Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity fitting together?

[Tomcmaj]

I’ve accepted the Holy Spirit into my heart, and I sure as hell haven’t achieved what Buddhists call “nirvana.”

Buddhist practice, when done properly, allows you to glimpse nirvana, which is more or less what happens when you accept the Holy Spirit.

:heaven:

 

[benedictus2]

In this context “deceptive” means “not 100% reliable”. Even with 75% reliability we can work towards 80% reliability. We do the best we can with the information available, imperfect and incomplete as that information is.

If deceptive is not 100% reliable, how do we even know that it is even 75% reliable or 80% reliable? If it is deceptive, then we are probably being deceived about the its reliability too.

To say that it is a certain percentage reliable must mean that there is an objective measure by which we gauge this percentage. But if everything is deceptive then there is no way of knowing that.

Good and evil is not a question of the reliability of a deceptive perception.

Two incorrect premises led to a correct conclusion.

To say, “I should not steal things because if I do the Invisible Pink Unicorn will trample me under Her Holy Hooves,” is to reach a right action, not stealing, from an incorrect belief.

rossum

That is not quite in line with wrong doctrine bringing about right practice.

For that to fit, the statement should have been, I Steal because the Invisible pink unicorn will trample you under her Holy Hooves if I do not.

The wrong doctrine is the teaching to steal, the wrong practice s stealing.

The example of you gave (don’t steal) is right doctrine with a wrong justification (the pink unicorn…) for this right doctrine. But it is still right doctrine.

 

[benedictus2]

Buddhist practice, when done properly, allows you to glimpse nirvana, which is more or less what happens when you accept the Holy Spirit.

:heaven:

Accepting the Holy Spirit does not lead you to nirvana, it leads you to Christ, it leads you deep into the love of the Trinity. THAT is not nirvana.

 

[benedictus2]

I can know that Harold Camping’s prediction of the date of the rapture is wrong without knowing what the correct date of the rapture is.

You know that Harold Camping’s prediction is wrong because it has not eventuated. So you know what is true (it has not happened) and that is why you know it is false.

But more specifically, one must have an idea of what Harold Camping means by the rapture, to know that the rapture has not happened.

 

[benedictus2]

I’m afraid these forums are not filled with open minds ready to accept much more than Catholic doctrine to the core. I have learned a lot here but mostly all things Catholic. There are some here who like philosophy but I have seen people get their ideas shut down hard in here by hard core Catholics with closed minds.

And what is your measure of a close mind?

Would one who believes Catholic teaching with all one’s heart be considered closed minded?

I have found that those who are of this bent are Catholics who have actually studied the faith and found to their joy that they have found the truth. Why would one let in false information just in the name of open mindedness?

 

[rossum]

If there is an objective moral law then it had to have been created by a higher intelligence.

Why? I know this is the Christian assumption but it is not the Buddhist assumption. You are going to have to show me reason for this.

Karma is seen as akin to the law of gravity; it is built into the universe. We know how it operates and wise people act in line with what is known. If you don’t want a pebble to fall on your head then don’t throw that pebble straight up in the air. If you don’t want suffering then don’t act against moral law.

The Abrahamic religions are much more interested in history than Buddhism. Buddhism is much more interested in what is here and now. We are suffering and we wish to escape that suffering. Knowing the origin of the universe is not important for solving our immediate problem. The parable of the Man Shot with an Arrow is relevant:[The Buddha said:] 'It is as if, Malunkyaputta, a man is shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison, … and the wounded man were to say “I will not have the arrow taken out until I know the caste of the man who shot it, … his tribe … his clan … his village … his height etc.” [many questions omitted here] That man would die Malunkyaputta, before he learned all that he wanted to know.

'In exactly the same way, Malunkyaputta, any one who says “I will not lead the religious life under the Blessed One until the Blessed One explains to me whether the universe is eternal, whether the universe is not eternal, whether the universe is finite, whether the universe is infinite etc.” [many questions omitted here] That person would die Malunkyaputta, before I had ever explained all this to that person.

‘The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’

• Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63

Even if you believe the universe had no beginning (which science has now proven it did) laws like “Thou shall not murder” cannot spontaneously come about by themselves, anymore than human laws (like stopping at a red light) can come about by themselves. They must have been “authored” by someone.

