Buddha and his teachings

[Exporter]

I feel compelled to say a word or two about teaching “The Double-Slit Experiment” as taught in both H.S. and college.

A table with a glass bottom has water of about one inch suspended some 20" above a white cardboard. A bright lamp is placed about 20" above the table. The “slits” are two openings (1/2 inch wide) usually placed 2 inches apart. The “dam” is parafin. Behind the dam there is a vibrator made of wood with a small electric motor with an eccentrically balance shaft. This vibrates the block of wood to produce the waves.

The interference of the waves is very noticable. One can vary the frequency and width of the slits. Amplitude can be varied too.

 

[john_doran]

Tlaloc:

Seriously you have no understanding of the topics you are talking about.

well, if feynman is to be believed (along with any number of other prominent physicists), no one understands QM.

For one thing you completely messed up the double slit experiment which has to do with electrons and not light or water.

well, the double slit experiment was first performed with light by thomas young in the first years of the 19th century in an attempt to determine whether light was a wave or a particle (newton said particle, huygens et al, said wave).

what was significant about that experiment was that the photons produced a diffraction pattern just like that produced by water waves when they passed through the same experimental set-up.

the double-slit experiment wasn’t done with electrons until 1987 in Japan; in the early 1990’s it was duplicated with atoms.

For another thing the Pi number most certainly exists. Measure the circumfrence of a circle and divide that by the circle’s radius. Looks pretty real to me.

but what do you mean “exists”? what, exactly, is it for a number to “exist”?

 

[StubbleSpark]

Indeed, if you want to be strict, pi exists as a being of reason – that is, it “exists” in the human mind. There are many things which can only exist in the human mind, Euclidian geometry, for example. Actual two-dimensional circles cannot exist anywhere in our reality, they can only be imagined. The physical representations written on paper exist – but they only represent the “ideal” two-dimensional reality.

In Euclidean geometry, a point is said to have no dimensions at all. But every time you put a dot on piece of paper, you are creating something with dimensions. Thus, the geometer must be able to suspend disbelief in order to do his work. There are other beings of reason which we rely on all the time. For example, justice is not a naturally occurring force or observable substance.

I was not sure whether it would be prudent to get into this, as it seems to support the relativist’s view that all is fabrication and that there is no objective truth.

But like I was trying to say in my post, these things derive all their worth from how they help us understand and interact with the objective and real – the ontological. No ontological, no math. No math, no progress.

The above quote by Blue Tuna describing the practices of the Aghoris adequately supports my point. First of all, there are not any Aghori scientists, so this practice cannot claim any partnership in the development of the natural sciences (the Jews can, though).

Second of all: gross. It is not a surprise this particular faith has not set the world on fire with its popularity. Eating human flesh, debasing (extra-marital? and forced?) sex with the subjugated and menstruating lower caste, smearing yourself with the ashes of the dead, human sacrifice, using human bones as “tools” – these are all acts that devalue the human person. Even if the goal seems noble (proclamation of equality), the means are not ones that elevate all humans, but rather meant to demean all humans. This is diametrically opposed to the Christian belief that people are the radiantly beautiful and inherently valuable creations of an all-good God.

It is no wonder that such practices that demean humanity are rejected by the world’s religions. People are not food! We do not need to “embrace pollution” to become more like God! If this is what people were doing in the time of Sid Hartha, no wonder he left to make his own faith. I’d get out of Dodge too.

All this just goes to show that the cultural ingredients for the creation and development of natural sciences required the fullness of the Truth. Bits and pieces alone are not enough.

 

[StubbleSpark]

Here are some interesting excerpts from an interview with Vatican astronomer and curator of the Vatican meteorite collection, Brother Guy Consolmagno by Astrobiology Magazine astrobio.net/news/article966.html

"Inerviewer: Isn’t the belief that God created the universe a preconceived notion?

GC: It is. And it’s a preconceived notion that in one form or another every scientist has to have. Because here’s the other side: to be a scientist you have to have two fundamental assumptions, so fundamental you don’t even think about it. You assume that the universe makes sense, that there really is an objective reality; there really is a logic to this; it’s not just chaos; there really are laws to be found. We’re so used to that assumption, you don’t realize it. A lot of cultures don’t have that.

And the other assumption you have to make is that it’s worth doing. If your idea, if your religion is to meditate and rise above the physical universe, this corrupting physical universe, you might say, you’re not going to be a scientist, you’re not going to be interested in Mars. So it’s a religious statement to say the physical universe is worth devoting my life to. Seeing how the universe works is worth spending a lifetime doing.

Interviewer: Why is it a religious statement?

GC: By religious I mean that it is based on certain fundamental assumptions you have about how the universe works and what your place in the universe is. And ultimately, that’s a religious assumption. Whether it’s my religion or somebody else’s religion, lots of people with lots of religions are looking at science. I’m not saying it’s only one religion that has that assumption. But I’m saying that there are religions that don’t. There are brilliant cultures throughout history who have had fabulous mathematics and glorious ethical systems - and no science. It really is an important fundamental assumption that you have to have, especially day-to-day as a scientist."

And on Galilieo?

" Nobody knows really why Galileo was gone after. You can read all the documents. They’re in translation in a marvelous book by Finocchiaro, “The Galileo Affair”. For most of Galileo’s life he was lionized, he was treated like a hero, including by people in the Church. His book, “The Assayer”, has the Church censor saying, “We’re honored to live in a time with a man this wonderful.” When Galileo got into trouble at the end of his life, it was a real shock…there was something going on, and it wasn’t simply a science versus religion thing the way that Berthold Brecht describes it in his play. If you relied on “JFK,” the movie, to figure out what happened in the assassination of Kennedy, you’d be in as good shape."

More…

 

[StubbleSpark]

Excerpts, continued:

Could [Galileo] happen again? Of course it could happen again. As long as there’s human beings in the Church – and the last time I saw, most of us are – and as long as there are human beings who are scientists, there will be inevitable conflicts, there will be people who think they know better, and there will be people who will be right and people who will be wrong. The Church will always make mistakes. Scientists will always make mistakes. We’re human beings.

But if you look at the whole sweep of history, for most of its history, the Church has thought that studying science is great. And there’s been a fringe of religious fundamentalists - not Catholics - who have tried to warp science to their particular peculiar theology. In the same time, there have been a bunch of science fundamentalists, who have tried to use science as a substitute religion. And neither of those operations really works very well. And both of them, I think, come out of a lack of confidence.

The religious fundamentalists, basically, are scared that they don’t have faith, which is why they cling so tightly to what little they’ve got. The science fundamentalists, I think some of them just want to be taken seriously as scientists and they think, well I have to show that I’ve rejected anything else."

And on the first scientists:

“GC: The whole scientific enterprise really does coincide well with Christian theology. The whole idea that the universe is worth studying is a Christian idea. The whole mechanism for studying the physical universe comes straight out of the whole logic of the scholastic age. Who was the first geologist? Albert the Great, who was a monk. Who was the first Chemist? Roger Bacon, who was a monk. Who was the first guy to come up with spectroscopy? Angelo Secchi, who was a priest. Who was the guy who invented genetics?Gregor Mendel, who was a monk. Who was the guy who came up with the Big Bang theory? Georges Lema”tre, who was a priest. There is this long tradition; most scientists before the 19th century were clerics. Who else had the free time and the education to gather leads and measure star positions?”

This does not do the article justice. I recommend reading it!

 

[StubbleSpark]

Again, same magazine, this is an article written by Dr. David Grinspoon, Principle Investigator for NASA’s Exobiology Research Program and author of several books (religious affiliation unknown) astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=707

"It wouldn’t hurt our credibility to acknowledge that science has its own superstitions. We assume the existence of an objective reality that is independent from our consciousness. We assume that our minds do not create or affect what we observe. We also assume nature is consistent and repeatable, and therefore knowable. In all of this I could replace “we assume” with “I believe.” I don’t doubt any of this. This set of regulations for nature seems so obvious and reasonable to me that it seems almost absurd to question it. But if you dig down deep beneath our solid tower of reason, deduction, and provisional truth, you see that the whole thing is planted in loose sand, supported by received, or intuitively perceived, knowledge.

I’m a believer because this is the way the world seems. Further, I think that most everyone knows that this is the way it is. You can spin intellectual counterarguments to your heart’s content, or you can meditate your way clear out of the galactic disk, but on your way back home tonight notice how your every move, breath, and thought is steeped in a solid world of consistent phenomena. If this is an illusion, I don’t think we can shake it. Even the Dalai Lama has to sit on the can like the rest of us."

Peace!

 

[BlueTuna]

StubbleSpark:

The above quote by Blue Tuna describing the practices of the Aghoris adequately supports my point. First of all, there are not any Aghori scientists, so this practice cannot claim any partnership in the development of the natural sciences (the Jews can, though).

How would you know if there are any Aghori scientists?

StubbleSpark:

Second of all: gross. It is not a surprise this particular faith has not set the world on fire with its popularity. Eating human flesh, debasing (extra-marital? and forced?) sex with the subjugated and menstruating lower caste, smearing yourself with the ashes of the dead, human sacrifice, using human bones as “tools” – these are all acts that devalue the human person.

I don’t think so. Because these acts are all done in a religious and sacramental context, they don’t devalue, but rather sanctify.

StubbleSpark:

Even if the goal seems noble (proclamation of equality), the means are not ones that elevate all humans, but rather meant to demean all humans. This is diametrically opposed to the Christian belief that people are the radiantly beautiful and inherently valuable creations of an all-good God.

If you don’t understand Shaivism, then you better not talk about it.

StubbleSpark:

It is no wonder that such practices that demean humanity are rejected by the world’s religions. People are not food!

Let me say it again: Shiva alone exists. So you’re not eating people but realising God in an admittedly rather different way.

StubbleSpark:

We do not need to “embrace pollution” to become more like God!

Why do you fear pollution?

StubbleSpark:

All this just goes to show that the cultural ingredients for the creation and development of natural sciences required the fullness of the Truth. Bits and pieces alone are not enough.

Natural sciences are godless sciences. Thank God this detachment of science from religion never really happened in other places. I have no idea how you can consider this to be a good thing.

 

[StubbleSpark]

BlueTuna:

How would you know if there are any Aghori scientists?

I don’t. That is why I said there are not any. And by scientists, I mean someone whose work in the scientific community receives at least moderate recognition. If my statement is too broad, I can narrow down my intention a little: “In the history of science, people of the Aghori faith have not made any contribution to the development of man through the sciences THAT I KNOW OF.” It is really hard to prove a negative, though, could you provide me with the name of an Aghori scientist?

BlueTuna:

I don’t think so. Because these acts are all done in a religious and sacramental context, they don’t devalue, but rather sanctify.

I think you would be hard-pressed to convince anyone of any faith, (even other Hindus) that the religious context alone somehow makes this an elevating rather than demeaning experience. There is a reason why God hardwired us to feel disgust at such abominable behavior. I could rattle off a litany of faiths that agree with me: Judaism, Islam, Bah’hai, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Mormonism, Wiccans, etc all say: gross.

BlueTuna:

If you don’t understand Shaivism, then you better not talk about it.

YOU brought it up. Am I not allowed to offer a Catholic answer to your statement on a Catholic website?

BlueTuna:

Let me say it again: Shiva alone exists. So you’re not eating people but realising God in an admittedly rather different way.

You said: “They are attributed with eating corpse flesh.” That IS eating people. Most cannibals do not eat living human beings, as they tend to put up a fight. So your statement is illogical. You CAN say “You’re not JUST eating people but ALSO realizing God in an admittedly rather different way.”

BlueTuna:

Why do you fear pollution?

I am just ignorant, I guess. Me and the rest of planet Earth… Speaking of which, have YOU eaten corpse flesh? Why not?

BlueTuna:

Natural sciences are godless sciences. Thank God this detachment of science from religion never really happened in other places. I have no idea how you can consider this to be a good thing.

Read my other posts. The natural sciences would not exist were it not for Catholic culture. Science presumes logical order to the universe and thus, a loving and infinitely intelligent God. Part of science is to use the natural order to understand the nature, so the idea of doing something as counter-intuitive as eating human flesh to understand God’s will is unscientific. Such a culture would not blossom into a force that would change the world for the better with hospitals, universities, observatories, medicine, astronomy, physics, genetics and frontier exploration.

And before you get too judgmental, I would like to tell you that the height and summit of Catholic worship is the Eucharist, where bread and wine are actually (not figuratively nor symbolically) transformed by God into the Real Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. And what do we do with this? We eat it and drink it. Though the substance has been transformed, the accidents (outward signs) remain the same, bread and wine. So that, even though we consume the flesh and blood of our Savior, the process itself is bloodless, and thereby does not offend our senses. And see how it elevates? God sustains us from without and from within. The body we eat is not the dead flesh of a sinful human being but the living flesh of an all-good and eternal God. We have all the good that you claim comes from this Aghori ritual with absolutely none of the bad. The result is a ritual that is much more powerful and much more meaningful. It bestows incredible closeness between God and man, and because we revere God so much, it elevates us as His beloved children.

As far as the detachment of God from science is concerned, the so-called Enlightenment is a topic for another thread…

 

[Ahimsa]

StubbleSpark:

A yogi is “one who practices yoga” and yes, Hindus in India are very much afraid of dirt. Hence the caste system with the “untouchables.” Why are they untouchable? Because they do the dirty work. This is very similar to the Burakumin of Japan – a historical group of people who in ancient times did the dirty work, like killing animals and working leather (blood, feces, and animal parts). To this day, their progeny receive discriminatory treatment for their PAST involvement in this dirty work.

I think your depiction of a yogi meditating in excrement would be offensive to a yogi. None of the yogi (foreign loan words in English typically are not pluralized) I know enjoy sitting in excrement. But farmers live the type of life where they must STEP in it and monks tended to be self-sufficient in terms of food supply. So yes, they were learned AND they were farmers.

And no, they did NOT sit in it.

You’re forgetting to distinguish social regulations with spiritual freedom. The average Hindu is pretty puritan when it comes to things like caste, excrement, and dirtiness. And, in fact, many yogis are likewise. But not all yogis are the same – they come in all shapes and varieties, from the yogis who are in it just for the fame and money (and women!), to yogis who meditate intensively, to the yogis who (some say) have realized totally and truly see everything from gold to excrement as manifestations of the One Reality.

