Buddhism

[rossum]

Another problem with Buddhists will be that they say their lives have improved since commencing a program of regular meditation. But, these are natural results of a natural stilling of the mind, perhaps more noticeable in this noisy age.

The you agree that meditation does indeed produce an improvement in Buddhists lives. That the cause is natural is not a surprise to Buddhists because Buddhism works by results - natural results are as good as supernatural results and generaly easier to reproduce reliably. I fail to see why you see this as a “problem with Buddhists” - using natural methods to produce natural results is something people do all the time in many different fields of work.

This is not the same as the supernatural results of prayer in union with Christ.

I would not know, I have not tried the supernatural version. The natural version works well enough for my purposes.

rossum

 

[packermann]

This is what you believe:

The Mormon church views Jesus and Satan as spirit brothers and sons of God. God put forth His plan of salvation for the world, and Satan proposed his own plan. Jesus accepted the Father’s plan and offered to implement it as the Savior. The Father chose Jesus, and the spirit of Jesus was given a body through the virgin Mary. He was crucified on a Roman cross, and rose from the dead three days later to establish His deity. The character and life of Jesus is attainable by anyone who performs at such a righteous level.

You not not believe in the Holy Trinity or that Jesus is God and has existed eternally.

The logical problem with Mormonism is with an infinite regress and no Infinte Being in charge of the universe.

According to what I had read of Mormonism, Jesus was just like we are. But eventually became god. The same can be said about the god before hijm. And so on, and so on. This either leads to an infinite regress or to the first god. But is this first god is not an Infinte Being, then what caused this first god to exist? If the first god is not infinite, then causes his limitations. There must be an
Unlimited Limitor, that limits this first god, and this
Unlimited Limitor. Also, since this first god is not not infinite, then this god had a beginning. So what existed before the first god?

So Mormonism has the same prolem that polthytheism and atheism has - an infinite regress and the lack of an Infinite First Cause being.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I am not Catholic, nor a protestant, but I am Christian, (Mormon) and after studying Buddhism, **I have come to the conclusion that there really is almost no conflict with Christianity except for re-incarnation. **Kharma is really just the acknowledgement that what we do often has consequences, either good or bad, and that concept certainly doesn’t conflict with Christianity. The main thing as Christians we can learn from Buddhism in my opinion, is how to quiet the mind and open oneself up to mystical direct communication. In the West, I think we have neglected mysticism. Meditation is very useful, in my opinion, in attaining personal revelation. I think St. Theresa would agree.

Anyway, you cannot argue logically with a mystic. What they have experienced they have experienced. I think it is correct to say that Buddhism is not really a religion at all, so to believe it is in conflict with any religion (except again, taking reincarnation as a dogma) would be a misunderstanding of Buddhism. It is nothing to be feared!

There’s also that little thing about belief in God that differentiates Buddhism and Christianity. Most Westerners who “practice” Buddhism don’t really know anything about it. And if you believe that the life you’re living is one of an infinite string of lives you will live, how important is the life you are living now? And how important are you as an individual? And when you’re reincarnated as a cockroach in South America, how are you still you?

Buddhism is a self-centered form of worship, which is probably why it appeals to so many Westerners today. It’s all about self-improvement and self-knowledge. The Catholic faith has that, but so much more.

Also, ask a parent whose child has gotten caught up in Buddhism and drawn away from the Church how benign it is.

 

[rossum]

And when you’re reincarnated as a cockroach in South America, how are you still you?

In the same way that the you now is the same you that was born all those years ago, unable to speak any language, weighting a few pounds and with no knowledge of any religion. The you of now is not the same as the you that was born, neither is it totally different.

It’s all about self-improvement and self-knowledge. The Catholic faith has that, but so much more.

So there is nothing wrong with either self-improvament or self-knowledge then is there.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The reason Buddhists are so “laid-back” and not into proselytizing, is because Buddhists meditate, and meditation allows them to actually experience what some have called “the light within”, or “buddha-nature”, or “nirvana”. If you have encountered the experience of the “divine” (however you want to call it) within oneself, then if someone else comes along saying “You’re wrong!” or “I have a better religion”, or “My religion is more scientific”, your own direct experience of the “divine” would allow you to withstand most any doubts or challenges to faith.

You have to be selective about such experiences, some of them are deceptiveeople long for big thrills. Peak experiences. Some people come to Zen expecting that Enlightenment will be the Ultimate Peak Experience. The Mother of All Peak Experiences. But real enlightenment is the most ordinary of the ordinary. Once I had an amazing vision. I saw myself transported through time and space. Millions, no, billions, trillions, Godzillions of years passed. Not figuratively, but literally. Whizzed by. I found myself at the very rim of time and space, a vast giant being composed of the living minds and bodies of every thing that ever was. It was an incredibly moving experience. Exhilarating. I was high for weeks. Finally I told Nishijima Sensei about it . He said it was nonsense. Just my imagination. I can’t tell you how that made me feel. Imagination? This was as real an experience as any I’ve ever had. I just about cried. Later on that day I was eating a tangerine. I noticed how incredibly lovely a thing it was. So delicate. So amazingly orange. So very tasty. So I told Nishijima about that. That experience, he said, was enlightenment.

Source: Zen is Boring!

rossum

 

[csr]

I would not know, I have not tried the supernatural version. The natural version works well enough for my purposes.

I’m not trying to have an argy-bargy with you. I appreciate your time in replying to me. In short, what is difficult is to explain to the Buddhist that it is God’s purposes that ought to motivate us. And perhaps since (practicing, i.e., meditating) Buddhists get some results that please them, they are all the more shut to hearing about God. Most “Buddhists”, of course, aren’t really practicing much of anything, apart from some cultural artifacts and even some sorcery. Part of the problem with the discussion here, also, is the fact that we’re at risk of talking only of refined, psychologically-focused western-style “Buddhism”.

Anyway a person should learn that it is God’s purposes that motivate us. The Buddhist is comfortable with his natural activities and results.

 

[csr]

That may apply to some people, it certainly did not apply to me. A Buddhist cannot be lax, ever.

I realize that you speak in theory, but in practice, the values upheld by a typical Buddhist will be at odds with the truth. This can be observed across the spectrum of sexual and social truths that come to us through our holy religion, the Catholic faith. The Buddhist shrugs at any suggestion that one thing or another may be true, and is therefore lax.

 

[csr]

Another serious problem with “meditation” without Christ as a basis, root, direction, and source, is that one becomes comfortable with oneself. A Buddhist can have the most impractical point of view, and the poorest understanding, on points that Christ could easily correct, but by being ‘quiet’ through ‘meditation’, can skirt all that and just be happy.

This file, ca070625a.mp3, that someone linked to here, illustrates another difficulty. Someone who apparently teaches about eastern religions called the program, and basically implied that we Catholics can learn ‘quiet’ from Buddhism, and that we don’t understand the annihilation of the self and so on, that we see it as illogical whereas the Buddhist understands it as our already being part of something larger. The errors here are:

1. We don’t need to learn ‘quiet’ from any other source, because we have that in Catholicism, and correctly situated within the truths of faith.
2. We are individually created by God, and are not ‘already part of something larger’. I mean, we are a part of creation, but we are individuals.

So, Buddhist thinking requires a great deal of clarification, but the two obstacles are (a) they are lax, and (b) if they are practicing meditation of some kind, they are getting a natural benefit that they would have to re-learn and re-focus upon becoming Christian. Other obstacles include cultural affiliations (if we’re not talking about western coffee-cup Buddhists), and also participation in sorcery, which is quite common in the east, especially in backward, rural areas.

 

[rossum]

I realize that you speak in theory, but in practice, the values upheld by a typical Buddhist will be at odds with the truth. This can be observed across the spectrum of sexual and social truths that come to us through our holy religion, the Catholic faith. The Buddhist shrugs at any suggestion that one thing or another may be true, and is therefore lax.

The Buddhism you speak of is different to the Buddhism I practice.

I agree that some things that Christianity sees as important (“keep holy the sabbath day”) are not of any great importance in Buddhism. Buddhism has less emphasis on sexual misconduct and more emphasis on not killing than Christianity. Hence to a Buddhist the Christian attitude to killing can seem “lax”. Animal sacrifice is absolutely forbiden in Buddhism, while sections of the Old Testament are largely given over to detailing the rules for sacrificing animals to YHWH.

You might want to read through the Bible and count up the number of people who are killed and compare it with the number of people killed in Buddhist scripture. Some parts of the Old Testament make very unpleasant reading for a Buddhist.

It is not correct to use Buddhist standards to judge Christianity; nor is it correct to use Christian standards to judge Buddhism. The results of such a judgement are not particularly useful.

rossum

 

[csr]

Buddhism has less emphasis on sexual misconduct and more emphasis on not killing than Christianity. Hence to a Buddhist the Christian attitude to killing can seem “lax”.

But God does emphasize sexual misconduct. And when people behave without regard to those teachings, life falls apart.

God used animal sacrifice to gradually prepare the Israelites for the reality of what God’s Son would do to unite us to God. Perhaps if Buddhists had been the ‘chosen people’, the vehicle by which God would speak to man, then He might have done things differently. But facts are as they are.

Often when people fight against Christianity, they cite antiquated aspects of the Jewish scriptures, the Old Testament. Or they cite diversity among “Christians”, suggesting that “Christianity” teaches all kinds of things. It’s not the point. Those things can be understood as a historical process by which God reached out to man.

You might want to read through the Bible and count up the number of people who are killed and compare it with the number of people killed in Buddhist scripture. Some parts of the Old Testament make very unpleasant reading for a Buddhist.

Buddhists are not in touch with human history.

I think in a way, Buddhism is like a kind of drifting. It’s a refusal to participate in the reality around us.

Anyway, Buddhism has a poor foundation, and any teaching it offers to Christianity is incidental and unnecessary.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

Rossum,

I would like to pose some questions to you, if you don’t mind.

How does Buddhism cope with the idea of the un-caused cause? As far as I know, Buddha denied the existence of a creator God. How does that work logically?

Also, thanks to everyone else for participating in this thread, I really want to pick up that book “The Monk and the Philosopher”.

 

[Swan]

The Buddhism you speak of is different to the Buddhism I practice.

I agree that some things that Christianity sees as important (“keep holy the sabbath day”) are not of any great importance in Buddhism. Buddhism has less emphasis on sexual misconduct and more emphasis on not killing than Christianity. Hence to a Buddhist the Christian attitude to killing can seem “lax”. Animal sacrifice is absolutely forbiden in Buddhism, while sections of the Old Testament are largely given over to detailing the rules for sacrificing animals to YHWH.

You might want to read through the Bible and count up the number of people who are killed and compare it with the number of people killed in Buddhist scripture. Some parts of the Old Testament make very unpleasant reading for a Buddhist.

It is not correct to use Buddhist standards to judge Christianity; nor is it correct to use Christian standards to judge Buddhism. The results of such a judgement are not particularly useful.

rossum

Rossum,

First I want to thank you for taking the time to post. The information and thoughts you have provided have been very valuable to me at this time in my life when I am rethinking many of my previous beliefs/assumptions.

Regarding sexuality: I have been thinking about the things Jesus said about sex and considering it within the context of spiritual development among different schools of spiritual thought. The training/preparation of spiritual leaders, shaman, “wise” ones, etc., in different cultures often includes celibacy. Preoccupation with sexuality can, I think, drain spiritual power (for lack of a better word). Jesus, in his divine state, realized this and I believe that is what he was trying to communicate. I realize this will be an unpopular interpreation in this local, but I’m just putting my thoughts out there.

Rossum - does the belief in reincarnation include a belief in linear time? Or is it just an acceptance of linear time in prinicple? Or does it even matter? Is it all just semantics? Thanks.

 

[rossum]

I would like to pose some questions to you, if you don’t mind.

By all means.

How does Buddhism cope with the idea of the un-caused cause? As far as I know, Buddha denied the existence of a creator God. How does that work logically?

When asked where the chain of rebirths started the Buddha said that the start of the chain could not be seen. Theravada Buddhism denies any first cause - all things are caused, including all gods. The universe is seen as a series of cycles of expansion and contraction - Big Bang followed by Big Crunch - an Oscillating Universe going on forever.

Mahayana Buddhism (including Tibetan Buddhism) mostly follows Nagarjuna’s analysis of cause and effect. A cause cannot be a cause unless there is also an effect, just as a parent cannot be a parent unless there is also a child. Likewise an effect cannot be an effect unless it has a cause. Hence cause and effect are mutually dependent - each depends on the other - and neither can exist on its own. In God’s case, God cannot be the creator of the universe unless the universe exists; He cannot be the creator of a non-existent universe. God as creator depends on the existence of the universe as much as the universe depends on Him as creator.

In order to distinguish cause from effect we also need time - the cause must precede the effect and not the other way round.

Hence any “First Cause” cannot exist on its own. It also requires the existence of time and the existence of a “First Effect”. We might as well analyse the “First Effect” as the “First Cause” because neither is able to exist without the other. Even the name “First…” requires the existence of time - without time we cannot say which is first, second, third or whatever. A “First Cause” on its own does not make sense; it has no independent existence, but depends on the existence of other thngs. Ditto the “First Effect”.

This is part of Nagarjuna’a analysis of reality - that everything is dependent on something else and hence that nothing has independent existence. The first chapter of his Mulamadhyamakakarika is devoted to his analysis of cause and effect.

rossum

 

[rossum]

But God does emphasize sexual misconduct. And when people behave without regard to those teachings, life falls apart.

God may have emphasised it, but the Buddha did not. Judging by His reported actions the Old Testament God is not yet enlightened so I prefer to follow the enlightened Buddha. The NT Jesus is much closer to enlightenment and many Buddhists would consider Him a Bodhisattva.

God used animal sacrifice to gradually prepare the Israelites for the reality of what God’s Son would do to unite us to God.

Cannot an infinitely powerful God find a better way to prepare people? He gains demerit by ordering such sacrifices and the participants gain demerit by taking part. This is unskillful action.

Buddhists are not in touch with human history.

Buddhism sees Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions as being over-fixated on History. When asked a series of questions about the origin of the universe, the Buddha answered:“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
Buddhism is focused on the present. The past cannot be changed; the future depends on the present. We are here and the time is now. All that we do is done here and now.

rossum

 

[rossum]

First I want to thank you for taking the time to post. The information and thoughts you have provided have been very valuable to me at this time in my life when I am rethinking many of my previous beliefs/assumptions.

I am glad to be of assistance. The Dalai Lama has said that for most Westerners he suggests Christianity as it fits in better with the Western way of life. There is a great deal of variety within Christianity so it should be possible to find something to suit yourself; in America some Buddhists without access to a temple will attend a Unitarian church. It is possible to use a number of Buddhist techniques within a Christian setting: Zen meditation is literally “just sitting” and other meditations can be as simple as sitting, breathing and counting. The Orthodox have the Jesus Prayer, which is very close to some other forms of Buddhist meditation.

Regarding sexuality: I have been thinking about the things Jesus said about sex and considering it within the context of spiritual development among different schools of spiritual thought. The training/preparation of spiritual leaders, shaman, “wise” ones, etc., in different cultures often includes celibacy. Preoccupation with sexuality can, I think, drain spiritual power (for lack of a better word). Jesus, in his divine state, realized this and I believe that is what he was trying to communicate. I realize this will be an unpopular interpreation in this local, but I’m just putting my thoughts out there.

Buddhist monks have to be celibate for just that reason - sex is a great distraction. The rules for laypeople are much more relaxed.

does the belief in reincarnation include a belief in linear time? Or is it just an acceptance of linear time in prinicple? Or does it even matter? Is it all just semantics? Thanks.

Linear time is perfectly acceptable, though you need to bear in mind that things are not what they appear to be on the surface. The existence of everything, including time, is dependent on other things. Nothing can stand alone, including time.

rossum

 

[csr]

God may have emphasised it, but the Buddha did not. Judging by His reported actions the Old Testament God is not yet enlightened so I prefer to follow the enlightened Buddha. The NT Jesus is much closer to enlightenment and many Buddhists would consider Him a Bodhisattva.

God did emphasize it, through His anointed Apostles. And as I said, when perversion spreads, life deteriorates, and has a much harder time advancing.

I may not be entirely correct about this, but the OT reflects God as the Israelites were able to comprehend Him. God is, and has always been, perfect. So in fact you are just insulting us by talking about God in this way. Or you are insulting the Bible.

That’s par for the course among unbelievers. But again, the Buddhist framework is devoid of proper foundation in many respects, and furthermore Jesus Christ is God.

“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.”

There are also happiness, joy, salvation, grace, union, peace, and stability. And whatever dogmas obtain, obtain. The point being, how do we know which dogmas obtain? “The Buddha” is saying then, let us not explore. This is unreasonable. Indeed Christ, whom Buddhists apparently praise by considering a “Bodhisattva”, urged us to understand. And He mentioned consequences, specifically, Hell, for going the wrong way on important things. Doesn’t sound very Buddhist.