Karma is not seen as analogous to human laws. It is seen as more analogous to the laws of nature, like gravity. It is not enforced by any gods, it enforces itself. It is not possible to break the law of karma any more than it is possible to break the law of gravity. Gravity will always act. It is merely up to us to act wisely in the light of what we know about gravity. Buddhism does not have either the concept of sin or the forgiveness of sin. Actions have results; if you do the action then you get the result.

rossum

 

[dzheremi]

The concepts of sin and forgiveness of sin do not preclude the concept of natural consequences. Indeed, it’s kind of built into the concept of sin, as it is written that the wages of sin is death. This is as “do this, get that” as you can get.

 

[Sufjon]

The reason I differ in this regard is that Hinduism can include Buddhism (as it can most belief systems, at least according to its own principles).

Hi Fone Bone: It’s good to see someone who understands that. It is possible in Hinduism to see all religions as part of a continuum. In fact, many of the Hindi saints in the past few centuries at least have seen it that way.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[rossum]

If deceptive is not 100% reliable, how do we even know that it is even 75% reliable or 80% reliable? If it is deceptive, then we are probably being deceived about the its reliability too.

To say that it is a certain percentage reliable must mean that there is an objective measure by which we gauge this percentage. But if everything is deceptive then there is no way of knowing that.

You rely on an unreliable copy of the Bible. The correct ending of Mark is not known. There are internal inconsistencies about the dates of some kings. If you will only accept 100% reliability then you cannot accept the Bible either. It is the nature of the world that many things in it are less than perfect.

Good and evil is not a question of the reliability of a deceptive perception.

How can I know what is good and what is evil without perception? I read (perceive) scripture. I listen to (perceive) sermons and talks. Perception is essential.

rossum

 

[benedictus2]

You rely on an unreliable copy of the Bible. The correct ending of Mark is not known. There are internal inconsistencies about the dates of some kings. If you will only accept 100% reliability then you cannot accept the Bible either. It is the nature of the world that many things in it are less than perfect.

But that is a whole new ballgame that you have introduced here because unlike you, we make no claims that the material world is deceptive so you cannot apply that criteria here. That can only apply to you.

We say we believe in the Bible because we believe that the Holy Spirit guided its writing. Whether you accept that or not has no bearing on the point above because the main issue we are trying to sort out is the Buddhist injunction to do good, which, based on your teaching that everything is deceptive, cannot possibly be known.

How can I know what is good and what is evil without perception?

But that is not what I said. I said good and evil is not a matter of the reliability of our deceptive perception. Good is good and evil is evil independent of our perception. Our perception is not what makes good, good and evil, evil.

You ask how can I know what is good and what is evil without perception? You can’t, but even more so with the Buddhist concept since everything is deceptive. If deceptive then there is no hope of knowing what is good or evil.

 

[rossum]

But that is a whole new ballgame that you have introduced here because unlike you, we make no claims that the material world is deceptive so you cannot apply that criteria here. That can only apply to you.

I am prepared to work with imperfect information. Part of that work is to improve the quality of the information. If you want only 100% accurate information then that is up to you.

Whether you accept that or not has no bearing on the point above because the main issue we are trying to sort out is the Buddhist injunction to do good, which, based on your teaching that everything is deceptive, cannot possibly be known.

You misunderstood me; my apologies for not making myself clearer. Things are not deceptive, it is our attitude to them that is deceptive. Basically we indulge in wishful thinking. We look for permanent happiness where permanent happiness cannot be found. That is not the fault of where we are searching, it is our fault for looking in the wrong places.

We can learn from our mistakes.

But that is not what I said. I said good and evil is not a matter of the reliability of our deceptive perception. Good is good and evil is evil independent of our perception. Our perception is not what makes good, good and evil, evil.

Quite possible. What I am saying is that we cannot know which is which without perception. It is something we learn, and we cannot learn without perceiving. It is the learning that is dependent on perception.

You ask how can I know what is good and what is evil without perception? You can’t,

We agree.

but even more so with the Buddhist concept since everything is deceptive. If deceptive then there is no hope of knowing what is good or evil.

We can know results. Putting my hand in the fire results in pain so I won’t do that again. Unwise actions bring suffering. As long as we can learn to avoid such actions then we can improve.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

• Dhammapada 1:1-2

rossum

 

[Kyrby_Caluna]

What is common in all religion is that THEY ARE ALL SEARCHING FOR GOD. That is why there are some elements like morality which are common to all. The only reason that elevates the Catholic Church is that this religion is God’s ANSWER to that SEARCH.

