Buddhism and Hegel

[annem]

rossum saiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (emphasis added)

Hi rossum. I believe I already explained how to read language about God in the Old Testament. Why are you still making such a ghastly mistake?

God bless, Annem

 

[annem]

utunumsint Japanese forms of Buddhism, like Zen, as a constant reminder of that insight that pushes us outside of ourselves towards transcendence.

Hi. Zen doesn’t always push towards transcendence.’’

You may want to pick up a copy of “Zen at War” which proves the ugly reality of the how Zen abetted in war atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II.

Not a lot of transcendence there.

God bless, Annem

 

[annem]

thinkandmull     Psychology says our memories of our childhood are not even exact, that our mind adds and colors them in ways. How much more of past lives!

Hi, however, Catholics cannot believe in reincarnation.

God bless Annem

 

[Thomas_White]

Hi, however, Catholics cannot believe in reincarnation.

God bless Annem

Well, suppose one does?

 

[Bahman]

The reincarnation is at odd to be true considering the population ratio of insects, bacteria, vegetation to human.

 

[Thomas_White]

Psychology says our memories of our childhood are not even exact, that our mind adds and colors them in ways. How much more of past lives!

Well, these would be genetic memories and not actually the person’s memory. But it is only an hypothesis.

 

[Thomas_White]

The reincarnation is at odd to be true considering the population ratio of insects, bacteria, vegetation to human.

Buddhism does not assume the earth is the only place one could reincarnate. There are many worlds of differing realms and levels of spirituality. The Mahayana Buddhism of Tibet in particular has much to say about this.

 

[rossum]

As you have your interpretation of your Scriptures, so have we with ours.

All it means is that God caused punishment to fall on the wicked. “Evil” mean in the will **or **just meaning pain and death

Does evil exist? Yes or no.

Did God create everything that exists (except Himself)? Yes or no?

Either God created evil, or there is a second creator around (see Zoroaster) or evil does not exist.

rossum

 

[You]

Does evil exist? Yes or no.

Did God create everything that exists (except Himself)? Yes or no?

Either God created evil, or there is a second creator around (see Zoroaster) or evil does not exist.

rossum

Evil isn’t a substance so you cannot create it. What he created were free creatures, angels, who were given a choice and who freely chose to oppose him.
Evil is derived from their actions, they oppose.
There are so called natural evils like pain etc. but they are called evil in a different sense of the word, more like just misfortunes, calamities etc.
He created storms, a calamity for some, but storms are not evil, though old fashioned language calls them evils…

 

[rossum]

Evil isn’t a substance so you cannot create it.

Then good is not a substance either.

Neither time nor space are a substance, did God create time and space? If He did, then God can create things that are not a substance.

rossum

 

[Thomas_White]

Genesis says that God saw his Creation and said it was good. It was very good. If Creation is all good and only good, this is not a duality. It would simply be what it is and in that sense it could as well be said to be benign. That it was only good would be a value judgment, perhaps an interpretation by the author(s) of Genesis. According to Augustine, evil arose from man’s misuse of the good. In the case of both the fallen angels and Adam (as Genesis has it), this was the sin of pride, in each instance the seeking of equality with God.

Adam’s sin in eating from the tree of good and evil was that he became a god in that he assumed the power to determine what was good and what was evil–that is, he introduced this concept into the world. This was the Original Sin for God had not introduced this duality into his Creation.

 

[You]

Then good is not a substance either.

Neither time nor space are a substance, did God create time and space? If He did, then God can create things that are not a substance.

rossum

Good is a description. A description of the ultimate creator of everything. It is called good because it is effective in creating things. What it creates really is created. If it can create things really, then it is true.
It is good because it is not opposed to itself. It could not create if another equal creator destroyed. It is good because it works. Its singular, and its true.

Time and space are not a substance. Time is a measurement. Space I imagine as an area created from what underlies matter. If you think of Moses parting the Red Sea and as Moses pulled apart his hands the sea, representing eternity, was parted. So that eternity was quickly pulled apart in opposite directions… creating direction, which does not exist in infinity and eternity, and with direction there were now created points of intersection in these new opposite threads which could for the first time in history move in a direction. And as they moved it took time for them to travel. Eventually they stuck together creating mass…

…but anyway. He created angels in heaven too and they rebelled and were sent as punishment to live in the place, or to experience, the place they had damaged with their malice. So evil is the fallen angels opposition to the will of the creator. The creator is good because only he in all of everything can actually do what he says.

And space and time … are like a suction vortex in eternity when two hands are pulled apart very quickly. The little twisty vortexes created are matter and they can now move about in this space, newly created.

In a nutshell.

 

[thinkandmull]

The reincarnation is at odd to be true considering the population ratio of insects, bacteria, vegetation to human.

People from India believe in multi-universe so its, for them, hypothetically possible that the number of consciousness’ has not increased or decreased

 

[thinkandmull]

Good is a description. A description of the ultimate creator of everything. It is called good because it is effective in creating things. What it creates really is created. If it can create things really, then it is true.
It is good because it is not opposed to itself. It could not create if another equal creator destroyed. It is good because it works. Its singular, and its true.

Time and space are not a substance. Time is a measurement. Space I imagine as an area created from what underlies matter. If you think of Moses parting the Red Sea and as Moses pulled apart his hands the sea, representing eternity, was parted. So that eternity was quickly pulled apart in opposite directions… creating direction, which does not exist in infinity and eternity, and with direction there were now created points of intersection in these new opposite threads which could for the first time in history move in a direction. And as they moved it took time for them to travel. Eventually they stuck together creating mass…

…but anyway. He created angels in heaven too and they rebelled and were sent as punishment to live in the place, or to experience, the place they had damaged with their malice. So evil is the fallen angels opposition to the will of the creator. The creator is good because only he in all of everything can actually do what he says.

And space and time … are like a suction vortex in eternity when two hands are pulled apart very quickly. The little twisty vortexes created are matter and they can now move about in this space, newly created.

In a nutshell.

Actually, time and space have qualities

 

[annem]

I will wait until all the comments have ended, and then post a general refutation of Buddhism, and now Hinduism, so Catholics will have access to arguments against both.

God bless, Annem

 

[Thomas_White]

I will wait until all the comments have ended, and then post a general refutation of Buddhism, and now Hinduism, so Catholics will have access to arguments against both.

God bless, Annem

There is much to learn from other religions, and there is spiritual truth to be found there. The Catholic Church recognizes this, and there is no need to refute either Buddhism or Hinduism. They are both great religions of the world. I don’t understand why you feel it is necessary to “refute” them or why Catholics should argue against them.

 

[annem]

Thomas White There is much to learn from other religions, and there is spiritual truth to be found there.

God’s truth can be found everywhere, including all the other religions. But only partial truth; the full truth exists only in the Catholic church.

there is no need to refute either Buddhism or Hinduism.

For two thousand years, from the apostles and Paul, to the all the nameless and countless missionaries who traveled to other cities and other countries to teach the truth of the Catholic church, Catholics have given their lives to convert others. That’s how important it is to teach Christ to the rest of the world. We have been claiming to have the full truth and refuting the claims of other religions for two thousand years. You never noticed?

I don’t understand why you feel it is necessary to “refute” them

There is only one great harm you can do to anyone on this earth, and that is to lead them to hell. Nothing else in any way compares. Surely you would agree. So why don’t you think it’s necessary to refute ideas that could lead people away from the Catholic church? Perhaps you should pray about this.

And so yes, I, poor idiot housewife that I am, will do my best to refute Buddhism and Hinduism, if no one else does.

God bless Annem

 

[Thomas_White]

God’s truth can be found everywhere, including all the other religions. But only partial truth; the full truth exists only in the Catholic church.

The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is possible outside the Church.

For two thousand years, from the apostles and Paul, to the all the nameless and countless missionaries who traveled to other cities and other countries to teach the truth of the Catholic church, Catholics have given their lives to convert others. That’s how important it is to teach Christ to the rest of the world. We have been claiming to have the full truth and refuting the claims of other religions for two thousand years. You never noticed?

Have I ever noticed? Isn’t that a rather judgmental comment to make to one who has been Roman Catholic for the past seventy years? How would you know what I might have noticed? I do know I took many courses in East Asian Religions as well as in the Philosophies of India while I was in college.

There is only one great harm you can do to anyone on this earth, and that is to lead them to hell. Nothing else in any way compares. Surely you would agree. So why don’t you think it’s necessary to refute ideas that could lead people away from the Catholic church? Perhaps you should pray about this.

And so yes, I, poor idiot housewife that I am, will do my best to refute Buddhism and Hinduism, if no one else does.

God bless Annem

I guess that presents a problem for the many who lived before the historical Jesus walked the earth, but why would you think comments on a forum, discussing philosophy and religion, would lead anyone away from the Church? It didn’t happen to me, not even after all the college courses I took. I would think discussion is an intended purpose of the forum. With all due respect, and really with charity, I would suggest any narrow perspective ought not be quite so judgmental of others.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Aren’t we losing touch with the Hegel half of the thread. Can anyone tie the last few dozen posts into that?

It was supposed to be mainly about the two things in relation to each other.

Also, seeing as philosophies don’t exist in a vacuum, but inhabit flesh-and-blood people, please can we hear about what is the appeal of Buddhism for a person living in a Hegelian atmosphere and vice versa.

Can you speak about those things from experience Thomas and Rossum? Then we could have a more interesting conversation.

 

[Thomas_White]

Aren’t we losing touch with the Hegel half of the thread. Can anyone tie the last few dozen posts into that?

It was supposed to be mainly about the two things in relation to each other.

Also, seeing as philosophies don’t exist in a vacuum, but inhabit flesh-and-blood people, please can we hear about what is the appeal of Buddhism for a person living in a Hegelian atmosphere and vice versa.

Can you speak about those things from experience Thomas and Rossum? Then we could have a more interesting conversation.

Sure. Sorry for the diversion.

In Hegel’s dialectic there is a thesis and antithesis. These two concepts are in opposition and eventually result in a new synthesis. They can be understood as Being and Becoming: a duality of opposite concepts. At the conclusion of this dialectic, which I would see as both the end of this dynamic and the end of history, this final synthesis becomes Being and Nothingness, and they flow one into the other. That’s it very briefly. I could speak later of experience but need to first give it some thought to be able to say it properly.