If you haven’t seen or heard about yogis sitting in excrement (which, by the way, is not a practice they necessarily encourage for all, thank Buddha!), then I suggest you explore the yogic traditions of India, especially the tradition of the Avadhut.

But all this talk about eating human-flesh and sitting in excrement is a side-show to your main issue of whether the development of science requires a Catholic culture. Sure, modern Western science owes a lot to Catholic and Protestant culture, as it does to the Arabic and Muslim cultures, as well as Indian, Roman/Hellenistic, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian, for starters. Catholicism didn’t begin in a vacuum. And it seems rather short-sighted to assume that the present-day form of science is the epitome of what science can ever be.

 

[BlueTuna]

StubbleSpark:

If my statement is too broad, I can narrow down my intention a little: “In the history of science, people of the Aghori faith have not made any contribution to the development of man through the sciences THAT I KNOW OF.”

Yeah, that’s better. So tell me, how many red-headed, left-handed Catholics have contributed to the development of man through the sciences?

StubbleSpark:

It is really hard to prove a negative, though, could you provide me with the name of an Aghori scientist?

As I don’t know any Aghori, scientist or not, I can’t help you with that.

StubbleSpark:

YOU brought it up. Am I not allowed to offer a Catholic answer to your statement on a Catholic website?

Sure, go ahead. But am I not allowed on a catholic website to say that you don’t understand what you criticize?

StubbleSpark:

You said: “They are attributed with eating corpse flesh.” That IS eating people. Most cannibals do not eat living human beings, as they tend to put up a fight. So your statement is illogical. You CAN say “You’re not JUST eating people but ALSO realizing God in an admittedly rather different way.”

No, my statement is not illogical. To an outsider it seems that the Aghoris eat corpse flesh, but as to them only Shiva exists, that’s just not true. Like if I said that Catholics worship a long dead carpenter. You would say that Catholics don’t do that, they worship God. So would it be more true if I said that Catholics not JUST worship a long dead carpenter but ALSO God?

StubbleSpark:

I am just ignorant, I guess. Me and the rest of planet Earth… Speaking of which, have YOU eaten corpse flesh? Why not?

Because I’m not an Aghori.

StubbleSpark:

Read my other posts. The natural sciences would not exist were it not for Catholic culture.

And I consider that to be a bad thing.

StubbleSpark:

Science presumes logical order to the universe and thus, a loving and infinitely intelligent God. Part of science is to use the natural order to understand the nature, so the idea of doing something as counter-intuitive as eating human flesh to understand God’s will is unscientific.

Nobody eats human flesh to understand Gods will.

StubbleSpark:

Such a culture would not blossom into a force that would change the world for the better with hospitals, universities, observatories, medicine, astronomy, physics, genetics and frontier exploration.

Is there anything better than getting closer to God?

StubbleSpark:

And before you get too judgmental, I would like to tell you that the height and summit of Catholic worship is the Eucharist, where bread and wine are actually (not figuratively nor symbolically) transformed by God into the Real Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. And what do we do with this? We eat it and drink it.

Some people would call that very much counter-intuitive. I’ve heard people call it gross, like it’s some form of cannibalism. This rejection must be hardwired in them by God, right?

StubbleSpark:

We have all the good that you claim comes from this Aghori ritual with absolutely none of the bad.

What’s bad about the Aghori ritual? That people find it gross and repulsive? So what, all Gods people will be rejected in their lifetime. Some people also thought that the Cynics were nuts.

 

[catholic2]

What happened to Sidhartha who has achieved the ultimate enlightenment after he died? He has ended the cycle of reincarnations hasn’t he? What would be the state of his consciousness? Is it extinction or…?

 

[ahimsaman72]

catholic2:

What happened to Sidhartha who has achieved the ultimate enlightenment after he died? He has ended the cycle of reincarnations hasn’t he? What would be the state of his consciousness? Is it extinction or…?

The Buddha (Siddhartha) achieved enlightenment at the age of 35 after 6 years of meditation while fully human. He ended the cycle of birth and death for himself through enlightenment. The nature of his consciousness is not something we can fathom.

Here is what he had to say towards the end of his life:

Through the round of many births
I wandered without reward, without rest,
Seeking the house builder.
Painful is birth again & again.

House builder, you are seen!
You will not build a house again.

All your rafters broken,
The ridge pole destroyed,
Gone to the Unformed, the mind
Has attained the end of craving

Nirvana is likened to the concept of the absolute, the unformed, the uncreated aspect of reality. You could refer to this as “God”. It is the “ground of being” for all things as all things are interrelated and interdependent on each other for life. So, you could say that he went to nirvana and became one with it.

In Buddhism, there is no permanent “self” that goes on to live future lives. The results of one’s karma carries over and one is reborn. Buddha had no negative karma to carry over into another life. When we begin to discuss complex concepts like karma and rebirth we have to go back and understand the basic Buddhist ideas of life and the Buddhist worldview. There’s an excellent site that has a five minute introduction to Buddhism. You can find that here: www.buddhanet.net

Unfortunately, there’s no cookie-cutter Buddhism that exists. It’s a non-dogmatic faith unlike Catholicism. The closest thing is the Theravada branch which is the oldest and adheres to the monastic life as the ideal.

If you have further questions I’ll do my best to answer. Hopefully this helped.

 

[catholic2]

ahimsaman72:

The Buddha (Siddhartha) achieved enlightenment at the age of 35 after 6 years of meditation while fully human. He ended the cycle of birth and death for himself through enlightenment. The nature of his consciousness is not something we can fathom.

Here is what he had to say towards the end of his life:

Through the round of many births
I wandered without reward, without rest,
Seeking the house builder.
Painful is birth again & again.

House builder, you are seen!
You will not build a house again.

All your rafters broken,
The ridge pole destroyed,
Gone to the Unformed, the mind
Has attained the end of craving

Nirvana is likened to the concept of the absolute, the unformed, the uncreated aspect of reality. You could refer to this as “God”. It is the “ground of being” for all things as all things are interrelated and interdependent on each other for life. So, you could say that he went to nirvana and became one with it.

In Buddhism, there is no permanent “self” that goes on to live future lives. The results of one’s karma carries over and one is reborn. Buddha had no negative karma to carry over into another life. When we begin to discuss complex concepts like karma and rebirth we have to go back and understand the basic Buddhist ideas of life and the Buddhist worldview. There’s an excellent site that has a five minute introduction to Buddhism. You can find that here: www.buddhanet.net

Unfortunately, there’s no cookie-cutter Buddhism that exists. It’s a non-dogmatic faith unlike Catholicism. The closest thing is the Theravada branch which is the oldest and adheres to the monastic life as the ideal.

If you have further questions I’ll do my best to answer. Hopefully this helped.

Well, now that I’m a 5 minute expert on all there is to know on Buddhism, I am enlightened. Haha. It was many years ago I remember, reading the book Siddhartha by Herman Hesse in college. I had an impressionistic rather than an objective knowledge about Gautama and Buddhism, but the site you suggested was helpful.

There are more similarities than differences between Buddhism and Christianity from where I stand right now. But I think the differences are irreconcilable. Here are my thoughts, and I do not wish to sound didactic, but please take them more as inquiries as I consider Buddhism for the philosophy it admits itself to be. Thank you.

The Creator/Nirvana.
To be sure there are others; but perhaps if you are willing later, a discussion in other areas.
God is also, as in the state of Nirvana, outside of time and space, and as you so aptly put it the “uncreated aspect of reality” and as in the state of Nirvana we who are Christians seek and wish to be one with God. It is the wish of God as evidenced by His writing that this be so:

• “…that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us…I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, …” *(John 17:21,23)

But from this point on, God and Nirvana start to separate: In God as we become one in Him, our identities are kept. Just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one triune God but in three persons, so we are one in the Godhead yet separate. In Nirvana you are the drop of water that falls into the ocean and becomes one with it, losing your identity, that identity which had to be purged of negative Karma through successive lives.

God is active, knowable, wants to be known, and gives us many clues to His nature and existence. He practically hits us on the head with a cross to get our attention. While Nirvana is as you say, unfathomable.

“Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made.” Romans 1:20.

We have an eternal existence in God. He is the great IS, always existing, no beginning, therefore no end. He knew us eternally, even before the foundations of the world. Herein I can see how the concept of the Buddhist reincarnations may have had their Genesis. This present existence in time and place is but a blink in eternity. God’s thoughts and ways are far above ours, but what we can know is that we are eternal beings and this present existence is only a small part of it. Somehow Gautama touched on this but got mired. God sent His Son as a Savior because we were lost and needed salvation.

 

[_Joshua]

Budda is a false god, Budda died and never got back up again, Jesus
died and arose.

There is only one God, and only one Church, oh and did I mention that budda is a false god ?

 

[StubbleSpark]

Catholic 2 has a point.

If God went through the trouble of creating us as individuals, then it seems odd that He would demand our total dissolution at the end of time. Just like light, gravity, love and other forces of the universe – it would seem safe to say that our identities are meant to be. Even more so than the simple rules of physics which govern the movement of atoms and stars, because our intellects are a higher order of creation.

You could say that the absolute that is Nirvana is a lot like the Christian God. But Buddhism does not go as far as to ascribe a personhood to it and therein lies the big difference between Buddhism and Christianity.

In Buddhism, oneness with Nirvana demands destruction of self into the absolute. Getting there requires a lot of personal sacrifice and selfless action. These are two big requirements for love. And indeed, if you were to hold a devout Buddhist next to devout Christian as compare who loves his fellow man more, you would be hard-pressed to discern.

But in the end, when self becomes one with the absolute in Nirvana, we as people are taken through a PROCESS that is logical and naturally occurring – just like you would expect sugar to dissolve into hot coffee. This is impersonal. It is not a homecoming. There is no welcome, no warm embrace. The giant pool has no loving eyes gazing back at YOU the individual.

