Buddhism and Catholicism

[rossum]

I think the main point that caused me to see how Buddhism and Catholicism are not compatible is the fact that in Buddhism you have the universal laws of “karma”. Whenever I have seen a debate regarding how morality without a foundation in God belief is possible, the Buddhists will generally point out the laws of Karma and other factors.

Christians have moral law. Buddhists have moral law. Both are to a large degree similar.

But if there exists such a law as Karma…who is its creator?

Not a relevant question for Buddhists. Does moral law exist here and now? Yes it does. If we are to act wisely then we have to act in accordance with that moral law. What more do we need to know?

Christian moral law derives from God. Buddhist moral law is built into the universe. The origin of the universe is not a relevant question, and indeed the universe in toto is seen as eternal. Hence it has no origin, just as an eternal God has no origin.

and why is it necessary to do good in the first place if there is no God?

Because actions have results. If you don’t want the results then don’t do the actions:

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

• Dhammapada 1:1-2

If I throw a stone straight up in the air the it will come down and hit me on the head. No god of gravity is required, just gravity. If I don’t want to be hit on the head by a stone, then I should avoid throwing stones up in the air. This is not rocket science.

rossum

 

[TempleofTheSoul]

The origin of the universe is not a relevant question, and indeed the universe in toto is seen as eternal. Hence it has no origin, just as an eternal God has no origin.

I’m still not convinced.

Your argument of eternally existing karmic laws goes against the Buddhist belief of an eternal “anything”. The doctrine of anatta in addition to teaching that there is no permanent soul that exists also says that there is no entity that is permanent, such as your example of an eternal universe.

God bless

 

[rossum]

I’m still not convinced.

Your argument of eternally existing karmic laws goes against the Buddhist belief of an eternal “anything”. The doctrine of anatta in addition to teaching that there is no permanent soul that exists also says that there is no entity that is permanent, such as your example of an eternal universe.

You are correct, “eternal” is the wrong word. Better would be “a beginning is not seen”.

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: “From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating and wandering on.”

• Assu sutta SN 15.3

My apologies for my error.

rossum

 

[TempleofTheSoul]

You are correct, “eternal” is the wrong word. Better would be “a beginning is not seen”.

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: “From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating and wandering on.”

• Assu sutta SN 15.3

My apologies for my error.

rossum

No apologies needed.

God bless

 

[Khalid]

What is it with people? What would give you the foggiest idea that Contarini “so dearly loved Buddism”? None of his posts would imply that. That said how can you really have a true and complete understanding of how Catholicism and Buddhism are actually incompatible–if you don’t take the trouble to find out what Buddhism really is? People on this site rail all the time about people attacking Catholic teaching–teaching that really isn’t Catholic teaching. We should afford other religions the same courtesy–that of learning what their actual beliefs are. If you don’t agree with that approach–why not just state that rather than attacking the poster? Why not charitably tell him you don’t think it necessary to find out what Buddhists really teach before rejecting it as incompatible with Catholicism.

Peace of Christ,
Mark

I know Buddhism entails the willful embracing of illogic, irrationality and contradiction, and entails a nominalist view of the nature of being. These are “defeaters”, as they say in philosophy - nothing more needs to be known to know that it is incorrect, as logic can be demonstrated to be the foundation of all knowledge (or, at the very least, that consistency is necessary: if A is A, then A is A, not A is not A), and nominalism can be defeated as nominalism is, on the grounds of metaphysics, regardless of how it is absorbed in to a given religion. Beyond that, I pointed out how illogic (Fides et Ratio) and nominalism (the writings of both Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, and also, Fides et Ratio, as nominalism is incompatible with any theory of actual knowledge) are incompatible with the Catholic faith.

With Islam, one can do much the same on a historical level, without having to know the slightest bit of Islamic theology. A more apt analogy may be to Hinduism, Shinto, and other polytheistic creeds, which can be argued against with no knowledge of the actual religion, based on nothing more than reductions to absurdity of polytheism.

A detailed rebuttal of every point and sub-point of contact in a given philosophy, worldview, or religion is not necessary if the foundation itself can be demonstrated to be untenable. Only when the foundation is solid and strong (Christianity, Judaism, and to a point, Bahai’ism, some Dualistic creeds, and, on a purely natural theological level, Islam, although most forms of modern Islam are so shot through with absurdities - viz. in the Scriptures, the beliefs, and praxis - beyond that most fundamental level it’s easy to defeat) does one need to analyze the building itself for flaws.

The origin of the universe is not a relevant question, and indeed the universe in toto is seen as eternal. Hence it has no origin, just as an eternal God has no origin.

Passing by other issues (the source of the moral law and the possibility of moral obligations): the universe being eternal is demonstrably absurd, both on empirical scientific grounds (cf Big Bang theory and Einstein’s field equations), on mathematical grounds (cf Hilbert’s Hotel) and on metaphysical grounds, as Aristotle definitively argued against the possibility of infinite regress, or what today would be called a past-infinite cosmology, over 2200 years ago. This seems to be the equivalent of Young Earth Creationism.

 

[Khalid]

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

• Dhammapada 1:1-2

If I throw a stone straight up in the air the it will come down and hit me on the head. No god of gravity is required, just gravity. If I don’t want to be hit on the head by a stone, then I should avoid throwing stones up in the air. This is not rocket science.

rossum

What precedes mind? Mind is contingent, as is everything else. A First Cause, a Sufficient Reason, a Pure Act, a necessary being, must exist. That passage seems to be solipsistic in the highest degree, saying very much what I said earlier, and was called down for: “life is an illusion”. Mind is conditional.

If I throw a stone straight up in the air it will never land the same way twice (unless it is granted that the air is uniformly dense, of uniform temperature, and with no current, and the stone is launched by a machine engineered to infinitely close tolerances, and the stone itself is perfectly smooth and perfectly round, so chaos theory doesn’t take hold).

If I throw a stone straight up in the air with great enough force, it will reach escape velocity and orbit, and never fall back down. There is only one logic, and one science: “folk or indigenous logics” and “non-Western or indigenous sciences” (as became so popular in certain Hindu revivalist sects in India after decolonization) are not logic, nor science: they are mythology, and are to logic and science what astrology is to astronomy, and alchemy to chemistry, if that (because even astrology and alchemy followed an internally-consistent set of laws, and didn’t embrace contradiction).

 

[PJM]

=MontChevalier;8589604]Hello everyone,

Lately, I’ve been looking into Buddhism and the whole of it all has been confusing to me. How is Buddhism wrong and Catholicism right?

-MontChevalier

BUDDIST DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD; ARE NOT A RELIGION AND WILL NOT GET YOU TO HEAVEN:

 

[Sufjon]

I know Buddhism entails the willful embracing of illogic, irrationality and contradiction, and entails a nominalist view of the nature of being. These are “defeaters”, as they say in philosophy - nothing more needs to be known to know that it is incorrect, as logic can be demonstrated to be the foundation of all knowledge (or, at the very least, that consistency is necessary: if A is A, then A is A, not A is not A), and nominalism can be defeated as nominalism is, on the grounds of metaphysics, regardless of how it is absorbed in to a given religion. Beyond that, I pointed out how illogic (Fides et Ratio) and nominalism (the writings of both Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, and also, Fides et Ratio, as nominalism is incompatible with any theory of actual knowledge) are incompatible with the Catholic faith.

With Islam, one can do much the same on a historical level, without having to know the slightest bit of Islamic theology. A more apt analogy may be to Hinduism, Shinto, and other polytheistic creeds, which can be argued against with no knowledge of the actual religion, based on nothing more than reductions to absurdity of polytheism.

A detailed rebuttal of every point and sub-point of contact in a given philosophy, worldview, or religion is not necessary if the foundation itself can be demonstrated to be untenable. Only when the foundation is solid and strong (Christianity, Judaism, and to a point, Bahai’ism, some Dualistic creeds, and, on a purely natural theological level, Islam, although most forms of modern Islam are so shot through with absurdities - viz. in the Scriptures, the beliefs, and praxis - beyond that most fundamental level it’s easy to defeat) does one need to analyze the building itself for flaws.

Passing by other issues (the source of the moral law and the possibility of moral obligations): the universe being eternal is demonstrably absurd, both on empirical scientific grounds (cf Big Bang theory and Einstein’s field equations), on mathematical grounds (cf Hilbert’s Hotel) and on metaphysical grounds, as Aristotle definitively argued against the possibility of infinite regress, or what today would be called a past-infinite cosmology, over 2200 years ago. This seems to be the equivalent of Young Earth Creationism.

Hi Khalid:

Some of your remarks about other religions contain some rather serous errors on very basic points. I know that there are a number of people on this post who can probably spot them.

Secondly, can you explain your motives for making disparaging remarks about other religions? What are we accomplishing with that? Use of words like absurd when describing what others believe is in my opinion not very helpful in conducting an open dialog. It is quite possible to state what you believe and any contentions you may have with what others believe without the use of dismissive adjectives. Of course you can do all that if you like, but as a member of your faith, you are in a certain way representing your faith to those of us outside of it. You may be surprised to find that some of the tenets of your own faith seem rather curious to an outsider as well, but we can probably discuss all that politely, can we not?

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[MontChevalier]

I see. You weren’t actually looking for understanding, or even arguments (it’s hard to find an argument in that particular screed), but just some nice rhetorical formulas that would excuse you from thinking about Buddhism.

Well, you didn’t need to be excused in the first place. Catholicism gives you plenty to think about. You were under no obligation to start a thread about Buddhism. But just don’t fool yourself that this article has actually told you anything meaningful.

Edwin

I’ll break it down:

1. I don’t care what you think.
2. I never asked you to post here.
3. My prime interest is in learning about the Catholic faith.

I did find understanding. What Buddhists teach. But this understanding only gets in the way. If you persist in making uncharitable comments like this, I request you get off my thread. I made no efforts to offend you, nor anyone. I stated firmly what I wanted. And I got it.

-MontChevalier

 

[Khalid]

Use of words like absurd when describing what others believe is in my opinion not very helpful in conducting an open dialog

“Absurd” is not an insult, but a technical philosophical term. There is no other way to state, “the absurdity of polytheism”, as in “reductions to absurdity of polytheism”. I suppose “self-defeating” or “self-contradictory” have some of the same meaning, but lose much, and, again, are not the correct terms, of which “absurd” is: to demonstrate the “absurdity” of a belief is to demonstrate its inviability.

 

[rossum]

I know Buddhism entails the willful embracing of illogic, irrationality and contradiction, and entails a nominalist view of the nature of being.

Whatever you may think of Nagarjuna, “illogic and irrationality” are not words that apply to him. He does indeed use contradiction to show the errors in philosophical systems. Of the Western philosophical styles, nominalism is indeed closest of the Madhyamika.

and nominalism can be defeated as nominalism is, on the grounds of metaphysics,

Not on the grounds of Nagarjunan metaphysics. To quote the IEP on Nagarjuna:
Nagarjuna’s philosophy represents something of a watershed not only in the history of Indian philosophy but in the history of philosophy as a whole, as it calls into questions certain philosophical assumptions so easily resorted to in our attempt to understand the world. Among these assumptions are the existence of stable substances, the linear and one-directional movement of causation, the atomic individuality of persons, the belief in a fixed identity or selfhood

• IEP: Nagarjuna
  Your refutation of nominalism almost certainly includes one or more of those philosophical assumptions that Nagarjuna rejects. In order to make your refutation stick, you will have to establish any assumptions that you use.

