Buddhism

[CThomas]

This is directed primarily to the user “rossum,” following up on a brief discussion over in the apologetics section. I don’t have any grand agenda, I was just curious in learning more about what you see as your evidential basis for accepting the truth of Buddhism.

You alluded briefly to your sense (correct me if I am presenting it wrong) that your practice of meditation has delivered something to you that you view as confirmatory of the Buddhist claims. I’d be interested in hearing more about that. Just to put my own cards on the table, it has always seemed significant to me that the experiences or realizations achieved through Buddhist meditation occur only after regularly engaging in practices (conscientiously learning practices permitting one to “do nothing” for prolonged periods) that could conceivably cause the experiences or realizations to occur simply as a result of an alteration of the brain’s normal activity as a result of these practices. This could allow a more parsimonious explanation than the truth of Buddhism’s broad metaphysical claims, it seems to me, and while I understand that it certainly doesn’t seem that way to one in meditation, it strikes me as at least a possibility that is open. The Christian also has a direct experiential confirmation of the truth of Christianity (along with a wealth of extrinsic historical evidence and other lines of reasoning supporting its truth), and this direct experience, on the other hand, does not depend on this sort of elaborate practice associated with Buddhist meditation, and therefore may be more immune to those sorts of alternative explanations. These are the reasons why I tend to view my own direct experience of the truth of Christianity as more credible and well-supported than my understanding of the Buddhist meditation experience. But I’ll be interested to see your thoughts on that.

Hope this doesn’t come across as argumentative. I’m interested in hearing your side of the story.

Regards,

CThomas

 

[SedesDomi]

Many Buddhists don’t meditate. In fact, I would wager to say that most Buddhists don’t meditate. You don’t have to meditate to be a Buddhist, nor to be convinced of the truth of the Buddha.

 

[rossum]

You alluded briefly to your sense (correct me if I am presenting it wrong) that your practice of meditation has delivered something to you that you view as confirmatory of the Buddhist claims.

This could be a long one…

I do not just meditate, I follow Buddhist practice in morality as well. Buddhist meditation is not seen as effective unless it is placed in a correct moral context. All the claims about the effects of Buddhist practise, including meditation, that I have been able to test have proved correct. That gives me confidence that I am on the correct path.

Just to put my own cards on the table, it has always seemed significant to me that the experiences or realizations achieved through Buddhist meditation occur only after regularly engaging in practices (conscientiously learning practices permitting one to “do nothing” for prolonged periods) that could conceivably cause the experiences or realizations to occur simply as a result of an alteration of the brain’s normal activity as a result of these practices.

The whole point is to alter one’s normal brain activity. Enlightenment is a change of mental state, and meditation is designed to bring about that change. Studies of Buddhist meditators indicate that there are differences in the way their brains operate: see here and here.

This could allow a more parsimonious explanation than the truth of Buddhism’s broad metaphysical claims, it seems to me, and while I understand that it certainly doesn’t seem that way to one in meditation, it strikes me as at least a possibility that is open.

Buddhism is a very practical religion, over time it has retained techniques that work and rejected techniques that do not. This goes back to the Buddha; you will often see the Kalama sutta being quoted. The Kalamas were confused because a succession of different preachers had come to them and each preacher had said “I am right. The other preachers are wrong. Do what I say and not what they say.” They asked the Buddha “How do we tell which preacher is right and which preacher is wrong?”:[The Buddha said:] “Yes, Kalamas, it is proper that you have doubt, that you have perplexity, for a doubt has arisen in a matter which is doubtful. Now, look you Kalamas, do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea ‘this is our teacher’. Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them. … Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

Kalama sutta - Anguttara Nikaya 3.65
Ever since then Buddhists have been looking for things that are good, not blamable, praised by the wise and that lead to benefit and happiness. By now we have a large collection of them.

The Christian also has a direct experiential confirmation of the truth of Christianity

Both the Catholic and Orthodox traditions of Christianity have meditation, especially in some monastic orders. For laypeople there are techniques like Saying the Jesus Prayer. Given that Christianity has lasted 2000 years, then it has to have some effective techniques; if it did not then it would have died out. Buddhism is far less interested in historical evidence than Christianity - the effectiveness of its techniques does not depend on the power of the Buddha.

