Buddha and his teachings

  • Thread starter Thread starter ahimsaman72
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
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
Click to expand...
I just finished reading the autobiography at the site. Awesome and inspirational. You know, with Ahimsaman and with others in this Buddhist thread, I am becoming more and more a deeper Catholic. Praise God in all His mysterious ways.
 
40.png
ahimsaman72:
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”
Click to expand...
…then what follows, “I am an Idiot therefore …”? Sorry Ahimsaman, just a lighthearted rhetorical question. Fill in the blank only if it is profitable. Since I am not a Buddhist I do so many things which are “unprofitable”. Sometimes I try to be funny and I am not. What’s really worrisome is that sometimes I try to be serious and then I’m funny.
(To others: I asked ahimsaman72 whether “I think, therefore I am [cogito ergo sum]” ala Descartes applied to him or rather “I am therefore I think” was more applicable.)

Now this is serious…:cool:…I read on another thread in this forum this very nice and sincere poster offering you two doors to choose. I would like to do the same, except I will label the doors differently.
Door 1. :nope: Buddhism. Live a good and moral life, follow the Golden Rule, maybe you will achieve Nirvana. You can reject Jesus. But if you are wrong you will suffer the consequences of eternal separation from God.
Door 2. :dancing: Catholicism/Christian Live a good and moral life, follow the Golden Rule, and you must accept Jesus. You can be with God forever. But if you are wrong, well no problem…you’re still a Buddhist.

Thanks ahimsaman72 for this thread, and thanks to all who are contributing. I’ll get more studious in my later posts.
 
Wow, this thread is really rising above and beyond all the muck that it was stuck in before! Praise God!

I would like to ask a question about Karma. You said:

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

Does this mean that bad things cannot happen to good people or good things to bad people? In other words, are all the bad things that happen to people a result of their own Karma?

Catholicism has something similar to Karma (and I think this has been mentioned albeit indirectly) and that is justice. Only for us, Justice is the act of a guiding supernatural sentience. Therefore, bad things can happen to good people, and for the mystics, they feel especially singled out by God for an extra dose of bad things!

The concept of escaping suffering is different from the Catholic view. For us, suffering is meant to be embraced as a means for improvement. It is like coming in physical contact with the hand of God. I think this understanding does a lot to breed a courageous virtue in Christendom. Because of this, we have incredible examples of selflessness and love: St. Francis, St. Maximillian Kolbe, Blessed Mother Theresa to name a few of the more famous ones.

Saying that the universe cannot be known because its truths are inscrutable to me feels like defeat. In our house, we do not know this type of attitude because for one, we do not believe in subjective truth because that which is not always true is not, by definition, truth. You could also say that we are not concerned with subjective truth because by definition, it is just an psychological phantasm – substantially unrelated to the real (that is, it is related to the real only inasmuch as it SEEMS to relate in the psychological construct of the individual. And as I write this, I am starting to realize that THAT is why Buddhists focus on self-annihilation – because it is the source of the subjective and therefore a deceiver of self and usurper along the path to enlightenment. Ahhh, yes, it is all coming back to me now… But why call subjective truth “truth” in the first place if we both see it as an oxymoron? Why not just call it “experience” or the “subjective”?)

It is late…

JP2, good to see a fresh face! Read some of your other posts 👍
 
40.png
catholic2:
Code: 
    **Door 1. :nope: Buddhism.**  Live a good and moral life, follow the Golden Rule, maybe you will achieve Nirvana. You can reject Jesus.   But if you are wrong you will suffer the consequences of  eternal separation from God.
    **Door 2. :dancing: Catholicism/Christian**  Live a good and moral life, follow the Golden Rule, and you must accept Jesus.  You can be with God forever.  But if you are wrong, well no problem...you're still a Buddhist.
Click to expand...
Catholic2, hmm… I have enjoyed your posts for the most part but this choice question comes across as a sort of ultimatum or veiled threat. Are you suggesting Ahimsaman become Catholic just to cover her bases as insurance? It reminds me of an old story about Kubla Kahn: he was a member of as many religions as he could – just to be safe!

