S
- Status
R
redhen
Guest
From that Denver Post article;
"The Buddha was non-dogmatic and non-authoritarian — a compassionate guide, not a god, Buddhist texts say. The Buddha was silent on the subjects of a supreme being and the immortality of the soul. "
Exactly. I think if the Buddha was alive today he would not be a religious leader, but rather a psychologist.
“Buddhist philosophy is based on understanding the functioning of the human mind. The first verse of the Dhammapada (the quotations from the Buddha) states that all things are preceded by the mind, led by the mind and created by the mind.”
blurtit.com/q480876.html
Amituofo
"The Buddha was non-dogmatic and non-authoritarian — a compassionate guide, not a god, Buddhist texts say. The Buddha was silent on the subjects of a supreme being and the immortality of the soul. "
Exactly. I think if the Buddha was alive today he would not be a religious leader, but rather a psychologist.
“Buddhist philosophy is based on understanding the functioning of the human mind. The first verse of the Dhammapada (the quotations from the Buddha) states that all things are preceded by the mind, led by the mind and created by the mind.”
blurtit.com/q480876.html
Amituofo
G
GeorgeSword
Guest
I’m going to be honest… those who combine Eastern mysticism with Christianity are nothing short of heretics. I don’t think this will ever be a threat to orthodox Catholics, but I don’t understand why they feel the need to mix their faiths. It’s as though they want to be Buddhist, and practice it, but also stick Christian into their name so that they can still say they follow Christ. Why? Perhaps they are afraid to make a full conversion because they still feel that Jesus might be real and, of course, they don’t want to go to hell.
Meditation is practiced by some Christians, but it isn’t the same as that practiced by Buddhists. It had its begginings in the early monastic communities entirely seperated from Buddhism or any other eastern religion.
Meditation is practiced by some Christians, but it isn’t the same as that practiced by Buddhists. It had its begginings in the early monastic communities entirely seperated from Buddhism or any other eastern religion.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
I don’t know. Buddhism seems to have a lot in common with Christianity in terms of moral teachings. As far as meditation is concerned, isn’t that just some form of mental exercise? Don’t martial arts students (particularly the ones practicing eastern ones like karate or kung fu) generally practice meditation?
S
Sean11
Guest
Hey what’s happenin’ Siddartha.
Could you explain to me how desire causes suffering?
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I’m perplexed as to how in God’s green earth anyone could believe Christianity could be reconciled with Buddhism. The idea that Buddhism is agnostic and just a way of life that is compatible with monotheistic religions is false.
Buddhism is agnostic, true. But it is also opposed to the belief in a soul. Siddhartha Gautama taught that all human living is suffering. We are born suffering. The reason we suffer is the ego itself. We believe we are unique and have a spirit, a soul, a life force. When we are able to let go of all attachments, cast off the idea that we are who we think we are (i.e. a being with a distinct spirit), shed ties to irrational ideas like gods, heavens, and the supernatural, we will enter Nirvana–the ultimate state of non-being, void, formlessness, and disattachment. This is utterly the opposite of a religion that teaches we are created by a loving God who sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins. Buddhism doesn’t believe in “sin” as sin is based on an offense to God. They believe in right and wrong action, not sin. Resurrection, salavation, atonement, the Passion, baptism, sacraments, a soul, all these are utterly opposed to the Buddhist philosophy and lifestyle. Throw in reincarnation and bodhisattvas and things really get dicey! The OP’s article makes no sense.
Buddhism is agnostic, true. But it is also opposed to the belief in a soul. Siddhartha Gautama taught that all human living is suffering. We are born suffering. The reason we suffer is the ego itself. We believe we are unique and have a spirit, a soul, a life force. When we are able to let go of all attachments, cast off the idea that we are who we think we are (i.e. a being with a distinct spirit), shed ties to irrational ideas like gods, heavens, and the supernatural, we will enter Nirvana–the ultimate state of non-being, void, formlessness, and disattachment. This is utterly the opposite of a religion that teaches we are created by a loving God who sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins. Buddhism doesn’t believe in “sin” as sin is based on an offense to God. They believe in right and wrong action, not sin. Resurrection, salavation, atonement, the Passion, baptism, sacraments, a soul, all these are utterly opposed to the Buddhist philosophy and lifestyle. Throw in reincarnation and bodhisattvas and things really get dicey! The OP’s article makes no sense.
R
Religio71
Guest
R
redhen
Guest
I agree. Jesus, Logos, The Way, is much more easily reconciled with the Dao (Way).
amazon.ca/Christ-Eternal-Tao-Hieromonk-Damascene/dp/0938635859
p.s. I borrowed this book from the library of an eminent Catholic university. (They actually had two copies).
geocities.com/johnaugus/tao.html
T
Tony9712262
Guest
There was this misinformed man who wrote an article on Vietnamese Catholics, who said that they “worship their ancestors.” That totally made me mad.
I agree. There are American Christians who have Buddha statues in their house, and being Vietnamese and Catholic, we know that that’s a big no, no, LOL. Although, the only thing that we have taken from Buddhism is the incense…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
A
authenticity
Guest
From my experience, I sought out Buddhism because I did not realize the deep contemplative practices of my native religion. I think this is true for many Christians.
I was also disappointed to discover that Buddhism is a religion with all the hang ups that you can find in any religion. You have your true believers, fundamentalists (unlike Christians, they are really mad that other nationalities are practicing their religion), theologians, schisms and all the rest. Westerners want to pretend that Buddhism is some sort of spiritual psychology. Far from it. It is a belief system like any other.
