Buddhism - Nostra Aetate

[StudentMI]

I think as far as just explicating what Buddhists believe it’s fine. But it is worded badly. And the authorship should, perhaps, be taken into consideration.

 

[Peaceable]

I think you need to read those sections in the context of the whole document. This is a very abbreviated summary, but basically, the first section of the document says that many people across many cultures have tended to ask the same questions, sometimes about a supreme being sometimes about certain aspects of the human condition.

It then goes on, as others have said, to describe how Hindus and Buddhists try to answer these common questions.

(“Divinity” refers to the previous section’s description of a “supreme being” without addressing your question of whether the supreme being is related to God in Catholicism or not—It’s just referring to what these faith traditions believe).

And then goes on to encourage Catholics to witness while rejecting nothing that is true in these other traditions.

(skipping here over the extensive section on Judaism and Islam to answer the original question in this thread)

It then concludes by encouraging Catholics to treat people of different faith traditions in a spirit of brotherhood, which includes not discriminating against them, and engaging peacefully with them.

So it doesn’t say you have to believe as these other traditions believe, or agree with their notion of God or belief structure.

It’s just indicating a peaceful relationship/attitude of brotherhood towards them, because they may have goodness/true points that are consistent with Catholicism as well. And this is in part because they are attempting to answer the same big questions.

I’ve always felt it’s a well thought out and nuanced document.

 

[StudentMI]

Dialogue: Vatican II & Other Religions (“Nostra Aetate”) | Dave Armstrong

 

[Jen7]

I’ll read it again. I hope I see it as you described. Thank you!

 

[Vico]

Bill_B_NY:

Buddhists want “liberation”. So, they’re a lot like us Catholics. We have liberation from sin by the Divine Power of God, who alone forgives and brings salvation - lacking that, there is no liberation.
Buddhists want “liberation” from suffering so they use mental exercises to get away from it. Jesus gave us suffering as the highest example of the gift of love - a greater love nobody has than to suffer in this way for others.
Buddhism says that is wrong, and we should eliminate suffering through discipline.
Heresy of Pelagianism, yes.

The issue for me is that Nosta Aetate could be interpreted by some to be advocating for a Pelagian perspective (I am not among these, I just want an adequate orthodox interpretation) when it says that Buddhists have a way by which they can achieve liberation “by their own efforts”. I know it cannot be Pelagian but I also don’t know any adequate explanation of that particular section of the document.

Nostra Aetate does not state what is good about Buddhism. At least in one form of Buddhism, Bodhisattvas are beings dedicated to helping relieve suffering for all.

 

[Dovekin]

And the authorship should, perhaps, be taken into consideration.

The authors of Nostra Aetate are the bishops gathered for Vatican II. The theological expert who helped them are experts, not authors; disparaging the periti, the theological experts, has no bearing on what the bishops wrote.

NA started as a statement on Judaism, something needed after the Holocaust. While it was being written, bishops suggested other religions should be addressed as well.

There is nothing in NA about Buddhists or Hindus being “saved.” It says Buddhists teach that their adepts may “attain a state of perfect liberation.” That may be a Buddhist’s idea of salvation, but it is a Catholic idea of salvation. It is not Pelagian to teach that asceticism may help one to achieve a state of openness to God that is like the emptiness of Nirvana.

Vatican I taught that a knowledge of God is possible by rational thought. Vatican II teaches that people in India have contemplated the Divine Mystery that Vatican I said they can know. It does not say contemplation saves them or is a route to salvation. At most NA suggests that we might learn from Hindus and Buddhists from their relationships with the Creator who created all of us.

 

[Vico]

… At most NA suggests that we might learn from Hindus and Buddhists from their relationships with the Creator who created all of us.

Note that Buddhism rejects the idea of a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada).

 

[StudentMI]

Note that Buddhism rejects the idea of a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) .

Well the original Theravada form does. Mahayana is more varied.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m a bit confused by the idea that if the Vatican mentions some other religion without making a point of saying every time that said religion is wrong and Catholicism is right, then it’s somehow an endorsement of the other religion.

The Pachamama business with prayers, a statue being brought into Catholic church and Vatican gardens, Catholics bowing to the statue etc went well beyond just a mention or discussion. NA is certainly not approaching that level.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Note that Buddhism rejects the idea of a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) .

Well the original Theravada form does. Mahayana is more varied.

But not a creator god. Buddha is higher than Brahma. Brahma only thinks of himself as the creator.

 

[Dovekin]

I’m a bit confused by the idea that if the Vatican mentions some other religion without making a point of saying every time that said religion is wrong and Catholicism is right, then it’s somehow an endorsement of the other religion.

I am confused by that idea as well, or at least the sentence it is in. I think you are saying the Vatican doesn’t endorse other religions by recognizing what is good and holy in them. I agree with that.