Passing by other issues (the source of the moral law and the possibility of moral obligations): the universe being eternal is demonstrably absurd, both on empirical scientific grounds (cf Big Bang theory and Einstein’s field equations), on mathematical grounds (cf Hilbert’s Hotel) and on metaphysical grounds, as Aristotle definitively argued against the possibility of infinite regress, or what today would be called a past-infinite cosmology, over 2200 years ago. This seems to be the equivalent of Young Earth Creationism.

Please read what I posted more carefully. I said “the universe in toto” By that I meant, “both the material and the spiritual parts of the universe”. Are you saying that the spiritual universe is not eternal? Is the Christian heaven not eternal? In Buddhism the material universe is destroyed at the end of a kalpa, only to reappear again later. Spiritual elements of the universe persist over the non-material stage. Your argument is irrelevant because it only applies to the material part of the universe, which Buddhism readily acknowledges is not eternal.

rossum

 

[Sufjon]

“Absurd” is not an insult, but a technical philosophical term. There is no other way to state, “the absurdity of polytheism”, as in “reductions to absurdity of polytheism”. I suppose “self-defeating” or “self-contradictory” have some of the same meaning, but lose much, and, again, are not the correct terms, of which “absurd” is: to demonstrate the “absurdity” of a belief is to demonstrate its inviability.

Okay, well in that case then some of your remarks and apparent beliefs in regards to Eastern faiths are absurd ab·surd  [ab-surd, -zurd] adjective - utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation. Absurd.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Khalid]

Logic is of no use against the illogical. No rational argumentation is going to be useful for someone who rejects rationality and replaces it with contradiction, just as arithmetic is useless without the Peano axioms. No argument can be used to the benefit of someone who has already thrown away axiomatic truth.

So, from the perspective of someone drowning in “alternative logics” and “indigenous sciences” and mysticism, my argumentation (along with any and all other argumentation or speech that falls under the “Western” rubric) most certainly is absurd.

Attempting to communicate across such boundaries is tantamount to dropping me in Meiji-era Japan or ancient Egypt and asking me to teach them particle physics. It’s the ultimate culture barrier, and I’ve come across it before on this forum alone when trying to speak about metaphysics with a Hindu: the foundational assumptions (that is, the axiomatic truths accepted) are so vastly different there can be no meaningful communication. For any given area of inquiry, there can only be one set of foundational axioms, which must be self-consistent.

 

[Sufjon]

So, from the perspective of someone drowning in “alternative logics.” and “indigenous sciences” and mysticism, my argumentation (along with any and all other argumentation or speech that falls under the “Western” rubric) most certainly is absurd.

Alternative Logic, Classical Logic, Multivalued Logic, Relevance Logic, Intuitionistic Logic, Second and Higher Order Logic, Modal Logic, Quantum Logic,Linear Logic and Non-monotonic Logic and the like are all products of the manner in which the human mind sorts information. Are they by necessity correct or incorrect? Or are they relative?

Attempting to communicate across such boundaries is tantamount to dropping me in Meiji-era Japan or ancient Egypt and asking me to teach them particle physics. It’s the ultimate culture barrier, and I’ve come across it before on this forum alone when trying to speak about metaphysics with a Hindu: the foundational assumptions (that is, the axiomatic truths accepted) are so vastly different there can be no meaningful communication. For any given area of inquiry, there can only be one set of foundational axioms, which must be self-consistent.

The differences between eastern religion and Christianity are only profound when reading Christianity with an iron age mentality.The constrictions placed upon the view you take toward Christianity or eastern thought are largely a matter of what confines you choose to set as parameters in your thinking. My sense is that it is all relative. The problem with applying only logic and only reason is that we quickly run into trouble when trying to approach the spiritual aspects of our psyches using them.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Khalid]

My view on relativity is thus: the only thing that is relative is time, when travelling at very high speeds.