This is why when you compare the two faiths, Christians tend to point out the nihilism that is central to Buddhism. But Buddhists tend to point out the impossibility of a PERSON/RULER of reality. I think this is the main reason why people would choose Buddhism. It is not like they have anything against Christianity personally, it is just that it is kind of far-fetched and simple – like a fairy tale. It just looks like primitive people sort of imposing their person-centric views on what is obviously an impersonal and automatically-running universe. It takes only a small amount of skepticism to discount the whole thing…

 

[StubbleSpark]

But I would not be so quick to discount this idea of a Person-God. After all, if you look at nature we do sort of stand out as unique among the earth’s creatures. No other creature is capable of writing poetry, architecture, painting, musical orchestration, philosophy, science, family-building, and yes, even war – the way humans are. Is this uniqueness just a fluke?

And if we look again at the process of Nirvana we can see that it implies an existing framework – it has its own laws of physics. Well, this implies an origin to those physics. Or, at least to the Christian mind it does. We would ask: aren’t you back where you started? Don’t you still wonder how Nirvana can exist? Aren’t you still faced with the burning existential questions like: why am I here? where am I going? why should I care? To the Christian mind, Nirvana cannot be a fulfillment of purpose, it is just a nexus of past, present and future purposes.

For us, the PROCESS is natural and personal. We attain oneness through love. We love our God and He loves us – not just as a collective of human creation – but as individuals. We find total fulfillment in this unification through love.

We can find metaphors for this in our natural existence. Married spouses are configured toward each other through love. Parents and children also have a type of unity through love. But the love we are talking about with God is incomprehensible in its warmth, magnitude, and permanence. It is not natural – it is supernatural.

And this is another point Buddhists and Christians differ on. All Christians not only believe in the supernatural, but we swim in it. All our prayers, good deeds, worship, etc in some way unifies us supernaturally to God through His will, through His love.

Buddhism is, as the poster above said, very free-form and not dogmatic. This is because the Buddhist is not as challenged to take up as much as the Christian. There is a lot in Buddhism, but you can take it or leave it. Whether you believe in the existence of the Bodhisatvas like Jizosama (St. Jizo), Amitahba Buddha, man’s place in the natural order as being equal with the animals, etc is not necessary to call yourself Buddhist. You can reject one or you can reject them all. There are even Buddhist monks who eat meat. At the neighborhood Lantern and Obon festivals both here in the US and in Japan, meat products like seafood and beef were sold out of stands for all the “Buddhist” celebrants. This is another example of Buddhist nihilism versus Christian love.

If I was desperately in love with someone and that person acted like I did not exist, I would be torn apart by sorrow. In order to be loved, I would dogmatically demand that 1) They acknowledge (or believe) I exist. 2) Strike up a relationship with me. Whereas Buddhism is ethereally aloof, the Christian God waits impatiently right there on your couch, demanding that you pay due attention. This is why Christianity is dogmatic. At the center of all Catholic dogma is the same guiding principle: HE IS REAL.

It is easy to turn your nose up at dogmas because our thoroughly anti-Catholic culture has taught you to hate them as being constraining and cold. But your birth has dogmatic, written proof (birth certificate), as does (or will) your marriage and your driver’s license, as will your death. You need such documents throughout your life as proof of your existence and your identity. You can think of their necessity as a shame because humans have so little trust for each other, but I would not blame the documents or their creators for their usefulness.

 

[StubbleSpark]

Ahimsa:

But all this talk about eating human-flesh and sitting in excrement is a side-show to your main issue of whether the development of science requires a Catholic culture. Sure, modern Western science owes a lot to Catholic and Protestant culture, as it does to the Arabic and Muslim cultures, as well as Indian, Roman/Hellenistic, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian, for starters. Catholicism didn’t begin in a vacuum. And it seems rather short-sighted to assume that the present-day form of science is the epitome of what science can ever be.

I agree that it has been distracting and I have been trying really hard to stay of task here. My whole point in showing the relationship between Catholicism and science was to demonstrate how something as simple as the difference in the belief in a Person-God can have a big impact on your society, culture, and spiritual development over time. But in order to do that, I had to

1. Prove that the connection between the development of science Catholicism is more than just anecdotal. And
2. Compare the two world-views side by side to demonstrate this difference.

You made several statements that I would like address: Epitome? No. Belief in God means there will be no end to progress. The finite cannot cross over to the infinite.

Other cultures? Yes, there was no vacuum. This idea that other cultures intrinsically have their own value comes from Roman culture, which diffused into Catholic culture. This is the secret to our success and our universality.

As for whether or not you believe in the fact that Catholicism gave rise to science, aside from cutting and pasting entire books, I do not think there is a whole lot more I can do. If you really want to challenge the notion, I suggest you pick up Anthony Rizzi’s The Science Before Science and “judge for yourself,” as the evangelicals say.