 

[Contarini]

But that is a whole new ballgame that you have introduced here because unlike you, we make no claims that the material world is deceptive so you cannot apply that criteria here. That can only apply to you.

That doesn’t make sense (never mind that you keep saying that they think the “material” world is deceptive–a term I haven’t seen Rossum use). Rossum is making an observation about reality. 100% certainty is not, rationally speaking, attainable about most things, including such questions as whether the Bible is reliable. That’s why Aquinas said that these things cannot be proven demonstratively–rather, probable reasons can be given and the certainty comes from the act of faith.

Rossum isn’t assuming Buddhist principles. He’s observing something about reality which fits his approach better than yours. Your approach and that of other very conservative Christians demands a level of certainty that is simply impossible, and so you wind up with continual cognitive dissonance that makes it hard to be intellectually honest.

We say we believe in the Bible because we believe that the Holy Spirit guided its writing.

I think this is a valid point, but I’m not sure Buddhists are actually saying that everything is deceptive in such a way as to make knowledge of truth impossible. That would make nonsense of Buddhist claims themselves. (One hindrance you face in understanding other religions is your willingness to assume that they are simply speaking nonsense, instead of trying to understand why people would believe something that doesn’t make sense to you.)

I do think that Rossum is making a distinction between ethics and doctrine that we Christians reject (and which I, like you, find unreasonable), as you pointed out above in the pink unicorn example.

Edwin

 

[benedictus2]

That doesn’t make sense (never mind that you keep saying that they think the “material” world is deceptive–a term I haven’t seen Rossum use).

Actually I think he has. You were right to correct me that he did not use the word “illusion” but he did use the word deceptive.

Rossum is making an observation about reality. 100% certainty is not, rationally speaking, attainable about most things, including such questions as whether the Bible is reliable. That’s why Aquinas said that these things cannot be proven demonstratively–rather, probable reasons can be given and the certainty comes from the act of faith.

But my point is not about certainty or reliability (which is the word he used).

The point is he said we should do good and avoid evil.

I asked how do we know it is good or evil if the world is deceptive?

He said by its fruit?

So I asked, but if the world is deceptive then the fruit would also be deceptive, so we still have no way of knowing whether the act was good or evil based on the fruit being good or evil for the simple reason that everything is deceptive.

This is when he started talking about percentages of reliability. But we can’t talk about percentages of reliability for the simple fact that the world is deceptive.

I cannot say that I am 60% or 25% accurate unless there is an objective measure. But since according to him everything is deceptive then even this percentages don’t matter one bit because we just cannot say which one is correct for the simple fact that everything is deceptive. If you say some parts are not deceptive then which part? Who determines? What is the basis?

Rossum isn’t assuming Buddhist principles. He’s observing something about reality

If you go back to the origin of this particular tangent, it started off from assuming Buddhist principles.

 

[benedictus2]

What is common in all religion is that THEY ARE ALL SEARCHING FOR GOD. That is why there are some elements like morality which are common to all. The only reason that elevates the Catholic Church is that this religion is God’s ANSWER to that SEARCH.

Excellent!!!

 

[benedictus2]

I am prepared to work with imperfect information. Part of that work is to improve the quality of the information. If you want only 100% accurate information then that is up to you.

But this is just the problem with your position. How can you know to what extent it is imperfect if everything is deceptive. Maybe you think it is 80% correct but in actual fact it is .0001% correct because you have no way of knowing since everything is deceptive according to you which it seems is according to Buddhist principles.

You misunderstood me; my apologies for not making myself clearer. Things are not deceptive, You misunderstood me; my apologies for not making myself clearer. Things are not deceptive, it is our attitude to them that is deceptive. Basically we indulge in wishful thinking. We look for permanent happiness where permanent happiness cannot be found. That is not the fault of where we are searching, it is our fault for looking in the wrong places.

That is not quite what you said earlier.

When I said that you are therefore an illusion if everything is an illusion, you said no, the illussion is in our heads but it is the material world that is deceptive.

Quite possible. What I am saying is that we cannot know which is which without perception. It is something we learn, and we cannot learn without perceiving. It is the learning that is dependent on perception.

But that was never in question.

We can know results. Putting my hand in the fire results in pain so I won’t do that again. Unwise actions bring suffering. As long as we can learn to avoid such actions then we can improve.

So if an action engenders suffering it is therefore evil?

