Buddhism Dialogue at our church

[Servant19]

Good Evening Mgauss: We may be of the same mind on this. Separatism arises from group identities. I have serious reservations about such things as flags, sports teams, nationalities, anthems, pledges and any such things. The reasons are simple, at least for me they are. The first thing that any sort of group does is to define who they are, and from there emerges the creation creeds, mottos and the like. In the process of defining who we are, we automatically define who is not us, and this has a dehumanizing effect on our view of others who are not us. These in turn are enablers for conflict and division rather than cooperation and unity. I am of the opinion that at this stage in our evolution as humans, we have reached a point where we need to start doing away with such things inasmuch as possible. This is only my opinion, but I think I have given it enough consideration to participate in a reasonably productive discussion on it for anyone inclined to engage.

The problem with group identities as best I can reason is that they obfuscate the truth about the nature of our relation to one another. We are not “us” and “them.” I think we are all part of one another. Even for those who have no spiritual inclination, it is clear that even on a plainly physical level, we are all one organism. People being organisms embedded in a larger organism that is the human race, which in turn is an organism embedded in a larger organism of creatures of all species, embedded in organisms of ecosystems, embedded in an organism that is a planet, and so on throughout the universe. I am offering the idea that we are one thing expressed as many, and I think this is a level of spirituality on which most everyone can relate. It is fundamental, real, accessible to common experience, and changes the playing field to the extent that we need to start taking down imaginary barriers.

Thank you,
Gary

I will add to Matthews applause for this post. Well done Gary. It is a truly fundamental principle that you have put on record here

Bravo!

.

 

[nmgauss]

The problem with group identities as best I can reason is that they obfuscate the truth about the nature of our relation to one another. We are not “us” and “them.” I think we are all part of one another. Even for those who have no spiritual inclination, it is clear that even on a plainly physical level, we are all one organism.

From the moment pre-humans lived on this earth, they lived in close-knit groups (families and clans). This was advantageous from the standpoint of social interaction, mutual support and economics. They are still the norm in today’s hunter/gatherer and nomadic herding societies. As long as there is enough food and water to supply the needs of each clan, there is likely to be no friction of one family or clan with adjacent ones, and this form of human living is harmonious and in an ideal world could be considered part of one another and all one organism.

Unfortunately, adequate food and water are frequently in short supply. So competition for scarce resources and envy of adjacent clans frequently erupts in conflict. It is at this point that the assemblage of human groups each one functioning to serve the needs of its members begin to be dysfunctional.

Social animals (wolves, elephants, gorillas, chimpanzees, etc.) function in a similar way. In cases of protecting the interests of the clan by fending off attacks from competing clans, certain members take on roles of soldiers in addition to hunting. They become warriors. In other cases, where defense is not a big issue, males are often ejected from their clans. To me this is not part of all one organism.

As for humanity, men and women are both valued as part of the clan. With the division of responsibilities for support of the clan, each able member can be considered an asset. To claim that conflict between adjacent clans for scarce food or water is part of the one organism is a big stretch.

 

[Servant19]

Why do you suppose that separatism (us vs. the other guys) is so popular? Why is there animosity between Catholics and Protestants? Why have the Irish in Northern Ireland divided themselves into warring camps based on religion?

In sports, rivalries become established between college football teams. When I was in college, our motto was “Give em the axe!” That is basic to human nature. The Serbians vs. the Austrians, the Muslims vs. the Christians, the Russians vs. the Ukrainians. The South vs. the North. Where does that get us?

Very good question dear friend.

I firmly believe that the concept of “advancing yourself over your brother” is infused into our children from early childhood. This creates and breeds this instinct which resides firmly in our lower nature as human beings.

When the “Spirit of Faith” is truly sparked within us then this instinct is stilled somewhat, but it finds limited expression in adults. When the “Spirit of Faith” is instilled in childhood, you create humans who are “light upon light”

I feel blessed to have witnessed this Spirit of Faith within several children growing up through the years and they are the ones who “excell in all things” yet never seek to “advance themselves over their brothers”

Schools neglect to educate children in this manner.

 

[Servant19]

A racial diversity does not change the common beliefs; a religious diversity can oppose or water down the beliefs of a certain faith.

The Catholic Church acknowledges religious diversity but does not wish to foster it within its church. Nor would any other church, even the Bahai, foster and nurture ALL ideas since some of those ideas run counter to the general tenets of belief. The Catholic Church acknowledges an entire garden of beliefs but does not adhere to those beliefs that run counter to its own.

I also disagree with the statement " finds the Truths in all religions as beautiful" and would amend it to say “finds the general Truths in common of most main religions as beautiful” since there are some truths and beliefs that run counter to Catholic belief.

What a wise church might nurture and foster is a discussion of common tenets and differences. This would not be a full-time activity for ANY church; it might be a course on Comparative Religion as seen thru the eyes of that particular denomination, however.

Dear friend this is a one off talk by a Buddhist in the Catholic Church. I hardly would see it as “fostering” anything other than to bring about a greater reverence and mutual respect for other Faiths…a work that is a monumental challenge facing the Catholic Church, even including how Muslims worship the one and same God as Catholics. There is much work to be done

.

 

[Auntie_A]

Dear friend this is a one off talk by a Buddhist in the Catholic Church. I hardly would see it as “fostering” anything other than to bring about a greater reverence and mutual respect for other Faiths…a work that is a monumental challenge facing the Catholic Church, even including how Muslims worship the one and same God as Catholics. There is much work to be done

.

I am not critiquing the talk by a Buddhist; I am critiquing the arguments of the posters here who do not appear to want to honor the differences of the Catholic faith, nor understand our tenets. For example, do you know that in our catechism there is a special regard for the Muslim people? In stating “there is much work to be done”, what work are you implying?

 

[Servant19]

I am not critiquing the talk by a Buddhist; I am critiquing the arguments of the posters here who do not appear to want to honor the differences of the Catholic faith, nor understand our tenets. For example, do you know that in our catechism there is a special regard for the Muslim people? In stating “there is much work to be done”, what work are you implying?

Hello Auntie (I like your name, I feel at home )

Yes, it is exactly that. The teachings of the Catholic Church which are so ecumenical are not fully practiced by all. For example, the teachings of Catholicism praise the Muslims for worshiping the one God, which is the same God of Catholicism, yet the number of posters in CAF which do not understand this, is part of this “work” which we are all challenged to undertake

This barrier that exists between some adherents of religions, who follow religions which teach no “fundamental” barrier is important, even critical, to overcome. How we assist and accompany our less charitable friends towards other religions is our constant challenge today.

Not sure if that made sense, but I try

.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From the moment pre-humans lived on this earth, they lived in close-knit groups (families and clans). This was advantageous from the standpoint of social interaction, mutual support and economics. They are still the norm in today’s hunter/gatherer and nomadic herding societies. As long as there is enough food and water to supply the needs of each clan, there is likely to be no friction of one family or clan with adjacent ones, and this form of human living is harmonious and in an ideal world could be considered part of one another and all one organism.

Unfortunately, adequate food and water are frequently in short supply. So competition for scarce resources and envy of adjacent clans frequently erupts in conflict. It is at this point that the assemblage of human groups each one functioning to serve the needs of its members begin to be dysfunctional.

Social animals (wolves, elephants, gorillas, chimpanzees, etc.) function in a similar way. In cases of protecting the interests of the clan by fending off attacks from competing clans, certain members take on roles of soldiers in addition to hunting. They become warriors. In other cases, where defense is not a big issue, males are often ejected from their clans. To me this is not part of all one organism.

As for humanity, men and women are both valued as part of the clan. With the division of responsibilities for support of the clan, each able member can be considered an asset. To claim that conflict between adjacent clans for scarce food or water is part of the one organism is a big stretch.

Good Morning Mgauss: I think we clearly are one organism, but that is the topic of another thread. We may see ourselves as individual waves in the ocean, but in truth, there is only the ocean. The waves are simply what the ocean is doing at the moment. But to the point about the structure of societies, I would maintain that among the animal kingdom, the area of specialization for humans is our intellect. The problem is that we are currently using our intellect within the structure of old operational templates that don’t serve us very well anymore. This factionalized way of thinking is becoming more dangerous by the day, and even within groups of individual societies (especially the United States) the strong and the clever have become lone predators who are hiding among the pack under the guise of being members of the pack, while not by any means playing by its rules.

What I am suggesting is that it is time, and has long been time, that humans developed a new structural paradigm for existing together that leverages our intellectual specialization rather than continuing to band together in small groups that compete with each other as we did 50,000years ago. In a world of 6 billion people this sort of structure does not offer enough food water and resource (as you suggested), even though there is in fact enough food, water and resource in abundance for a species that uses it’s mind to its potential.

Thank you
Gary

 

[Servant19]

Good Morning Mgauss: I think we clearly are one organism, but that is the topic of another thread. We may see ourselves as individual waves in the ocean, but in truth, there is only the ocean. The waves are simply what the ocean is doing at the moment. But to the point about the structure of societies, I would maintain that among the animal kingdom, the area of specialization for humans is our intellect. The problem is that we are currently using our intellect within the structure of old operational templates that don’t serve us very well anymore. This factionalized way of thinking is becoming more dangerous by the day, and even within groups of individual societies (especially the United States) the strong and the clever have become lone predators who are hiding among the pack under the guise of being members of the pack, while not by any means playing by its rules.

What I am suggesting is that it is time, and has long been time, that humans developed a new structural paradigm for existing together that leverages our intellectual specialization rather than continuing to band together in small groups that compete with each other as we did 50,000years ago. In a world of 6 billion people this sort of structure does not offer enough food water and resource (as you suggested), even though there is in fact enough food, water and resource in abundance for a species that uses it’s mind to its potential.

Thank you
Gary

Wow! Gary, this is wonderful, and definitely the spiritual enterprise we are now facing

The second condition: Fellowship and love amongst the believers. The divine friends must be attracted to and enamored of each other and ever be ready and willing to sacrifice their own lives for each other. Should one soul from amongst the believers meet another, it must be as though a thirsty one with parched lips has reached to the fountain of the water of life, or a lover has met his true beloved. For one of the greatest divine wisdoms regarding the appearance of the Holy Manifestations is this: The souls may come to know each other and become intimate with each other; the power of the love of God may make all of them the waves of one sea, the flowers of one rose garden and the stars of one heaven. This is the wisdom for the appearance of the Holy Manifestations! When the most great bestowal reveals itself in the hearts of the believers, the world of nature will be transformed, the darkness of the contingent being will vanish, and heavenly illumination will be obtained.

• reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/BWF/bwf-127.html

.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I am not critiquing the talk by a Buddhist; I am critiquing the arguments of the posters here who do not appear to want to honor the differences of the Catholic faith, nor understand our tenets. For example, do you know that in our catechism there is a special regard for the Muslim people? In stating “there is much work to be done”, what work are you implying?

Good Morning Auntie: I will agree with you that many here do not honor the differences of the Catholics faith, because I am one of them. What I have long been wondering is whether or not those who see differences truly understand the underlying tenets of the Catholic faith. I think that many Catholics have bought into a rather limited set of terms, conditions and meanings that attend basic fundamental tenets that are actually much larger in context, infinitely more meaningful, and far more effulgent than they might imagine. I maintain that so long as we buy into the shrink wrapped version that is perhaps unintentionally yet largely trafficked for public consumption, we are missing the full blown experience, and missing the point altogether.

Thank you
Gary

 

[Servant19]

Good Morning Auntie: I will agree with you that many here do not honor the differences of the Catholics faith, because I am one of them. What I have long been wondering is whether or not those who see differences truly understand the underlying tenets of the Catholic faith. I think that many Catholics have bought into a rather limited set of terms, conditions and meanings that attend basic fundamental tenets that are actually much larger in context, infinitely more meaningful, and far more effulgent than they might imagine. I maintain that so long as we buy into the shrink wrapped version that is perhaps unintentionally yet largely trafficked for public consumption, we are missing the full blown experience, and missing the point altogether.

Thank you
Gary

Wawaweeeewaahhh…you are on a roll!!

Don’t stop brother!!



.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Wawaweeeewaahhh…you are on a roll!!

Don’t stop brother!!



.

Thank you for the very kind words Servant19. Actually, I have to “roll” out to work. Hope to see you all around here again soon.

All the best,
Gary

 

[nmgauss]

What I have long been wondering is whether or not those who see differences truly understand the underlying tenets of the Catholic faith. I think that many Catholics have bought into a rather limited set of terms, conditions and meanings that attend basic fundamental tenets that are actually much larger in context, infinitely more meaningful, and far more effulgent than they might imagine. I maintain that so long as we buy into the shrink wrapped version that is perhaps unintentionally yet largely trafficked for public consumption, we are missing the full blown experience, and missing the point altogether. Thank you Gary

It has been said that religion is the opiate of the masses. This is especially true of illiterates and non-intellectually inclined people. A thousand years ago there were two kinds of Islam: (1) philosophical for people who could read and were interested in probing into the deeper meanings of Islam, and (2) a shrink-wrapped version more acceptable to the simple-minded. The vast majority of people preferred the shrink-wrapped version. Holding to the five main tenets of Islam is sufficient for the average uneducated person.

 

[Sochi]

A monk from a local Zen Buddhist Temple is coming to give a lecture on his faith to the youth of our Basilica which is home to around 17,000 members. I feel like our church is getting close to Universalism with the I’m OK your OK attitude among neighboring religions. I feel like we should be evangelizing to the Zen Buddhists who have no savior beyond themselves. What do you think?

I think you ought to go to the lecture and listen carefully so you might get a clue as to what at least one form of Buddhism might be about. When I was a practicing Catholic it struck me how arrogant other religions were in making their claims about being “the one.” But then I realized that even given the pedigree of the Church, many of our faith were using the pedigree as a weapon and an excuse to feel saved by association rather than hard, or any kind of, interior work. And often they were using it as a way to avoid critical thinking.

After a while, when I started having some remarkable experiences of a “spiritual” (Lord what an overwrought word!) nature, I felt closer to God. Then I had a couple of
“doozies” that made no sense in the context of Catholicism as I knew it. And being at the top of my classes in theology in a Catholic school, I knew it rather well. So after due diligence with clergy and literature, and not only no useful answers, but a lot of discouragement, I started to look at Eastern religions. Finally, after many years, I came upon non dualism. That transcended even Buddhism in its universality and had Western exponents, many of whom spoke and wrote in English.

At last I had a cognitive line of understanding what ,in the Church, there was no explanation for. Though lately I have found a few brave souls who have ventured to state their very similar experience in “Catholic” terms clear enough that the writings of some of the Saints and even the Bible became much clearer and meaningful to me. Especially the words and miracles of Jesus started to make an entirely different kind of very useful sense.

The difference for me was that the exponents of non dualism that I met and read were and are very straight forward both in explication and in methodology. I do now feel that all that is somewhere in the depths of Catholic teaching as exemplified by someone like Bernadette Roberts. But, as it was for me, those useful bits were inaccessible due both to the inadvertence of clergy and the institutionalization of simple ideas. That seems to have progressed to the point where it is like breaking code and, though well meant, unnecessary obfuscation. So, for me, I chose the simple path.

So whatever you feel about your association with the Church, that being a deep subject worthy of equally deep study, I do recommend that you at least give your Buddhist brother a hearing. I mean God is Universal, yes? So maybe Truth doesn’t reside in all its forms in the pews and pulpits of the Church. Who is “OK” might be a different thing for God’s “view” than the necessary feelings one has for the rightness of their personal way. And hey, you might learn something.

