I would never feel comfortable with such a lecture in the church. It should be made absolutely clear that there is no equality between Catholicism and Buddhism.
The concept of a saviour is characteristic of Christians who believe that they need a saviour to save them from their sins in order to facilitate their entry into heaven.
Yeah…if you firmly believe you get a few more chances after this life and can risk making a mess of your life and your loved ones.
Greetings, fellow pilgrim, and all blessings be upon you in Jesus Christ. I am not surprised that you are troubled, I am troubled too. However, I ask myself, “what would The Blessed Mother do?” I perceive that Our Lady would not be troubled, in that, while this form of religion boils down to little more than self centered self improvement, it still has potential to bring a man far closer to God than many of our own brothers and sisters are today. Does not Sacred Scripture teach us that every man shall be judged by his works? And perhaps this mans works are pure and beautiful and God has sent him to your parish to put some among you to shame - because that this man, who neither knows God or hears his voice, has shown himself to be far more advanced than those of the faith who are idle and careless. I do not say it is fitting for a Buddhist to teach a Catholic about God but perhaps one man can teach another man most anything about the ways of man. Again Sacred Scripture tells us that even an evil man can give good gifts to his children. So what then? You say to evangelize the Buddhists but I say to evangelize the Catholics. For perhaps you may see one who is deceived by satan to believe that the way of Zen has more to offer him than The Church. God forbid, but if it was so then you would need to remind that man how the path to God lies in Jesus Christ. You always have choice to attack that which is wrong in order that it can be shown as such, or, being peace loving, you can strengthen the mind of the hearer so that they can easily see for themselves what is right and wrong. Remember the cardinal virtues - Prudence, Fortitude, Temperance, and Justice. Which virtue do you practice closing off your mind to God’s purpose? Or do you think this monk comes by accident, somehow slipping through the fingers of Our Lord and entering his body unawares? So practice only love, my dear Christian, and you will do well. And you never know, perhaps God brings this man so that his own heart, though coming as a teacher, can learn the ways of God Almighty.
I just pointed out the futility of trying to evangelize a Zen Buddhist. Originally Buddhism was established before Christianity. In the time of the Buddha, he was focusing on trying to reduce the suffering by not repeating the life-death-birth-suffering-death endless cycle that he saw around him. Being righteous was the most direct way to achieve this.
Sikhs and Zen Buddhists speaking in Catholic Churches encourages mutual understanding. But trying persuade them that they are wrong and you are right is counterproductive.This entire thread goes against Catholic teaching.
If the Sikhs can perform their holy rituals in a Catholic Church then a Buddhist can present Buddhist teaching also
youtube.com/watch?v=S3avfSkLzB8
.
Actually, I think this belief might make one’s endeavors toward spirituality more genuine (not that I am saying one is true and the other not). I wonder how many Christians would care much about Christ if there was no promise of heaven and no threat of hell. If Christ said “love one another, but when you’re dead you’re dead” how crowded would the churches be? To be honest, I think many if not most Christians do their best simply for attainment of rewards and avoidance of punishment, and to be even more honest, a domesticated dog is capable of the same. If anyone is inclined to take exception to that, I would ask that they make sure they are in truth doing better than that before objecting. I just want some honest dialog on this point.
Feeling that we are ugly and sinful is not necessarily a prerequisite for introspection and a desire to be good and to love others. It is possible to see ourselves as beautiful and good and deserving of love while at the same time doing our best to grow. How many people, I wonder, go through life missing the opportunity to live fully because they have been taught that they are by nature worthy of less?
I am Catholic, but I know something about other religions. Buddhism teaches right action and right thought. It teaches people to be good. This requires a lot of work for a Buddhist as it does for anyone else. How is seeking such things a matter of hiding? Or could it be said that we as Christians are simply hiding behind the idea that we are by nature sinful and were born with original sin as an excuse for falling short of these goals repeatedly? In truth, I’m not seeing how one is more or less sincere than the other.
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that a true Buddhist less intelligent than a true Christian, or less able to perceive truth than a Christian? If we are looking to attain a higher consciousness, we need to start with being truthful and honest. And if we are truthful and honest, the only reason we can say that we as Catholics are right and everyone else is wrong is because we have been taught to believe we are right, just as everyone else is taught the same about their faith traditions. If there was anything definitive one way or the other, there would be only one belief tradition. But instead there are many, and each believes they have the truth, while everyone else simply has a belief system. And this in turn is simply a belief system.
Which is exactly why this would be in conflict with Catholic teaching, right?
Yes, you are correct and although it is good to know how other faiths think it is essential to make sure our Catholic youth who are so impressionabel know what the Catholic faith is before looking at other faiths.
Not exactly true. While Buddhism may not speak toward the existence or non existence of God, there are many Buddhists who do believe in God or Gods. I know many of them personally and have witnessed numerous Buddhists praying. The concepts definitely exist among Buddhists, after all, Buddhists are also intelligent and are certainly aware of theistic concepts, and many Buddhists know exactly what you are talking about when you mention “God.” I think a lecture from a Buddhist in a Church where the setting is about interfaith dialog is perfectly fine as long as it is not a missionary exercise. Dialog is in no way an attempt to equalize faiths or beliefs. It is an attempt to understand where and why a person believes as he does in order to help us understand the dynamics of our own faith. Be confident in your faith and you should be fine listening to another person talk about their faith.
You are very disappointing. It is truly sad to see a man tear apart his own sister in The Faith, nitpicking every word like some tabloid critic, simply to pad his own feelings of intellectual superiority. Tell me, what good have you done with these words? Who have you helped or where is there joy? Does intellectual knowledge bring peace to ones soul? Our dear sister spoke honestly and simply: you sound like one who beloved St. Paul warns about. And what’s worse, you insult and put down your fellow Catholics as selfish phonies seeking only rewards. (Perhaps you have fallen into the trap of believing other people think the way that you do.) Even if that is true, that some are lacking in their spiritual progress, who are you to point that out? And why? Does it make you somehow feel good to point out the faults of others? You say most Christians are no better than a domesticated dog - shame in you. Do you even know Our Lady? All this in front of non-believers… So then, since you correct your sister intellectually in front of all I will correct you spiritually in from of all.
to you, Vianneyizer.Good Morning Kep and Vianneyizer: My post may have disturbed you, but I think the matter at hand is more a question as to whether there is truth in it. If there is no truth in it, then it shouldn’t be disturbing, because I would simply be just another person with an opinion, and I’m sure you’re not disturbed by the fact that people simply have opinions. Therefore I am wondering if perhaps you are simply disturbed by the ideas I have offered.
I agree with you. The question is whether or not it is most Catholics who don’t understand their faith or just some Catholics who don’t understand their faith, and the follow on question to that question is to ask ourselves in which of those camps we ourselves belong. Simply put, is it me or is it you? Serious self exploration and introspection is required before we answer.
I think I that took due care to express that I wasn’t putting one over the other. And that is the point. My sense is that you, like many Catholics, are taken aback at the audacity of putting anyone on equal terms with you, and in turn, this sounds to you like making others superior. I have only offered that they are equal, and this would be especially true in the eyes of God. Do you think God gave Catholics a special appetition for truth and uncanny powers of reason that He withheld from everyone else, and if He did, why then do we suppose He made everyone else? To serve as a dull backdrop to the effulgence of Catholics? I am suggesting that the road to hell is paved with notions like that. The road to heaven starts with the realization that Catholics, Buddhists, Protestants, Hindus, Atheists and the like are all branches of the same vine, expressions of the same source, and the true presence of Christ is seen in every face you meet.
Again, I don’t think you are reading carefully. I said that I wasn’t suggesting that one was right and one was wrong.
There are many sects of Buddhism. Most do not believe that you can move backward in evolution. For instance, humans come back as humans for the most part.
There is no salvation inside of it if our motives aren’t straight. I have simply called upon readers to examine their motives. It is not a heresy to think nor is it heresy to ask questions, and if what we believe is really true, then surely none of it is threatened by thinking and straightforward questions. I think such things would be especially welcomed by those who hold the truth. Those who do not hold the truth might recoil in horror and call you such things as a heretic. I am asking you to remember who you say you are, and then to think about whether or not you are in fact what you have said. These are disturbing questions, yes, but only if the answers are disturbing.
Again, you are worrying about who is saved and who is not. I think you are worried about the wrong things. I think we should ask ourselves about our motives. Would we love Jesus if He couldn’t save us? Do we love the people who suffer everyday because of our sins in the same way and to the same extent that we love the one who died for them? If the answer is no, then I am suggesting that we don’t know Christ. Those among us who are such as this will be left to ask “When did I see you hungry, Lord?” Those among us who are such as this have profoundly missed the point. Do we love Jesus because through His teachings and His example, we have transformed our lives to the extent to which love has become the principle aspect of our nature, or do we love Him because He has a goodie bag and a stick? Why are you so focused on salvation and being right? If you would, please ask yourself this before you answer. I am suggesting that we explore our motives. Carefully.
The point is not what we think but what we do. That was what I was trying to express in my original post as well (but nobody seemed to notice). I will instead paraphrase a parable laid out by Christ in Mathew 21:28 -
I was also disturbed by Gary’s post. I can’t blame him, since many Catholics today don’t really understand their faith. He seems to be talking in the “spirit of Vatican II,” rather than what Vatican II actually said.
Gary sounds like he supports indifferentism-- he went out of his way multiple times to express that Buddhism is just as salvific as Catholicism. He also talked up how great and noble Buddhists are, and how Catholics just act out of rewards/punishment. That’s absurd. One could easily argue that Buddhists do good acts out of fear of living another 1 million lives as slugs or roaches, and only do good works to get to Nirvana and escape this wretched world of suffering.
Regardless, Gary seemed to be expressing indifferentism. Indifferentism is a heresy. There is no salvation outside of the Church. Vatican II didn’t change that teaching. If a Buddhist is saved it’s not because he’s a Buddhist, but because he or she was joined to the Catholic Church by assenting to the truths and graces that were available to him-- truths and graces that came from Christ, the Creator of truth and grace-- and which flows into the world through His Church. Error is always dangerous, because it leads us away from the truth. Yes, it may be possible that a Buddhist is saved-- though keep in mind the Church has never declared any non-Christian or non-Catholic to be saved, excepting for Jews who lived before Christ-- and with this in mind the Indifferentism expressed earlier is at least heterodox, if not worse.
Please do not group me with this man. I have nothing to so with his post other than he saw an opportunity to strike and took it upon my heels. Either way you two deserve each other. Two sides of the same coin spinning through the air and squabbling to see who lands on top.
Good Evening Zachary: What I have done was to reply to the idea that was offered here which suggested that the motives of other faith traditions are less genuine than our own. In reply, I offered a mirror to those who would think so, and asked some very simple questions about their motives. It is not an accusation against the Church to ask people to examine their motives on the occasion of them questioning the motives of others. As far as what anyone has done or not done, my view is that no one has accepted the invitation to answer the questions. Is the mirror I offered such a hard one to look into?