Buddha and his teachings

[ahimsaman72]

StubbleSpark:

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.

No, this is not the understanding of Nirvana. There is no destruction of “self” as there is no “self” to begin with. To let go of one’s ego and attachments and sufferings is to experience nirvana. I’m glad to see you understand that Buddhists are loving people. The basic tenents of Buddhism are compassion and love. Again, I would send you to www.buddhanet.net read the five minute intro to Buddhism. The view of “self” is explained there much better than I can share here.

Peace…

 

[_Joshua]

Sowndog:

There is at least a small amount of truth in all of the major religions. .

Half the truth is still a whole lie !

 

[catholic2]

ahimsaman72:

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…

As I understand dogma and doctrine, I would be hard put to say whether Catholicism or Buddhism has more or less than the other. Both are dogmatic and doctrined regardless of where their emphasis may lead. But dogmas and doctrines are based on percieved truths. The Buddhist philosophical dogma of mutual inclusiveness, where seemingly opposing entities occupy the same space, is contrasted with the mutually exclusive stance of the Catholic/Christian which follows “No one goes to the Father except through Me” spoken by Jesus.

If one tried to unify the two by going beyond even those basic doctrines, you destroy both.

 

[Ahimsa]

catholic2:

As I understand dogma and doctrine, I would be hard put to say whether Catholicism or Buddhism has more or less than the other. Both are dogmatic and doctrined regardless of where their emphasis may lead. But dogmas and doctrines are based on percieved truths. The Buddhist philosophical dogma of mutual inclusiveness, where seemingly opposing entities occupy the same space, is contrasted with the mutually exclusive stance of the Catholic/Christian which follows “No one goes to the Father except through Me” spoken by Jesus.

My opinion of the “mutual inclusiveness” found in Buddhism is that it is meant to communicate something that is really not communicable. Thus, some Buddhists may say “Nirvana equals samsara” in an uprush of ecstatic bliss or radical insight.

But when you come back down to earth, when you return to the hard-nosed, brass-tacks, rubber-hits-the-road daily practice of ethics and morality, one must always be able to discriminate between what brings benefit to oneself and others – and cultivate that – and what brings harm to oneself and others – and abandon that in return. As the Buddha himself said, “To do the good, renounce the evil, and develop awareness – that is the teaching of the Buddha”.

 

[ahimsaman72]

catholic2:

As I understand dogma and doctrine, I would be hard put to say whether Catholicism or Buddhism has more or less than the other. Both are dogmatic and doctrined regardless of where their emphasis may lead. But dogmas and doctrines are based on percieved truths. The Buddhist philosophical dogma of mutual inclusiveness, where seemingly opposing entities occupy the same space, is contrasted with the mutually exclusive stance of the Catholic/Christian which follows “No one goes to the Father except through Me” spoken by Jesus.

If one tried to unify the two by going beyond even those basic doctrines, you destroy both.

Maybe I have misstated some things here. I see openness in Buddhism to differing viewpoints. That’s what I am considering inclusivism, contrary to that is Catholicism which is dogmatic and exclusive. For example, the writers I have come in contact with, such as Joseph Goldstein, talk about relative and ultimate truths as being crucial in Buddhism.

I don’t mean to say that opposing entities can be seen as occupying the same space. In reality, most Zen masters today don’t even speak of nirvana. They consider it not worth debating about. And, they consider spending time and energy talking about God and whether or not He is a person or not a person to be simply a waste of energy.

If one spends their whole life consumed with dealing with such issues, the life will be spent not meditating and not attaining nirvana while seeking to explain it and understand it. Buddha encouraged people to simply follow the path and leave some things unanswered. One of those things was the concept of a Creator God.

What happens is that when questions are asked about nirvana, heaven and hell, God, etc. these concepts are not identical in the different faiths. It’s like trying to explain to a South African what snow is. If they have never seen it or experienced it, it’s pretty hard to draw some analogies and achieve understanding.

So, when we speak of concepts like egolessness, nirvana, enlightenment (which are Eastern concepts that are foreign to Western thought) I for one have to remember there is not an equivalence chart that we can refer to to help us understand one another.

The best I can do is share concepts and ideas and make the attempt to reconcile those with your Western mind. In the process, admittedly, some truth will be lost in the translation. Some concepts are indeed hard to understand. I grew up with the Western mind-set and have a hard time with Buddhist terminology and concepts myself. All we can do is make the attempt to understand.

As long as our attempt is to understand better - instead of split hairs, we will be okay. I admit that sometimes I want to split hairs and make comparisons that are hard to mesh. As one Zen master has said - “A finger pointing to the moon”. I want to be a finger pointing to the moon. Admittedly, the moon is debateable.

Peace…

 

[catholic2]

ahimsaman72:

Maybe I have misstated some things here. I see openness in Buddhism to differing viewpoints. That’s what I am considering inclusivism, contrary to that is Catholicism which is dogmatic and exclusive. For example, the writers I have come in contact with, such as Joseph Goldstein, talk about relative and ultimate truths as being crucial in Buddhism.

I don’t mean to say that opposing entities can be seen as occupying the same space. In reality, most Zen masters today don’t even speak of nirvana. They consider it not worth debating about. And, they consider spending time and energy talking about God and whether or not He is a person or not a person to be simply a waste of energy.

If one spends their whole life consumed with dealing with such issues, the life will be spent not meditating and not attaining nirvana while seeking to explain it and understand it. Buddha encouraged people to simply follow the path and leave some things unanswered. One of those things was the concept of a Creator God.

What happens is that when questions are asked about nirvana, heaven and hell, God, etc. these concepts are not identical in the different faiths. It’s like trying to explain to a South African what snow is. If they have never seen it or experienced it, it’s pretty hard to draw some analogies and achieve understanding.

So, when we speak of concepts like egolessness, nirvana, enlightenment (which are Eastern concepts that are foreign to Western thought) I for one have to remember there is not an equivalence chart that we can refer to to help us understand one another.

The best I can do is share concepts and ideas and make the attempt to reconcile those with your Western mind. In the process, admittedly, some truth will be lost in the translation. Some concepts are indeed hard to understand. I grew up with the Western mind-set and have a hard time with Buddhist terminology and concepts myself. All we can do is make the attempt to understand.

As long as our attempt is to understand better - instead of split hairs, we will be okay. I admit that sometimes I want to split hairs and make comparisons that are hard to mesh. As one Zen master has said - “A finger pointing to the moon”. I want to be a finger pointing to the moon. Admittedly, the moon is debateable.

Peace…

If you were to be a Catholic, what you have to do is to believe:

(1) God created all that there is, both in the spiritual and temporal realm. (2) God sent His Son Jesus Christ, born of a virgin woman through His Holy Spirit, who was killed by the Roman authorities and was buried. (3) After three days Jesus rose from the dead and after 40 days went to the Father in Heaven. (4) Jesus then will return to earth in power and majesty to judge us all. (5) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son and with them He is equally worshipped and glorified. (6) The Holy Spirit spoke by the prophets, inspiring all scripture in both the old and the new testaments. (7)One holy universal Church founded by Jesus through the apostles. (8) One baptism for the remission of sins; the ressurection of the dead and life in the new age to come.

Can you accept without exception all eight items and still be a Buddhist? or do you have to delete some? Your answer I am sure will lead to deeper discussion and learning. I am not in the spirit of challenging you but am only trying to inquire of the truth, which is what you are interested in as well.

Thank you very much

 

[ahimsaman72]

catholic2:

If you were to be a Catholic, what you have to do is to believe:

(1) God created all that there is, both in the spiritual and temporal realm. (2) God sent His Son Jesus Christ, born of a virgin woman through His Holy Spirit, who was killed by the Roman authorities and was buried. (3) After three days Jesus rose from the dead and after 40 days went to the Father in Heaven. (4) Jesus then will return to earth in power and majesty to judge us all. (5) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son and with them He is equally worshipped and glorified. (6) The Holy Spirit spoke by the prophets, inspiring all scripture in both the old and the new testaments. (7)One holy universal Church founded by Jesus through the apostles. (8) One baptism for the remission of sins; the ressurection of the dead and life in the new age to come.

Can you accept without exception all eight items and still be a Buddhist? or do you have to delete some? Your answer I am sure will lead to deeper discussion and learning. I am not in the spirit of challenging you but am only trying to inquire of the truth, which is what you are interested in as well.

Thank you very much

Why not? Why would have to delete some? All could conceivably work in a Zen Buddhist concept. It wouldn’t work well in a Theravada Buddhist concept. You would freely admit that there is much more to the Catholic faith than this.

I’m going to provide a link to a place where a Zen monk has a conversation with a lady about God. In this you can get an idea about Zen Buddhism.

Here it is:

hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/Literature/essays/czs/zenandgod.html

Peace…

 

[john_doran]

ahimsaman72:

Why not? Why would have to delete some? All could conceivably work in a Zen Buddhist concept. It wouldn’t work well in a Theravada Buddhist concept. You would freely admit that there is much more to the Catholic faith than this.

I’m going to provide a link to a place where a Zen monk has a conversation with a lady about God. In this you can get an idea about Zen Buddhism.

this is something that Zen monk said at the end of his essay:

Giving up what we think we know to be true and false about the world we live in is a difficult thing, even painful. Those of us who have traveled this path understand it as a death: the death of the ego, the demise of our sense of existing as an independent entity, separate from everything. The Buddha realized it was because of a sense of separation that we, as human beings, suffer. He, like many others after him, was able to transcend this alienated, samsaric existence. Nirvana, he explained, is found through emptying the mind of its baggage; its attachments. The effort is entirely an internal one. It requires perseverance and an enduring faith that the effort will pay off.

this is a position that is in principle impossible to reconcile with catholicism.

it’s also, incidentally, difficult to make any sense out of it at all - i mean, if you have to give up what you believe to be true and false about the world, then presumably you have to give up the zen belief that suffering is caused by a sense of separation; what’s more, you’d have to give up the belief that “we ought to give up what we think we know to be true and false about the world”…

we are separate from everything else.

happiness is found in loving god, and love of god is not found in the emptying of one’s mind of its “baggage” or its attachments; it’s found by becoming supremely attached to god; by filling one’s mind with Truth…

and it’s painful to stop believing in the possibility of knowing truth in the same way that it would be painful to try and make yourself believe that you could put your hand on a hot stove element without any problems; or in the same way that it would hurt to empty your mind of the “baggage” that standing in front of moving cars is bad; or…

 

[Tlaloc]

StubbleSpark:

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…

You made many claims that were completely false. Claiming a connection between science and Catholicism is not false any more than Catholicism and art. There was certainly a period where a great proportion of art was created by or for the church. That period is of course over. There was a period where the church was heavily involved in science either as patron or censor. That period is also over (although the church hasn’t realized it yet)

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

this is something that Zen monk said at the end of his essay:

this is a position that is in principle impossible to reconcile with catholicism.

it’s also, incidentally, difficult to make any sense out of it at all - i mean, if you have to give up what you believe to be true and false about the world, then presumably you have to give up the zen belief that suffering is caused by a sense of separation; what’s more, you’d have to give up the belief that “we ought to give up what we think we know to be true and false about the world”…

we are separate from everything else.

happiness is found in loving god, and love of god is not found in the emptying of one’s mind of its “baggage” or its attachments; it’s found by becoming supremely attached to god; by filling one’s mind with Truth…

and it’s painful to stop believing in the possibility of knowing truth in the same way that it would be painful to try and make yourself believe that you could put your hand on a hot stove element without any problems; or in the same way that it would hurt to empty your mind of the “baggage” that standing in front of moving cars is bad; or…

John,

These are indeed difficult concepts. Listen, the Zen monk isn’t saying - “don’t have any beliefs at all”. For instance, a Buddhist is expected to believe (have faith/confidence) that the 4 Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold path lead to the end of suffering. So, one can’t give up all ideas and beliefs.

There is a difference between beliefs and practice. Once a Buddhist begins to meditate and sees the benefits, faith in the path begins to grow. This is a natural and direct experiential process. Once faith is born, one can move on past mere beliefs and ideas because the practice becomes so real - so concrete.

It’s almost impossible to take one article which encompasses such a great deal of ideas and understand the whole of Buddhism. So, your questions aren’t anything surprising. I’ve had the same questions. And, to be honest, there are many times I read something and I don’t have a clue what the person is saying. I have to let it sink in. It may take a while. I may come across another bit of info that helps me understand.

I would tell you that the Christian life is about surrender. It is about selflessness. John the Baptist said, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (speaking of Christ). Paul repeatedly sought to deny himself. Philippians 1:21 says, “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” Christianity is very much about letting go of oneself and self-identity.

Peace…

 

[catholic2]

ahimsaman72:

Why not? Why would have to delete some? All could conceivably work in a Zen Buddhist concept. It wouldn’t work well in a Theravada Buddhist concept. You would freely admit that there is much more to the Catholic faith than this.

I’m going to provide a link to a place where a Zen monk has a conversation with a lady about God. In this you can get an idea about Zen Buddhism.

Here it is:

hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/Literature/essays/czs/zenandgod.html

Peace…

Well then, I have no objection. The eight items I listed are objective truths, outside of subjectivity.

But to find objective truth, one must get out of one’s self because objective truth is not subject to interpretation. Zen’s error is that it is not looking in the right place. No one, not even an enlightened one such as Siddhartha can truly see truth within one’s self, because we are deceptive and truth is not in us. To see truth, it must be spiritually discerned, and to be spiritually discerned, it must be given. No effort on our part can possibly obtain that spiritual truth which belongs only to God. Zen’s attempt to find that objective truth is doomed to failure.

God is merciful in that He has given us the truth through His Son Jesus Christ. Jesus says all that what he tells us comes from His Father who is the source of all truth. Free of any subjectivity or interpretation, the very core if you wish of truthfulness and in its fullness.

 

[ahimsaman72]

catholic2:

Well then, I have no objection. The eight items I listed are objective truths, outside of subjectivity.

But to find objective truth, one must get out of one’s self because objective truth is not subject to interpretation. Zen’s error is that it is not looking in the right place. No one, not even an enlightened one such as Siddhartha can truly see truth within one’s self, because we are deceptive and truth is not in us. To see truth, it must be spiritually discerned, and to be spiritually discerned, it must be given. No effort on our part can possibly obtain that spiritual truth which belongs only to God. Zen’s attempt to find that objective truth is doomed to failure.

God is merciful in that He has given us the truth through His Son Jesus Christ. Jesus says all that what he tells us comes from His Father who is the source of all truth. Free of any subjectivity or interpretation, the very core if you wish of truthfulness and in its fullness.

Hello C2!

Just to be clear - some schools of Buddhism wouldn’t accept this. To cling to absolutes without direct experience is antithetical to Buddhist practice. However, if one left one’s mind open, one can accept it. I want to give you some quotes from Mahatma Ghandi on truth and where to find it.

"What is Truth?

What is truth? A difficult question, but I have solved it for myself, by saying that it is what the voice within tells you. How then, you ask, do different people think of different and contrary truths?

It is because we have at the present moment everybody claiming the right of conscience without going through any discipline whatsoever; there is so much untruth being delivered in a bewildered world. All that I can, in true humanity, persent to you is that truth is not to be found by anybody who has not got an abundant sense of humility. If you would swim on the bosom of the ocean of truth, you must reduce yourself to zero.