I would like to point out that it is considered natural in our culture today to revile the Church as the greatest evil in history. The caricature image of her despotic and evil control in all aspects of life goes unchallenged, but the moment I mention something as plainly true as the connection between Catholicism and science, people like Tlaloc laugh me out of the room. Of course this is not as bad as when it happens in person…

When a person is prejudiced, they have a tendency to take derogatory information without skepticism while dismissing out of hand any positive information. This is dangerous. It is especially dangerous when the person doing it considers themselves to be liberal and accepting. I invite readers of this post to indulge my far-fetched notions that God’s Church is not in fact pure evil but may have one or two “redeeming” values (pun intended).

 

[ahimsaman72]

catholic2:

Well, now that I’m a 5 minute expert on all there is to know on Buddhism, I am enlightened. Haha. It was many years ago I remember, reading the book Siddhartha by Herman Hesse in college. I had an impressionistic rather than an objective knowledge about Gautama and Buddhism, but the site you suggested was helpful.

There are more similarities than differences between Buddhism and Christianity from where I stand right now. But I think the differences are irreconcilable. Here are my thoughts, and I do not wish to sound didactic, but please take them more as inquiries as I consider Buddhism for the philosophy it admits itself to be. Thank you.

The Creator/Nirvana.
To be sure there are others; but perhaps if you are willing later, a discussion in other areas.
God is also, as in the state of Nirvana, outside of time and space, and as you so aptly put it the “uncreated aspect of reality” and as in the state of Nirvana we who are Christians seek and wish to be one with God. It is the wish of God as evidenced by His writing that this be so:

*"…that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us…I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, …" *(John 17:21,23)

But from this point on, God and Nirvana start to separate: In God as we become one in Him, our identities are kept. Just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one triune God but in three persons, so we are one in the Godhead yet separate. In Nirvana you are the drop of water that falls into the ocean and becomes one with it, losing your identity, that identity which had to be purged of negative Karma through successive lives.

God is active, knowable, wants to be known, and gives us many clues to His nature and existence. He practically hits us on the head with a cross to get our attention. While Nirvana is as you say, unfathomable.

“Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made.” Romans 1:20.

We have an eternal existence in God. He is the great IS, always existing, no beginning, therefore no end. He knew us eternally, even before the foundations of the world. Herein I can see how the concept of the Buddhist reincarnations may have had their Genesis. This present existence in time and place is but a blink in eternity. God’s thoughts and ways are far above ours, but what we can know is that we are eternal beings and this present existence is only a small part of it. Somehow Gautama touched on this but got mired. God sent His Son as a Savior because we were lost and needed salvation.

Excellent post friend.

You truly have stated the obvious. There are similarities between the two faith as you pointed out. Obviously, Buddhism isn’t Christianity and Christianity isn’t Buddhism. Each are unique. I find basic similarities of moral conduct in both. That is how I practice my life. I abide by the 5 precepts and practice mindfulness and abide by the basic tenents of the Christian faith.

If one wants to be dogmatic - you can not reconcile the two faiths. However, if one is open to the possibilities and seeks to go beyond concepts and notions about what is true and untrue, then one can indeed practice both faiths.

My favorite writer and Zen Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, holds retreats at his Plum Village in France. Many Christians come to these retreats seeking to rid themselves of their born faiths. They hear him speak and many want to convert and leave their present faith behind. He does not encourage them to do so.

He encourages Christians to go back to America and take concepts like mindfulness and compassion and integrate the life these things can bring into their practice of Christianity. Everyone needs a home to go back to. In his mind people need roots of faith. Leaving the roots of your present religion is a mistake.

You become a wandering person with a lost faith and desperate in life. But, if you leave the roots of your present faith intact and take helpful and healthy aspects of say, Buddhism, and incorporate them into your faith practice, one can truly be happy.

That’s why he is quoted as saying, “When you are a truly happy Christian, you are also a Buddhist and vice versa”.

Thank you for your insightful post.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

StubbleSpark:

You could say that the absolute that is Nirvana is a lot like the Christian God. But Buddhism does not go as far as to ascribe a personhood to it and therein lies the big difference between Buddhism and Christianity.

In Buddhism, oneness with Nirvana demands destruction of self into the absolute. Getting there requires a lot of personal sacrifice and selfless action. These are two big requirements for love. And indeed, if you were to hold a devout Buddhist next to devout Christian as compare who loves his fellow man more, you would be hard-pressed to discern.

But in the end, when self becomes one with the absolute in Nirvana, we as people are taken through a PROCESS that is logical and naturally occurring – just like you would expect sugar to dissolve into hot coffee. This is impersonal. It is not a homecoming. There is no welcome, no warm embrace. The giant pool has no loving eyes gazing back at YOU the individual.