I was also disappointed to discover that Buddhism is a religion with all the hang ups that you can find in any religion. You have your true believers, fundamentalists (unlike Christians, they are really mad that other nationalities are practicing their religion), theologians, schisms and all the rest. Westerners want to pretend that Buddhism is some sort of spiritual psychology. Far from it. It is a belief system like any other.
C
Corki
Guest
That is one confused dude!!!
G
GeorgeSword
Guest
I’m not familiar with that, though Lewis is one of my favourite writers. What is it called?C.S. Lewis wrote a fine, very short, book about the Tao.
As for the laicized Jesuit priest… I don’t mean to sound harsh, but I think I can see why he is a laicized Jesuit priest.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
I think that would wholly depend on the actual reason for having statues like that. I don’t see what’s wrong with having a statue like that if you’re just using it to match some oriental-style furniture.
R
redhen
Guest
Thanks, I did not know this. It looks like it’s from *The Abolition of Man *, one of his books which I’ve never read.C.S. Lewis wrote a fine, very short, book about the Tao.
Here’s an excerpt from a chapter titled The Way:
columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition2.htm
"This thing which I have called for convenience the Tao, and which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgements. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgement of value in the history of the world. What purport to be new systems or (as they now call them) ‘ideologies’, all consist of fragments from the Tao itself, arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone such validity as they possess. "
Interesting :tiphat:
S
Siddhartha
Guest
Siddhartha replies:
One of the most misunderstood aspects of my teaching has to do with desire and suffering.
I never said “desire causes suffering”. That is a misleading English translation. What I said was that “the origination of dukkha is tanha”. Properly translated, “dukkha” is not mere “suffering”. Dukkha is the underlying sense that something is not quite right about the world, the subtle awareness that nothing on this earth – however temporarily enjoyable – can give total satisfaction. Dukkha may manifest as extreme suffering, or pain, but those are simply the more obvious examples of dukkha.So, what causes this dukkha, this underlying sense of dissatisfaction? It is “tanha”. Tanha is not “desire”. Desire is “chanda”. Desire can be good, if applied in the right way. “Dhamma chanda” is the desire, the zeal, to realize Truth. We need Dhamma chanda if we want to do any type of spiritual practice at all. What we don’t need is tanha, which is a desperate, thirsting craving or self-centeredness. It is this self-centered craving that causes us to feel dissatisfaction with life. The essential antidote to this craving is contentment. If you’re Christian, contentment arises by following Christ. If you’re Buddhist, contentment arises by following Buddha.
I hope my answer has lessened your suffering for today.
S
Siddhartha
Guest
When it comes to the Tao, very short is still too much.C.S. Lewis wrote a fine, very short, book about the Tao.
C
cyberwolf001
Guest
Bows Thank you for this Dharma Siddhartha.Siddhartha replies:
One of the most misunderstood aspects of my teaching has to do with desire and suffering.
So, what causes this dukkha, this underlying sense of dissatisfaction? It is “tanha”. Tanha is not “desire”. Desire is “chanda”. Desire can be good, if applied in the right way. “Dhamma chanda” is the desire, the zeal, to realize Truth. We need Dhamma chanda if we want to do any type of spiritual practice at all. What we don’t need is tanha, which is a desperate, thirsting craving or self-centeredness. It is this self-centered craving that causes us to feel dissatisfaction with life. The essential antidote to this craving is contentment. If you’re Christian, contentment arises by following Christ. If you’re Buddhist, contentment arises by following Buddha.
I hope my answer has lessened your suffering for today.
Is it true what the wiki says that the Tibetan tradition teaches there is indeed a true self in Buddhism? An all this not self is just people trying to confuse us Westerners.
S
Siddhartha
Guest
As far as I know, there is a Tibetan Buddhist tradition (Nyingma, I believe) that does talk about a True Self. This tradition argues that the reason the Buddha taught “no self” was because India at the time was dominated by religious teachers who were obsessed about answering the question "Who or what is my ‘self’? Asking such a question is not a bad thing to do, but in India at the time, the search for the answer to that question was leading people to speculate all day and argue that their speculation was the absolute truth. The Buddha realized that seeking answers to some questions (like “Is my self big?” “Is my self small?” “Is my self eternal?” “Is my self non-eternal?”) did not directly eliminate dukkha, because even if one begins to believe that “My self is eternal”, that mere belief doesn’t directly dissolve dukkha. Only the actual realization of Truth dissolves dukkha. And when Truth is realized, the word “self” is seen as incapable of describing what Truth is all about.
So this particular Tibetan School has no fear of using the phrase “True Self”, because, ultimately, the phrase “True Self” itself is incapable of describing with Truth is all about.
No self, or True Self – no word can fully capture Real Truth.
C
Contarini
Guest
Perhaps its the search for the “fullness of the truth,” combined with the obvious fact (contrary to the ideology promoted on this forum) that the fullness of the truth is not fully actualized within any one religious tradition as currently constituted.
You have not in fact stated what is heretical about “combining Eastern mysticism with Christianity.” Even the statement I have just made is not, as far as I can tell, heretical by the standards of your Church.
Why not?
Or less cynically, because they see truth in Buddhism and see no conflict between that truth and the truth they have found in Christianity.
I think it’s interesting that you do not give one specific doctrinal error of which you can accuse these people. You don’t even give a hypothetical point of conflict between Buddhism and Christianity, although it would be easy to do so (one could argue whether this is a real contradiction or not, but it’s easy to find points–such as the Buddhist doctrine of impermanence–where there is certainly *apparent *conflict). Why don’t you do this? You seem uninterested in actually talking about doctrinal specifics, which fits oddly with your general attitude of fierce orthodoxy. If you really care about orthodoxy, why are you so shy about specifics?
Many Christians do in fact practice Buddhist meditation, however. And you have yet to make a single doctrinal objection to this practice.
Edwin
- Status