 

[Marybeloved]

The differences between eastern religion and Christianity are only profound when reading Christianity with an iron age mentality.The constrictions placed upon the view you take toward Christianity or eastern thought are largely a matter of what confines you choose to set as parameters in your thinking. My sense is that it is all relative. The problem with applying only logic and only reason is that we quickly run into trouble when trying to approach the spiritual aspects of our psyches using them.

So in other words, one has to adopt the Eastern view and look at Christianity through that view in order for the differences with the West to vanish? But of course they would!

Peace.

 

[Sufjon]

My view on relativity is thus: the only thing that is relative is time, when travelling at very high speeds.

Hi again Khalid: That is an interesting assertion. Let’s talk about that. What in your estimation in the physical world exists in and of itself without relation to something else? How would quantum physics play into that idea? Certainly you have some exposure to the evident interplay or interdependency between conscious observation and manifest reality. What wave potential collapses into the reality of a particle without being relative to conscious observation, and what conscious observation is possible without the physical world in which it operates and apparently has a role in creating? I cannot see how anything in the material world is not relative in nature. It is all relative to the interplay between your nervous system (which includes your brain) and the world around it. An even simpler example of this is an orange being orange. An orange is only orange relative your observation. Your retina is picking up deflected photons from the orange spectrum of light, because the orange absorbs all the other photons except the orange ones, therefore, the orange in every color but orange. It is the color orange only relative to your observation.

So back to the question: What in your estimation in the physical world exists in and of itself without relation to something else?

Once we get past all this, then I would like to discuss what I intimate to be your assertion that one religion among all others is somehow more logical than the next, or that it is illogical that the same reality is ultimately expressed in all of them, but first thing’s first. Tell about what is not relative and we can move on.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

So in other words, one has to adopt the Eastern view and look at Christianity through that view in order for the differences with the West to vanish? But of course they would!

Peace.

Hi my dear friend MaryBeloved: I think it is possible that if we stuck to scripture, we could also make that work the other way around. I truly do not see a contention between Christianity and Hinduism for instance. I can only see contention in perception. As you know, I think your faith is a sacred path to God. Among those who practice your faith, I think I find in you a person of a very high level of spirituality, which is proof in itself what can be achieved.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Contarini]

What is it with people? What would give you the foggiest idea that Contarini “so dearly loved Buddism”? None of his posts would imply that.

Thanks for sticking up for me!

Khalid has not made this accusation with regard to Islam, even though I’ve disagreed with him there as well. And I give him credit for perception in that regard: I “defend” Islam out of fairness, but with regard to Buddhism I certainly have an intuition that they may be on to something. I do not think that this will ever involve converting to Buddhism. But I certainly see Buddhism as challenging Christianity in more serious and interesting ways than Islam does, and it is very much a “live option” for me in ways that Islam, conservative Protestantism, and secular atheism are not (Judaism and paganism, including Hinduism, are sort of in the middle). I find Buddhism and Catholicism (working on the premise, which the Orthodox would dispute, that the Byzantine and other Eastern theological heritages can be fully embraced within Catholicism) to be the two major religious options out there.

I do repudiate Khalid’s suggestion that a person who is attracted to Buddhism and sees value in it (as I do) should simply convert. I have, after all, managed to avoid converting to Catholicism for sixteen years!

I start with the truth I know, within Christianity, which points me pretty strongly toward Catholicism. I see truth in Buddhism as well, and I don’t know how to reconcile the truth I see there with the truth I already believe I possess. I do not think that I need to be hasty about that, and I would like to encourage other people not to be hasty as well.

We could all, in religious matters, learn from the Ents!. Yes, we have only one life each (assuming that the Buddhists are wrong about that!), and it’s fairly short. But we best use the time we have in pursuing truth with all our hearts, letting God deal with problems of timing.

Edwin