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

But this is exactly what I have been saying all along about Buddhist principle - the mind determines conditons, truth is not objective.

And that tenet is what I have been questioning ever since.

 

[benedictus2]

That doesn’t make sense (never mind that you keep saying that they think the “material” world is deceptive–a term I haven’t seen Rossum use).

This is what he said

Nor is it Buddhism. The material world is seen as deceptive. It is not nothing, but neither is it what it seems to be.

 

[Contarini]

Actually I think he has. You were right to correct me that he did not use the word “illusion” but he did use the word deceptive.

You’re right–I apologize. What I was challenging was not the “deceptive” part but the “material” part–but you’re right that he did use that phrase. My point has been that in contrast to Hinduism or Platonism (the latter of which has decisively influenced traditional Christianity), where an unchanging spiritual/intellectual world is contrasted to a physical world of change and becoming, Buddhism (especially Theravada) traditionally claims that everything, whether material or “spiritual,” is impermanent and ever-changing.

But my point is not about certainty or reliability (which is the word he used).

Yes, it is, because he clarified that by “deceptive” he means “not 100% reliable.”

The point is he said we should do good and avoid evil.

I asked how do we know it is good or evil if the world is deceptive?

He said by its fruit?

So I asked, but if the world is deceptive then the fruit would also be deceptive, so we still have no way of knowing whether the act was good or evil based on the fruit being good or evil for the simple reason that everything is deceptive.

This is when he started talking about percentages of reliability. But we can’t talk about percentages of reliability for the simple fact that the world is deceptive.

Yes, he can, because he defined “deceptive” in terms of percentages of reliability. I see the point you’re making: if you don’t know for sure which of your perceptions are reliable, where can you start. But to use William Abraham’s terminology, I think you’re assuming “hard rationalism” where “soft rationalism” makes more sense. I agree with Rossum that the kind of certainty you are looking for simply doesn’t exist. So we have to make do with what we have. To start from what you would like to be true and then pick a view of the world that allows you to believe this smacks of sheer wish-fulfillment.

We can be pretty sure that some of our perceptions are reliable. We can have some degree of confidence that certain perceptions are more reliable than others. We can’t quantify this with any precision.

If you go back to the origin of this particular tangent, it started off from assuming Buddhist principles.

I don’t think that the unreliability of our perceptions requires Buddhist principles. It requires honest observation.

Edwin

 

[CompSciGuy]

“You must agree with how I interpret the words of God or else you are calling Him a liar” gets pretty old as far as fostering truth and understanding.

The Church teaches that those who through no fault of their own follow another path, and who otherwise do what God intends for them, can be saved through the grace of Jesus Christ even without having to pass His name through their lips.

This is not the same as “to each his own.” I have read the church documents regarding this issue. All it’s saying is that those people who had no way of knowing or understanding the gospel because of some factor that kept it from them cannot be held responsible for their unbelief. In such cases, they will be judged for how well they followed the truth as they know it. This makes perfect sense. It does not in any way take away the fact that faith in Christ and his Church are necessary for salvation, or our obligation to share our faith with others (through acts of charity, yes, but also through evangelization). It is through Christ that we are saved, and faith in Him is necessary. If you honestly read scripture, the writings of the church and of the saints, you couldn’t deny this.

This can be correlated to the teaching that the sacraments are the normal means by which we receive God’s grace, but God is not bound by the sacraments. For example, if someone commits mortal sin and intends to go to confession but dies before getting there. The person can still be forgiven even without sacramental confession. But you can’t take that teaching and then tell all Catholics that confession isn’t necessary, or that they needn’t go to confession. In the same way, I can’t just say “to each his own” and tell every heretic or nonbeliever to go on his own merry way and hope he manages to find his way to God.

 

[Tomcmaj]

Accepting the Holy Spirit does not lead you to nirvana, it leads you to Christ, it leads you deep into the love of the Trinity. THAT is not nirvana.

It’s a glimpse of nirvana.

The only difference is the order of things: in Christianity, accepting the Holy Spirit leads to a profound understanding of the unimportance of the material world; in Buddhism, one needs to start by ridding oneself of attachments to the material world in order to “uncover” the sacred glimpse of nirvana, or for want of a better word (since we cannot use language to adequately describe it), the Holy Spirit.

Words are funny things, and we should be open to the fact that different words can mean the same thing.

Saul/Paul cautions us against getting caught up in arguing over words!

:tiphat: