Buddhism and Christianity?

[rossum]

So Buddhism is a materialistic epiphenominalism? Consciousness is an emergent property of matter, as many atheists argue?

No. Immaterial beings such as gods, kinnaras etc are also conscious. Consciousness is an emergent property, but it is not an emergent property of just matter. Because Buddhism does not have any idea of Essence/Substance, then everything is an emergent property dependent on prior conditions.

 

[Salibi]

Not a clue, but I have a pretty clear idea of how many Jews, Africans, Asians, Native Americans, and Mesoamericans were killed by Europeans, so let’s not hear the outdated civilized saviour narrative. The Jews alone number in the millions.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Right, even material is empty. But what is it that gives rise to prior conditions? What is it all made of?

 

[Shakuhachi]

Good ol religious imperialism. Our way or no way.

 

[rossum]

Right, even material is empty. But what is it that gives rise to prior conditions? What is it all made of?

You seem to be looking for an Essence/Substance underlying things. You will never find it because it does not exist. You merely think that it does. That is an error on your part.

Everything arises dependent on prior conditions and disappears dependent on conditions. Yes, the same applies to those conditions. The Buddhist universe has no ascertainable beginning:

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, Samyutta Nikaya 15.3

 

[annem]

Rossum why didn’t you respond to this: 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]

Openmind77There certainly were some atrocities by Buddhists in the 20th century. But the gravest among all atrocities? Were any of them greater than Hitler’s or Stalin’s or Mao’s, the Armenian genocide, Nanking, Rwanda, Suharto’s Indonesia, Ethiopian killings, East Pakistan killings?

The reason why Buddhism has commuted atrocities would be first, the idea of no-self. Is the person next to me is as valuable as a worm, why can’t I kill him? Especially since:

Rossum:Buddhism does not have the concept of sin, so neither does it have the forgiveness of sin.

But of course the Japanese committed fewer atrocities than the atheist communists, who, depending upon the historian, slaughtered 100 million, or perhaps, 150 million. Of course, the Japanese had fewer people under their control but they certainly managed a staggering amount of horror.

 

[rossum]

Evil is the problem.

Human evil is the result of ignorance. Those who know how they should act do not commit evil. Those who do not know can stray into evil. It is better to deal with the cause than to try to treat the symptom, while ignoring the cause.

 

[annem]

Rossum:Human evil is the result of ignorance. Those who know how they should act do not commit evil.

But if good and evil don’t exist, how can one learn not to be ignorant? How do you tell the difference? Please explain why is it ignorant to kill someone if a human being has no real value and no immortal soul?

Those who do not know can stray into evil.

But in Japan it was those who were supposed to know, the most famous Zen masters, who write the guidelines that taught Japanese young men there was no good and evil and that no-self meant there was nothing wrong with killing. I am practically quoting their booklets here.

ossum: *It is better to deal with the cause than to try to treat the symptom, while ignoring the cause.

How can a Buddhist try to treat the symptom? When have they ever, even once, attempted to do that? Please explain, since, in two thousand and five hundred years it certainly seems that Buddhists have avoided treating social problems completely. This is one of the major complaints against Buddhists.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Yes, I am looking for an essence or substance…otherwise there is nothing to be looking for it. Obviously there is something or else there would be nothing to co-arise. We must admit there are preconditions. Have can they exist if there is nothing to them?

That is my problem with Buddhism. Good mental hygiene but nihilistic. An underlying consciousness makes more sense to me.

 

[openmind77]

But of course the Japanese committed fewer atrocities than the atheist communists, who, depending upon the historian, slaughtered 100 million, or perhaps, 150 million. Of course, the Japanese had fewer people under their control but they certainly managed a staggering amount of horror.

The Japanese militarists during WWII were mainly Shinto followers. Most high ranking officers in the military were Shinto followers. It is true that Buddhist Japanese went along with the war, but they were not the leaders. During the war, Shinto was the state religion in Japan (Japan no longer has a state religion).

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Isn’t the Shinto faith heavily influenced by Buddhism?

 

[openmind77]

Isn’t the Shinto faith heavily influenced by Buddhism?

I suppose so. But Shinto faith precedes Buddhism in Japan. And they definitely did not learn about conducting war from Buddhists.

 

[rossum]

But if good and evil don’t exist, how can one learn not to be ignorant?

Good and evil both exist, as adjectives. They describe actions by men, gods and others.

How do you tell the difference?

“By their fruits shall you know them.”

Please explain why is it ignorant to kill someone if a human being has no real value and no immortal soul?

Humans, and other living things, do have value. Since there are no souls, that value does not reside in the soul – you are assuming something that Buddhism denies.

It is ignorant because killing someone is an unwise action which brings suffering on oneself.

I am practically quoting their booklets here.

I will need to see the references for that. Or perhaps I could quote the Massacre at Béziers. All religions (with the possible exception of Jainism) have bad parts in their history.

How can a Buddhist try to treat the symptom?

By treating the cause:

To avoid all evil,
to cultivate good,
and to cleanse one’s mind –
this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

– Dhammapada 14:5

 

[rossum]

Yes, I am looking for an essence or substance…otherwise there is nothing to be looking for it.

As stars, a fault of vision, as a lamp,
A mock show, dew drops, or a bubble,
A dream, a lightning flash, or a cloud,
So should one view what is conditioned.

Diamond sutra 32

Or in the words of Saint John of the Cross: “Nada, nada, nada. Y en el monte, nada.”

 

[Shakuhachi]

But St JoC. Allows for divine substance. Buddhism denies our own existence. It seems absurd to me.

 

[rossum]

Buddhism denies our own existence.

No it does not. We do exist, it is just that a lot of our ideas about how we exist are mistaken. We do exist; we do not have immortal souls.

 

[Shakuhachi]

What is it then that exists?

 

[Shakuhachi]

I guess it would be comments such as this that would make the more traditional Catholics wary of Thomas Merton. But I, at least, appreciate his position.

Shortly before his death, From “Thomas Mertonreview of the Asian Journey” p. 33

“I believe a great deal can be done and learned at the present moment, and not at all in terms of an official dialogue. I am not going there as an official representative of anything. And I’m not “dialoguing” for the Catholic Church with Buddhism. I am not trying to reach some kind of agreement as to what we can agree on together. There really is no problem here. There is no probable whatever about Catholicism and Buddhism because they are entirely two different approaches to reality. Buddhism is not a religion in our sense of the word; rather, it is a totally different approach to reality. It’s a religious approach, if you like, but it is not a theological perspective - not a salvational thing, but a psychological thing. And it is perfectly possible, for a Catholic to…[pause], and I think Catholics should. I think if Catholics had a little more Zen they’d be a lot less ridiculous then they are in some of their actions and words and so forth. If Catholics had a little more Zen, there’s be a lot less trouble about, say. Birth control, for example. But I do think that there are immense possibilities here in contact with Tibetan Buddhism, which has an esoteric tradition. I believe it is quite possible for a Catholic to enter into the esoteric traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. There doesn’t seem to be any reason why not. I haven’t discussed this with any church authorities, of course. I’ll discuss it after the fact if I get initiated into some esoteric traditions. But there seems to be no reason why one shouldn’t be doing this.”

Bless his heart, It looks to me like he was seeing Buddhism as psychological hygiene and something that can be part of a good Catholic’s spiritual life. I think he would have been able to bring Christ out of Tibetan Buddhism or put Christ into it.

 

[rossum]

What is it then that exists?

My senses are imperfect, so I cannot know what exists. At most I can know the part of it that my senses make available, always bearing in mind that my senses may be unreliable. I ‘see’ water in a mirage.

Even worse than the problem of faulty sense data is the problem of our faulty internal models built on the basis of that data. Arachnophobes have an element of fear built into their internal models of spiders that most people do not have. That fear is not present in the spider, it exists in the internal mental model of the spider.

We need to remember that our senses are imperfect. We need to learn that our internal mental models are even more imperfect. One of the functions of meditation is to help distinguish between the bare sense perceptions: the spider, and the overlays that come from our internal models: the fear.