I would not call the question “nice” or “sincere.”
 
40.png
catholic2:
…then what follows, “I am an Idiot therefore …”? Sorry Ahimsaman, just a lighthearted rhetorical question. Fill in the blank only if it is profitable. Since I am not a Buddhist I do so many things which are “unprofitable”. Sometimes I try to be funny and I am not. What’s really worrisome is that sometimes I try to be serious and then I’m funny.
(To others: I asked ahimsaman72 whether “I think, therefore I am [cogito ergo sum]” ala Descartes applied to him or rather “I am therefore I think” was more applicable.)

Now this is serious…:cool:…I read on another thread in this forum this very nice and sincere poster offering you two doors to choose. I would like to do the same, except I will label the doors differently.
Door 1. :nope: Buddhism. Live a good and moral life, follow the Golden Rule, maybe you will achieve Nirvana. You can reject Jesus. But if you are wrong you will suffer the consequences of eternal separation from God.
Door 2. :dancing: Catholicism/Christian Live a good and moral life, follow the Golden Rule, and you must accept Jesus. You can be with God forever. But if you are wrong, well no problem…you’re still a Buddhist.

Thanks ahimsaman72 for this thread, and thanks to all who are contributing. I’ll get more studious in my later posts.
Click to expand...
Hahaha, dear C2, I was just using that phrase as an example. I wasn’t implying anything either way. I don’t believe either one of us is an idiot. Actually, it was a good question - a very good “Zen” question.🙂

Listen, I’ve studied world religions for a couple years. Here’s what I have come up with in a nutshell:
  1. Jews claim one God and if you follow Christ, you are following a false God and possibly go to “hell”
  2. Christians claim Jews are unfulfilled if not accepting Christ and possibly will go to hell
  3. Muslims claim both Jews and Christians are wrong, Mohammed brought truth and clarity. To not accept Allah means you will probably go to hell
  4. Hindus believe in becoming one with brahma
  5. Buddhists believe in escaping the world of suffering through achieving nirvana. If you don’t achieve nirvana in this life you will be reborn again and again till you get it right. The possibility of going to hell is there if you choose to.
So, now we have all these religions, with the first 3 claiming absolute truth. The last two don’t claim it. All claim to lead somewhere. If you and I were born in Saudi Arabia, we would be Muslims. If you and I were born in Thailand, we would probably be Buddhist. If you and I …you get the point.

All claim choosing them and going to heaven or achieving nirvana. All claim not choosing them causes suffering and gets you to hell (possibly). So, that being said, this is all very confusing to say the least. And, for the most part it depends on where you were born as to which one you were. And, since you have no control over your birth, it seems pretty difficult to see the beauty in any of them. It’s no wonder people become atheist or agnostic.

In Buddhism it is reported that there are 84,000 Dharma doors - doors of truth - doors of enlightenment. I will find one of them.

Peace…
 
40.png
StubbleSpark:
Catholic2, hmm… I have enjoyed your posts for the most part but this choice question comes across as a sort of ultimatum or veiled threat. Are you suggesting Ahimsaman become Catholic just to cover her bases as insurance? It reminds me of an old story about Kubla Kahn: he was a member of as many religions as he could – just to be safe!

I would not call the question “nice” or “sincere.”
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don’t believe in “fire insurance”. It’s just not me. If God wants me, I think He wants me, not my blind, faithless alliegiance. If I become Catholic it will be because it is both a heart decision and head decision. One without the other causes a person madness. 🙂

Peace…
 
40.png
StubbleSpark:
Wow, this thread is really rising above and beyond all the muck that it was stuck in before! Praise God!

I would like to ask a question about Karma. You said:

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

Does this mean that bad things cannot happen to good people or good things to bad people? In other words, are all the bad things that happen to people a result of their own Karma?
Click to expand...
Karma is past, present and future actions. If in this life one suffers bad things it is because of past actions - whether previous lives or 10 minutes ago. All people create either good or bad karma. All people are inherently good. Negative karma has to be exhausted (used up) to not suffer loss. People create their own karma which then follows them.
Catholicism has something similar to Karma (and I think this has been mentioned albeit indirectly) and that is justice. Only for us, Justice is the act of a guiding supernatural sentience. Therefore, bad things can happen to good people, and for the mystics, they feel especially singled out by God for an extra dose of bad things!

The concept of escaping suffering is different from the Catholic view. For us, suffering is meant to be embraced as a means for improvement. It is like coming in physical contact with the hand of God. I think this understanding does a lot to breed a courageous virtue in Christendom. Because of this, we have incredible examples of selflessness and love: St. Francis, St. Maximillian Kolbe, Blessed Mother Theresa to name a few of the more famous ones.
Click to expand...
I am especially fond of Mother Theresa and St. Francis. 🙂
Saying that the universe cannot be known because its truths are inscrutable to me feels like defeat. In our house, we do not know this type of attitude because for one, we do not believe in subjective truth because that which is not always true is not, by definition, truth. You could also say that we are not concerned with subjective truth because by definition, it is just an psychological phantasm – substantially unrelated to the real (that is, it is related to the real only inasmuch as it SEEMS to relate in the psychological construct of the individual. And as I write this, I am starting to realize that THAT is why Buddhists focus on self-annihilation – because it is the source of the subjective and therefore a deceiver of self and usurper along the path to enlightenment. Ahhh, yes, it is all coming back to me now… But why call subjective truth “truth” in the first place if we both see it as an oxymoron? Why not just call it “experience” or the “subjective”?)

It is late…

JP2, good to see a fresh face! Read some of your other posts 👍
Click to expand...
I think we would agree here. There is a perceived reality and a true reality. The perceived (subjective) is the mind’s own game with itself. The true reality can be known. In the Buddhist world, this true reality is nirvana. I don’t like the term “self-annihilation” as a description of the Buddhist focus. It is rather a “self denial”. There is no annihilation in Buddhism.

You don’t come from nothing and you don’t go to nothing (if that makes sense). It goes back to dependent origination. “This is because that is”. I am a continuation of my parents who are a continuation of their parents, etc. I didn’t come from nothing and I won’t go into “nothingness” after this body passes away.

Peace…
 
Forgive me if this doesn’t work, I’m still trying to figure out how to quote people.
So, now we have all these religions, with the first 3 claiming absolute truth. The last two don’t claim it. All claim to lead somewhere. If you and I were born in Saudi Arabia, we would be Muslims. If you and I were born in Thailand, we would probably be Buddhist. If you and I …you get the point.
Click to expand...
I think this says something about an internal knowledge of God being written on our hearts. So many different cultures with varying beliefs, but all with core similarities.

I believe Christ’s Church represents the whole truth, the unity of truth. There is truth to all the world religions, if there weren’t, they would have no following.

With Hinduism and Buddhism, there are philosophical difficulties. (Karma and polytheism).

With Islam there are historical difficulties (it doesn’t report history accurately), as well as contradictions within the Koran. Islam cannot be subjected to academic rigor because the Koran is believed to be the Word of God, as written by Him. Therefore to criticize the text is to criticize God.

With Judaism, there are no philosophical difficulties, and no historical inaccuracies. There is no contradiction of doctrine. However, the Scriptures are unfulfilled and make little sense without Christ. The prophecies and parallels between Old and New are ignored.

With Christianity, there are no philosophical difficulties. There are no historical difficulties. There is no contradiction of doctrine. The Scriptures are fulfilled and make sense.

No other figure in history has been subjected to, and withstood, the criticism Jesus Christ has been subjected to. The Bible can be subjected to academic rigor because God spoke through human authors, meaning we are not criticizing God when we put the text to the test. Christ is the one Truth. The whole truth.

There is benevolent truth to all world religions, but not the whole Truth. Only one religion can make that claim and not contradict itself, either historically, philosophically, or in doctrine.

