Buddha and his teachings

[Catholic_Dude]

Exporter:

…
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.)

… 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.

First of all I am in a university engineering computer lab as we speak, (or as I type). this will be kind of hard for me to say, as you know the branches you listed are very close in some ways, but very different in other. I will speak from what I see or have seen in schools…

Chemistry:look at all the drugs they are making, prozac, paxil,etc
Physics: (i cant think of what to say right now)
Engineering:what kind? genetic?

Geology:Everything talks about the world being millions of years old, evolution.
Astronomy:Big bang type teaching, astronomical numbers.
Biology: evolution of man, dinosaurs, cross breeding, etc

They dont have to say they are out to disprove God, but isnt that what the text books point to.

 

[Strider]

ahimsaman72:

Escaping suffering and seeking happiness is universal to all people in all ages. Some seek it by accumulating wealth, some by overeating, some by drinking. Suffering is part of life. The Buddhist approach to suffering is not one of detachment from suffering. It is one of acceptance of suffering. It is about realization of suffering, seeing the causes and eliminating the causes. If anything, Buddhism understands and deals with suffering more than any other religion on earth.
Peace…

Whoa, there. I’m going to have to strongly disagree with you on this one, Ahimsaman.
Catholic Christianity has the view that, if one cannot avoid the suffering, then one should not only accept it, but unite his sufferings to those of Christ on the cross (Col 1:24) in order that any merit gained thereby may be used by God to apply to the good of someone else by means of grace.
This does not mean that the Catholic accepts unnecessary suffering, but unavoidable suffering, e.g., incurable cancer, is accepted and used for the good of others.
The cause of the suffering is, for the most part, irrelevant, withoiut getting into self-mutilation, etc.
IMO, this is the greatest understanding of suffering, being based on Christ’s example, of any religion or group anywhere. And it is particuarly Cathoilic, as far as I know. Other Christian denominations do not understanding suffering in this way.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

oops double post

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Strider:

Other Christian denominations do not understanding suffering in this way.

Your so right, thats why the Church calls it the PASSION!

 

[TobyLue]

Something I don’t understand. I asked on another thread but never got a good reply.

As Christians we know the consequences of dying in sin. We are telling God we reject Him and prefer our own selves and are choosing hell for all eternity.
Posted by ahimsamn72

Sin doesn’t truly exist in Buddhism. Actions are either wholesome and skillful or unwholesome and unskillful. Samsara is the vicious cycle of life and death in which one is born again and again without achieving nirvana. One is born again and again without rest or peace. For some this is a physical reality and for some this is only a mental reality. Sin implies guilt and punishment by a divine being which Buddhism declines to take a stand on.

Take this example. If a man enjoys the riches of this earth, steps on people to climb to the top and knows he is hurting others but doesn’t care, has lead a very promiscuous life, but “hey, take it while you can” never repents, nor regrets what he has done and has enjoyed every minute of it and has rejected God, he is bound for hell. Per Samsara, he just goes into a cycle and born again, and again. But when he is born again, is that man conscience of what he has done in his previous life? So would it be correct to say that all those people who are destitute, homeless, sick, are suffering because they did something wrong in their previous lives? If so how do they know what it was they did so they can correct it and next time be born into a better life? And who decides what type of life they are going to be reborn into? There would have to be some judge to decide, don’t you think? Who is to judge a person worthy of Nirvana? If Buddhism declines to take a stand on guilt and sin and a divine being, who then is to judge what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. What if the man who leads a very, very unwholesome life thinks it is wholesome from his perspective? Now, I’m not going to judge these two persons, only God knows, but per Buddhism, where would Hitler, and Stalin, currently be. And if they are now in a lower state of life, do they know what wrong they did?

As Christians we know “we are born once, then comes the judgement”

Thanks and God Bless…

 

[ahimsaman72]

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…

Ooops! I forgot to include the link to the site I was speaking of. Here it is:
becomingone.org/gp/gp1f.htm

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Strider:

Whoa, there. I’m going to have to strongly disagree with you on this one, Ahimsaman.
Catholic Christianity has the view that, if one cannot avoid the suffering, then one should not only accept it, but unite his sufferings to those of Christ on the cross (Col 1:24) in order that any merit gained thereby may be used by God to apply to the good of someone else by means of grace.
This does not mean that the Catholic accepts unnecessary suffering, but unavoidable suffering, e.g., incurable cancer, is accepted and used for the good of others.
The cause of the suffering is, for the most part, irrelevant, withoiut getting into self-mutilation, etc.
IMO, this is the greatest understanding of suffering, being based on Christ’s example, of any religion or group anywhere. And it is particuarly Cathoilic, as far as I know. Other Christian denominations do not understanding suffering in this way.

Hello Strider!

It’s okay to disagree . In a sense, when Buddhists begin to understand suffering - identify it and deal with it - they are identifying (or uniting) with everyone else who has discovered the same thing. In Buddhism, the view is that all beings suffer. And given that all people are one in essence. If you hurt yourself - you are hurting others and vice versa. Everybody’s in the same boat.

In the Mahayana school of Buddhism - rescuing all beings from samsara is the goal of the Bodhisattva (one who delays his own movement into nirvana in order to bring others in with him). The Theravada school (the oldest) emphasizes pursuing one’s own enlightenment whereas the Mahayana school pursues the salvation of all beings (including your “self”). This is a complex, deep concept that is too long to explain here.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

TobyLue:

Something I don’t understand. I asked on another thread but never got a good reply.

As Christians we know the consequences of dying in sin. We are telling God we reject Him and prefer our own selves and are choosing hell for all eternity.
Posted by ahimsamn72
Take this example. If a man enjoys the riches of this earth, steps on people to climb to the top and knows he is hurting others but doesn’t care, has lead a very promiscuous life, but “hey, take it while you can” never repents, nor regrets what he has done and has enjoyed every minute of it and has rejected God, he is bound for hell. Per Samsara, he just goes into a cycle and born again, and again. But when he is born again, is that man conscience of what he has done in his previous life? So would it be correct to say that all those people who are destitute, homeless, sick, are suffering because they did something wrong in their previous lives? If so how do they know what it was they did so they can correct it and next time be born into a better life? And who decides what type of life they are going to be reborn into? There would have to be some judge to decide, don’t you think? Who is to judge a person worthy of Nirvana? If Buddhism declines to take a stand on guilt and sin and a divine being, who then is to judge what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. What if the man who leads a very, very unwholesome life thinks it is wholesome from his perspective? Now, I’m not going to judge these two persons, only God knows, but per Buddhism, where would Hitler, and Stalin, currently be. And if they are now in a lower state of life, do they know what wrong they did?

As Christians we know “we are born once, then comes the judgement”

Thanks and God Bless…

There are many questions here. I will download this post and answer it at a later time for you. This might take a while .

Peace…

 

[Exporter]

You ask for something from Buddhism that could be useful.I dont answer that here. But here is a dangerous thing to come from Hindu-Buddhist prayer.
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711fea1.asp It is from The Rock.

 

[ahimsaman72]

TobyLue: This is my response to your questions you asked in an earlier post. I separated and put your questions into numbered format. It should still be true to your actual words.

1. But when he is born again, is that man conscience of what he has done in his previous life?

answer: not unless he reaches enlightenment in the human realm. There is no soul that survives “death”. There’s no transmigration of a soul into another body. There’s only consciousness.

1. So would it be correct to say that all those people who are destitute, homeless, sick, are suffering because they did something wrong in their previous lives?

answer: not necessarily. It could be due to what they have done in their present life. karma explains that all actions are either wholesome or unwholesome. When negative karma is extinguished then rebirth into a higher realm is possible. If in the present life one has led a horrible life of murder, lying, etc. then they would be creating negative karma which would affect their rebirth in a negative way. The teaching of karma and rebirth (as I have explained in other posts) is a difficult one. Some adhere to this teaching as a physical reality as real as you are reading this post. Others, such as myself, see this only as a mental construction or reality.

1. If so how do they know what it was they did so they can correct it and next time be born into a better life?

answer: good question. I’ve asked this myself. The view is that one’s present actions are all that is possible to determine. Let the past lie. Look to the present and make a conscious choice now to change your future. Create positive karma. You can’t change the past. You can only change right now - in the present. So, it’s kind of a moot point.

1. And who decides what type of life they are going to be reborn into?
   **
   answer: karma decides. Karma is an impersonal force or law that simply exists.
2. There would have to be some judge to decide, don’t you think? Who is to judge a person worthy of Nirvana? If Buddhism declines to take a stand on guilt and sin and a divine being, who then is to judge what is wholesome and what is unwholesome?

answer: this is hard for Westerners like ourselves to fathom. We think this way because of our pre-conceived Western theistic ideas. It makes sense to have a personal judge. That’s just simply not the teaching of Buddhism. Again, karma is the law of cause and effect. It’s the moral impersonal force that decides. You push the chair - it moves. You steal from someone, you will be stolen from.

