Buddhism and Christianity?

[Michael16]

@rossum,

True, that I’m not the same person I was at age eight as at age 42.

But: I retain memories of those changes that occurred between then and now. After all, it’s all a matter of maturation and growth.

But: The essential being underlying all those experiences remains the same. I’m an observer, a being that experiences; to whom all of these things happen to.

The same with past life memories.

 

[rossum]

But: The essential being underlying all those experiences remains the same. I’m an observer, a being that experiences; to whom all of these things happen to.

This is where we disagree. That word “essential” is another indicator of reification. There are no essences sitting behind the things we observe; those alleged essences are reifications of our own internal models of things in the external world.

Because our senses are imperfect, our internal models are also imperfect, hence the reified versions do not match reality.

In reality, what you see is what you get. There are no hidden, invisible, permanent, unchanging essences:

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

 

[Michael16]

@rossum,

I see you haven’t addressed the question: If there’s No Self and everything is an illusion; what’s experiencing everything over the course of time and retains memories of those experiences and was shaped by those experiences?

That’s a Self.

 

[rossum]

I see you haven’t addressed the question: If there’s No Self and everything is an illusion; what’s experiencing everything over the course of time and retains memories of those experiences and was shaped by those experiences?

That’s a Self.

In Buddhism, a human being is formed of five components: form, feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness. Those five components all do different things, in coordination with one another. For example, formations are what transfers from one life to the next, the other four do not.

None of the five are permanent. None of the five are unchanging. None of the five are a Self/Soul/Atman. There is nothing else beside those five.

Buddhism is not an Abrahamic religion, so a number of common assumptions from the Abrahamic religions do not apply.

To get back to the question in the OP, a lot of Buddhist ideas about morality can be incorporated into Christianity, as well as some meditation techniques. The theology (¿Buddhology?) of Buddhism is not generally applicable to Christianity.

 

[Michael16]

@rossum,

I’m familiar with the five aggregates. But, it’s the consciousness that’s permanent. Otherwise, the other four aggregates have no meaning without a consciousness, that exists in a continuum in time; that they affect and shape.

If consciousness wasn’t permanent; there wouldn’t be anything to affect, nothing that suffers and nothing that craves and nothing to reincarnate and nothing that would need to seek nibbana in order to escape the wheel of suffering.

The basic problem of Buddhism is that all of it’s practices are premised on attaining the insight that the Self and everything else doesn’t exist. That the essential solution to the problem of suffering is the annihilation of the Self.

 

[rossum]

I’m familiar with the five aggregates. But, it’s the consciousness that’s permanent. Otherwise, the other four aggregates have no meaning without a consciousness, that exists in a continuum in time; that they affect and shape.

Consciousness is not permanent. A person can be unconscious and a person’s consciousness changes. Anything that changes cannot be permanent; at best it gives the appearance of permanence, but not the reality. Mountains appear permanent, but they are not truly permanent. Our consciousness changes from hour to hour, second to second as even a short period of meditation will show.

If consciousness wasn’t permanent; there wouldn’t be anything to affect, nothing that suffers and nothing that craves and nothing to reincarnate and nothing that would need to seek nibbana in order to escape the wheel of suffering.

The five aggregates are not nothing. It is just that they are not a permanent unchanging Soul/Atman as so many imagine, incorrectly.

The basic problem of Buddhism is that all of it’s practices are premised on attaining the insight that the Self and everything else doesn’t exist. That the essential solution to the problem of suffering is the annihilation of the Self.

Not the annihilation of the Self, but rather the realisation that you were mistaken all along in thinking that a Self existed. You cannot annihilate what never existed in the first place, any more than you can annihilate the water in a mirage. All you can do is to realise that is was never ever there. The Soul/Atman is a reified mirage of your own internal model of yourself.

 

[Michael16]

@rossum,

I see I caught you in an inconsistency. You stated the five aggregates are not nothing. Thereby they exist.

Nothing can’t be something.

 

[Vico]

@Vico,

That doesn’t make any sense.

Theraveda teaching is that at a beings death patisandhi citta or rebirth consciousness arises to combine with other elements (kaama bhava), and this is not a permanent soul waiting to enter a suitable womb.

 

[rossum]

You stated the five aggregates are not nothing. Thereby they exist.

Armadillos exist, but they are not a Self/Soul/Atman. Many different things exist. Reified Souls do not, they are figments of our imaginations.

The aggregates exist, but they are not permanent. They are not unchanging and they are not a Soul/SelfAtman.

 

[Michael16]

@rossum,

How can you prove that you and I don’t exist?

You see, you and I; objectively existent beings; are arguing over whether or not we exist.

Paradox

 

[rossum]

How can you prove that you and I don’t exist?

Why would I want to prove that? We both exist. What does not exist is our Soul/Self, where the capital letters indicate reification. In this case, reification leads many people into error.

The problem is not with existence; the problem is the reification of simple existence into Existence/Essence/Substance and their equivalents.