I think Buddhism is a beautiful religion and can shed light on the truth, but only part of it. There are parts of Buddhist teaching that don’t contradict Christ’s teaching, and those are true. I think Buddhism can shed light on Christ’s teaching where it doesn’t contradict it. It can offer a new perspective on some of His teaching. Diversity of perspectives on the One Truth doesn’t mean contradiction, but where Buddhism contradicts Christ’s teaching, it is wrong. The same goes for all world religions.
 
40.png
StubbleSpark:
Catholic2, hmm… I have enjoyed your posts for the most part but this choice question comes across as a sort of ultimatum or veiled threat. Are you suggesting Ahimsaman become Catholic just to cover her bases as insurance? It reminds me of an old story about Kubla Kahn: he was a member of as many religions as he could – just to be safe!

I would not call the question “nice” or “sincere.”
Click to expand...
…its like I said…when I try to be funny…:o
 
40.png
JP2Admirer:
Forgive me if this doesn’t work, I’m still trying to figure out how to quote people.

I think this says something about an internal knowledge of God being written on our hearts. So many different cultures with varying beliefs, but all with core similarities.

I believe Christ’s Church represents the whole truth, the unity of truth. There is truth to all the world religions, if there weren’t, they would have no following.

With Hinduism and Buddhism, there are philosophical difficulties. (Karma and polytheism).

With Islam there are historical difficulties (it doesn’t report history accurately), as well as contradictions within the Koran. Islam cannot be subjected to academic rigor because the Koran is believed to be the Word of God, as written by Him. Therefore to criticize the text is to criticize God.

With Judaism, there are no philosophical difficulties, and no historical inaccuracies. There is no contradiction of doctrine. However, the Scriptures are unfulfilled and make little sense without Christ. The prophecies and parallels between Old and New are ignored.

With Christianity, there are no philosophical difficulties. There are no historical difficulties. There is no contradiction of doctrine. The Scriptures are fulfilled and make sense.

No other figure in history has been subjected to, and withstood, the criticism Jesus Christ has been subjected to. The Bible can be subjected to academic rigor because God spoke through human authors, meaning we are not criticizing God when we put the text to the test. Christ is the one Truth. The whole truth.

There is benevolent truth to all world religions, but not the whole Truth. Only one religion can make that claim and not contradict itself, either historically, philosophically, or in doctrine.

I think Buddhism is a beautiful religion and can shed light on the truth, but only part of it. There are parts of Buddhist teaching that don’t contradict Christ’s teaching, and those are true. I think Buddhism can shed light on Christ’s teaching where it doesn’t contradict it. It can offer a new perspective on some of His teaching. Diversity of perspectives on the One Truth doesn’t mean contradiction, but where Buddhism contradicts Christ’s teaching, it is wrong. The same goes for all world religions.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your insights here. You have spoken directly and with honesty and respect. So, you and I will get along extremely well 👍 I’m glad you see the beauty in Buddhism and truths to be found there. You can have your open mind while retaining your strong present faith - which is a good thing.

I like your screen name. I am an admirer of His Holiness John Paul II myself. He is a truly great man in turbulent times. I appreciate his effort at ecumenism and I also appreciate his peaceful efforts in civil matters.

Bless you…
 
40.png
ahimsaman72:
Hahaha, dear C2, I was just using that phrase as an example. I wasn’t implying anything either way. I don’t believe either one of us is an idiot. Actually, it was a good question - a very good “Zen” question.🙂

Listen, I’ve studied world religions for a couple years. Here’s what I have come up with in a nutshell:
  1. Jews claim one God and if you follow Christ, you are following a false God and possibly go to “hell”
  2. Christians claim Jews are unfulfilled if not accepting Christ and possibly will go to hell
  3. Muslims claim both Jews and Christians are wrong, Mohammed brought truth and clarity. To not accept Allah means you will probably go to hell
  4. Hindus believe in becoming one with brahma
  5. Buddhists believe in escaping the world of suffering through achieving nirvana. If you don’t achieve nirvana in this life you will be reborn again and again till you get it right. The possibility of going to hell is there if you choose to.
So, now we have all these religions, with the first 3 claiming absolute truth. The last two don’t claim it. All claim to lead somewhere. If you and I were born in Saudi Arabia, we would be Muslims. If you and I were born in Thailand, we would probably be Buddhist. If you and I …you get the point.

All claim choosing them and going to heaven or achieving nirvana. All claim not choosing them causes suffering and gets you to hell (possibly). So, that being said, this is all very confusing to say the least. And, for the most part it depends on where you were born as to which one you were. And, since you have no control over your birth, it seems pretty difficult to see the beauty in any of them. It’s no wonder people become atheist or agnostic.

In Buddhism it is reported that there are 84,000 Dharma doors - doors of truth - doors of enlightenment. I will find one of them.

Peace…
Click to expand...
ahimsaman72, those are too many doors! I hope they open to the same room of objective truth, outside of which there is only non-truth. See, now ahimsaman you are getting me to talk like a Buddhist, and I like it. It is a good way to express the truth that I see in Christ. Christ who is the Truth, transcended where Buddha stopped. Where Buddha, in Nirvana rested from the pain of the life cycles, he still was in what I consider a holding pattern. I pray that God who is merciful, will consider Siddhartha Gautama as a person who tried to do good and who sincerely searched for Him. It would not surprise me to see Gautama in Heaven along with all the other saints in glorious worship of our God. There is a state of Invincible Ignorance which may apply here. I also pray for you ahimsaman72 (invincible ignorance will not apply for you, however) that your search for truth continue to be without guile and be fruitful; that the Lord give you Wisdom and Understanding and guide you through the door to the narrow path of which He spoke of. May God have pity on us all and show us mercy. amen
 
40.png
catholic2:
ahimsaman72, those are too many doors! I hope they open to the same room of objective truth, outside of which there is only non-truth. See, now ahimsaman you are getting me to talk like a Buddhist, and I like it. It is a good way to express the truth that I see in Christ. Christ who is the Truth, transcended where Buddha stopped. Where Buddha, in Nirvana rested from the pain of the life cycles, he still was in what I consider a holding pattern. I pray that God who is merciful, will consider Siddhartha Gautama as a person who tried to do good and who sincerely searched for Him. It would not surprise me to see Gautama in Heaven along with all the other saints in glorious worship of our God. There is a state of Invincible Ignorance which may apply here. I also pray for you ahimsaman72 (invincible ignorance will not apply for you, however) that your search for truth continue to be without guile and be fruitful; that the Lord give you Wisdom and Understanding and guide you through the door to the narrow path of which He spoke of. May God have pity on us all and show us mercy. amen
Click to expand...
Oh, dear C2…

You are truly an insightful person. Thank you for your kind words. You have spoken like a true Christian - with the heart of love, honesty and understanding. Yes, unfortunately, I can’t plead ignorance. Siddhartha can do so, but I cannot. In reading his writings, it is evident that he faced the same things we do today. I find much wisdom in his teachings. With the Lord Jesus Christ, I find much love in his teachings coupled with wisdom. If only we as a world would follow the teachings of Christ and Buddha, the world would indeed be a peaceful and loving place.

When I see Christians full of love and compassion and Buddhists full of love and compassion my heart becomes full of love and compassion. Acts of body and speech of love can fill the world and acts of body and speech of hatred can fill the world. I would like to see us fill the world with love and compassion. Truly, such a world free from violence and hatred is one I want to see my children grow up in. I for one strive to live my life to make such a world a true reality. And, it seems you are also on the same path.

May God continue to bless you and keep you and make His face shine upon you and yours…

Peace…
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
The reason why I think some on this forum get a little fired up is because Catholicism and Buddhism offer different truths. For a Catholic who believes in ultimate truth there cannot be two truths, or three or four, just one.

The Buddha and Christ offer two different truth claims. For Buddhism is at its core atheistic and Catholicism, theistic. With this in mind, both claims cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense. According to the Law of non-contradiction one of the opposing truth claims has to be false.

