Ask A Buddhist

[rinnie]

No, there is no ultimate truth. Didn’t you read my sig?

We don’t need ultimate truth. We need truth that works here and now. I have no use for a truth that works in 1,000,000 years time because I won’t be around then.

Buddhism has spent 2,500 years developing truths that work here and now. What will work in a million years time? How would I know? Ask me in a million years.

rossum

Another big difference, we do not only need ultimate truth, we have it. Christ is Ultimate Truth. The truth of Christ also works here, and will work a million years from now.

(BTW this is for Edwin, did you read what he said, there is no ultimate truth! If I said that I would be accused many things.)

 

[Contarini]

Another big difference, we do not only need ultimate truth, we have it. Christ is Ultimate Truth. The truth of Christ also works here, and will work a million years from now.

(BTW this is for Edwin, did you read what he said, there is no ultimate truth! If I said that I would be accused many things.)

Rinnie, I have no idea what you mean by this.

Actually I have criticized rossum on occasion and accused him of caricaturing monotheistic religions.

Regarding that particular statement, my understanding of Nagarjuna is rather that there is no ultimate truth expressible in words. Whether you put it that way or the way rossum does determines whether the statement is potentially compatible with Christianity, I think.

But if it’s your impression that I’m defending the idea that there are no disagreements between Buddhism and Christianity, then you’re wrong.

I really should shut up, because I don’t know why you have called my attention to this or exactly what your point is.

Edwin

 

[Bakmoon]

Thanks Bakmoon - can you offer an analogy?

Certainly. The first thing to get out of the way is a translational issue. The word enlightenment is a translation of the Pali word “Bodhi” which actually has a meaning more like ‘awakening’ rather than ‘enlightenment.’

This makes the best analogy that I can put into words. A man can be sleeping and then suddenly awaken from his sleep. This awakening is not a perception, but an event that the man experiences. Does that make sense?

 

[rinnie]

Then you are doomed. An unchanging soul can never change from unsaved to saved. That would be a change, and an unchanging soul cannot, by definition, change. By accepting an unchanging soul you have denied yourself the possibility of salvation.

I am Buddhist, so I do not have an unchanging soul, so I have the possibility of changing from unenlightened to enlightened. You do not allow yourself that possibility.

Anything that is unchanging is locked into stasis, and cannot ever alter, even by one iota. That completely negates the possibility of salvation, since nobody currently on Earth is saved here and now. You cannot be saved in the future, because that would mean a change, and the unchanging cannot change.

rossum

Again I disgree. When we are born at the moment of our conception we have what is called our Rational Soul.

It is the way God created us. Our Soul is what gives us reason and understanding.

Every person’s soul is individual and immortal. It is unchanging It never dies.

Our Soul us made in the very image and likeness of God.

We as Christians know that every thing that is made up in the image or likeness of God is made up of good, Because everything made by God is for good and the good of God.

Rather a person uses the Grace of God given to that soul is a whole other story.

Every single person who enters into this world is given a soul which is made up of God and his goodness.

But he also gave us free will and grace to do with this soul as we want.

It still does not change the fact that the soul is unchanging rather the person used or refused the goodness given to them is their choice.

That is why I believe you are in direct conflict with our understanding of unchanging.

The soul is always good, and even if a person choose to reject the grace of God, it does not make the soul evil.

Sin is what causes evil, not the soul. Sin is when we reject the good grace of God, and do wrong.

If the soul could be changed from good to evil, how would one know the difference between good and evil?

Rather a person does evil or rejects evil, they still know the difference deep down inside.

Even the devil knows right from wromg but refuses to do what is right. That is why when people sin and do evil they are unhappy. Because deep down inside your soul you know you are going against the good.

Where is the good, simple, deep inside that soul. Rather you reject or deny it does not make it untrue.

 

[rinnie]

This is from the “Vacchagotta Sutta” accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html

The sustenance for the fire is described as craving, aversion, hatred and ignorance. When this sustenance is eliminated, the fire is out.

But see I believe it is impossible to put the fire out without the Grace of God.

Let me ask you this. From what I have read here and what you have said, you can put that fire out WITHOUT GOD, and his Grace. Am I correct in saying this?

On one hand you say you can do this meditation WITH or WITHOUT GOD.

Now here is my problem. How can I as a Catholic do this TRUE Buddhism meditation and put God at the center, That is not true Buddhsim meditation now is it.

So why would a Catholic even want to Mix in a meditation that can be with or without God.

The point I have been trying to drive, and have failed miserably somehow is this.

The whole idea of this meditation is to attain Nibbana. Which to my understanding is to rid oneself of anything which we define as sin.

Now back to what I am trying to say and have failed to get acrossed all this time. The only way according to the Buddhism teaching to reach this state or whatever you call it is you cannot be attached to anyONE or anything.

Is this not true in all meditation of Buddhsm to reach Nibbana?

So my point is why should we even consider it? We arent ever going to reach it Because we CANNOT as Christians, because we cannot un-attach ourself from the SOMEONE, which is CHrist.

 

[Vouthon]

Just a small point. The “Atman” is not created. The “Atman” is not the “soul” (that is, not something that one can call one’s “own” or something that is under one’s total control). The “soul” is one or more of several sheaths that “cover” the Atman, and these sheaths are created, and changeable. The Atman is Brahman, the Source/Heart of all, the Ungraspable Emptiness/Fullness, both Personal and Impersonal.

As I said in an earlier post brother/sister Agni I was confused

The soul in Hinduism is the changeable, created thing that transmigrates - am I correct?

The ‘self’ or Atman of Hindu metaphysics ie (the Upanishads, which I have read and loved) is not the self that most westerners assume. This ‘self’ is a universal self that transcends the individual, which assumes something — selfhood — which it does not actually possess (maya, illusion). So in other words the Hindu ‘Atmam’ is actual in a sense a negation of the idea of an independent “self”, rather than its affirmation.

While Catholics though believe that God is in all things and all things are in God, who is their source (all creation is thought of God), we do not posit that creatures are One with the Unchanging Essence of God - rather we posit that creatures can become by grace what God is by nature, that is Unchanging and Infinite, beyond all place and time while by nature we are changeable. That is by grace and not by nature.

We would agree nontheless that our deepest reality - the Image of God - is essentially one with God, in some incredible sense (though not the same as his Essence), such that there is no visible difference between this deepest reality of our soul and God. The Image is “veiled” to a certain extent by our sinful “ego”, or “self” which we identify as our “self” but which is really a series of conflicting selves, not our truest reality.

The Image of God tends towards the infinite, and for one to enter the “Ground” is to become God by grace in this life, and to have transcended time and place.

This is our birthright, the reason why we were created at all, and so Hinduism and Catholicism have much to agree with each other in these respects (despite some metaphysical differences as one would expect).

I was trying to think of an analogy that could help Rossum understand that we do not believe in an unchanging soul, and I now recognise that “Atman” is the wrong concept to use in trying to explain this.

Thank you for your help!

And welcome back to the thread again (you were in it earlier) - I hope that you participate more and enlighten us with your wisdom!

 

[stewstew03]

Certainly. The first thing to get out of the way is a translational issue. The word enlightenment is a translation of the Pali word “Bodhi” which actually has a meaning more like ‘awakening’ rather than ‘enlightenment.’

This makes the best analogy that I can put into words. A man can be sleeping and then suddenly awaken from his sleep. This awakening is not a perception, but an event that the man experiences. Does that make sense?

Yes, it does, thanks Bakmoon. I still have trouble getting past the idea that one’s “awakening” can, in fact, be an illusion. Thoughts?

 

[feed_me]

Enlightenment is no different then understanding.

 

[rinnie]

Enlightenment is no different then understanding.

Ah, but who and where does the enlightment come from?

In our faith it all comes from God and his grace.

Can we reach this enlightment with our inner self without God?

I say no. According to what has been given to us in this thread, you can either take God along for the ride or go it alone. Big conflict in my eyes.

 

[notself]

Enlightenment is no different then understanding.

You’re correct. That is exactly what enlightenment is. It is an understanding that frees one from anger, ill will, craving, aversion. Through this understanding one is at peace with a mind filled with loving kindness with equanimity.

 

[rinnie]

You’re correct. That is exactly what enlightenment is. It is an understanding that frees one from anger, ill will, craving, aversion. Through this understanding one is at peace with a mind filled with loving kindness with equanimity.

But how can understanding free you from anger?

If my Son comes home and tells me he got in trouble, I understand quite well, and I am very angry.

You are never going to be free from anger. It is a natural response. We all have it and will feel it all of our lives.

Even Jesus was angry when they were making his Fathers house into a market place.

Anger is not always a sin, Anger is also an emotion that we all have.

We have free will to choose how we are going to react on our anger.

When anger becomes a sin, it when we must find a way to rid ourself of it. And Jesus taught us how. We confess, repent. and are free from this sin.

While I agree we don’t want to go around this world in anger, we can’t help when people make us angry.

Come on notself, look at the anger I caused in you

 

[Vouthon]

You’re correct. That is exactly what enlightenment is. It is an understanding that frees one from anger, ill will, craving, aversion. Through this understanding one is at peace with a mind filled with loving kindness with equanimity.

I very much like this description.

The Book of Proverbs is replete with teachings on attaining understanding, and how to recognise a person who has “understanding” such as:

(Proverbs 14:29) He that is slow to wrath is of great understanding

(Proverbs 17:28) Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding

Your wonderful statement above reminds me much of this:

“…The most powerful prayer, one wellnigh omnipotent, and the worthiest work of all is the outcome of a quiet mind. The more free the mind is the more powerful, the worthier, the deeper, the more telling and more perfect the prayer is. To the free mind all things are possible. What is a free mind? A free mind is one which nothing weighs on, nothing worries, which, free from ties and from all self-seeking, untroubled and unfettered by anything, is wholly merged into the will of God and dead to its own…There is no work which men and women can perform, however small, which does not draw from this its power and strength…True detachment means a mind as little moved by what befalls, by joy and sorrow, honor and disgrace, as a broad mountain by a gentle breeze…Since it is God’s nature not to be like anyone, we have to come to the state of being nothing in order to enter into the same nature that He is…Love God in all things equally. For God is equally near to all creatures. And among all these creatures God does not love one more than another: for as each is wide enough to receive, in the same measure He pours Himself into it… This is a good lesson to us to love all creatures equally with all that we have received from God, and if some are by nature nearer to us by kinship or friendship, that we should still favour them equally out of divine love in regard to the same good. I sometimes seem to like one person better than another; but yet I have the same goodwill towards another whom I have never seen, but this one is more present to me, and on that account I am better able to give myself to him. Thus God loves all creatures equally and fills them with His being. And thus too, we should pour forth ourselves in love over all creatures…All beings love one another. All creatures are interdependent…God wants nothing of you but the gift of a peaceful heart…You may call God love, you may call God goodness. But the best name for God is compassion…”

- Meister Eckhart (1260-1329), Catholic mystic and Dominican priest

 

[notself]

Come on notself, look at the anger I caused in you

rinnie,
I seldom agree with you but I believe that you are sincere and devoted to your faith. Why would I be angry with you for expressing you beliefs?

 

[Vouthon]

rinnie,
I seldom agree with you but I believe that you are sincere and devoted to your faith. Why would I be angry with you for expressing you beliefs?

 

[notself]

SN 1.71 **Ghatva Sutta: Having Killed **

As she was standing to one side, a devata recited this verse to the Blessed One:

Having killed what
do you sleep in ease?
Having killed what
do you not grieve?
Of the slaying
of what one thing
does Gotama approve?

[The Buddha:]
Having killed anger
you sleep in ease.
Having killed anger
you do not grieve.
The noble ones praise
the slaying of anger
— with its honeyed crest
& poison root —
for having killed it
you do not grieve.

accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn01/sn01.071.than.html

 

[Vouthon]

Proverbs 17:27 A man of understanding is of a calm spirit.

 

[Bakmoon]

But see I believe it is impossible to put the fire out without the Grace of God.

Let me ask you this. From what I have read here and what you have said, you can put that fire out WITHOUT GOD, and his Grace. Am I correct in saying this?

On one hand you say you can do this meditation WITH or WITHOUT GOD.

Now here is my problem. How can I as a Catholic do this TRUE Buddhism meditation and put God at the center, That is not true Buddhsim meditation now is it.

So why would a Catholic even want to Mix in a meditation that can be with or without God.

The point I have been trying to drive, and have failed miserably somehow is this.

The whole idea of this meditation is to attain Nibbana. Which to my understanding is to rid oneself of anything which we define as sin.

Well, Buddhist meditation is aimed at reaching Nibbana, but you could use it just to attain ordinary happiness as well. This is what I am saying would be okay, not that a Catholic could try to attain Nibbana.

Now back to what I am trying to say and have failed to get acrossed all this time. The only way according to the Buddhism teaching to reach this state or whatever you call it is you cannot be attached to anyONE or anything.

Is this not true in all meditation of Buddhsm to reach Nibbana?

So my point is why should we even consider it? We arent ever going to reach it Because we CANNOT as Christians, because we cannot un-attach ourself from the SOMEONE, which is CHrist.

That is true, but a Catholic using Buddhist meditation wouldn’t be trying to attain Nibbana. There are three types of happiness in Buddhism: Wordly happiness, the happiness that comes from mental concentration, and the happiness that comes from Nibbana. I am advocating that a Catholic could use Buddhist meditation to develop the second kind of happiness here, happiness that comes from concentration, rather than trying to attain Nibbana.

 

[rossum]

Every person’s soul is individual and immortal. It is unchanging It never dies.

Our Soul us made in the very image and likeness of God.

We as Christians know that every thing that is made up in the image or likeness of God is made up of good, Because everything made by God is for good and the good of God.

Then all souls are permanently good, since God is good?

The soul is always good, and even if a person choose to reject the grace of God, it does not make the soul evil.

Yet these not-evil souls, which are in the image of God, spend eternity in hell. How can that which is permanently good, and in the image of God deserve hell from a loving and just God? “Be permanently good and go to hell” does not sound very useful to me.

Rather a person does evil or rejects evil, they still know the difference deep down inside.

Then surely the person who is doing the evil should go to hell, and the permanently good soul should go to heaven.

Your theology sounds very confusing here.

rossum

 

[rinnie]

rinnie,
I seldom agree with you but I believe that you are sincere and devoted to your faith. Why would I be angry with you for expressing you beliefs?

God bless you bro, I was just messing with you.

But you have to admit I can get Under your skin My husband says its a gift!

But you are correct I am quite sincere when I talk about my faith. I wish I had a way to switch places with someone for one day, to show them what I see, and what I feel, and how wonderful God is in my life. Especially when I am in my lowest points. That is when God is the strongest. I just want everyone to have that peace and love that can only come from God himself.

But all kidding aside, rather or not you agree. Today is the day the the Blessed Mother was taken to heaven Body and SOUL! Just spent time with the Bishop and got it straight from his mouth!

So at least he agrees with me, and thats pretty good!

 

[rinnie]

Then all souls are permanently good, since God is good?

Yet these not-evil souls, which are in the image of God, spend eternity in hell. How can that which is permanently good, and in the image of God deserve hell from a loving and just God? “Be permanently good and go to hell” does not sound very useful to me.

Then surely the person who is doing the evil should go to hell, and the permanently good soul should go to heaven.

Your theology sounds very confusing here.

rossum

Simple Rossum just because God made us in his image which is good, does not mean he did not give us the free will to not use the goodness given to us.

By the way it is rejecting the Love of God given to us and refusing to accept his goodness that sends us to hell not God.

Hell is eternal separation from God from ones own choosing.

It is not for us to say who should go to heaven and who should go to hell. That is the call of God.

By the way it also does not work that way. We can do evil, but if we repent, and go back to God he will forgive us.

Do you feel that a person has to be bad to do evil? Or do you agree that a person can be good, and get lost in this world, and do evil, but repent and be the person they were born to be?

Or do you feel is a person does evil they are born evil and thats that?