 

[Sochi]

It has been said that religion is the opiate of the masses. This is especially true of illiterates and non-intellectually inclined people. A thousand years ago there were two kinds of Islam: (1) philosophical for people who could read and were interested in probing into the deeper meanings of Islam, and (2) a shrink-wrapped version more acceptable to the simple-minded. The vast majority of people preferred the shrink-wrapped version. Holding to the five main tenets of Islam is sufficient for the average uneducated person.

Yes, this is so with several faiths and philosophies. A useful explication of this is found in Maurice Nicoll’s .The New Manan interpretation of some of the miracles and parables of the Christ The duality you refer to is, it seems to me, a factor in many of the controversies on these pages.

And what Gary said.

 

[Sochi]

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.

The main goal in Buddhism is not to be saved from their sins, but be righteous enough in this life to be able to reach nirvana in the next life.

American Zen author Brad Warner states that in Buddhism there is no concept of sin at all.[2][3] The Buddha Dharma Education Association also expressly states “The idea of sin or original sin has no place in Buddhism.”[4] Zen student and author Barbara O’Brien has said that “Buddhism has no concept of sin.”[5][6]
Chögyam Trungpa specifically disagreed with the notion of “original sin”[7] saying
The problem with this notion of original sin or mistake is that it acts very much as a hinderance to people. At some point it is of course necessary to realize one’s shortcomings. But if one goes too far with that, it kills any inspiration and can destroy one’s vision as well. So in that way, it really is not helpful, and in fact it seems unnecessary.[7]

Or in this life (See * The philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object * by F Merrell-Wolff.)
And yes, there are alternative and useful understandings of what is unfortunately labeled the “Fall.”

 

[PJM]

=Gary Sheldrake;12003142]Good Evening Zachary: You seem to be have had a strong reaction to what I have said and the questions I have proposed that we ask ourselves. Why do you suppose you are having such a reaction? If we truly love Christ, then we should be able to know why it is we love Him, and we should in turn be happy to say why we do. I am simply asking if you would love Christ the same as you say you do if He had no heaven to offer you and no hell to send you to. If we cannot honestly say the answer is yes, then I would ask if you think it was love after all. I am not suggesting what the answer is. I am asking you what you think the answer is for you. Why does the question disturb you?

Thank you,
Gary

Gary, In my opinion, its not a fair question.

How can one KNOW if they would love God without the existence of heaven and hell:shrug:

After all Man was created to Know, Love, serve and obey God; AND because we have a freewill and must each make that decision for ourselves; it seems both Just and fair that there be rewards and punishment based on our lives choices.

To attempt to make an acid test of loving God without these is meaningless.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Sochi]

How can one KNOW if they would love God without the existence of heaven and hell:shrug:

Seriously? That is actually a consideration for you? I know of no ethical person in my experience, religious or otherwise, who does good or loves God as a matter of reward or punishment. If someone, my kids, a business partner, anyone was doing things on that low level of consideration, I would have to be very careful of my relationship with them. Reward and punishment is what we use for training animals. And maybe you think that is what level most of us operate at. And given the news, that may be true. But given the news, the heaven and hell dichotomy is a questionable deterrent, yes?

After all Man was created to Know, Love, serve and obey God; AND because we have a freewill and must each make that decision for ourselves; it seems both Just and fair that there be rewards and punishment based on our lives choices.

More legalism? I mean the first part makes sense in a way, but the last part is, well, is it really the basis of what you see mature people basing their lives on?

To attempt to make an acid test of loving God without these is meaningless.

You never cease to amaze me, PJM. I fail to see the use of this “acid test” other than for producing fear and vinegar. How could it be otherwise? Nowhere do I see the notion of Good for its own sake in any of that, or even as a result of that. To me, they take attention out of the immediate moment and divert energy to hypothesizing about a speculative future, when good can be done now by being present and circumspect. Really, the people, Saints, Sages, or whatever who hold my attention and inspire me are simply so filled with love, awe, and wonder, that the ideas of heaven and hell are irrelevant. What is the point of these in your considerations? Do your really think out “will this be rewarded or punished?” What an awkward gymnastic that must be! "Will this enhance my experience of love, and uplift what appears as another? " That would seem much simpler, more immediate, and a far more useful standard. But I guess each to his own needs. Peace be on you.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

PJM: Gary, In my opinion, its not a fair question.

Good Evening Patrick: The question honestly wasn’t meant to be unfair, but introspective.

How can one KNOW if they would love God without the existence of heaven and hell:shrug:

Through personal experience, I have come to know that God can be loved simply by knowing God. To that end, I am not in any way a remarkable person, and therefore I think this is something that is an inbuilt capacity within all people.

After all Man was created to Know, Love, serve and obey God; AND because we have a freewill and must each make that decision for ourselves; it seems both Just and fair that there be rewards and punishment based on our lives choices.

I have given this a good deal of thought over time, and I have come to hold the opinion that there are no rewards or punishments. Instead, I think there are simply outcomes and consequences. I think that these are not pronounced or conferred on us, but they are simply a matter of people creating their own states of being. We are in the driver’s seat, however, I think that if we know God we are making some correct turns here and there.

To attempt to make an acid test of loving God without these is meaningless.

It is my opinion Patrick (and you can certainly disagree), that the only genuine love is love without expectation, without condition, and love that is freely given. Love is a very strange sort of thing, as are many aspects of the world we live in. To be specific, it turns out that the only love you ever really experience is the love you give, and the love you give comes from within. While we can experience the effects and benefits of the love of others, we do not experience the actual love that others have for us. We only experience the love we give. It is for these reasons that I have come to what may appear to be the rather odd idea that the only love we need is the love we have inside of us, because this is the love we actually experience, and the love that we give. It isn’t necessary to get anything in return.

As for heaven and hell, well, I think it serves the purposes of institutions to have us believe that these are places we go to through the intercession of intermediaries, ritual, observances and the like, rather than states of being that we attain for ourselves and create within ourselves. And I don’t think tis even requires any sort of fundamental transformation on our part. I think it’s more a matter of the realization of our true inner nature and our connection with the source as well as all of it’s many permutations. This is not to say that the people within the institutions intentionally give us the wrong notions. I think they are going by their best understanding of what they’ve been taught. I just think they have it wrong. The right words are there, but the meanings seem to fall short of reality.

Thanks, and God Bless you too Patrick,
Gary

 

[Sochi]

Through personal experience, I have come to know that God can be loved simply by knowing God. To that end, I am not in any way a remarkable person, and therefore I think this is something that is an inbuilt capacity within all people.

I have given this a good deal of thought over time, and I have come to hold the opinion that there are no rewards or punishments. Instead, I think there are simply outcomes and consequences…

… the only genuine love is love without expectation, without condition, and love that is freely given. Love is a very strange sort of thing, as are many aspects of the world we live in…

As for heaven and hell, well, I think it serves the purposes of institutions…

Gary

Gary, are you a Catholic in a larger than religious sense, or do you claim to be a Roman Catholic? You sound more like the former. It is very rare for me to read things on here and say, "Wow. I like that. It is accurate as far as I can tell! You appear to have a deal more patience with… well you are more patient than I am. I admire that.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

It has been said that religion is the opiate of the masses. This is especially true of illiterates and non-intellectually inclined people. A thousand years ago there were two kinds of Islam: (1) philosophical for people who could read and were interested in probing into the deeper meanings of Islam, and (2) a shrink-wrapped version more acceptable to the simple-minded. The vast majority of people preferred the shrink-wrapped version. Holding to the five main tenets of Islam is sufficient for the average uneducated person.

Good Evening Mgauss: I don’t hold the opinion that most people are simple-minded. I just think that most people don’t do a lot of thinking for themselves on such matters as spirituality. This is probably because the world around us keeps us pretty busy with other things. It follows that the packaged versions are therefore the easiest to acquire without a lot of personal effort. It’s how we’ve been trained.