ambiguous, the “maybe” over a clearly-defined “yes” or “no,” and the preference for aesthetic form over practical function: to the animism and ancestor worship of the distant past is added layers of Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, and one could argue even a little bit of Christianity: contradictory beliefs were reconciled into one mix. This is the reason why I think that Japan from time to time gives birth to the so-called ‘new religions’ (like the infamous cult Aum Shinrikyo or the so-called Happy Science - yes, there is a religion by that name. Don’t get me started on the political activist who claims to be Jesus! ), many of which are syncretic. This is also the reason why many of the so-called ‘Hidden Christians’ of Japan have ‘transmogrified’ Catholicism into a mix of Christianity, Buddhism, Shinto, and ancestor worship.)

 

[patrick457]

I am told that in Thailand Buddhist meeting halls often have statues of Hindu Gods along with those of Buddha. The people show reverence to the Buddha and pray to the Hindu Gods.

Hinduism actually has exerted an influence in Thailand and other Southeast Asian countries alongside Buddhism. The fact that the story of Rama also exists in different versions in these countries (in Thailand as Ramakien), the fact that the ancient kingdom of Ayutthaya is named after Rama’s city of Ayodhya, that Bangkok’s full name is (Sanskrit) Krung-dēvamahānagara amararatanakosindra mahindrāyudhyā mahātilakabhava navaratanarājadhānī purīramya uttamarājanivēsana mahāsthāna amaravimāna avatārasthitya shakrasdattiya vishnukarmaprasiddhi, “The city of angels, the great city, the eternal jewel city, the impregnable city of Indra, the grand capital of the world endowed with nine precious gems, the happy city, abounding in an enormous Royal Palace that resembles the heavenly abode where reigns the reincarnated god, a city given by Shakra [Indra] and built by Vishnukarma [Vishvakarman],” and the fact that the current Thai royal dynasty is the Chakri (named after Vishnu’s weapon, the discus or chakra - the royal emblem actually depicts said discus paired with the trident, the weapon of Shiva), with its kings taking the name Rama, should be a testament to that.

In India, several Hindu sects have incorporated the Buddha in their pantheon as an avatar of Vishnu.

That is actually highly controversial. In some stories, Vishnu is said to have incarnated as the Buddha in order to mislead the asuras, who were gaining power due to the sacrifices they were making to the gods. In order to prevent this Vishnu came down to earth as the Buddha and preached a false religion in order to mislead the asuras, making them abandon their sacrifices and thus lose their power. In other versions (such as in the Bhavishya Purana), it was humans who were deluded:

At this time, reminded of the Kali Age, the god Vishnu became born as Gautama, the Shakyamuni, and taught the Buddhist dharma for ten years. Then Shuddodana ruled for twenty years, and Shakyasimha for twenty. At the first stage of the Kali Age, the path of the Vedas was destroyed and all men became Buddhists. Those who sought refuge with Vishnu were deluded.

In fact, the Dalit Buddhist movement sought to reject this identification:

1. I shall have no faith in Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwara nor shall I worship them.
2. I shall have no faith in Rama and Krishna, who are believed to be incarnations of God, nor shall I worship them.
3. I shall have no faith in Gauri, Ganapati and other gods and goddesses of Hindus nor shall I worship them.
4. I shall have no faith in Vithal-Rakhumai nor shall I worship them. I do not believe in the incarnation of God.
5. I do not and shall not believe that Lord Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu. I believe this to be sheer madness and false propaganda.

 

[patrick457]

For something a little tongue-in-cheek to lighten up the mood: an actual advert of a Buddhist temple here. This particular temple was actually close to where I once lived, and despite the, um, quirkiness of the advert, the temple looks fairly decent in real life, or at least that’s how it looks from the outside when I pass by it. I also watched videos by people who actually went in inside and recorded their visit on camera and it also seemed to be highly normal, although for some reason, the resident cleric (yes, that’s him on the advert) seems to have decided that playing sutras from an IPod on a speaker is a good substitute for real-life chanting.

“‘What is a temple?’ ‘What is the difference between a temple and a (Shinto) shrine?’ You don’t have to worry about all that, because it’s all in Wikipedia!”