Buddhism tells me that I can attain enlightenment by my own efforts, and there is the example of many enlightened Buddhists down the years to confirm that this is possible. Christianity tells me that I cannot work out my own salvation, but must rely on the power of God. I have more concrete evidence for my own existence than I have for God’s existence. I prefer to rely on my own efforts, especially when those efforts are bringing me good results.

Hope this doesn’t come across as argumentative. I’m interested in hearing your side of the story.

No problem.

rossum

 

[Our_Refuge]

Rossum, since you are a Buddhist I would like you to comment on the following statement from the Catholic Church.

" From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.

Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. 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. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)

The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men. "

How do you interprete the statement that the Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in your religion.?

Do these paragraphs in any way give you the desire to investigate the Catholic faith?

Thank you

 

[rossum]

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.

That is a reasonable short summary of Buddhism.

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.

Buddhism rejects nothing that is true and helpful in the Catholic Church.

How do you interprete the statement that the Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in your religion?

There are many paths leading up the mountain. The may take different routes, but eventually all will reach the summit. Buddhism can be summed up as: do good, cease to do evil and meditate. The first two are certainly contained within Catholicism; meditation is somewhat lacking but it is present in some degree.

Do these paragraphs in any way give you the desire to investigate the Catholic faith?

No. I was brought up Christian, and after the usual adolescent bout of atheism I looked for a religion to follow. I tried a number of religions, but in general I got on better with the Indian (Dharmic) religions than the Abrahamic religions. I have been Buddhist since my late teens.

There are immense differences in the theology behind the two religions; Budhism has lots of gods, but they are of no real importance. Buddhism rejects any form of a soul. There are heavens and hells but they are all impermanent. Impermanence and change are emphasised over permanence; the phrase “the radical insufficiency of this changeable world” applies to the heavens, hells and gods as well as to the earth. Christianity seems to me to view the world as fundamentally unchanging with a veneer of apparent change laid over it. Buddhism sees the world as fundamentally changing with a veneer of apparent stasis laid over it.

rossum

 

[CThomas]

Rossum, thanks. (Are you in Ann Arbor, by any chance?) I wanted to follow up on one piece of your response to me that intrigued me, namely your focus on Buddhist “morality.” I was interested to hear this, because the Buddhists I have spoken with have tended to disclaim the idea of morality altogether. Indeed, I have been told that the closest Buddhism comes to any morality is the idea of compassion, which is not some sort of prescriptive obligation as in the case of traditional moral conceptions, but rather essentially a purely descriptive feature of the cognition of those who are enlightened.

Perhaps this comes from differences in Buddhist approaches. (Lord knows there are an enormous number of strains of Buddhism.) I’d be curious to hear what you view as “Buddhist morality.” Also, where do these moral precepts come from in your view, apart from the pure subjective preferences of individual Buddhists?

There are some interesting points in your response to the meditation question as well, but these internet posts really don’t work well, I think, unless they are contained to single issues.

Regards,

CThomas

 

[Ronald_E]

I hope it is ok for me to join in because I loved Buddhist philosophy and psychology beginning in 1970 when I was stationed in Taiwan and visited the image of the smiling Buddha at a time in my life when I was far removed from Catholicism.
I never thought that Buddha would consider his practice of discipline which is the 8 fold path towards enlightenment a religion. Please correct me if I am wrong.
However, as I look back on 40 years away from Catholicism it was the practice of Buddhism that helped me toward an inner life that began the process of spiritual healing.
I loved the Wheel of Life and the 6 symbols that describe the different psychological states that we become enmeshed in that may disrupt or stop our progress toward awakening. If I remember them correctly they are the animal realm, the heaven realm, the realm of the jealous gods, the realm of the hungry ghosts, the hell realm and the human realm.
Buddha never denied the existence of God but stated to the effect that it is useless for the finite mind to begin to understand the infinite. Belief about the infinite is not the truth but a beginnig.
When Buddha attained enlightenment he came to understand that love is what creates everything. To penetrate and attain unity with that infinite love, if I remember correctly, would result in the loss of self in union with that love.
God softened me up with Buddhism and I thank Him for that blessing. God then taught me the meaning of sacrificial love that revealed His presence on this earth in Jesus, Who then began the process of uniting with God without losing our identity.
There is so much more, but I must go to work.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

Many Buddhists don’t meditate. In fact, I would wager to say that most Buddhists don’t meditate. You don’t have to meditate to be a Buddhist, nor to be convinced of the truth of the Buddha.

There are only a handful of Buddhist sects who do not advocate meditation. Those are principally Japanese in nature. They are those such as Nichiren in its various forms and Japanese Pure Land. The Theravada, Zen, Tibetan and most Chinese forms all meditate. It’s an integral part of their practice. So, I’m not sure about why you say that most don’t.

The Pure Land sect is by far the largest in East Asia. And the only form that does not meditate are the Japanese sects. I’m not sure where you are getting that information.

You are only convinced of the truth of the Buddha when you experience it yourself. Faith alone isn’t going to cut it.

Peace…

MW

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

Rossum, thanks. (Are you in Ann Arbor, by any chance?) I wanted to follow up on one piece of your response to me that intrigued me, namely your focus on Buddhist “morality.” I was interested to hear this, because the Buddhists I have spoken with have tended to disclaim the idea of morality altogether. Indeed, I have been told that the closest Buddhism comes to any morality is the idea of compassion, which is not some sort of prescriptive obligation as in the case of traditional moral conceptions, but rather essentially a purely descriptive feature of the cognition of those who are enlightened.

Perhaps this comes from differences in Buddhist approaches. (Lord knows there are an enormous number of strains of Buddhism.) I’d be curious to hear what you view as “Buddhist morality.” Also, where do these moral precepts come from in your view, apart from the pure subjective preferences of individual Buddhists?

There are some interesting points in your response to the meditation question as well, but these internet posts really don’t work well, I think, unless they are contained to single issues.

Regards,

CThomas

CThomas,

I know you were asking Rossum, but I wanted to give you a few basics of morality in Buddhism.

The 8-fold path is essential to traditional Buddhism. In that path, 3 of them are morality based. They are: right speech, right actions and right livelihood. And the five basic precepts that all Buddhists should follow is moral in nature. They are basically: no killing, no stealing, no sexual misconduct, no lying and abstaining from intoxicants.

When i was following Buddhism, these were the moral principles I followed and I followed them faithfully, including no drinking or drugs. You cannot have a solid Buddhist foundation without the (name removed by moderator)ut of morality. If you aren’t living a moral life, your meditation and thinking will be clouded and non-productive.

Peace…

MW

 

[rossum]

Are you in Ann Arbor, by any chance?

I am on the other side of the pond, in London.

I wanted to follow up on one piece of your response to me that intrigued me, namely your focus on Buddhist “morality.” I was interested to hear this, because the Buddhists I have spoken with have tended to disclaim the idea of morality altogether. Indeed, I have been told that the closest Buddhism comes to any morality is the idea of compassion, which is not some sort of prescriptive obligation as in the case of traditional moral conceptions, but rather essentially a purely descriptive feature of the cognition of those who are enlightened.

The Eightfold Path is split between morality, meditation and wisdom. Three elements are assigned to morality: Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood. For laypeople the moral rules can be reduced to five:* avoid injuring living things.

• avoid taking what is not given.
• avoid sensual misconduct.
• avoid false and malicious speech.
• avoid intoxicants.

There is not a great deal of difference between Buddhist and Christian morality; from a Buddhist point of view Christianity seems to overemphasise “You shall not commit adultery” and to underemphasise “You shall not kill”, but the differences are in emphasis rather than substance.

I am not sure why the Buddhists you spoke to disclaimed morality. The Eightfold Path is the fourth of the Four Noble Truths spoken by the Buddha in his first sermon after his enlightenment.

Perhaps this comes from differences in Buddhist approaches. (Lord knows there are an enormous number of strains of Buddhism.)

Agreed.

I’d be curious to hear what you view as “Buddhist morality.” Also, where do these moral precepts come from in your view, apart from the pure subjective preferences of individual Buddhists?