1. • What if the man who leads a very, very unwholesome life thinks it is wholesome from his perspective*?

answer: he has to see beyond illusion to see the reality of his actions. Here is a statement from Buddha himself in relation to what you are seeking:

When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted and carried out, lead to harm and to suffering’ – then you should abandon them… When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted and carried out, lead to welfare and to happiness’ – then you should enter and remain in them."

1. • Now, I’m not going to judge these two persons, only God knows, but per Buddhism, where would Hitler, and Stalin, currently be. And if they are now in a lower state of life, do they know what wrong they did? *

answer: Hitler would be in the lowest hell which is excruciatingly worse than the Christian belief in hell. For example, for murderers - say by stabbing - that person would be stabbed repeatedly in the lowest hell till their negative karma would be extinguished. I don’t know much about Stalin, but I assume the same would be true for him. There is no recollection of the past life unless one achieves enlightenment in the human realm. When Buddha became enlightened he saw all his previous lives and knew all his previous names. The same can be said to be true of all his disciples who achieved arhantship which is one step away from Buddhahood (If I understand it correctly).

Hopefully this helped answer your questions. If not, I’ll try again.

Peace…

 

[dennisknapp]

ahimsaman72:

TobyLue: This is my response to your questions you asked in an earlier post. I separated and put your questions into numbered format. It should still be true to your actual words.

1. But when he is born again, is that man conscience of what he has done in his previous life?

answer: not unless he reaches enlightenment in the human realm. There is no soul that survives “death”. There’s no transmigration of a soul into another body. There’s only consciousness.

1. So would it be correct to say that all those people who are destitute, homeless, sick, are suffering because they did something wrong in their previous lives?

answer: not necessarily. It could be due to what they have done in their present life. karma explains that all actions are either wholesome or unwholesome. When negative karma is extinguished then rebirth into a higher realm is possible. If in the present life one has led a horrible life of murder, lying, etc. then they would be creating negative karma which would affect their rebirth in a negative way. The teaching of karma and rebirth (as I have explained in other posts) is a difficult one. Some adhere to this teaching as a physical reality as real as you are reading this post. Others, such as myself, see this only as a mental construction or reality.

1. If so how do they know what it was they did so they can correct it and next time be born into a better life?

answer: good question. I’ve asked this myself. The view is that one’s present actions are all that is possible to determine. Let the past lie. Look to the present and make a conscious choice now to change your future. Create positive karma. You can’t change the past. You can only change right now - in the present. So, it’s kind of a moot point.

1. And who decides what type of life they are going to be reborn into?

answer: karma decides. Karma is an impersonal force or law that simply exists.

1. There would have to be some judge to decide, don’t you think? Who is to judge a person worthy of Nirvana? If Buddhism declines to take a stand on guilt and sin and a divine being, who then is to judge what is wholesome and what is unwholesome?

answer: this is hard for Westerners like ourselves to fathom. We think this way because of our pre-conceived Western theistic ideas. It makes sense to have a personal judge. That’s just simply not the teaching of Buddhism. Again, karma is the law of cause and effect. It’s the moral impersonal force that decides. You push the chair - it moves. You steal from someone, you will be stolen from.

1. What if the man who leads a very, very unwholesome life thinks it is wholesome from his perspective?

answer: he has to see beyond illusion to see the reality of his actions. Here is a statement from Buddha himself in relation to what you are seeking:

When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted and carried out, lead to harm and to suffering’ – then you should abandon them… When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted and carried out, lead to welfare and to happiness’ – then you should enter and remain in them."

1. *Now, I’m not going to judge these two persons, only God knows, but per Buddhism, where would Hitler, and Stalin, currently be. And if they are now in a lower state of life, do they know what wrong they did? *

answer: Hitler would be in the lowest hell which is excruciatingly worse than the Christian belief in hell. For example, for murderers - say by stabbing - that person would be stabbed repeatedly in the lowest hell till their negative karma would be extinguished. I don’t know much about Stalin, but I assume the same would be true for him. There is no recollection of the past life unless one achieves enlightenment in the human realm. When Buddha became enlightened he saw all his previous lives and knew all his previous names. The same can be said to be true of all his disciples who achieved arhantship which is one step away from Buddhahood (If I understand it correctly).

Hopefully this helped answer your questions. If not, I’ll try again.

Peace…

“karma decides. Karma is an impersonal force or law that simply exists.”

How can an impersonal force decide anything?

Peace

 

[ahimsaman72]

Exporter:

You ask for something from Buddhism that could be useful.I dont answer that here. But here is a dangerous thing to come from Hindu-Buddhist prayer.
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711fea1.asp It is from The Rock.