Anyway these interreligious disputes are such a bore. The real thing is to stay focused on what matters. What matters is that false religions tend to fail at correctly comprehending the relationship between reason and faith. And, those who endorse false religions do so either because they prefer a lax view of things, or because some social or cultural tendency pulls at them.

 

[csr]

I am glad to be of assistance. The Dalai Lama has said that for most Westerners he suggests Christianity as it fits in better with the Western way of life.

We are so grateful for his holy suggestion. May I suggest, in return, a conversion to Christianity, and the immolation of all idols, and the abandonment of all false practices, and an attentive hearing to all Christian teachings.

In my estimation this is another kind of proof that Buddhism is a false religion. The true faith, whatever it may be, would (a) desire the maximum for all of God’s people, and (b) would encourage all equally. The DL presumably believes that “Buddhism” is better than “Christianity”. But, he says, since we in the west are inferior in some way, we can at least have our Christianity. How generous.

The true faith, the Catholic religion, teaches that all people can aspire to complete and total union with God. And it gives us the Way to do that.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

By all means.

When asked where the chain of rebirths started the Buddha said that the start of the chain could not be seen. Theravada Buddhism denies any first cause - all things are caused, including all gods. The universe is seen as a series of cycles of expansion and contraction - Big Bang followed by Big Crunch - an Oscillating Universe going on forever.

Mahayana Buddhism (including Tibetan Buddhism) mostly follows Nagarjuna’s analysis of cause and effect. A cause cannot be a cause unless there is also an effect, just as a parent cannot be a parent unless there is also a child. Likewise an effect cannot be an effect unless it has a cause. Hence cause and effect are mutually dependent - each depends on the other - and neither can exist on its own. In God’s case, God cannot be the creator of the universe unless the universe exists; He cannot be the creator of a non-existent universe. God as creator depends on the existence of the universe as much as the universe depends on Him as creator.

In order to distinguish cause from effect we also need time - the cause must precede the effect and not the other way round.

Hence any “First Cause” cannot exist on its own. It also requires the existence of time and the existence of a “First Effect”. We might as well analyse the “First Effect” as the “First Cause” because neither is able to exist without the other. Even the name “First…” requires the existence of time - without time we cannot say which is first, second, third or whatever. A “First Cause” on its own does not make sense; it has no independent existence, but depends on the existence of other thngs. Ditto the “First Effect”.

This is part of Nagarjuna’a analysis of reality - that everything is dependent on something else and hence that nothing has independent existence. The first chapter of his Mulamadhyamakakarika is devoted to his analysis of cause and effect.

rossum

I don’t understand. Time is an attribute of the universe, but the universe had to have had a cause. Thus there had to be a cause preceding time itself. However, it may be a mute point discussing what happened before time, because then we are speaking within the context of time. If God exists independently of the universe, then he exists independently of time, thus he is free to create time. So, doesn’t that kind of negate Nagarjuna’s argument?

 

[csr]

The Orthodox have the Jesus Prayer, which is very close to some other forms of Buddhist meditation.

But much closer to God, as Jesus is the focus. Emptying the mind in Buddhist meditation is not at all what God wants.

Nothing can stand alone, including time.

Right, there is God. The first Cause.

 

[Swan]

I am glad to be of assistance. The Dalai Lama has said that for most Westerners he suggests Christianity as it fits in better with the Western way of life. There is a great deal of variety within Christianity so it should be possible to find something to suit yourself; in America some Buddhists without access to a temple will attend a Unitarian church. It is possible to use a number of Buddhist techniques within a Christian setting: Zen meditation is literally “just sitting” and other meditations can be as simple as sitting, breathing and counting. The Orthodox have the Jesus Prayer, which is very close to some other forms of Buddhist meditation.

Buddhist monks have to be celibate for just that reason - sex is a great distraction. The rules for laypeople are much more relaxed.

Linear time is perfectly acceptable, though you need to bear in mind that things are not what they appear to be on the surface. The existence of everything, including time, is dependent on other things. Nothing can stand alone, including time.

rossum

I understand about Westerners and Christianity and I am currently investigating the Unitarians. I know he is speaking about Westerners in gereral and it makes sense as Christianity is so ingrained in us. But I know folks who have seen no much negativity in interpretations/practices regarding Christianity that there are too many negative conotations and associations to make this a viable path. That, combined with personal experience which has led me to question many of the precepts upon which Christianity is based, has led me in that direction as well. Yet I remain a very spiritual person. Again, thank you.