The moral precepts come from the Buddha. The Buddha rediscovered them as part of his enlightenment; they are a description of the way the world operates. If you throw a stone upwards, then it will fall back down on your head. In the same way your future will be affected by your actions here and now.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

Neither in the sky nor in mid-ocean,
nor in a cave in the mountains,
is there a place where a man
can escape his evil deed.

Dhammapada 9:12

rossum

 

[rossum]

I hope it is ok for me to join in

Welcome.

I never thought that Buddha would consider his practice of discipline which is the 8 fold path towards enlightenment a religion. Please correct me if I am wrong.

It really depends on what definition of religion you are using. Many of the belief systems of ancient India shaded between what we now call religion and what we now call philosophy. Buddhism has elements of both and can be considered as either, whatever is most convenient.

However, as I look back on 40 years away from Catholicism it was the practice of Buddhism that helped me toward an inner life that began the process of spiritual healing.

I am glad that Buddhism was able to help you.

I loved the Wheel of Life and the 6 symbols that describe the different psychological states that we become enmeshed in that may disrupt or stop our progress toward awakening. If I remember them correctly they are the animal realm, the heaven realm, the realm of the jealous gods, the realm of the hungry ghosts, the hell realm and the human realm.

All six correct. It is also worth pointing out that in pictures of the Wheel of Life:

http://www.thangka.ru/gallery/img/koleso_3.jpg

there is a Buddha in each of the six sectors of the wheel, indicating that there is always hope of enlightenment no matter what state we have fallen into. The three animals at the centre represent our greed (pig), hatred (snake) and delusion (cockerel) which drive the whole thing.

Buddha never denied the existence of God but stated to the effect that it is useless for the finite mind to begin to understand the infinite. Belief about the infinite is not the truth but a beginnig.

The Buddha eschewed mataphysics as the parable of the man shot with a poisoned arrow shows:[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

When Buddha attained enlightenment he came to understand that love is what creates everything. To penetrate and attain unity with that infinite love, if I remember correctly, would result in the loss of self in union with that love.

We cannot lose our “self”, we never had one in the first place. Part of enlightenment is realising that what we thought of as our “self” wasn’t.

God softened me up with Buddhism and I thank Him for that blessing. God then taught me the meaning of sacrificial love that revealed His presence on this earth in Jesus, Who then began the process of uniting with God without losing our identity.

It is good that you have found a path that is right for you. Follow it.

There is so much more, but I must go to work.

rossum

 

[SedesDomi]

There are only a handful of Buddhist sects who do not advocate meditation. Those are principally Japanese in nature. They are those such as Nichiren in its various forms and Japanese Pure Land. The Theravada, Zen, Tibetan and most Chinese forms all meditate. It’s an integral part of their practice. So, I’m not sure about why you say that most don’t.

The Pure Land sect is by far the largest in East Asia. And the only form that does not meditate are the Japanese sects. I’m not sure where you are getting that information.

You are only convinced of the truth of the Buddha when you experience it yourself. Faith alone isn’t going to cut it.

Peace…

MW

Advocating meditation is one thing. Advocating that lay Buddhists must meditate in order to be truly Buddhist is another – and tends to be much more prevalent among Western converts to Buddhism.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

Advocating meditation is one thing. Advocating that lay Buddhists must meditate in order to be truly Buddhist is another – and tends to be much more prevalent among Western converts to Buddhism.

Advocating is perhaps a wrong term. Certain sects do not require meditation and even say it is futile to do so, as in the Japanese Pure Land sects such as Jodo Shu. Most Western converts go into Zen or Tibetan which require meditation. And even the other Western converts who go into Theravada are “required” to meditate. But, I use that term loosely because the Buddhist path is about guidelines, not about rules and regulations, especially for the lay practitioners. The ordained Sangha practice much more rigorously.

I say required only because if one wants to see the fruit of their practice they must meditate or as the Zennists would say, to practice mindfulness in all daily activities. By the way, I don’t see the difference in your first two sentences. In the traditions I cited, meditation is fundamental to the practice. It’s not an option. If you are encountering Buddhists who do not meditate, it could be that they practice one of the few paths that don’t require it or it could be that they are not that disciplined. It’s hard to tell unless you dig deeper.