I looked at the article. It is a fair assessment of the belief and practice of the meditation. Of course, the writer disagrees that it is compatible with Christianity, but there are obviously other Catholics like the Fr. Penington who feel there’s nothing wrong with it.

I can tell you that in my practice of this type of meditation - there have been no spooky ghosts or problems with becoming a walking zombie. It has helped manage anger and get rid of unwholesome thoughts. It has helped me develop compassion and lovingkindness. I imagine the same results have been found by Fr. Thomas Merton and others like Fr. Penington.

Is there a Catholic prohibition/law against meditation?

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

“karma decides. Karma is an impersonal force or law that simply exists.”

How can an impersonal force decide anything?

Peace

According to the explanation given by people such as Dr. Peter Santina, karma is the energy of one’s own actions. Karma is the moral equivalent to Newton’s “every action must have an equal and opposite reaction”. If you are doing the action that action will come back to you eventually - whether in this life or the next.

For a detailed explanation by Santina and other authors, I can point you in the right direction.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

“karma decides. Karma is an impersonal force or law that simply exists.”

How can an impersonal force decide anything?

Peace

According to the explanation given by people such as Dr. Peter Santina, karma is the energy of one’s own actions. Karma is the moral equivalent to Newton’s “every action must have an equal and opposite reaction”. If you are doing the action the results of that action will come back to you eventually - whether in this life or the next and whether it is positive or negative. A man reaps what he sows.

For a detailed explanation by Santina and other authors, I can point you in the right direction.

Peace…

 

[Tlaloc]

ahimsaman72, nice job discussing Buddhism.

As for the arguments about whether two religions can both be correct it is, as was pointed out earlier, a western belief that allows for only one thing to be true. In eastern cultures people often do not identify themselves as just Taoist, or just Buddhist, or just Confucianist, or just Shinto, or so on. Rather a mixing and combination of states is often the case.

Interestingly enough our sense of logic breaks down in some physical ways as with QM. A particle is not “here” or “there” but can be in an intermediate state of being partially in both places. Whether such examples point to any larger more sublime truths is debatable but the potential exists.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Tlaloc:

ahimsaman72, nice job discussing Buddhism.

As for the arguments about whether two religions can both be correct it is, as was pointed out earlier, a western belief that allows for only one thing to be true. In eastern cultures people often do not identify themselves as just Taoist, or just Buddhist, or just Confucianist, or just Shinto, or so on. Rather a mixing and combination of states is often the case.

Interestingly enough our sense of logic breaks down in some physical ways as with QM. A particle is not “here” or “there” but can be in an intermediate state of being partially in both places. Whether such examples point to any larger more sublime truths is debatable but the potential exists.

Thanks.

I am only a practicing student and have much to learn. It would be kind of like trying to understand Christianity in a short period of time. It is a lifetime of learning.

It’s true. Eastern people are open to the possibilites of truth as it exists everywhere. Eastern culture is entirely different from ours. When I first started reading books by Thich Nhat Hanh (and am presently reading the Dalai Lama’s book, “The Art of Happiness”), I was pretty confused by terms and concepts.

But eventually I began to understand a little. My Western mind has been so ingrained with Western thoughts that at first I was not very open. It is insightful to look at your own religion from the outside. To look at Christianity from the Buddhist perspective taught by TNH has been “enlightening”.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

CreosMary:

Buddhists attempt to escape Suffering and this is the basis of thier belief. They have a detachment which verges on total lack of Charity, Infact you will not find Charities run by Buddhists, in thier lands, you will find them run by Catholics.

I wanted to revisit this post because it disturbed me.

First, you didn’t provide any source for your information about these supposed charities run by Catholics in Buddhist lands. I would like to see that source if it is available. The Buddhists I have met and the books I’ve read by Buddhists paint a different picture than what you are describing here.

Second, a detachment which verges on total lack of charity is not accurate. I’ve found Buddhists to be the opposite. The basic understanding of Buddhism is that suffering is universal and comes upon all. The first noble truth is an acknowledgement of this.

Thirdly, when one understands that others suffer just like they do - compassion is a natural result. If I cease thinking about someone hitting me and realize that they grew up in a certain environment and were hit as a child I can transcend my anger by understanding they suffer too. Compassion is a basic element in Mahayana Buddhism.

Finally, I might get some flak over my next couple of paragraphs. In Mahayana Buddhism (which Zen is a part of), a vegetarian diet is recommended for developing true compassion for all beings - animals included. After all, the goal of Mahayana Buddhism is to bring as many beings to enlightenment as possible - even putting off your own attainment of nirvana to do so. In Zen, all things have Buddha nature and are worthy of life.