This does not mean that we cannot value those things that we do share in common, as you have previously posted. But we cannot hold both worldviews to be on the same footing because they are at their core contradictory.

Peace
Click to expand...
Okay, Buddhism is not atheistic, but an approach to spirituality without mentioning God. Personally, I do not think that Buddha was trying to start a religion. In fact, he told people not to worship him as a God (no offense, but a little easier to beleive than Jesus) but rather to learn from his teachings. He never organized a religion, only a lifestyle. Therefore, I think that Buddhism and Catholicism could join as one, Catholicism for ideas on God, and Buddhism for self improvement.

Quote: To improve a team, one must improve oneself
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
The reason why I think some on this forum get a little fired up is because Catholicism and Buddhism offer different truths. For a Catholic who believes in ultimate truth there cannot be two truths, or three or four, just one.

The Buddha and Christ offer two different truth claims. For Buddhism is at its core atheistic and Catholicism, theistic. With this in mind, both claims cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense. According to the Law of non-contradiction one of the opposing truth claims has to be false.

This does not mean that we cannot value those things that we do share in common, as you have previously posted. But we cannot hold both worldviews to be on the same footing because they are at their core contradictory.

Peace
Click to expand...
Okay, Buddhism is not atheistic, but an approach to spirituality without mentioning God. Personally, I do not think that Buddha was trying to start a religion. In fact, he told people not to worship him as a God (no offense, but a little easier to beleive than Jesus) but rather to learn from his teachings. He never organized a religion, only a lifestyle. Therefore, I think that Buddhism and Catholicism could join as one, Catholicism for ideas on God, and Buddhism for self improvement.

Quote: To improve a team, one must improve oneself
 
Hi, ahimsaman,

I got to this tread late. Going back many posts,
you said:
An apple is not an orange, but both have acid and are fruits. Though they are different outwardly they are in essence the same.
Now you know how much I appreciate your posts. In
this case I have to add:
A red light is a red light. A green light is a green
light. They are both lights. But to dismiss the
distintion is to court a fender-bender.
I think that is what most of Western Philosophy is
about, despite the fact that I understand the point
you’re trying to make.
In another post * you indicated that Buddha
would have liked Jesus.
See, that’s where my heart sinks.
If Buddha understood Who Jesus claimed to be
and acknowledged that claim, would he not
have fallen on his knees to worship Him?
One last thought, if you have the patience for it.
If I understood you correctly, Buddha did not
make a great deal out of “gods or God.”
Enlightenment came first. The difficulty for me
in this one is the first commandment:
Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
Even the “goal” [god?] of enlightenment.
Best wishes,
Maureen [reen12]*
 
40.png
reen12:
Hi, ahimsaman,

I got to this tread late. Going back many posts,
you said:
An apple is not an orange, but both have acid and are fruits. Though they are different outwardly they are in essence the same.
Now you know how much I appreciate your posts. In
this case I have to add:
A red light is a red light. A green light is a green
light. They are both lights. But to dismiss the
distintion is to court a fender-bender.
I think that is what most of Western Philosophy is
about, despite the fact that I understand the point
you’re trying to make.
In another post * you indicated that Buddha
would have liked Jesus.
See, that’s where my heart sinks.
If Buddha understood Who Jesus claimed to be
and acknowledged that claim, would he not
have fallen on his knees to worship Him?
One last thought, if you have the patience for it.
If I understood you correctly, Buddha did not
make a great deal out of “gods or God.”
Enlightenment came first. The difficulty for me
in this one is the first commandment:
Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
Even the “goal” [god?] of enlightenment.
Best wishes,
Maureen [reen12]*Hello Maureen!

Always nice to hear from you.

The fruit analogy is one I took from Thich Nhat Hanh. I love the use of his metaphors.

Unfortunately, Buddha and Christ were not contemporaries, so we are left to doubt what they would think of each other. In one of TNH’s books, “Living Buddha, Living Christ” he spends several pages of the last chapter giving his thoughts on such a meeting between the two (hypothetically, of course). I would dare say that Buddha would be impressed with Christ and who knows - he might have come to know Him and worship Him.