Truth is within ourselves. There is an inmost center in us all, where truth abides in fullness. Every wrongdoer knows within himself that he is doing wrong, for untruth cannot be mistaken for truth. Truth and righteousness must for ever remain the law in God’s world.

That law of truth is merely understood to mean the we must speak the truth. But we understand the word in a much wider sense. There should be truth in thought, truth in speech, and truth in action.

Truth is the Source of Character

Character is based on virtuous action, and virtuous action is grounded on truth. Truth, then, is the source and foundation of all things that are good and great. Hence fearless and unflinching pursuit of the ideal of truth and righteousness is the key of true health, as of all else.

How to Realize Truth

But how is one to realize truth, which may be likened to the philosopher’s stone or the cow of plenty? By single-minded devotion, abhyasa, and indifference to every other interest, vairagya.

Silence is a great help to a seeker after truth like myself. In the attitude of silence, the soul finds the path in clearer light, and what is elusive and deceptive resolves itself into crystal clearness. Our life is a long arduous quest after truth, and the soul requires inward restfulness to attain its full height.

Experience has taught me that silence is a part of the spiritual discipline of a votary of truth. Proneness to exaggerate, to suppose or to modify truth, wittingly or unwittingly, is a natural weakness of man, and silence is necessary in order to surmount it. A man of few words will rarely be thoughtless in his speech. He will measure every word."

 

[catholic2]

ahimsaman72:

Hello C2!

Just to be clear - some schools of Buddhism wouldn’t accept this. To cling to absolutes without direct experience is antithetical to Buddhist practice. However, if one left one’s mind open, one can accept it. I want to give you some quotes from Mahatma Ghandi on truth and where to find it.

"What is Truth?

What is truth? A difficult question, but I have solved it for myself, by saying that it is what the voice within tells you. How then, you ask, do different people think of different and contrary truths?

It is because we have at the present moment everybody claiming the right of conscience without going through any discipline whatsoever; there is so much untruth being delivered in a bewildered world. All that I can, in true humanity, persent to you is that truth is not to be found by anybody who has not got an abundant sense of humility. If you would swim on the bosom of the ocean of truth, you must reduce yourself to zero.

Truth is within ourselves. There is an inmost center in us all, where truth abides in fullness. Every wrongdoer knows within himself that he is doing wrong, for untruth cannot be mistaken for truth. Truth and righteousness must for ever remain the law in God’s world.

That law of truth is merely understood to mean the we must speak the truth. But we understand the word in a much wider sense. There should be truth in thought, truth in speech, and truth in action.

Truth is the Source of Character

Character is based on virtuous action, and virtuous action is grounded on truth. Truth, then, is the source and foundation of all things that are good and great. Hence fearless and unflinching pursuit of the ideal of truth and righteousness is the key of true health, as of all else.

How to Realize Truth

But how is one to realize truth, which may be likened to the philosopher’s stone or the cow of plenty? By single-minded devotion, abhyasa, and indifference to every other interest, vairagya.

Silence is a great help to a seeker after truth like myself. In the attitude of silence, the soul finds the path in clearer light, and what is elusive and deceptive resolves itself into crystal clearness. Our life is a long arduous quest after truth, and the soul requires inward restfulness to attain its full height.

Experience has taught me that silence is a part of the spiritual discipline of a votary of truth. Proneness to exaggerate, to suppose or to modify truth, wittingly or unwittingly, is a natural weakness of man, and silence is necessary in order to surmount it. A man of few words will rarely be thoughtless in his speech. He will measure every word."

Thank you Ahimsaman72 for the information you give out. I am enjoying your thread. You probably realize that I have much to read and absorb. Thanks for pointing to those various websites and posting those quotes.

Noumena intrigues me:

Ahimsaman72 tell me, taking off from Descartes: Are you of “I think therefore I am” or rather “I am therefore I think”??

 

[ahimsaman72]

catholic2:

Thank you Ahimsaman72 for the information you give out. I am enjoying your thread. You probably realize that I have much to read and absorb. Thanks for pointing to those various websites and posting those quotes.

Noumena intrigues me:

Ahimsaman72 tell me, taking off from Descartes: Are you of “I think therefore I am” or rather “I am therefore I think”??

Oh, you are very welcome. I enjoy sharing ideas with others. I’m glad you have seen some merit in this thread. It wasn’t an attempt to convert anyone to Buddhism or denigrate Christianity. It was just my attempt to identify similarities that possibly exist in both faiths.

I first understood noumena from Thich Nhat Hanh. He spoke of it in his book, “Going Home, Jesus and Buddha as brothers”. I never heard the expression but pretty much believed the idea behind it anyway.

Oddly enough I would say both are true! “I think I am an idiot”. I begin to think like an idiot. Then I begin to act like an idiot. Then, you could rightfully say, “I am therefore an idiot”.

Kind of like the child told by his parent that he will never be anything when he grows up. He then believes it. He then acts out the “prophecy”. He then has completed the circle of suffering.

Hopefully that makes sense. Thanks for your openness, honesty and kindness.

Peace…

 

[Katholikos]

Hi ahimsa. Since Buddhism is basically atheistic, I find it very difficult to reconcile the idea that one can be both Buddhist and Baptist as you claim to be. But to a relativist, each individual’s “truth” is equally good and equally true (which means that none is objectively true, and that – for me – was the definition of atheism).

Here’s an interesting story of a Buddhist from Singapore who became a Pentecostal and now is a Catholic priest. He was converted while a student at Oral Roberts U, which is just as amazing. He welcomes emails.
homepage.mac.com/edwardyew/Conversion/Menu50.html

JMJ Jay

 

[ahimsaman72]

Katholikos:

Hi ahimsa. Since Buddhism is basically atheistic, I find it very difficult to reconcile the idea that one can be both Buddhist and Baptist as you claim to be. But to a relativist, each individual’s “truth” is equally good and equally true (which means that none is objectively true, and that – for me – was the definition of atheism).

Here’s an interesting story of a Buddhist from Singapore who became a Pentecostal and now is a Catholic priest. He was converted while a student at Oral Roberts U, which is just as amazing. He welcomes emails.
homepage.mac.com/edwardyew/Conversion/Menu50.html

JMJ Jay

Hey Kat!

Well, I wouldn’t label Buddhism as atheistic. At its worst it is agnostic. Buddha didn’t deny the reality of a Creator God. He didn’t see the presence of a Creator God revealed in what he saw around him. His main goal was to end suffering. And, in the end, if Creator God wasn’t part of that plan, then it was a moot point.

Zen Buddhism is an open Buddhism. It doesn’t cling to atheism at all. It doesn’t proclaim God nor discount God. Stephen Batchelor wrote a book titled, “Buddhism without beliefs” and Joseph Goldstein has also written a book titled, “One Dharma”. I have the second one, not the first.

Their premise is basically the same. In “One Dharma”, Goldstein explains that the emerging Western (or American) Buddhism is a non-sectarian one. It focuses on three things: mindfulness, compassion and wisdom and the practice of these. That is basically how I practice. These three are essential to practicing a non-sectarian path. I can follow these three principles and be a Christian (my opinion, of course).

I certainly believe there are two kinds of truth - subjective and objective. The goal would then be to realize objective truth. I’ve asked people at different times the question, “Where do I find objective truth and how do I know it’s objective and not subjective?” for which I have never received a reply. I believe objective truth really exists. It’s a matter of finding it.

Peace…

 

[JP2Admirer]

Virtue theory might be the place where you want to begin to find answers to the objective/subjective dichotomy. The way I understand it, at least in ethical terms, is that there is an objectively right action to every subjective experience. It’s a fluid objective reality.