Peace…

MW

 

[SedesDomi]

If you are encountering Buddhists who do not meditate, it could be that they practice one of the few paths that don’t require it or it could be that they are not that disciplined.

Or maybe they were raised Buddhist in Asia, or in America; and see Buddhism more in cultural, language, and familial terms.

Or maybe their practice of Buddhism is centered on the practice of generosity and saddha (trust; confidence) in the Triple Gem – a practice which does indeed have results.

Or maybe they are bodhisatt(v)as whose current lifetime doesn’t involve meditation.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

Or maybe they were raised Buddhist in Asia, or in America; and see Buddhism more in cultural, language, and familial terms.

Which would correspond to the possibility I was alluding to.

Or maybe their practice of Buddhism is centered on the practice of generosity and saddha (trust; confidence) in the Triple Gem – a practice which does indeed have results.

I’m not sure why you seem to be argumentative. As you know, that is only part of the path. To focus on one and disregard the other pillars of the faith seems like a 3 legged table trying to balance on 2 legs.

Or maybe they are bodhisatt(v)as whose current lifetime doesn’t involve meditation.

I’m still curious why you are arguing against meditation. A bodhisattva in the Pure Land tradition still practices Pure Land methods and directs followers in their practice, such as Quan Yin and Great Strength Bodhisattva. A bodhisattva in the Tibetan tradition still practices Tibetan methods, such as living bodhisattva His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. A bodhisattva means different things in different traditions. Which tradition would you be referring to?

I studied Theravada and practiced insight meditation but then took precepts in 2006 by a Zen priest and practiced the combination of Zen and Pure Land or “Chan”. I later journeyed into Jodo Shu (Japanese Pure Land) founded by students of Master Honen and came close to going into the Jodo Shu priesthood but something kept me from doing so (the Holy Spirit). So, while I learned a wide variety of the basics of Theravada and Mahayana, I focused on the Mahayana in my practice. Just wanted to give an idea of where I was coming from.

Peace…

MW

 

[CThomas]

Rossum, thanks again. (And thanks to the others for your helpful contributions.) I guessed Ann Arbor because I was trying to figure out the significance of your user name (“Ross from U.M.?”) but obviously got it wrong.

I’m still not sure I understand the source of morality under the Buddhist view. The way I’m reading this is that the Buddha discovered and taught that if you engage in certain types of conduct, you will suffer some sort of unpleasant consequences (in this life or future lives). So a moral rule like “Don’t kill” essentially boils down to the same thing as practical advice like “Don’t stick your hand on a hot stove.” In both cases, they are simply warnings that some actions will cause you experience pain or suffering. Is that right? I see the Christian view of morality as importantly different from that, if I am right about your view, even if the substantive content overlaps to a large extent. I think the Christian view of morality, which finds its source in the unchanging character of an all-perfect God, is genuinely “normative” in a sense it doesn’t sound like Buddhism’s is. While the Christian certainly recognizes consequences for immoral behavior, I think the Christian can say that immorality is wrong even apart from those consequences, and in an even more fundamental sense than those consequences. I’m wondering if Buddhism can or does make a similar claim. And if so, how that ties in with the larger Buddhist worldview.

Again – thanks for your help in letting me develop my understanding of this very interesting set of beliefs, which (I’m sure it’s clear by now) is woefully inadequate.

Best regards.

CThomas

 

[rossum]

Rossum, thanks again. (And thanks to the others for your helpful contributions.) I guessed Ann Arbor because I was trying to figure out the significance of your user name (“Ross from U.M.?”) but obviously got it wrong.

Karel Čapek - R.U.R. - Rossum’s Universal Robots. My name is M Ross → mross → rossm → rossum.

I’m still not sure I understand the source of morality under the Buddhist view. The way I’m reading this is that the Buddha discovered and taught that if you engage in certain types of conduct, you will suffer some sort of unpleasant consequences (in this life or future lives). So a moral rule like “Don’t kill” essentially boils down to the same thing as practical advice like “Don’t stick your hand on a hot stove.” In both cases, they are simply warnings that some actions will cause you experience pain or suffering. Is that right?

