Buddha claimed that he witnessed the cessation of all things, including God. How could this be explained by a Christian?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicHere_Hi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
There is a difference between the “I” and the “AM”. Therefore God(time “I”) is not the same as God(time “AM”), because there is a difference between them. These two different things cannot be the same thing, obviously. We now have two different Gods, not one.

Anything eternal exists for all time, hence X(time T1) is the same as X(time T2) for all T1 and T2. We agree that God is different between time “I” and time “AM”. Hence God does not meet the definition of eternal.
Click to expand...
I’m confused by the logic of this. How is there a difference between ‘I’ and ‘AM’? and how does this lead to there being two Gods?
 
Last edited:
Rozellelily said:
To be honest I don’t know the answer.
I think there is a difference between Buddhism and Catholic Christianity though in the sense that ,compassion,relieving others suffering,taking up your cross etc.Buddhism focuses quite a bit on the self and escaping suffering where as Catholicism is focused a lot on helping others
…
Correct me if I’m wrong?
Click to expand...
All conceptual views like these are distortions and fleeting illusions just as Buddha says 😃

eg
Buddhism focuses quite a bit on the self and escaping suffering where as Catholicism is focused a lot on helping others.
Click to expand...
Viewing Christians as being charitable only for “pie in the sky when you die” reasons is perhaps just as distorted as thinking Buddhists only think of self and help others to escape their own suffering I suggest.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
I do not accept your concept of a potential.
Click to expand...
You are making a straw-man of how i define potential. I clearly did not define it as something that actually exists. And yet there is no denying that if anything begins to exist then it had the potential to exist because of a cause that already existed.

In any case you have to deny the very concept of potential otherwise the ideas that Buddhism employs in regards to existing things irrecoverably falls apart as it should because clearly some of the ideas of the Buddha are absurd…
rossum said:
Is a potential real?
Click to expand...
No. A potential event Is a possible outcome in relation to existing things. And it can only become real if something causes it to be real because obviously that which is not real cannot give reality to itself…

Loading…

www.merriam-webster.com

There is nothing unusual about my use of the word potential. After all, we see potentialities realized everyday, so the idea hardly needs defending.

However the ideas of the Buddha are very unusual indeed when it comes to metaphysics. Perhaps i misunderstand, but from what i can see the Buddha had absurd ideas because he ignores the principle of non-contradiction and just went by how things appeared, in his altered state of mind, to him without much critical thought which has lead him to be a victim of a delusion. You seem content following him down that road.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
However the ideas of the Buddha are very unusual indeed when it comes to metaphysics. Perhaps i misunderstand, but from what i can see the Buddha had absurd ideas because he ignores the principle of non-contradiction
Click to expand...
There is the possibility that when it comes to Buddha you look too low rather than too high.
I believe you will find his thinking is not only above Physics (hence Metaphysics) but is also beyond Metaphysics (hence a Meta-metaphysics).

Hence what you see as a denial of the principle of non-contradiction is in fact an unusual stretching and apophatic use of language to point to truths of Reality that binary logic cannot contain.

Sages have always done so by making apparently self-contradictory utterances.
Jesus did so too.

To bluntly describe such aphorisms as denying the PONC is akin to a western bull wandering through a china shop. The problem is not with the Asian shop.

The Buddha denies the PONC no more than do impossible figures such as Penrose stairs.
A truth is conveyed very effectively all the same. In this case that the mind cannot grasp eternity.
The below “lie” teaches this truth of reality very well.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
To bluntly describe such aphorisms as denying the PONC is akin to a western bull wandering through a china shop. The problem is not with the Asian shop.
Click to expand...
He witnessed (was cognitively aware of) the cessation of cognition, according to the OP. Now he might mean something different, but based on these words, it doesn’t make rational sense…

It’s akin to me saying that i witnessed non-existence, and then excusing myself from the absurdity of that statement by asserting the existence of a logic beyond our comprehension.

I’m sorry, but i will gladly bull my way through that china shop for nothing more than preserving my sanity.
CatholicHere_Hi said:
This means that where some talk of transcendental consciousness, of exalted consciousness, of limitless consciousness, he, Gotama, went one step further. He succeeded in observing the disappearance of this cognition, the disappearance of this consciousness. Where there is talk of god, he saw the non-god. Where there is talk of “Buddhahood”, he saw its absence, he saw its disappearance. Where there is talk of nirvana, he saw the absence of nirvana.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
I’m sorry, but i will gladly bull my way through that china shop for nothing more than preserving my sanity.
Click to expand...
Exactly so.
Men prefer illusion so as to protect their sanity.