The “Pachamama business” is explained in the first chapter of Laudato Si’:

“LAUDATO SI’, mi’ Signore” – “Praise be to you, my Lord”. In the words of this beautiful canticle, Saint Francis of Assisi reminds us that our common home is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us. “Praise be to you, my Lord, through our Sister, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruit with coloured flowers and herbs”
Francis. Laudato Si’ 1.

Reverence for our Sister, Mother Earth, is securely part of Catholic Tradition, and now thanks to Francis, in papal teaching.

 

[Dovekin]

But not a creator god. Buddha is higher than Brahma. Brahma only thinks of himself as the creator.

I was referring to our belief that the Creator is the one and only God. My post argued that Buddhist have a knowledge of God, not that they believe. Their monastic practices are oriented to nothingness like the emptying, κενοσις, in Western monasticism. We believe that orientation is not toward some other god, but has the God we believe as its object. I am not saying Buddhists believe that, but we do.

And yes, Jesus is the one and only God, as is the Spirit.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I still do not agree with bringing statues of Pachamama to church or the Vatican garden, with Catholics bowing to them, or with Catholics reciting prayers to them. That is actively including Catholics in another religion’s activities, and it is perverting the message of St. Francis. A big misstep by this Pope, who I generally don’t have a big problem with, though I also don’t think he’s as good of a Pope as Pope JPII. YMMV.

But as I said, NA, which is the subject of this thread, does not advocate that behavior.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

But not a creator god. Buddha is higher than Brahma. Brahma only thinks of himself as the creator.

I was referring to our belief that the Creator is the one and only God. My post argued that Buddhist have a knowledge of God, not that they believe. Their monastic practices are oriented to nothingness like the emptying, κενοσις, in Western monasticism. We believe that orientation is not toward some other god, but has the God we believe as its object. I am not saying Buddhists believe that, but we do.

And yes, Jesus is the one and only God, as is the Spirit.

I was only responding to (Re: Buddhism rejects the idea of a creator god):

Well the original Theravada form does. Mahayana is more varied.

 

[ReaderT]

harshcshah:

Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.

It is just saying “it teaches this”.
It’s just describing what Buddhism says. It does not endorse this idea.

When I read it I actually interpreted it the opposite way:

• Doc doesn’t say “Buddhism believes that it teaches a way to perfection” (meaning that’s just their belief; it might not be correct)
• But it says “Buddhism teaches a way to perfection” (Definitive statement - meaning the teaching is true)

There is ambiguity - which should’ve disqualified the wording. If it’s vague, it’s already wrong.

I hope one day some despot won’t look back at these statements and say “See! We’ve always taught that Buddhism / Islam / Hinduism are valid paths. All religions lead to God.”

 

[harshcshah]

There is ambiguity - which should’ve disqualified the wording. If it’s vague, it’s already wrong.

I am inclined to agree. It seems that there is ambiguous wording in various documents of the Second Vatican Council which, whilst the Council Fathers would have intended to be interpreted orthodoxy, seems to have opened the floodgate to heterodox interpretation in a “hermeneutic of rupture” as I think Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI called it.
I would very much appreciate it if the C.D.F. issued statements on how to correctly interpret the ambiguous passages in V2.

 

[harshcshah]

In this context, “supreme liberation” is nirvana, it is not one of the heavens. How do we know that we can attain it by our own efforts? Because the Buddha did it, his principal disciples did it and others have been doing it ever since. You don’t even have to be Buddhist to do it (though that helps).

My point was that Catholic orthodoxy excludes salvation by ones own actions alone (Pelagianism) and therefore I was seeking a way to interpret the Nostra Aetate passage within the confines of orthodoxy.
Thank you for your response, though.

 

[harshcshah]

The “Pachamama business” is explained in the first chapter of Laudato Si’ :

“LAUDATO SI’, mi’ Signore” – “Praise be to you, my Lord”. In the words of this beautiful canticle, Saint Francis of Assisi reminds us that our common home is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us. “Praise be to you, my Lord, through our Sister, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruit with coloured flowers and herbs”
Francis. Laudato Si’ 1.

It seems to me that Pope Francis in Laudato Si intends to convey a metaphorical and not literal understanding of the earth as a “sister” and a “mother”, therefore “reverence” for creation should only extend as far as we have been given, by God, dominion over creation and the responsibility to be stewards of it. It would not extend to bringing in Pachamama pagan idols into sacred spaces for we are commanded to worship the Lord our God alone. Since Pachamama is a pagan deity, we must condemn such practices. Whilst I do have great respect for our present Pontiff, I do find the Pachamama action questionable in the least.
But, I digress. The topic being discussed here is Nostra Aetate and not an occurrence around the Amazonian Synod.

 

[porthos11]

I really don’t get the problem.

The document only says things as they are. That is what hinduism teaches. That is what Buddhism teaches. It does not affirm those teachings as true, only that these religions respond in that manner to the questions facing them.

 

[ReaderT]

It does not affirm those teachings as true

I think it can be interpreted as affirming them:

• “Geometry teaches a way to measure shapes.”
• “Linguistics teaches a way to parse language.”
• “Buddhism teaches a way to perfect liberation.”