Buddhism and Hegel

[annem]

[GodMadeMe

We reap what we sow. Karma does bear some resemblance to that fact at the very least.

Hi, yes, of course, you are right that it is in some ways similar.

However, the concept of karma has kept millions of lower caste Dalits in poverty for centuries. They earned their fate; there was no point in trying to climb out of the misery they lived in.

God bless, Annem

 

[Aloysium]

Hi Aloysium. Sorry, but you need to catch up on your Catholic catechism. There is no karma, since Catholics don’t believe in fate, they believe in God. Sin isn’t karma. The two don’t equate at all. Because God exists, we see God’s truth even in the most pagan of places. Plato and Buddha and millions of others saw small sparks of God’s fire of truth. But people don’t need to see God dimly now, refracted from thousands of miles away. Surely, as we can now reach out to everyone in the world, it is time to speak God’s truth to everyone. God bless, Annem

I most definitely continue to immerse myself in the sacred teachings of the church, in addition to participating in the Mass, partaking of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, speaking to God in prayer, and most importantly, engaging in charitable works.

In the post that you address, I was speaking to a Buddhist, trying to find a common metaphor in the hope that we might assist one another in our struggles as part of one humanity towards God.

Yes, karma is not a term used in the Abrahamic tradition. What it does mean in eastern philosophy basically is that we are transformed by our actions. The justice, eye for an eye, aspect is secondary to our becoming (in our terms) more Christ-like or more demonic through what we do. Karma is not fate.

As to the traditional Hindu caste system, it is like the crusades, the inquisition, white man’s burden, the fighting in Northern Ireland, all sorts of nonsense society tries to justify appealing to some blasphemously presumed God-given right. I would not judge those religions on this basis any more than I would want Christianity to be judged by its counterpart.

At any rate, my motive behind the post was not to bring people to Buddhism, but to suggest that what truths it does contain are made clearer through Christianity. I do not see those Gurus and Masters as having been false prophets as they were not so much leading people astray, as the they were pointing to particular truths. I was not advocating for some New Age distortion of the Catholic faith.

Jesus is the Way.

 

[rossum]

Clearly, there is a self …

No. There is consciousness, but consciousness is not “self”. You can be unconscious; can you be “unself”?

There is someone who acts

Yes. You act. I act. We all act.

who creates the karma that governs this life and the next.

Correct. But the part that passes between one life and the next is not a “self”. It changes from minute to minute through our lives and between lives. Change is vital for the unenlightened/unsaved because without change they can never be enlightened/saved.

We do not create the “rules”; they are given and cannot be changed.

Correct. It is up to us to know those rules, and to act wisely knowing them.

There exists a higher “Mind” who brings all this into existence.

No. You are importing assumptions from the Abrahamic religions again. If there is any mind which brings all this into existence, it is our own mind from previous lives.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So please explain what entity is causing the reincarnation and cycles.

No “entity” is causing it any more then there is an “entity” causing gravity or the electromagnetic force. As with gravity, karma is built into the universe.

By introducing a logical fallacy you try to get the other person to step outside of logic and truth and reality.

By introducing a logical fallacy I attempt to get people to see the mismatch between their internal models and the external world. The underlying fallacy is the assumption that our internal models are the external world. They are not.

rossum

 

[annem]

Aloysium

In the post that you address, I was speaking to a Buddhist, trying to find a common metaphor in the hope that we might assist one another in our struggles as part of one humanity towards God.

Of course we want to behave with love and charity, but it’s more important to relay the truth to people so that as many as possible can be saved, rather than trying to find a common metaphor, don’t you think?

As to the traditional Hindu caste system, it is like the crusades, the inquisition, white man’s burden, the fighting in Northern Ireland, all sorts of nonsense society tries to justify appealing to some blasphemously presumed God-given right. I would not judge those religions on this basis any more than I would want Christianity to be judged by its counterpart.

Well, no. Sorry, I can’t agree with you here. I could refer you to some good books on the subject of the Crusades and the Inquisition - apparently you’ve gotten hold of some very incorrect information.

But at any rate, you can hardly compare the caste system, which for thousands of years has been ruining the lives of millions, and which is still going on today and is still harming millions, with the Crusades. Look, the Hindu caste system is part and parcel of the Hindu religion. Brahims rioted recently, protesting any improvement of the status of the Dalits.

I would not judge those religions on this basis

Your mind was given to you to use, to reason. If one religion’s major dogma harms millions, how is it possible that you wouldn’t consider that factor in judging which religion had the truth, and which did not.

God bless, Annem

 

[annem]

Rossum

There is consciousness, but consciousness is not “self”. You can be unconscious; can you be “unself”?

Thousands of philosophers, not to mention aggrieved atheists, have tried to cough up an explanation for how consciousness developed, and none of them could. But you know all about it, and it isn’t ‘self’. Sorry, this is not convincing. Please explain why frogs don’t have consciousness. But still get reborn as worms.

the part that passes between one life and the next is not a “self”. It changes from minute to minute through our lives and between lives. Change is vital for the unenlightened/unsaved because without change they can never be enlightened/saved.

So you make an argument in direct contradiction to reality all around us, and for which you can offer not so much as one shred of proof. One shred of logic. One shred of anything. Nor could Buddha, if there was a Buddha. Nor could any Buddhist, in all of their history. You might want to ponder that.

No "entity" is causing it any more then there is an "entity" causing gravity or the electromagnetic force. As with gravity, karma is built into the universe.

Sorry, but please reread your statement. Gravity has lots of proof. Reincarnation is just a theory, without any proof whatsoever.

God bless, Annem

 

[rossum]

Thousands of philosophers, not to mention aggrieved atheists, have tried to cough up an explanation for how consciousness developed, and none of them could.

So? I am not talking about the development of consciousness, I am saying a) that it exists and b) that it is not ‘self’. Neither statement has anything to do with the origin of consciousness.

You might also ask yourself if you have an explanation for the origin of consciousness, given that God is presumably conscious.

But you know all about it, and it isn’t ‘self’.

Do you know “all about” gravity? Do you know that gravity isn’t self? Please read what I am saying, not what you think I am saying. This is just another example of your internal model of what you think I said being different from what I actually said.

Please explain why frogs don’t have consciousness. But still get reborn as worms.

Where did I say that frogs do not have consciousness? They do. While they do not have a great deal of consciousness, they do have some. You might want to look at the results of the Mirror Test, which gives some indication of the level of self-awareness in animals. Be aware that very young chimpanzees perform better than very young humans on that test.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Of course we want to behave with love and charity, but it’s more important to relay the truth to people so that as many as possible can be saved, rather than trying to find a common metaphor, don’t you think? . . . I could refer you to some good books on the subject of the Crusades and the Inquisition - apparently you’ve gotten hold of some very incorrect information. . . Look, the Hindu caste system is part and parcel of the Hindu religion. Brahims rioted recently, protesting any improvement of the status of the Dalits. Your mind was given to you to use, to reason. If one religion’s major dogma harms millions, how is it possible that you wouldn’t consider that factor in judging which religion had the truth, and which did not. . .

At the end of time, the sheep will not be separated from the goats based on what ideas they hold, but on how they treated their neighbour. In general, without action, there is no faith, only an illusory system of ideas that ultimately imprisons the soul.

If one is trying to communicate the truth in the hope of guiding one’s neighbour to salvation, it is important to be speaking the same language. In order to do so one must try to understand the other’s perspective and the meanings behind the terms they use. One is then better able to find the true common Ground, which is the reality of our relationship with God. That said, most people like the sound of their own voice and are little interested in what the other person is saying other than in its capacity to act as a foil for one’s argument. If the other person is not interested in our ideas, even then being heard may open them up to new possibilities. Finding a common metaphor is crucial in any attempt to communicate.

The teachings of the Church are clear and logical. The problem I find, is not so much in people’s refusal to accept them, as it is in their being understood. If one is trying to overcome people’s misunderstandings of Catholicism, it seems reasonable to expect the same of oneself with respect to the other person’s views. If the church is misrepresented as being interested in earthly power, it is important to dispel such notions. Similarly, I would assert that the claim that the roots of Hinduism are worldly based, does that philosophical system a great disservice.

God speaks to each and every one of us. The aim in this life is to align our will to His and, with the grace of the Holy Spirit, to hear His voice ever more clearly. The Catholic Church, which He established, offers the quickest and surest Route to God. Buddhism and Hinduism have no Magisterium and their methods involve prayer, meditation and contemplation of Holy Scripture. They lack the Eucharist, a rigorous philosophical system and teachings that reveal the absolute primacy of Love. Few are able to pass through their narrow door; in Christ, it has revealed, that everyone has the capacity to attain eternal Life, face to face with God.

 

[Aloysium]

No. There is consciousness, but consciousness is not “self”. You can be unconscious; can you be “unself”? . . . the part that passes between one life and the next is not a “self”. It changes from minute to minute through our lives and between lives. Change is vital for the unenlightened/unsaved because without change they can never be enlightened/saved. . . It is up to us to know those rules, and to act wisely knowing them. . . If there is any mind which brings all this into existence, it is our own mind from previous lives. . . /QUOTE]

There either does or does not exist an “it”, “the unenlightened”, a “they” and “us”. If your words are anything but mere nonsense, there exists what I call a soul. I will assert that it is self-other in relation to all that exists and fundamentally to its Source, in whose image we are created. The idea about this mystery is an idea, known by the unfathomable knower, who is and is known as such compassionately by God, the giver of the “rules” that are the truth governing creation. Of course there is a mind besides our own. I don’t expect to convince someone who signs, “The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

 

[rossum]

There either does or does not exist an “it”, “the unenlightened”, a “they” and “us”. If your words are anything but mere nonsense, there exists what I call a soul.

All those things exist, but a soul does not. A traffic jam exists, we can all agree. Now remove the cars in the jam, one by one. You can only remove cars, you can never remove the “traffic jam”. Whatever is left after you have removed the cars is the actual “soul/self” of the traffic jam. What is left after all the cars have gone? Nothing.

A traffic jam is not a self-existent thing. It is an emergent property of too many cars on a piece of road. In the same way we are made of components; Buddhism lists five. None of those components are a self or soul. However when those five components are removed, there is nothing left over. What we think of as our “self” is merely an emergent property, depending on the presence of the appropriate components.

I don’t expect to convince someone who signs, “The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.” (emphasis added)

– Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought.

rossum

 

[thinkandmull]

rossum, why do you accept Buddhism (and its scriptures) instead of Hinduism??

 

[thinkandmull]

(I would like to rewrite Hegel’s first book in common language, like the Hippie Bible. However there will be so much flipping back and forth to read it [and to write it even] would be so tedious. Some Catholics think of Hegel in more symbolic ways. The New Catholic Encyclopedia [not the dense green one, but the red and gold one approved by Cardinal Spellman] in its article on Hegel mentions two scholars who tried to put Hegel in a good light.)

Anyway, I am interested in learning about the conflicting opposition between the two greatest religions in India.

 

[rossum]

rossum, why do you accept Buddhism (and its scriptures) instead of Hinduism??

Hinduism has a soul (atman) and it pays too much attention to its gods. Parts of Hinduism, such as Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, are excellent, but overall it does not suit me.

Buddhism has no soul (anatman) and its gods play a very minor role. That approach suits me much better.

rossum

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

We won’t convince each other apart from the lessons of life.

How do the lessons of life illuminate what is contained in Christian teaching and how does that then help us with any critique we might wish to bring to bear in relation to Hegel himself, the various Hegelianisms, the various Hindu and Buddhist lines of thinking?

 

[annem]

Vic Taltrees UK How do the lessons of life illuminate what is contained in Christian teaching and how does that then help us with any critique we might wish to bring to bear in relation to Hegel himself, the various Hegelianisms, the various Hindu and Buddhist lines of thinking?

By “the various Hegelianisms” I suppose you refer to Marxism and Nazism. What a dreadful legacy.

God bless Annem

 

[annem]

rossum Buddhism has no soul (anatman) and its gods play a very minor role. That approach suits me much better.

So your position is, forget truth, I prefer my comfort?

God bless, Annem

 

[rossum]

So your position is, forget truth, I prefer my comfort?

No. You are ignoring truth by believing in a soul. You are ignoring truth by believing in an unchanging God. Even a cursory reading of the Bible shows that your God changes.

“Impermanent are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

“Sorrowful are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:5-7

rossum

 

[annem]

rossum You are ignoring truth by believing in an unchanging God. Even a cursory reading of the Bible shows that your God changes.

Apparently you have never investigated these charges. While it is certainly true that God is described as “angry” in places in the Old Testament, of course God never has a bad day. So, obviously, there is an explanation.

The Old Testament was written by a poor shepherds and farmers. They described the truth as well as they could, but in manner and using a terminology that existed at the time. So no, God is never angry and doesn’t change.

God bless Annem

 

[Aloysium]

Apologies Dhammapada.

“Impermanent are all compound things.”
When the soul realises this by wisdom
Through the grace of the Holy Spirit
then the soul does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

“Sorrowful are all compound things.”
When the soul realises this by wisdom,
then the soul does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

“All the elements of reality are existent
within their relationship with God, our Father.”
When one’s spirit realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Aloy Sium 18-9-15

me (who?)

 

[rossum]

rossum:

You are ignoring truth by believing in an unchanging God.

Apparently you have never investigated these charges.

Yes I have. If the Bible were written by an unchanging God, then it would read something like:

On the first day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the second day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the third day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the fourth day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the fifth day …

An unchanging God does not change, obviously. So whatever God does on the first day He does on every other day as well, without change. Nor can He do anything He didn’t do before, because that would be doing something different – a change.

The God of the Bible does different things at different times. He says different things at different times. The God of the Bible is a God who changes. He is not an unchanging God. People who claim otherwise are not reading their Bible carefully enough.

rossum