 

[openmind77]

@rossum,

How can you prove that you and I don’t exist?

You see, you and I; objectively existent beings; are arguing over whether or not we exist.

Paradox

The way Hinduism looks at exactly the same reality is that Atman (the individual soul) is the same as (or is identical to) Paramatman (the Universal Soul).

So you and I really do not exist as separate beings but are really the same as the Absolute/Universal being.

Of course, Buddhism goes even further and says that the Universal Soul is Sunyata - Nothingness. So maybe that does not exist either. You can look at it as 1 or 0, but we are really talking about the same reality.

 

[Neithan]

Of course, Buddhism goes even further and says that the Universal Soul is Sunyata - Nothingness.

I don’t see how anyone can really think this. There must be something or we would not have anything to think. Whether anything else is really “there” is a possible question, but whether anything at all is at all?

 

[openmind77]

openmind77:

Of course, Buddhism goes even further and says that the Universal Soul is Sunyata - Nothingness.

I don’t see how anyone can really think this. There must be something or we would not have anything to think. Whether anything else is really “there” is a possible question, but whether anything at all is at all?

You need to talk to some modern physicists or cosmologists. They will tell you about quantum fluctuations and how whole universes could be created out of ‘nothing’ - so nothingness could very well be the basis of all reality. Or you could also say (as Hinduism does) that everything came from a non-personal, boundless, eternal, infinite universal ‘thing’ (or ‘substance’) - called brahman. Everything else is impermanent and non-existent - really an illusion.

 

[Neithan]

Not a physicist, but I contend that a “quantum fluctuation” is not nothing (in the metaphysical sense), and that physicists who identify the two for rhetorical purposes, like Prof. Stephen Hawking did, are equivocating. That quantum fluctuation is still something. Or a vacuum is something insofar as it is an extension of empty space.

If Brahman is the source of everything, then there is at least something — some sort of monism.

 

[openmind77]

Not a physicist, but I contend that a “quantum fluctuation” is not nothing (in the metaphysical sense), and that physicists who identify the two for rhetorical purposes, like Prof. Stephen Hawking did, are equivocating. That quantum fluctuation is still something. Or a vacuum is something insofar as it is an extension of empty space.

If Brahman is the source of everything, then there is at least something — some sort of monism.

Indeed brahman is 'something", but it is not a ‘person’ or a ‘God’ (so preferably spelled in lower case). Hinduism describes ‘it’ as Sat-Chit-Ananda meaning Existence-Consiousness-Bliss. No further description is possible - it is basically unknowable.

But I would submit that viewing reality as ‘One’ thing is similar to saying it is ‘Nothingness’ - it is just a point of view.

Space by itself is not a thing if there is no matter or energy. The quantum fluctuations occur where no matter or energy exist - in absolute nothingness.

 

[annem]

Is there anything valuable we as Christians can take from this? Obviously it cannot be fully reconciled with the Christian faith but I can’t help but to notice a lot of similarities with Christian spirituality.

What similarities are you talking about? Buddhism rejects God; Christianity is all about God. Buddhists practice meditation, to empty the mind, whereas Christians pray to God, in a conversation which should adsorb the mind. A Christian wants to save his soul; a Buddhist rejects completely the idea that there is a soul, and in fact preaches that ‘self’ doesn’t even exit.

Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of humanity. Buddhism …well…after 2,500 years, Buddhism cannot boast of almost any improvements for the world caused by Buddhism.

 

[annem]

Rossum: Things are not intrinsically sorrowful, they appear sorrowful to us because they change and we imagine them permanent.

But this is untrue, isn’t it? In fact, it is the basic platform of Buddhism and it is simply wrong.

The problem with life is not suffering. That one thousand people died of famine in the Ukraine would be great suffering, great horror, but it is not the central problem of life. On the other hand, that one thousand people were murdered in the Ukraine by the Communists, that those people were sent to the gulag to starve to death, that the Communists forcibly starved to death one thousand Ukrainians simply to make Stalin look good, that the Communists beat, shot to death a multitude, that they buried alive one priest and crucified another (oh yes they certainly did) proves that sorrow is not the problem. ’

Evil is the problem. Buddhism says evil is 'ignorance;. That, too, disproves Buddhism.

 

[annem]

Rossum: Not the annihilation of the Self, but rather the realisation that you were mistaken all along in thinking that a Self existed. You cannot annihilate what never existed in the first place,
*

*

Isn’t this another major problem for Buddhism? If my self doesn’t exist, then why am I important? The concept of human rights developed in the Catholic universities for a reason, and that reason was the belief that each individual has rights and an individual importance which is simply negated in Buddhism.

In Japan samurai warriors would occasionally whack off the head of a peasant, simply to practice their swordplay. If the peasant is nothing, a no-self, of what importance is he? Beheading him is as morally insignificant as stepping on a worm. Yes, that was their argument.

 

[rossum]

Isn’t this another major problem for Buddhism? If my self doesn’t exist, then why am I important?

Not a problem. Since nobody has any Self, then everybody is equally important.