For instance, in a given experience, I subjectively can choose the objectively right action. Let’s say I sit down to eat a turkey dinner, being a 220 pound man my temperate action would be to eat more than a 100 pound woman, but there does exist a temperate action for each of us subjectively. How do I know there exists a temperate action, because of the moral law written on my heart.
Thomas Jefferson once said he never felt guilty about eating too little. Why would he ever feel guilty for eating too much? Because there is an objective temperate action, that depends on the subject.

As for Buddhism, I think it teaches much truth that is nearly identical to Christianity. However, I have always had trouble with the whole idea of Karma because it destroys all concepts of good and evil.

According to Karma, if I go out and rape or murder someone, I am actually the doer of good, because the person who is violated “deserves” what they get from a previous life. Now maybe I will pay in a future life for my crime, so the notion of justice is there, but whoever violates me in my next life is then the actor of good, even if in that life I have done nothing wrong.

In short the actor of evil is the actor of good according to Karma. It follows from this that there is no good and evil because the two cannot be distinguished objectively (certainly they can be subjectively). But this cannot be true because Buddha and everyone else subjectively recognizes suffering. This must mean there is an objective evil. I think Karma is a failed attempt to explain the meaning of evil since Karma contradicts itself by giving a conception of justice in the place of actual justice. Karma says there is good and evil, but when analyzed cannot account for the existence of good and evil. (Please correct me if this is not Buddha’s conception of Karma or let me know if Buddha has an answer to this objection.)

Christianity offers the best explanation of subjective suffering, that it is a mystery only God knows the answer to, but it has something to do with us falling from His grace. He allows it for our betterment.

 

[ahimsaman72]

JP2Admirer:

According to Karma, if I go out and rape or murder someone, I am actually the doer of good, because the person who is violated “deserves” what they get from a previous life. Now maybe I will pay in a future life for my crime, so the notion of justice is there, but whoever violates me in my next life is then the actor of good, even if in that life I have done nothing wrong.

Thanks for your insight. I wanted to focus in on this part of your post about Karma. You are never the doer of “good” when you kill someone. Even if the victim “had it coming to them”, that doesn’t give the doer of the action the okay to do so. The first of the minimal 5 precepts that all Buddhists must uphold is “I vow to refrain from killing living beings”. So, it is never a right action to kill someone.

Karma is cause and effect. You kill someone you create negative karma on a grand scale. You will be reborn into the lowest hell where you will be killed over and over until your negative karma is extinguished. On the other hand, suppose you provide emergency medical care for a dying person, you have created positive karma and will receive help from someone either in this life or the one to come.

So, we could say that the victim had killed someone either in this life or previous lives. Therefore, she had enough negative karma built up that caused her death. It’s kind of like a cat chasing its tail. It’s a circular path. I have included a link to a website that deals extensively with Karma. Here it is:
accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html

I have to tell you, though, that some (like myself) see rebirth as simply a mind game. I don’t believe there are countless rebirths. And, I don’t have to believe that. That’s not a dogma of Buddhist faith. I take it at face value.

Do good, good will come to you.
Do evil, evil will come to you.

I live my life to do as much good as possible. If I focus on doing good and not doing evil, then I won’t worry much about negative karma.

Hope this helps.

Peace…

 

[JP2Admirer]

Sorry, I don’t have time right now to read completely the article you attached, but I was wondering if you could give me a brief overview.

According to Buddhism, how many levels of existence are there? You mentioned something of the “hell of hells” where evil is extinguished through continual death, which says to me there are different levels of existence. Any help would be great. I’m always interested in different religious perspectives and you seem to be knowledgeable in this area.

I don’t think you refuted my objection, though.
Buddha can say that murder is wrong, and I don’t in any way doubt he was sincere in this. But Karmic theory itself refutes that murder is wrong, because murder is merely justice being done for a previous cause.
If Karma is merely cause and effect as you say, then all the evil done in the world is deserved. Evil is the effect of something previously caused. If someone deserves something, then that means justice is served through evil.

