A
Ahimsa
Guest
Could you define “emptiness”?
- Status
T
Tomcmaj
Guest
I’m not sure there is a “final authority” other than the reality to which we all aspire.
Self is the one thing we have to work with, the only thing we can really change!
Not “emptiness”…“no-thing-ness”. It is a sacrificial offering to something one could easily call God.
I think that, at least within the framework of what we’ve been talking about here, they are very similar.
T
Trevor_Stamm
Guest
So if there is no final authority of what is to be taught in Buddhism, this conversation really has no purpose because you might interpret Buddhism one way while others might see it differently, who is right? Both cannot be right, truth is not relative for it is a contradiction in terms. So if truth is not relative then who holds the true interpretation of Buddhism? And if there is a sect that does have the final say, who gave them the right and power to have the final say?
The only logical conclusion of the reason of our existence is that God wants us to love Him fully and each other and everything he has created by choice of free will as He loves us fully and everything He has created. I see major contradictions on many levels of Buddhism and Christianity here. One of which is many forms of Buddhism teach to forsake the world and everything in it to obtain an empty state (or you can say, nothingness) which includes emotions. While a Christian values and loves what God has created physically, mentally, and spiritually. Also A Christian literally swims in emotions both positive and negative, using love to bring him/herself closer to God and to use hate against what is wrong and evil (not to be confused though, we hate the act of evil not the actor of it). A Christian knows nothing of nothingness for every second of every minute with every hour of everyday is to be filled with the love of God.
A Christian will say “thy will be done” as if the will of the self is to be extinguished and filled with His will but it is not nothingness that is being practiced here, we say “thy will be done” with the fullness of the self involved as we align our will to His.
T
Tomcmaj
Guest
What we have is direction from Buddha and other bodisatvas.
We have the 4 truths. We have the eight-fold path that leads us to enlightenment.
Many Buddhist sects embellish this with other things (just like Catholics love candles and beads). Other sects, like Zen, focus things on the essence of Buddhist thought and practice.
The essence of Christianity is the Holy Spirit and the Trinity.
My contention is that while there are many differences between Christianity and Buddhism, there are many similarities, too, similarities beyond “be nice to everyone”. The Zen practice of touching (bad word, but it will have to do!) “nothingness” and the Christian practice of accepting the Holy Spirit are close enough in my mind (and in my heart), that it invites pondering.
:clapping:
H
Hastrman
Guest
Christianity could be seen as Buddhism without the teachings of advaita and anatman, or Buddhism as Christianity without man as the image of God. I agree, they’re the only two games in town—if you’re not a Christian or a Buddhist, well, I’m sure you have your good points
—but they are not the same game.
Anatman is the Buddhist teaching (literally no-soul, often translated as no-self) that, in Aristotelian terms, there are no such things as formal parts. Nothing has a real permanent identity. It’s often associated with a form of atomism, that denies the reality of wholes (which are instead just conglomerations of parts). The traditional image is that of a chariot: wheels, axles, nails, etc. are real, but “chariot” is just a word.
But some Buddhists (who accept the Mahayana sutras) take it a step further, and assert advaita (which literally means not-two-ness). After all, every part can be considered a whole in its own right, and its parts again are wholes, into an infinite regress. The only way to have anatman’s atomism and not have an infinite regress, is to assert that only existence itself, independent of all categories, is real. It’s basically a form of extreme monism; it actually asserts that, while negation (not-A) is necessary for purposes of logic, it’s not actually a thing. That’s what Buddhists really mean when they say good and evil are one: evil is just an intellectual contrivance for the sake of discussion, not actually a real thing independent of good.
—but they are not the same game.Anatman is the Buddhist teaching (literally no-soul, often translated as no-self) that, in Aristotelian terms, there are no such things as formal parts. Nothing has a real permanent identity. It’s often associated with a form of atomism, that denies the reality of wholes (which are instead just conglomerations of parts). The traditional image is that of a chariot: wheels, axles, nails, etc. are real, but “chariot” is just a word.
But some Buddhists (who accept the Mahayana sutras) take it a step further, and assert advaita (which literally means not-two-ness). After all, every part can be considered a whole in its own right, and its parts again are wholes, into an infinite regress. The only way to have anatman’s atomism and not have an infinite regress, is to assert that only existence itself, independent of all categories, is real. It’s basically a form of extreme monism; it actually asserts that, while negation (not-A) is necessary for purposes of logic, it’s not actually a thing. That’s what Buddhists really mean when they say good and evil are one: evil is just an intellectual contrivance for the sake of discussion, not actually a real thing independent of good.
T
Trevor_Stamm
Guest
The essence of Christianity is to receive Christ through the Eucharist, you can rip everything down about Christianity from the churches we go to to Sacred Scripture itself but as long as there is the Magisterium forgiving our sins in confession and administering the Eucharist in a state of grace we are saved. I don’t see how one school of practices that says practice “nothingness” and remove attachments is salvation and the other saying we are nothing and empty until we are filled with bread of life are compatible.
Besides the eightfold path having similarities right off bat there are extreme contradictions, starting with the “four noble truths”. And as a Catholic “Buddhist”, how do you deal with the Fifth Precept when you are suppose to drink the blood of Christ through wine? Is the Precept self-interpreting in saying don’t consume anything that is intoxicating at all or only up to a certain point or etc…? What about the belief in Reincarnation and how the Church deemed that heresy through the 5th Ecumenical Council (2nd Constaninople) A.D. 553 first article?
I’m not trying to be antagonistic or look for an argument, I hope that’s not whats being read from me but I can’t help but feel concerned. Reason being I use to follow a certain sect of Buddhism not to long ago for years and in my conversion I couldn’t keep up with how many contradictions there was between the two and couldn’t believe how much my personality had to change in order to fully convert. I’m just puzzled at the fact, not in a demeaning manner, that one could call them self a Catholic and a Buddhist, especially with the writings on Buddhism from Pope Paul II.
Pax
A
Ahimsa
Guest
What this would imply is that Baptists, as well as many other Protestants, are not Christian.
R
Ranp
Guest
No, the Catholic Church does indeed view all Protestants, including Baptists, as Christians [wish the Baptist would return the favor]. However, Trevor is absolutely right in stating tha the essence of Christianity is to receive Christ through the Eucharist. Protestism are basically “minimalist” in that they accept most of Holy Scripture (they exclude seven books of the Old Testament) and some of the Holy Tradition, such as the Trinity (althought they claim they get it from the Bible). Catholics on the other hand believe believe ALL that was taught by Jesus Christ.
If one wants a truely personal relationship with Jesus Christ then the Eucharist is the way to go!
T
Tomcmaj
Guest
I’ve never denied that there are major differences between Christianity and Buddhism. What I have been saying is that there are, for me, some surprising similarities beyond 'lets be a little nicer to each other".
A
Ahimsa
Guest
An “essence” of something is that which, without it, something would not exist. Since Baptists do not believe that they receive Christ through the Eucharist, they do not possess the “essence” of Christianity, according to Trevor. Lacking the essence of Christianity, would mean that someone is not Christian. Sure, the Catholic Church teaches that Baptists are Christian, but that contradicts Trevor’s statement about the essence of Christianity. Contradictions in religion are fine and dandy, so I’m not bashing contradictions, just pointing to this particular contradiction as something that is in fact a contradiction.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Also, Tantric Buddhists consume small portions of wine, so the fifth precept is not seen as an absolute “rule” the violation of which prevents enlightenment.
T
Trevor_Stamm
Guest
I don’t know if it’s official teachings from ex cathedra that we should label those that broke away from us and teach heresies as fellow “Christians”. I do, however, recognize the authority of the Popes and what they said, and what they said of those that break away from the Church are “heretics” and “leaves the path of salvation”. And I also fully support Pope Leo XIII position of Americanism and the condemnation of tolerance towards Protestantism.
Strange, other forms of Buddhism see it as an absolute and state any consumption of it will obstruct one’s ability to follow the eightfold path and therefore will prevent salvation. Who is right?
T
Tomcmaj
Guest
It’s important to remember that there are probably as many different Buddhist sects as there are Christian sects!
One of the fundamental teachings of the Buddha is that asceticism is the wrong path. True Buddhists should follow the Golden Rule: “Everything in moderation.”
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
I actually agree (to a limited extent). Chesterton wrote in Orthodoxy that an ordinary, rational man knows he is complex, and that reality is paradoxical, and that when he “discovers two truths that contradict each other, he takes the truths and the contradiction with them” (I’ve paraphrased).
I don’t know if I’d put it quite the same way Trevor did - using the word “essence” - but the Catholic Church does indeed consider the Eucharist to be the “source and summit” of our faith. Yet we also believe, without qualification, that Baptists are Christians.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
The catechism says that baptism “is the basis of the whole Christian life”, which would be consistent with the Catholic teaching that Baptists (and Methodists, Pentecostals, etc.) are Christian.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
The catechism is quite clear that Baptists (and Methodists, Pentecostals, etc.) are “Christian”, because they all have Trinitarian baptisms (not because they believe in Transubstantiation in the Eucharist):
Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”
I would like to see where a Buddhist text or realizer has said that “any consumption of alcohol will…prevent salvation”.
R
rossum
Guest
L
Luke1983
Guest
This is passiveness and Gandhian philosophy put to the extremes. Jesus most certainly DID shake not just his fist but whipped the money lenders just outside the temple so that they would leave the place! He told the priests of the time i.e. pharisees that they served the devil and not God.
The Man was by no means a pacifist nor loved everything. He never loved evil. But hated it and was disgusted by it. What he loved were poor, ill, sick people and cried for them (Him being God! Not only cured them but cryed for them is quite something!). But in no way did he love their condition. And did not judge them if they in their state questioned God or urged Him to cure them or if their faith trembled in the face of such adversity. But loved them more if anything.
And this is just plain satanical nonsense: "When you hate something, you enter the realm of the thing you hate. You become just like it. You become a reflection of it. "
If you truly hate God YOU DON’T enter into his realm! You don’t become a reflection of Him and don’t become like Him. Quite the opposite!
Jesus Christ have mercy!
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Yes, that’s an excellent point. As I clarified above, I wouldn’t have put it the same way Trevor did anyway (using the word “essence” like that…)
EDIT: And whoops, I actually misread Trevor’s post before. I thought he said that he did know that it’s Catholic teaching that Protestants are Christian; I missed the “don’t.” Let me clarify that I certainly hold and fully accept that those who profess Nicene Christianity and are baptized with the Trinitarian formula are indeed completely deserving of the title “Christian,” regardless of whatever other falsehoods I happen to think they hold.
S
Sufjon
Guest
Hi Luke: I think it’s possible to mistake Jesus’ actions in the temple for hate. I think it was more like being actively involved. Just because you love people doesn’t mean that you don’t take action to correct bad behavior when you can. The Gita is all about taking action of the most severe kind while still loving the people or things whom you have to act against. If my child steals a car, I must certainly take action, but it doesn’t mean that action has to be attended by hate. I don’t recall Him saying that He hated the people in the temple or that He hated anyone.
It is far from nonsensical to say that you have entered the realm of evil when you hate. You most certainly have. Our duty is to be IN this world and not OF it. Yes, we have to act while in this realm in which we live, but that which we truly are is beyond all of that, and what is in our hearts should be a reflection of the divine ability to love that is in us. Now you may think that Mohandis Gandhi was some sort of weakling pacifist, but it most be noted in any summation of his achievements that this weak pacifist who tried to love everyone brought down the British Empire in his country and drove them out without hatred or violence. For me he is a fine role model on that front.
If you feel that you have to hate people or hate this thing or that in this world and beyond, then that is the level of spirituality that you are on, and what you are capable of. You should do it fully in that case, and hate what you feel you need to hate to the utmost that your being can muster. This way over time you will be able to burn all this hatred away and God will then find fertile ground within you from which the harvest of hate has been scorched and is now ready plant the seeds of unconditional love. So if hating is part of who you are, then don’t hate lightly. Do it with all the intensity you can so you can move past all that and realize the Kingdom of God. There will be no full realization of that while there is still a stalk of hate in your field of being.
Your friend
Sufjon
Your friend
Sufjon
- Status