At least the advert is encouraging research.

 

[Bakmoon]

Dhamma as you call it must either be a thing or not a thing. You admit now it is not a thing. Then it must be not a thing. What is the third option? Exactly that reality beyond the Maya of the Hindus. Just because it is a “set of principles” does not exempt it from inspection, inquiry, or interrogation as such.

The best way that I can respond to this is to say that the issue here largely mirrors and is connected to that age old debate in ontology of the problem of universals, only slightly wider in scope, including descriptions in the same sort of category as universals.

I would ultimately hold to the ontological proposal of concpetualism, which holds that these things exist, but only as concepts within the mind, and not as actual entities which exist independent of the mind. I hold that the Dhamma exists conceptually as a description of reality, and not as a proper sort of ‘thing’ in the usual sense of the term. A building is a ‘thing’ that properly can be said to exist in the normal sense. The principles of architecture are not a ‘thing’, but a set of principles that exist conceptually, i.e. in the mind.

To frame the answer in your terms, the third option is conceptual existence. There can be normal existence (things that are objectively real), conceptual existence (things that are real, but only in dependence on the mind) , and non-existence.

Why do you keep alluding to the veil of Maya? I don’t see the similarities.

 

[notself]

patrick457

There are symbols used in Theravada that represent either the Buddha or the dhamma but I believe they are common to all forms of Buddhism. The Buddha specifically instructed his followers not to make images of him after his death. He is represented as foot prints (which by their nature are empty of self), deer (the first sermon was given in Deer Park), lion (the sermon itself was called the Lion’s Roar) , the eight spoked wheel (representing the Eightfold Path), a single Bodhi leaf (representing the tree under which the Buddha became enlightened).

Of course after a couple of hundred years, statues representing the Buddha started appearing this in spite of his wish not to be depicted as to avoid being worshipped as a God. There is of course lots of symbols in the statues. Long earlobes, for example, represent wisdom.

 

[Bakmoon]

The only part of this threads I disagree with is it’s title. I’m not sure it is good etiquette to presume that the religion not hosting the forum has answers that the host does not. And this occurs in Buddhist use of words, which are in debate bent to suit the needs of the guest. A lot like saying, “I’ll bring some food to the potluck dinner.” Then getting to a party where all the food is laid out and saying “See that dish, the bread? The one that all the saints and Jesus brought in? I know how to make it too: so let that be my contribution.” Such a scenario is problematic, even in your own house (though I suppose you might be seen as joking in that case).

I’m very sorry if I came off that way. That was not my intention. The reason why I started this thread is that I just joined the site (Theology and Philosophy are hobbies of mine, so I joined up to pursue these hobbies) and I wanted to start off by presence on this site by getting to know people here, so I started this thread. I didn’t intend it as the sort of “I have all the answers and now I shall grace you all with my wisdom” kind of thing, but more as a “hello everybody, you probably don’t see many Buddhists that often, so if you have any questions about Buddhism, don’t be shy” kind of thing.

 

[notself]

In fact, the Dalit Buddhist movement sought to reject this identification:

1. I shall have no faith in Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwara nor shall I worship them.
2. I shall have no faith in Rama and Krishna, who are believed to be incarnations of God, nor shall I worship them.
3. I shall have no faith in Gauri, Ganapati and other gods and goddesses of Hindus nor shall I worship them.
4. I shall have no faith in Vithal-Rakhumai nor shall I worship them. I do not believe in the incarnation of God.
5. I do not and shall not believe that Lord Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu. I believe this to be sheer madness and false propaganda.

In my opinion, Buddhist forget how radical the Buddha was for his time and place.
1)He fully ordained women and declared a woman, Bhadda, as foremost in her understanding of the Dhamma.

2)He fully ordained Dalits “untouchables” placing them along side of Brahmins. If a former Dalit was ordained before a Brahmin, the Dalit was senior and shown higher in respect, than a Brahmin of fewer years.

3)He campaigned against animal sacrifice and empty ritual.

 

[Bakmoon]

I am told that in Thailand Buddhist meeting halls often have statues of Hindu Gods along with those of Buddha. The people show reverence to the Buddha and pray to the Hindu Gods.

This is partially true. Usually the Hindu statues aren’t placed in the same location as the Buddha statues are, but in some separate sort of shrine.

This is an important aspect of Thai folk religion. People will go to Hindu shrines to make offerings and ask for material sort of things. This is largely seen as harmless, as Buddhism doesn’t object to the existence of these beings, and there isn’t that much problem with asking for favors as long as one doesn’t think that they can give a person Nibbana, for example. People are discouraged from folk practices that violate the Buddhist precepts though. For example, the animist customs of rural Thailand often call for spirit offerings, which sometimes include animal slaughter. This is generally where the monks will draw the line.

 

[Contarini]

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

Rinnie, I linked to that passage in my previous post. I’m aware of it. I don’t find it saying that venial sin can occur without any consent of the will at all, or that there is such a thing as a “state of venial sin.”

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?

False dichotomy.

Isn’t it Catholic teaching that grace works with our free will and with our natural propensities and efforts? And CCC 1863 seems to indicate (though it’s cryptic and not entirely clear) that this works differently for venial than for mortal sin. The Catechism says that venial sin is “by God’s grace humanly reparable.” In other words, grace is still necessary (of course), but human actions (assisted by grace) can “repair” the damage done by venial sin. Mortal sin, on the other hand, opens up a gap between us and God that only God’s free gift of grace can repair–our own actions can prepare us for grace, even then, but can’t cause the restoration of grace.

However, what you keep misunderstanding is that this isn’t about forgiving sin or overcoming it once it has been committed, but about avoiding it.

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

Yes. Hence my question, which you have not answered.

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

I admit that my understanding of Catholicism is academic, and I’m willing to be corrected if shown an authoritative source, but I thought that this was precisely the difference between mortal and venial sin–venial sin is forgiven through prayer and reception of the Eucharist, though of course a specific intention of repenting of specific sins is helpful as well. Since we don’t always know when we have committed venial sins, if we couldn’t be forgiven for them without specifically repenting of them we would be in bad shap.

Isn’t that in fact the traditional interpretation of 1 John 5, from which the language of “mortal sin” actually comes? (I find that interpretation exegetically questionable, since the passage seems to be talking about whether a sin can be forgiven at all. But that’s a separate issue.)

Edwin

 

[Michael19682]

I’m very sorry if I came off that way. That was not my intention. The reason why I started this thread is that I just joined the site (Theology and Philosophy are hobbies of mine, so I joined up to pursue these hobbies) and I wanted to start off by presence on this site by getting to know people here, so I started this thread. I didn’t intend it as the sort of “I have all the answers and now I shall grace you all with my wisdom” kind of thing, but more as a “hello everybody, you probably don’t see many Buddhists that often, so if you have any questions about Buddhism, don’t be shy” kind of thing.

I’m responding to this post first, because the answer might involve a philosophical concept that would have taken an entire post if made in response to your first posted response. I guess I have committed a faux pa here, in that I inadvertantly created a perception of offense, which was not the case. Your thread topic title fell into a category of response that has made me wonder about Buddhism and its aims for a while. Often Buddhists use the word ‘spirtuality’, and this word has become popular even in everyday, non religious discussions. Similar are ‘virtue’, ‘morality’, etc. I think what often gets forgotten is that they have borrowed such words as translations of certain words in their own ‘cannon’ of ‘scripture’. Not to be a word hog, but some of these words, particularly ‘spiritual’ are really sacred words and mean God. Holy Spirit, is really the only spirit that we refer to, except perhaps when referring to its opposite, the spirit of the world, or the devil’s spirit.

Today, Catholics now say ‘your spirit’, meaning the individual as he participates in the Mass. I personally think that even though such uses as apparently offend me are the result of interreligious dialogue and are tossed around at places of discussion like the UN etc, and that a past Pope has said "all that is spiritual in other religions’ : that nevertheless, engaging in such conversation and using such words in other contexts and in reference to things that may or may not be a reality at all, perhaps diminishes the power of my own religion --: So mine was an unhappy reaction to a perceived erosion of culture and discussion process. Its really not anyone’s problem here in America, where we are free to talk as we wish.

I guess I could say: If you don’t mean Holy Spirit, which is synonymous with God, what do you refer to when as a Buddhist when you (or others you know of) say ‘spiritual’, or ‘spirituality’.

Finally, I guess in expressing such chagrin with you, I conflated the reality called Form or Idea, which you believe is purely mental, with the person participating in it, You, Bakmoon. Many people take such Ideas very seriously, though I don’t know of the Church sponsoring Platonism (the passage in the Republic referred to) in any way. By the way, Carl Jung found the archetypes, which are very similar to the Ideas. Some, such as myself, believe that Jesus in his parables gave us archetypal dramas that Chirstians face in their individual practice. The parables were intended for all, and though not a guaranteed Idea of Formal drama for all who read them, are certainly not for me a purely mental phenomenon.

Looking forward to your reply. I’m sure it will be spiritual

 

[Bakmoon]

Often Buddhists use the word ‘spirtuality’, and this word has become popular even in everyday, non religious discussions. Similar are ‘virtue’, ‘morality’, etc. I think what often gets forgotten is that they have borrowed such words as translations of certain words in their own ‘cannon’ of ‘scripture’. Not to be a word hog, but some of these words, particularly ‘spiritual’ are really sacred words and mean God. Holy Spirit, is really the only spirit that we refer to, except perhaps when referring to its opposite, the spirit of the world, or the devil’s spirit.

Today, Catholics now say ‘your spirit’, meaning the individual as he participates in the Mass. I personally think that even though such uses as apparently offend me are the result of interreligious dialogue and are tossed around at places of discussion like the UN etc, and that a past Pope has said "all that is spiritual in other religions’ : that nevertheless, engaging in such conversation and using such words in other contexts and in reference to things that may or may not be a reality at all, perhaps diminishes the power of my own religion --: So mine was an unhappy reaction to a perceived erosion of culture and discussion process. Its really not anyone’s problem here in America, where we are free to talk as we wish.

I guess I could say: If you don’t mean Holy Spirit, which is synonymous with God, what do you refer to when as a Buddhist when you (or others you know of) say ‘spiritual’, or ‘spirituality’.

Finally, I guess in expressing such chagrin with you, I conflated the reality called Form or Idea, which you believe is purely mental, with the person participating in it, You, Bakmoon. Many people take such Ideas very seriously, though I don’t know of the Church sponsoring Platonism (the passage in the Republic referred to) in any way. By the way, Carl Jung found the archetypes, which are very similar to the Ideas. Some, such as myself, believe that Jesus in his parables gave us archetypal dramas that Chirstians face in their individual practice. The parables were intended for all, and though not a guaranteed Idea of Formal drama for all who read them, are certainly not for me a purely mental phenomenon.

Looking forward to your reply. I’m sure it will be spiritual

In all honesty, not being a fan of the word ‘Spiritual’, and not being one to use it myself, I don’t really know how it should be used. There doesn’t seem to be any Pali word in the Suttas that is used similarly to the word ‘spirituality’. If I had to use the word, I would probably define it as meaning ‘pertaining to the meditative path which leads to Nibbana.’ but I probably still wouldn’t like using it because it is such a fuzzy term, and it is often just a buzz word for New Agers to bat around.

Maybe my response wasn’t very “Spiritual” but I hope it was at least “Enlightening”
(Stupid pun, but I couldn’t resist)

 

[InJesusItrust]

I finally thought of a few good questions.

What is up with the Dalai Lama consulting spirits? I’ve learnt about the state oracle of Tibet a few months ago and it creeps me out.

Also what is Shamballa? I have read something about it being a place in the spiritual realm.

 

[rinnie]

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.”

Huh? Actually he did.

James 4:6 God opposes the proud but he accords his favor to the humble. Give into God then, resist the devil and he will run from you.

The nearr we are to God, the nearer God will come to you.

Humble yourself before the Lord and he will lift you up.

 

[rinnie]

In all honesty, not being a fan of the word ‘Spiritual’, and not being one to use it myself, I don’t really know how it should be used. There doesn’t seem to be any Pali word in the Suttas that is used similarly to the word ‘spirituality’. If I had to use the word, I would probably define it as meaning ‘pertaining to the meditative path which leads to Nibbana.’ but I probably still wouldn’t like using it because it is such a fuzzy term, and it is often just a buzz word for New Agers to bat around.

Maybe my response wasn’t very “Spiritual” but I hope it was at least “Enlightening”
(Stupid pun, but I couldn’t resist)

From what I have read Nibbana is a spiritual quest that is latent in all human things.

It claims it is the end of the cravings which cause suffering of brith, disease,grief, despair etc.

You are to purify YOURSELF of all desires and realize absolute selflessness.

If you are ATTACHED to ANYONE or ANYTHING you will NEVER attain Nibbana.

Okay lets begin with suffering. We are taught to not put an end to our suffering, we are taught that suffering is what brings us closer to Christ. It is a great mystery.

There was a Priest that said that a great friend of his was dying the most horrible death, he was also a Priest said to be a wonderful caring person. Loved by all, And dying from a horrible cancer at a young age. The other Priest was at his bed side praying and telling him how he wished his suffering could end.

The Priest so no, you don’t understand the Joy that I achieved in this suffering. It is my way of joining my pain to the death of Christ on the Cross. As bad as the physical sufffering is, the Joy of spending this time with my Lord who is here with me with all of this physical suffering could never compare the Joy of my mental state.

We are all called to take up our cross as Christ has, to carry it, to go to him for help in carry it. We are not told to try to end it, escape it, we are told to embrace it and God will get us through this. In the end any suffering we have done, makes us stronger, more compassionate and more able to be like Christ and help others. What kind of person could we be, if we tried to escape what Christ is trying to teach us?

It says if you are ATTACHED to ANYONE or ANYTHING you will never attain Nibbana. How could a Christian ever not be Attached to Christ? It is not possible, even the throught of asking us to not be attached to Christ is a horrible thought.

So now my big question if this def, is true, how could it even be possible for this to help us? How could we even un-connect ourself with Christ in this meditation if you cannot be attached to anyone? That is my big question?

 

[Contarini]

Huh? Actually he did.

James 4:6 God opposes the proud but he accords his favor to the humble. Give into God then, resist the devil and he will run from you.

The nearr we are to God, the nearer God will come to you.

Humble yourself before the Lord and he will lift you up.

That doesn’t say that you don’t resist sinful urges.

I don’t think what you are saying is orthodox from a Catholic perspective.

We have free will, and we are expected to use it. Mental disciplines that help us avoid tempting thoughts play an important role, though of course they aren’t going to keep us from sin by themselves.

The whole concept of the seven deadly sins originated in monastic spirituality, in which monks were taught how to recognize and avoid different kinds of sinful thoughts.

From an orthodox Christian perspective, the critique of the Buddhist approach would be not that it wouldn’t work in avoiding lust, but that by itself, without reliance on God’s grace, it would simply cause a person to fall into the sin of pride.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

That doesn’t say that you don’t resist sinful urges.

I don’t think what you are saying is orthodox from a Catholic perspective.

We have free will, and we are expected to use it. Mental disciplines that help us avoid tempting thoughts play an important role, though of course they aren’t going to keep us from sin by themselves.

The whole concept of the seven deadly sins originated in monastic spirituality, in which monks were taught how to recognize and avoid different kinds of sinful thoughts.

From an orthodox Christian perspective, the critique of the Buddhist approach would be not that it wouldn’t work in avoiding lust, but that by itself, without reliance on God’s grace, it would simply cause a person to fall into the sin of pride.

Edwin

I never said it did, Bakmoon said Christ dd not say t pray for Grace to grant us the power to resist sin. Yes he did.

When one humbles oneself to Christ and prays it is Grace that is given to us by Christ to reist temptation and sin that comes from the devil.

The Catholic view, at least what I was taught is that nohing is possible without God and his grace.

You must have Christ at the center or you can be swayed away from him by a false spirit.

Or to be more clear. There are many Spirits, we are to test them, and make sure they are of God,

How can you this mediitation work when God is not at the center?

 

[rinnie]

And also there is no way to can recognize any sinfull thoughts without the Grace of God. God is our everything.