I don’t have trouble believing that Buddha thought murder was wrong. What I have trouble with is that the conclusion (murder is wrong) doesn’t follow the premise (Karma).

I read in an earlier post how you said Eastern thought had no problem with contradictory truths, unlike the West. Aristotle even said that the principle of non-contradiction, which is about the only truth we syllogistically (as opposed to relevatory) know to be true, could be called into question. Non-contradiction seems self-evident to me, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. However, that said I don’t think I can believe in Karma since the conclusion doesn’t follow the premise. I could be missing something though, since I don’t have extensive knowledge of Buddhism. But that’s where you can help.

 

[ahimsaman72]

JP2Admirer:

Sorry, I don’t have time right now to read completely the article you attached, but I was wondering if you could give me a brief overview.

According to Buddhism, how many levels of existence are there? You mentioned something of the “hell of hells” where evil is extinguished through continual death, which says to me there are different levels of existence. Any help would be great. I’m always interested in different religious perspectives and you seem to be knowledgeable in this area.

There are 31 levels, from lowest hell to highest god realm. They all have names and characteristics that is pretty complex. The site I linked you to has a thorough examination of them.

I don’t think you refuted my objection, though.
Buddha can say that murder is wrong, and I don’t in any way doubt he was sincere in this. But Karmic theory itself refutes that murder is wrong, because murder is merely justice being done for a previous cause.
If Karma is merely cause and effect as you say, then all the evil done in the world is deserved. Evil is the effect of something previously caused. If someone deserves something, then that means justice is served through evil.

The beginning of karma is uncertain. There is no “justice” as you would perceive it. The person is their own judge, instead of an external judge. See what I mean? It is “moral” cause and effect. Just as there is a scientific cause and effect for “matter” there is “moral” cause and effect. Evil’s entrance into the world is a mystery. What that first cause was doesn’t matter in Buddhist philosophy. What matters is how to end it.

I don’t have trouble believing that Buddha thought murder was wrong. What I have trouble with is that the conclusion (murder is wrong) doesn’t follow the premise (Karma).

I read in an earlier post how you said Eastern thought had no problem with contradictory truths, unlike the West. Aristotle even said that the principle of non-contradiction, which is about the only truth we syllogistically (as opposed to relevatory) know to be true, could be called into question. Non-contradiction seems self-evident to me, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. However, that said I don’t think I can believe in Karma since the conclusion doesn’t follow the premise. I could be missing something though, since I don’t have extensive knowledge of Buddhism. But that’s where you can help.

Eastern philosophy seems more focused on behavior. If you look at Buddhism, Taoism and Confucious thought, they are behavior religions/philosophies instead of abstract belief systems. They don’t dabble in revelatory truth really.

If you believe in two kinds of truth - objective and subjective, then contradictions can be worked with. Aristotle’s laws are valid. They weren’t created by him, but were his observations of the logic that existed. But, that is only a self-evident logic. It doesn’t necessarily answer all questions of existence.

I’m merely a student of Buddhism and a relatively new one at that. I’ve never dabbled in philosophical study. I never knew about the three laws of logic till dennisknapp brought it up. I was born a Southern Baptist Christian who has always sought “truth” - wherever it might lead. I’ve read the Bible extensively and till a couple years ago thought it contained the only truth knowable to man. I since have seen that there are many truths and that Christianity doesn’t have all of them. Different cultures and religions have truths also. They may be relative or subjective truths, but truths nonetheless.

Read the article I sent you to at your leisure. I can’t truly give you an overview here that would do it justice. It’s better that you get if from the “horses mouth” anyway. And, like I said, belief in karma is not a pre-requisite to be a Buddhist and neither is rebirth. The four noble truths and eightfold path are the essential elements and do not speak of these concepts.

Peace…