Yes. Buddhism does not have the concept of sin, just skillful and unskillful action. Actions have consequences; if you don’t want the consequences then don’t do the actions. The downside of no concept of sin is no concept of the forgiveness of sin either - you do the crime, you do the time.

I see the Christian view of morality as importantly different from that, if I am right about your view, even if the substantive content overlaps to a large extent. I think the Christian view of morality, which finds its source in the unchanging character of an all-perfect God, is genuinely “normative” in a sense it doesn’t sound like Buddhism’s is.

For God’s own sake, I hope that His character is not “unchanging”. Change is required for any unenlightened being to change from unenlightened to enlightened. An unchanging being has no hope of nirvana. Since all beings will eventually attain nirvana then of necessity no being can be unchanging. Buddhism sees impermanence and change everywhere; without change there is no hope of nirvana. I have to change from unenlightened-rossum to enlightened-rossum and nirvana has to change from nirvana-without-rossum to nirvana-with-rossum.

While the Christian certainly recognizes consequences for immoral behavior, I think the Christian can say that immorality is wrong even apart from those consequences, and in an even more fundamental sense than those consequences.

Buddhism is a very practical religion, despite all the metaphysics that it has accumulated over the years. The Buddha looked for what worked, and used it.

I’m wondering if Buddhism can or does make a similar claim. And if so, how that ties in with the larger Buddhist worldview.

Buddhism tries to avoid reifying things into absolutes like “GOOD” and “EVIL”; all we can actually work with here and now is “good” and “evil” so that is all that we use. Since all things change and all things are dependent on other things it is very difficult to have any absolutes in Buddhism. Nirvana is often described in negative terms or by silence. One of the more famous descriptions of the nature of reality is from the Questions of Vimalakirti:Then the Bodhisattva Manjushri said to Vimalakirti, “We have all given our teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the the entrance into the principle of nonduality.”

Thereupon Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.

The Bodhisattva Manjushri applauded Vimalakirti: “Excellent! Excellent, noble sir! This is indeed the entrance into the nonduality of the bodhisattvas.”

Vimalakirtinirdesa sutra Ch 9
All descriptions of nirvana are false, or perhaps “nada, nada, nada, y en el monte nada”.

Again – thanks for your help in letting me develop my understanding of this very interesting set of beliefs, which (I’m sure it’s clear by now) is woefully inadequate.

You are not doing too badly. There is a big difference in the underlying concepts which I think is causing you the most difficulties. In Buddhism everything is impermanent, everything is suffering and absolutely everything is soulless. That gives a very different perspective from the Abrahamic religons.

rossum

 

[SedesDomi]

I’m not sure why you seem to be argumentative. As you know, that is only part of the path. To focus on one and disregard the other pillars of the faith seems like a 3 legged table trying to balance on 2 legs.

My point would be that meditation is not a sine qua non for being Buddhist. Birds and humans do quite well with just two legs.

I’m still curious why you are arguing against meditation.

I’m only making the point that Buddhism, historically, has been “practiced” both by people who meditate and by people who don’t.

 

[vee8]

I had posted about this man in a different, much bigger thread, a while ago and just thought I would mention him again here in case anyone actively posting or those who just stop by and read are interested.

Paul Williams is a British man who was a Buddhist for around twenty years. And he wasnt just any Buddhist he was and still is a professor of Buddhism and wrote many books about it. Then he converted to Catholicism. His fascinating (at least I think so) story is available by searching for him in the audio section of ewtn and he also has a book amazon.com/Unexpected-Way-Converting-Buddhism-Catholicism/dp/0567088308

 

[CThomas]

Rossum, changing the subject slightly, I was also curious what you view as the evidentiary basis for your belief in Buddhism. You have referred to your perception that your practice of Buddhism has “delivered” on certain promises it made. Could you elaborate on that a bit, and explain in what sense these “deliverables” constitute grounds, in your view, for belief in the metaphysical claims of the religion, apart from merely finding the practices useful for certain pruposes. Are there other strands of evidence that you see as supporting the truth of Buddhism?

Look forward to hearing from you on this.

CThomas