This is why when you compare the two faiths, Christians tend to point out the nihilism that is central to Buddhism. But Buddhists tend to point out the impossibility of a PERSON/RULER of reality. I think this is the main reason why people would choose Buddhism. It is not like they have anything against Christianity personally, it is just that it is kind of far-fetched and simple – like a fairy tale. It just looks like primitive people sort of imposing their person-centric views on what is obviously an impersonal and automatically-running universe. It takes only a small amount of skepticism to discount the whole thing…

First, Buddhism doesn’t totally discount the idea of God as you see Him. The Buddha spoke of gods, devas, demons, etc. He took those concepts from his Hindu upbringing. The scholarly and dogmatists in the Buddhist faith will totally discount it. However, Zen and Tibetan followers either are agnostic or believers in gods. If you understand basic Buddhism, you know that the whole philosophy the Buddha expounded upon is based on the four noble truths and eightfold path.

Everything springs from those concepts. There is also a difference in the philosophy of Buddhism and the religion of Buddhism. Schools emphasize different aspects. For me, it is more of a philosophy or approach to daily life. I don’t concern myself with rebirth and religious observances. The concepts of Buddhism are fingers pointing to the moon, so to speak. They are not meant to be embraced. They are meant to be used to end one’s suffering.

The goal of the Buddha was to end suffering - for himself and all beings. That goal is based on the four noble truths and eightfold path. It all goes back to his view of suffering and his approach to end suffering. A Christian can follow the four noble truths and eightfold path and still be a Christian. It’s simply a path - meant to end suffering.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

StubbleSpark:

For us, the PROCESS is natural and personal. We attain oneness through love. We love our God and He loves us – not just as a collective of human creation – but as individuals. We find total fulfillment in this unification through love.

We can find metaphors for this in our natural existence. Married spouses are configured toward each other through love. Parents and children also have a type of unity through love. But the love we are talking about with God is incomprehensible in its warmth, magnitude, and permanence. It is not natural – it is supernatural.

And this is another point Buddhists and Christians differ on. All Christians not only believe in the supernatural, but we swim in it. All our prayers, good deeds, worship, etc in some way unifies us supernaturally to God through His will, through His love.

Buddhism is, as the poster above said, very free-form and not dogmatic. This is because the Buddhist is not as challenged to take up as much as the Christian. There is a lot in Buddhism, but you can take it or leave it. Whether you believe in the existence of the Bodhisatvas like Jizosama (St. Jizo), Amitahba Buddha, man’s place in the natural order as being equal with the animals, etc is not necessary to call yourself Buddhist. You can reject one or you can reject them all. There are even Buddhist monks who eat meat. At the neighborhood Lantern and Obon festivals both here in the US and in Japan, meat products like seafood and beef were sold out of stands for all the “Buddhist” celebrants. This is another example of Buddhist nihilism versus Christian love.

If I was desperately in love with someone and that person acted like I did not exist, I would be torn apart by sorrow. In order to be loved, I would dogmatically demand that 1) They acknowledge (or believe) I exist. 2) Strike up a relationship with me. Whereas Buddhism is ethereally aloof, the Christian God waits impatiently right there on your couch, demanding that you pay due attention. This is why Christianity is dogmatic. At the center of all Catholic dogma is the same guiding principle: HE IS REAL.

It is easy to turn your nose up at dogmas because our thoroughly anti-Catholic culture has taught you to hate them as being constraining and cold. But your birth has dogmatic, written proof (birth certificate), as does (or will) your marriage and your driver’s license, as will your death. You need such documents throughout your life as proof of your existence and your identity. You can think of their necessity as a shame because humans have so little trust for each other, but I would not blame the documents or their creators for their usefulness.

Some Buddhists believe in the supernatural. As I said, the two faiths of Catholicism and Buddhism are different in that one makes definitive dogmatic statements whereas the other is more focused on getting beyond dogmatic statements to experience true reality.

You don’t know much about traditional Buddhism to say that Buddhists don’t have to give up much. Buddhists on the contrary have to give up a lot. They give up attachment to everything that your five senses experience. The Christian faith goes nowhere near the denial of materialism and cravings that the Buddhist faith expects of its followers. The Theravada Buddhist monks have many requirements they must follow according to the Buddha’s teachings.

I would suggest browsing the www.accesstoinsight.org website that can show you the complexity of the Theravada school of Buddhism. I can’t stress enough the understanding of different schools of Buddhism. Just as there are many schools of Christianity, there are many schools of thought in Buddhism.

I hope you weren’t referring to me when you said:

“It is easy to turn your nose up at dogmas because our thoroughly anti-Catholic culture has taught you to hate them as being constraining and cold”

I don’t turn my nose up at dogmas, nor am I anti-Catholic, nor do I hate anyone. You know nothing about me. You assume wrongly that because I follow the philosophy of Buddhism that that equates to hating Christianity or the dogmatism of Catholicism. That’s simply not true. If anything I’m open-minded to the possibities of understanding reality in different ways. I value inclusivism - not exclusivism. If you weren’t referring to me, then forgive my assumptions, please.

Peace…