I’ve been vegetarian for almost a year now because I saw this compassionate goal in Buddhism. I didn’t want to see any being suffer anymore. I didn’t want to cause the death of anything if I could help it. It’s not always possible to avoid hurting other living things. But, as far as it is possible, I try to practice harmless living. I also did it for health reasons - to be as healthy as possible.

I say these things not to come across as holier than thou or to say that all people should be vegetarians. I say it to dispel the belief that Buddhists are somehow not compassionate and to give personal evidence of the reality of compassionate Buddhist practice. Please don’t misunderstand my points here.

Peace…

 

[dennisknapp]

Tlaloc:

ahimsaman72, nice job discussing Buddhism.

As for the arguments about whether two religions can both be correct it is, as was pointed out earlier, a western belief that allows for only one thing to be true. In eastern cultures people often do not identify themselves as just Taoist, or just Buddhist, or just Confucianist, or just Shinto, or so on. Rather a mixing and combination of states is often the case.

Interestingly enough our sense of logic breaks down in some physical ways as with QM. A particle is not “here” or “there” but can be in an intermediate state of being partially in both places. Whether such examples point to any larger more sublime truths is debatable but the potential exists.

How is 2+2=4 a western idea? Are you saying that in the East 2+2 can =5? How can we say that anything is meaningful usless its negation is not? The law of non-contradiction is universal and not dependant on any particular culture.

Even to say there is not such thing as ultimate truth is itself an ultimate truth and therefore seft-defeating.

Peace

 

[Tlaloc]

dennisknapp:

How is 2+2=4 a western idea? Are you saying that in the East 2+2 can =5? How can we say that anything is meaningful usless its negation is not? The law of non-contradiction is universal and not dependant on any particular culture.

Even to say there is not such thing as ultimate truth is itself an ultimate truth and therefore seft-defeating.

Peace

You yourself painted it as derived from Aristotle. The greeks were the foundation of western thought. Not eastern.

2+2=4 is true regardless where you go. But spirituality is not math.

Consider it this way:
You have a concept of God. That concept is inherently flawed because as a human being you can’t possibly know all of God. You know it in a certain way. So does the Buddhist. The buddhist knows the same God in a different way.

Hold up a cube. You can hold it in a number of diferent ways. You may see only a square side. Or a pyramid like point. Or two sides joined at an edge. How you see it doesn’t change the cube itself, nor does seeing it from one angle deny the other angle exists (except when we mistakenly consider ourselves to have reached the ultimate Truth with a capital T).

See this corner? It’s Catholicism. Here’s Buddhism. Oh over here is Animism.

The sad part is that is a very western explanation. It dodges the question really. The quantum example is better. A particle does not behave as you suggest is required by non-contradiction. It can indeed be “here” and “there” in some proportion simultaneously.

 

[dennisknapp]

Tlaloc:

You yourself painted it as derived from Aristotle. The greeks were the foundation of western thought. Not eastern.

2+2=4 is true regardless where you go. But spirituality is not math.

Consider it this way:
You have a concept of God. That concept is inherently flawed because as a human being you can’t possibly know all of God. You know it in a certain way. So does the Buddhist. The buddhist knows the same God in a different way.

Hold up a cube. You can hold it in a number of diferent ways. You may see only a square side. Or a pyramid like point. Or two sides joined at an edge. How you see it doesn’t change the cube itself, nor does seeing it from one angle deny the other angle exists (except when we mistakenly consider ourselves to have reached the ultimate Truth with a capital T).

See this corner? It’s Catholicism. Here’s Buddhism. Oh over here is Animism.

The sad part is that is a very western explanation. It dodges the question really. The quantum example is better. A particle does not behave as you suggest is required by non-contradiction. It can indeed be “here” and “there” in some proportion simultaneously.

What we are talking about is not my observation of a thing but truth claims regarding what I have observed. If I observe a duck and say it is a tree I have made an error and my claim if false.

Likewise, we may observe certain things and have a limited knowledge of them but this does not give us cause to start contradicting ourselves. If God IS as Christianity believes then God CANNOT be as Buddhist believe, for that would be totally irrational, meaningless.

Also, quantum particles seem or appear to be “here” and “there” in some proportion simultaneously, but we cannot say for sure that this is the case with any certainty. This does not mean that quantum physics is beyond the law of non-contradiction only that our ability to understand and scientific method is lacking. But to say that because we lack understanding and a scientific method gives us the option to speak and think contradictory things is non-sense. If this were the case everything would be meaningless.

Peace