Correct, Buddha didn’t deal much with gods and demons. He didn’t deny their existence. In fact, he spoke of their existence as part and parcel of Buddhist cosmology. However, the gods and demons he spoke of are nowhere near the Christian understanding of gods and demons. For instance, in his teaching, you or I could be reborn in the god realm and live as gods or could be reborn and live in the hell realms as hell beings. So, you can compare that with the Christian belief and they are indeed different.

Buddha really wanted his followers to dispel any ideas of a Creator God or other gods because (it’s believed) he thought they would become enamored with those gods and leave the path of enlightenment. So, he didn’t have animosity towards gods, but didn’t see them fitting into his diagnosis and cure of suffering.

In Buddhism, there is the practicing of taking refuge. Taking refuge entails repeating these phrases, “I take refuge in the Buddha, I take refuge in the Dhamma, I take refuge in the Sangha”. Doing this in a ceremony in front of a monk is the expected rite to become a “Buddhist”. You are then given a new Buddhist name.

No bones about it - if one chooses the religion of Buddhism one is expected to take refuge and follow at least the five precepts. So, there is direct contradiction with Christian belief and it breaks the first commandment.

Now, with philosophical Buddhism it is quite different. Following the philosophy of Buddhism, one does not take refuge or accept the Buddha as his god. One takes his teachings, sees the value in some, not in others and practices those teachings that are of value and do not conflict with present religion.

The psychological and moral aspects of Buddhism can be applied to one’s faith. Those are the aspects I follow. The religious aspects of going to temple, taking refuge, making offerings and such are not what I follow. Those could be labeled as devotional Buddhism.

Hopefully, that’s what you were looking for. Feel free to ask away. I appreciate your kindness and civility.

Blessings and peace to you…
Click to expand...
 
Exporter said:
ahimsaman72 http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_468446”, true);
Senior Member

aahimsaman72-san,

Haveing learned a bit about Buddhism from you, I want to ask a question.

In you opinion if a Confirmed Catholic did the ceremony in front of a Buddhist Monk to be come Buddhist, will he in some way be less of a Catholic? In short, can Christianity and Buddhism be compatable?
👋
Click to expand...

Hello dear Exporter!

This is a difficult question friend.

I would say it is possible to be a Catholic or protestant and practice aspects of Buddhism and vice-versa, such as meditation and practice of moral precepts. Catholic monks practice meditation and exchange “talks” with Buddhist monks. Thich Nhat Hanh has presided over many of them.

Taking refuge is a commitment to Buddhism. It is a lifelong commitment, just as baptism and confirmation are lifelong commitments to Christianity. So, to go to the Buddhist temple and give offerings to the Buddha on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and the Catholic parish the other days of the week and receive the Eucharist are quite opposite religious paths.

Hope that’s what you were looking for. That’s my honest opinion.

Peace…
 
Dear ahimsaman72,

As always, a fine reply to my post above.
You have to be one of the most courteous
human beings I’ve ever engaged in
conversation!

Every best wish,
Maureen [reen12]
 
40.png
reen12:
Dear ahimsaman72,

As always, a fine reply to my post above.
You have to be one of the most courteous
human beings I’ve ever engaged in
conversation!

Every best wish,
Maureen [reen12]
Click to expand...
As always, you are soft spoken and most courteous yourself. I’m always delighted to hear from you. I hope our time spent in conversation has been insightful and mutually beneficial. Your benevolent character of kindness and compassion is quite welcome with me.🙂 I’m glad my reply was helpful.

I have enjoyed your questions and deep insight. You and Exporter have been most kind to such an outcast such as myself. While we three may not agree on all things, we agree to love - as Christ would have us to love. And, that is the best thing of all, isn’t it? In the end of time Christ will gently tell you how much you loved as He has loved. And you are deserving of His great and wondrous gifts and blessings.

Peace…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top