Is this observation denying the PONC too?
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
BlackFriar:
Is this observation denying the PONC too?
Click to expand...
As a reference to my self, absolutely yes!.
Click to expand...
Then as both Buddha and Jesus would well observe, you are still well caught in Samsara.

The statement I made is not self contradictory if one searches for the one narrow meaning that resolves the contradiction.
That is the purpose of such aphorisms as communicated by sages.

Those not caught up in illusion will make the effort to free themselves.
By not wanting to try the disciple not only reveals his blindness but demonstrates the root cause of that blindness.

Not wanting to escape anyways.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
Then as both Buddha and Jesus would well observe, you are still well caught in Samsara.

The statement I made is not self contradictory if one searches for the one narrow meaning that resolves the contradiction.

That is the purpose of such aphorisms as communicated by sages.

Those not caught up in illusion will make the effort to free themselves.

By not wanting to try the disciple not only reveals his blindness but demonstrates the root cause of that blindness.

Not wanting to escape anyways.
Click to expand...
Being cognitively aware of having no cognition is a contradiction… If you wish to say that this statement is a cover story for something that is actually reasonable, then by all means enlighten me.

Asserting that i am somehow blind without presenting a rational argument in your defense really is just an ad-hominem attack with no substance.
 
Last edited:
We associate and identify with our mental activity. The Buddha does not. The Buddha saw himself as reality itself, existence itself and then went further abstract into neither existing nor non existing nor neither nor both. Beyond rational thinking because rational thinking is a product of the brain and incapable of grasping the truth. At least that is how I have understood Buddhism.
 
You still don’t get it.
Blindness comes from not wanting to search for truth in communion with others (especially one’s teacher).

I gave you the opportunity to resolve the contradiction with me and you summarily rejected both the need to search and my assistance with:
i will gladly bull my way through that china shop for nothing more than preserving my sanity.
Click to expand...
When I observe such a response is exactly the attitude that dooms one to wander in eternal illusion according to Buddhism then you charge me with ad hominem.

This, again, in Buddhist teaching is another indicator of being caught in illusion (being driven by attachment to fleeting desires or aversions). In this case you seem to want to prove me “wrong”, yourself “right” or merely to save face on this thread.

I am not ad hominem-ing you.
I generously gave you a tailor-made gift of a koan constructed from your own responses and thought patterns.

I am simply observing calmly the ripples of your responses, as a Buddhist teacher might observe the responses of his disciple to his own questions (eg what is the sound of one hand clapping?).

I suggest that if you were a disciple you would be failing badly. For your responses indicate only a late “willingness” to seek truth. It appears motivated for the motives indicated above.
In that case the principles of seeking truth for its own sake and in harmony with others … is not what drives your “willingness” to return to the contradiction I generously presented to you.

At this stage a Buddhist teacher would likely send his young disciple off with a fatherly scolding to chop wood and carry water for another month or so before sitting with him again.

Which is probably the best policy with your good self at this juncture.

None of this is ad hominem.
It is how to truly start understanding the religion of other major cultures.
One cannot learn or understood it from Wikipedia or a limited English translation of very foreign texts. Only from actual practitioners.

I am but a novice in my own understanding of Buddhism.
God (the Christian one) bless.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
ad hominem.
Click to expand...
If you think my argument is wrong, refute it. If you think that there is no contradiction, demonstrate. You have done none of these things. You have merely asserted that there is a higher truth that i am blind of.

That is not a teacher, that is a someone weaving illusions in the pretense of having something useful to say…Am i wrong? Then correct me, as a real teacher would.

Otherwise it is just an ad-hominem.attack.

 
IWantGod said:
If you think that there is no contradiction, demonstrate.
Click to expand...
…
Analysing the koan for its literal meaning won’t lead to insight,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kōan
Click to expand...
BlackFriar said:
At this stage a Buddhist teacher would likely send his young disciple off with a fatherly scolding to chop wood and carry water for another month or so before sitting with him again.
Which is probably the best policy with your good self at this juncture.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Shakuhachi said:
We associate and identify with our mental activity. The Buddha does not. The Buddha saw himself as reality itself, existence itself and then went further abstract into neither existing nor non existing nor neither nor both.
Click to expand...
That’s fine if the Buddha thinks that consistently logical statements are irrelevant when defining his experiences. I don’t doubt that he had an experience but what he is saying clearly doesn’t make any sense metaphysically speaking. If there is a hidden truth, i am not going to get there from what he is saying.

.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
Analysing the koan for its literal meaning won’t lead to insight,
Click to expand...
So you are saying that he didn’t really mean that he had cognition of having no cognition? Then what did he really mean?

Please tell me you are not defending a position you don’t understand.
 
Last edited:
He is not trying to make metaphysical sense because in his mind true reality or ultimate being does not lend it self to rational limits…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top