Buddhism

[mfbukowski]

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.

First of all, how could you possibly try to tell me what I believe or don’t believe??

Second, this is a thread on Buddhism - why are you attacking Mormons?

Third, “The Trinity” was an invention of the Catholic Church in 380 AD in the council of Trent. It was never taught by Jesus. It makes no sense- how can three beings be one and one in three? If you can explain it to me, I will be glad to believe it. Or if you can give me scriptural evidence of it, that would work too.

Ahh - I suspect you will say it is a “mystery”. No, it’s quite simple. “God” is the collective title of three distinct persons who are one in purpose, and perfectly in communication. Easy as pie.

Fourth, you never answered my question. You seem to have a definition of “Christian” which is not in conformity with anyone else’s definition. None of these issues have anything to do with that definition.

Jesus is satan’s brother only in the sense that since we are all children of God, we are all brothers and sisters. That means you and I am satan’s brother or sister just as much as Jesus was.

Was Jesus NOT a son of God? Was the person Lucifer not a child of God? Then where did he come from?

Again, if you want to take this on, bring it, but this is not the place!

 

[mfbukowski]

Third, “The Trinity” was an invention of the Catholic Church in 380 AD in the council of Trent.

Correction! It is late and I am old! I meant the Council of Nicea

 

[csr]

Please keep the mormonism topic in threads about that. Use the ‘new thread’ button.

And I apologize to rossum for all the biting and scratching. Mostly I’m annoyed that my brother won’t think clearly about these topics.

 

[rossum]

Anyway these interreligious disputes are such a bore.

Agreed. Judging by Christian criteria, Christianity ranks higher than Buddhism. Judging by Buddhist criteria Buddhism ranks higher than Christianity. Hardly very surprising either way.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I don’t understand. