Buddha and his teachings

[St.Gimp]

ahimsaman72:

Anyway, the really weird thing is that it wasn’t even you I was speaking with - yet you are hounding me about it and I haven’t even heard back from him. That’s incredible. One could say he doesn’t care and you are picking a fight - but I won’t say that. I believe your intent could be genuine. Glad you showed me - shows you are a much bigger man than I am

I’m not sure why you would have thought I was “picking a fight,” and I’m glad you believe my intent could be genuine. Honest intellectual inquiry ought not to be confused with “hounding,” in my opinion.

ahimsaman72:

And by the way, welcome to the Catholic Answers forum…hope you stick around to enlighten us further.

I’ll do my best.

 

[St.Gimp]

ahimsaman72:

While I was reading last night, I came across the fact that Jesus is both Son of God and Son of man at the same time. He is explained as both in Scriptures and in modern belief. This is a mystery - how divine and human can reside in the same “place” - the body of the Lord.

A few thoughts on the mystery of the Incarnation are in order. (I’m assuming that by “Son of God” you are referring to Christ’s divine nature, and by “Son of Man” you refer to his humanity.) The Catholic Encyclopedia describes the Incarnation as such:

The human and Divine natures are united in one Divine Person so as to remain that exactly which they are, namely, Divine and human natures with distinct and perfect activities of their own.

(From this article, which I would recommend for you to read.)

Christ was not God and Man in the same way; his natures were distinct, while still united. The early Church councils rejected the notion that there was any mixture of the two natures.

ahimsaman72:

The Trinity is in essence the same. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all divine - at the same time and in the same sense.

Correct. How is this a problem?

ahimsaman72:

When people are married they become “one”. They are two separate people but are considered as “one” entity.

More precisely, two people who engage in the marital act become “one flesh,” not one “entity.” This does not mean that they become one person, nor that they are subsumed into one another. Rather, a unitive bond is created between them, while they yet remain distinct.

 

[ahimsaman72]

dhgray:

Haven’t been a round cause of the system problems. Looks like you are having fun.

As I stated a long time ago, I was studying buddhism several years ago during my spiritual quest. I found the following:

1. While the selflessness life is a fulfilling life, it is awefull lonley.
2. The universe could not be explained without a higher diety…big bang or not, there is a God.
3. Jesus brings us no new teachings. What he taught/teaches is consistent with the teachings of Buddha which is consistent with the Old Testament. Though Buddha came before Jesus, the Mosaic Law came before Buddha and before Thich Nhat Hanh and Jesus’ teachings fulfill the Mosaic prophcies, no buddha even came close.

There are not arguments nor am I trying to convert you to anything or prove anything. These are my findings and why I decided to follow Christ.

Hello again, friend. Yes, the system problems have been somewhat frustrating. I have enjoyed discussing these topics immensely. I enjoy being with people and expressing thoughts and ideas - kind of like the Greeks used to do in Paul’s missionary days at the Aeropagus.

I understand no converting is going on either from you or me. And, that really wasn’t my intent for the thread. I appreciate your honesty and have respected you since July 22, 2004.

The selfless life seems lonely - it really does. The problem comes when one either attaches to the idea of no-self or self. Either attachment is damaging. Buddha relates a story in which a monk is sitting under a tree and a lady passes by. Later, a man comes looking for her. He comes by the monk and asks the monk if he saw a lady come by earlier. The monk replied, “No, I saw only flesh and bones, but no lady”. Buddha remarked that this was getting caught up or attached to the idea of “no-self”.

Buddhism beliefs for the beginning of the universe mirror scientific beliefs. Or should I say they are in contrast to the idea of a divine creation. The creation story in the Buddhist philosophy is viewed as similar to other stories by other civilizations and people outside of Judaism. It’s viewed as pointing to the reality instead of the reality itself.

I also believe Jesus’s teachings are very special and that His teachings are consistent with the beliefs espoused in the Old Testament and fulfilled the Messianic prophecies.

Peace…

 

[dhgray]

You had once mentioned that you were teetering between Catholicism and Budahism. What is preventing you from committing to either side?

 

[ahimsaman72]

St. Gimp:

A few thoughts on the mystery of the Incarnation are in order. (I’m assuming that by “Son of God” you are referring to Christ’s divine nature, and by “Son of Man” you refer to his humanity.) The Catholic Encyclopedia describes the Incarnation as such:

(From this article, which I would recommend for you to read.)

Christ was not God and Man in the same way; his natures were distinct, while still united. The early Church councils rejected the notion that there was any mixture of the two natures.

Correct. How is this a problem?

More precisely, two people who engage in the marital act become “one flesh,” not one “entity.” This does not mean that they become one person, nor that they are subsumed into one another. Rather, a unitive bond is created between them, while they yet remain distinct.

No, no problem. I was trying to show that this law of contradiction Dennis spoke of isn’t true in every respect. If my understanding is correct, this law of contradiction says: something cannot be “X and Y” at the same time - it is either “X” or it is “Y”. I say that this may be true in the realm of math and science, but cannot be applied to religion.

The divine nature of Jesus and human nature of Jesus are true - we can agree on that. I’m saying that the divine nature is “X” in the equation and His human nature is “Y” in the equation. In this case X does equal Y which is contradictory to the law of contradiction. Is this view of the law of contradiction correct in your eyes?

Christ was both man and God in the same way. In His physical body - His human life - He embodied divinity and humanity - as you might call a “hypostatic union”. Is that a clear interpretation of hypostatic union? One vessel, “Z” ,which included both “X and Y”.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

dhgray:

You had once mentioned that you were teetering between Catholicism and Budahism. What is preventing you from committing to either side?

If committing to either side means cutting off openness to truth in the other, then I don’t see how I could commit to either. My understanding of the Catholic faith is that it is “the Catholic way or the highway” - so to speak. If it is so, I can’t fully commit to that faith. I feel it would be committing to a system which has flaws but demands obedience to it anyway. The teachings and practices of the individuals concerned are what’s most important in my mind. - not the systems created around those individuals (Buddha and Christ)

Peace…

 

[St.Gimp]

ahimsaman72:

If my understanding is correct, this law of contradiction says: something cannot be “X and Y” at the same time - it is either “X” or it is “Y”. I say that this may be true in the realm of math and science, but cannot be applied to religion.

Something cannot be both true and not true at the same time and in the same sense. I don’t see why this would preclude something being both X and Y at the same time, assuming the two are not exclusionary. I can be both driving the car and talking on the phone at the same time.

An example of this law at work in religion: You could not say that God created the world out of nothing and also that God did not create the world.

ahimsaman72:

The divine nature of Jesus and human nature of Jesus are true - we can agree on that. I’m saying that the divine nature is “X” in the equation and His human nature is “Y” in the equation. In this case X does equal Y which is contradictory to the law of contradiction. Is this view of the law of contradiction correct in your eyes?

No, because the existence of two natures in one person is not self-contradictory. Although we see no created beings that possess this quality of multiple natures, this does not therefore preclude One of the divine nature from taking a created nature upon himself. Christ did not stop being divine, nor did his humanity become subsumed into his divinity.

Slight change of topic: Have you read Christ the Eternal Tao? I’ve heard good things about it.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

First of all thaks for the reply, but you also got me thinking, ive read almost every post here, but i cant escape these thoughts…

Im pulling my hair out trying to understand this Christian/Buddhist combo. Your accepting two very different ideas that at times are totally opposed. One of them says that God is the ultimate and we are just dust, yet the other looks upon people who believe in God as the saddest bunch, and that escaping the notion of “inferiority”,and in turn becoming the master of yourself as the goal.

Christians dont see Buddhism as compatible with itself. From the Jews on out it was intended from its creation to be the most exclusive thing ever with no room at all for others (islam, buddhism, etc). I dont mean that one group goes to hell and the other heaven but chance that they be born into the “other system”, but by accepting one you admit there is something superior. For some reason Buddhism does “accept” Christianity but the feeling is not mutual, there is something wrong here.
I mean every time I hear about Buddhism I hear about a single guy with no responsibilities sitting in the shade under a tree thinking. When I hear about Christianity I hear about a life of hard labor, prayer, family, die for Christ, be spat upon because of we believe him, one life with a mysterious hope for the future, heaven or hell. (im rambling)

And whats this scientific approach stuff?..Budda wasnt sitting in a lab cloning or manning apollo13, he didnt come up with evolution as we see it. The ultimate goal for most of science it to dispell the notion of God, and in turn make man the god of himself. Buddhism seems like it requires the least need for scientific proof of all “religions”, and relys more on a feeling or no-need-for-explenation concept.

I dont know if what i say means anything, i just had to get that stuff off my chest.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic Dude:

First of all thaks for the reply, but you also got me thinking, ive read almost every post here, but i cant escape these thoughts…

Im pulling my hair out trying to understand this Christian/Buddhist combo. Your accepting two very different ideas that at times are totally opposed. One of them says that God is the ultimate and we are just dust, yet the other looks upon people who believe in God as the saddest bunch, and that escaping the notion of “inferiority”,and in turn becoming the master of yourself as the goal.

Your welcome. I enjoy discussing these things. First, if one believed Buddhism absolutely and Christianity absolutely with no room for “error”, I could agree with your statement. So, a devout Buddhist monk who saw no value in Christianity and a devout Catholic who saw no value in Buddhism could not accept the two belief systems. However, I don’t believe either absolutely.

Christians dont see Buddhism as compatible with itself. From the Jews on out it was intended from its creation to be the most exclusive thing ever with no room at all for others (islam, buddhism, etc). I dont mean that one group goes to hell and the other heaven but chance that they be born into the “other system”, but by accepting one you admit there is something superior. For some reason Buddhism does “accept” Christianity but the feeling is not mutual, there is something wrong here.

Actually, Buddhism doesn’t discriminate against any religion - per se. Buddha told his disciples to not accept anything that they basically couldn’t directly experience even if it came from himself. So, Buddhism is not an exclusivist religion. Most Buddhists do not look favorably at other religions however. Their path is fulfilling, so they have no need to worrry about other religions. Only in the past decade have Buddhist teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh come to the table and sought dialogue with Christians in order to understand one another better.

I mean every time I hear about Buddhism I hear about a single guy with no responsibilities sitting in the shade under a tree thinking. When I hear about Christianity I hear about a life of hard labor, prayer, family, die for Christ, be spat upon because of we believe him, one life with a mysterious hope for the future, heaven or hell. (im rambling)

Buddha had a wife and child and was the prince of his “kingdom” when at 29 years old he left everything behind to pursue the path to end the world’s suffering. After enlightenment he went back and taught his son, Rahula the path. He lived the life of an ascetic for 6 years and was pretty much a penniless wandering homeless guy. The suffering of Christ was far greater than any experienced by any person in the history of the world - including Buddha.

And whats this scientific approach stuff?..Budda wasnt sitting in a lab cloning or manning apollo13, he didnt come up with evolution as we see it. The ultimate goal for most of science it to dispell the notion of God, and in turn make man the god of himself. Buddhism seems like it requires the least need for scientific proof of all “religions”, and relys more on a feeling or no-need-for-explenation concept.

I dont know if what i say means anything, i just had to get that stuff off my chest.

Yes, my friend, you are correct. He wasn’t cloning anything. He never manned any spaceships. It just so happens that Buddhist beliefs about the universe and the existence of all things is compatible with science. It doesn’t rely on scientific proof. It merely identifies with it. The way of Buddha is a practical way which could be identified with medical treatment of a disease (for example). The disease exists (truth 1), this disease has a cause or causes (truth 2), there is a cure for the causes of that disease (truth 3) and that cure is the Noble Eightfold Path. (truth 4).

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

St. Gimp:

Something cannot be both true and not true at the same time and in the same sense. I don’t see why this would preclude something being both X and Y at the same time, assuming the two are not exclusionary. I can be both driving the car and talking on the phone at the same time.

An example of this law at work in religion: You could not say that God created the world out of nothing and also that God did not create the world.

No, because the existence of two natures in one person is not self-contradictory. Although we see no created beings that possess this quality of multiple natures, this does not therefore preclude One of the divine nature from taking a created nature upon himself. Christ did not stop being divine, nor did his humanity become subsumed into his divinity.

Slight change of topic: Have you read Christ the Eternal Tao? I’ve heard good things about it.

And just when I thought I had it figured out! I’ll have to let you be correct because I’m losing my wits with this one. It all starts whirling around in my head after a while like I’m on a merry-go-round. I haven’t read that. I might look into it.

Peace…

 

[Mickey]

ahimsaman72:

First, if one believed Buddhism absolutely and Christianity absolutely with no room for “error”, I could agree with your statement. So, a devout Buddhist monk who saw no value in Christianity and a devout Catholic who saw no value in Buddhism could not accept the two belief systems. However, I don’t believe either absolutely.

Forgive me if I misunderstand this Ahim. Are you saying that you don’t believe in Christianity absolutely. This would mean you are not a Christian!?!

 

[dennisknapp]

ahimsaman72:

No, no problem. I was trying to show that this law of contradiction Dennis spoke of isn’t true in every respect. If my understanding is correct, this law of contradiction says: something cannot be “X and Y” at the same time - it is either “X” or it is “Y”. I say that this may be true in the realm of math and science, but cannot be applied to religion.

The divine nature of Jesus and human nature of Jesus are true - we can agree on that. I’m saying that the divine nature is “X” in the equation and His human nature is “Y” in the equation. In this case X does equal Y which is contradictory to the law of contradiction. Is this view of the law of contradiction correct in your eyes?

Christ was both man and God in the same way. In His physical body - His human life - He embodied divinity and humanity - as you might call a “hypostatic union”. Is that a clear interpretation of hypostatic union? One vessel, “Z” ,which included both “X and Y”.

Peace…

The Law of non-contradiction is not my invention, it is as clear as math or the fact that I am typing in English right now.

It does not state that "something cannot be “X and Y” at the same time - it is either “X” or it is “Y”. It states that x cannot be x and non-x at the same time and in the same sense. X and Y can be complimentary and not necessarily contradictory, for X and Y are not exact opposites. But the same cannot be said for x and non-x, they are exact opposites therefore they cannot exist at the same time and in the same sense.

Peace

 

[Exporter]

Catholic Dude wrote,“The ultimate goal for most of science it to dispell the notion of God, and in turn make man the god of himself”

My profession and 8 years of University training in Chemistry forces me to disagree with this statement.

The ultimate goal in the community of scientists is to ask a question, to propose several hypotheses that might answer the question, to design experiments that give data and to determine if the question was answered. In short, thats it.

So you see the “ultimate goal of scientists” is to answer questions. I strongly disagree “the goal is to dispell the notion of God”. God is not mentioned at all because spiritual entities cannot be measured in a lab. Your contention that science has as its goal is: to turn man into a God is misplaced and wrong.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Exporter:

Catholic Dude wrote,“The ultimate goal for most of science it to dispell the notion of God, and in turn make man the god of himself”

My profession and 8 years of University training in Chemistry forces me to disagree with this statement.

The ultimate goal in the community of scientists is to ask a question, to propose several hypotheses that might answer the question, to design experiments that give data and to determine if the question was answered. In short, thats it.

So you see the “ultimate goal of scientists” is to answer questions. I strongly disagree “the goal is to dispell the notion of God”. God is not mentioned at all because spiritual entities cannot be measured in a lab. Your contention that science has as its goal is: to turn man into a God is misplaced and wrong.

I see what your saying, I kind of looked past that. Yes science is good for everything from the technology I use to the medical cures found in the lab. At the same time a lot of science (especially in universities) is done for reasons that our faith is against. Maybe we could both agree and say that what they are doing is not science? Also you must remember you are the exception, you are guided by concience.
Same thing goes for psychologists…yes there are people like those on “The Doctor is In” on Catholic Answeres, but the mass majority of the work/theory is anti-Christian (some without realizing it) and practice a form of mind-rape instead of Christ-like guidance/help.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Buddha No,Jesus yes Exporter check your PM.God Bless

 

[ahimsaman72]

dennisknapp:

The Law of non-contradiction is not my invention, it is as clear as math or the fact that I am typing in English right now.

It does not state that "something cannot be “X and Y” at the same time - it is either “X” or it is “Y”. It states that x cannot be x and non-x at the same time and in the same sense. X and Y can be complimentary and not necessarily contradictory, for X and Y are not exact opposites. But the same cannot be said for x and non-x, they are exact opposites therefore they cannot exist at the same time and in the same sense.

Peace

I understand you didn’t invent the law of contradiction.

I guess I could agree to some extent to what you are saying. Let’s say we have an apple and an orange. The apple can’t be an apple and an orange at the same time. An apple can’t be an orange and an orange can’t be an apple. So, it would be contradictory to say they can be.

But, if we looked at them both as fruits then it would not be contradictory. One is a general classification and the other is a specific classification. Does that make any sense? I don’t understand the concept of non-x. To me, non X means it must be Y or Z. What is non-X? Is that like saying God exists and saying God does not exist in the same sentence?

Or am I a hopeless cause?

Peace…

 

[Exporter]

Catholic Dude:

I see what your saying, I kind of looked past that. Yes science is good for everything from the technology I use to the medical cures found in the lab. At the same time a lot of science (especially in universities) is done for reasons that our faith is against. Maybe we could both agree and say that what they are doing is not science? Also you must remember you are the exception, you are guided by concience.
Same thing goes for psychologists…yes there are people like those on “The Doctor is In” on Catholic Answeres, but the mass majority of the work/theory is anti-Christian (some without realizing it) and practice a form of mind-rape instead of Christ-like guidance/help.

---

Say there old friend, could it be that what you are talking about and what I tried to portray are Two Different Things? I think you may be talking about such things as “cloning”.

I wish you had given at least one example of “things being done in ubiversities that are against our faith.” No, I disagree that what “they” are doing is not science. Who is this of which you are speaking?

When you say Science I think of Chemistry, Physics, Engineering, Geology, Astronomy and Biology (maybe Math since it is the foundation of all science.)

When you talk about Psychology and Psychiatry as being anti-God we are closer together, Yes, many of their tools of analysis and cure ignore God alltogether. But how can they use God when they can’t measure Him in a lab setting? In these areas I do know that some patients benifit from a Priest who knows about the Evil One. (Excorcists) I know maybe close to 50 “scientists” and never have I heard even one claim they are setting out to disprove God or to become a God.

 

[ahimsaman72]

dennisknapp:

The Law of non-contradiction is not my invention, it is as clear as math or the fact that I am typing in English right now.

It does not state that "something cannot be “X and Y” at the same time - it is either “X” or it is “Y”. It states that x cannot be x and non-x at the same time and in the same sense. X and Y can be complimentary and not necessarily contradictory, for X and Y are not exact opposites. But the same cannot be said for x and non-x, they are exact opposites therefore they cannot exist at the same time and in the same sense.

Peace

Thanks for bringing this up. I learned some things here. I went looking for other information on the web to help me in my understanding. I came across a place that is pretty interesting. He talks about conceptions of God and Christian beliefs using the law of contradiction as a basis for his thinking. However he doesn’t come out on the side you would expect.

This is the only site I found leisurely that got my interest. Others re-stated what you already have. This one is different. I don’t espouse this person’s statements or beliefs but it would be interested to see any responses of yours regarding it. You seem to be well educated and bright. I’m sure that given the opportunity you could maybe show this guy a thing or two .

Of course this is kinda going off topic. My original questions for the thread haven’t been answered. That question again would be:

Are there any teachings of Buddha that could be useful for a Christian and vice/versa or are they even worth a second look? I would be happy to see someone’s thoughts on this. To date, no one has answered this question.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

*************************************************************************
When you talk about Psychology and Psychiatry as being anti-God we are closer together, Yes, many of their tools of analysis and cure ignore God alltogether. But how can they use God when they can’t measure Him in a lab setting? In these areas I do know that some patients benifit from a Priest who knows about the Evil One. (Excorcists) I know maybe close to 50 “scientists” and never have I heard even one claim they are setting out to disprove God or to become a God.

I know you didn’t intend it for me, but I think what I have been getting at is the fact that God can’t be put under a microscope. You can’t take a slice of Him, put Him on a slide. You can’t put Him on a table like a little frog and dissect Him (no disrespect intended). He is in my mind beyond the reach of science or anything else. I believe He must be experienced rather than “known”. He is beyond gnosis.
Peace…

 

[dennisknapp]

ahimsaman72:

Thanks for bringing this up. I learned some things here. I went looking for other information on the web to help me in my understanding. I came across a place that is pretty interesting. He talks about conceptions of God and Christian beliefs using the law of contradiction as a basis for his thinking. However he doesn’t come out on the side you would expect.

This is the only site I found leisurely that got my interest. Others re-stated what you already have. This one is different. I don’t espouse this person’s statements or beliefs but it would be interested to see any responses of yours regarding it. You seem to be well educated and bright. I’m sure that given the opportunity you could maybe show this guy a thing or two .

Of course this is kinda going off topic. My original questions for the thread haven’t been answered. That question again would be:

Are there any teachings of Buddha that could be useful for a Christian and vice/versa or are they even worth a second look? I would be happy to see someone’s thoughts on this. To date, no one has answered this question.

Peace…

I believe there can be insights from Buddhism that can be useful as long as they do not contradict Christian belief, for God cannot lie.

Peace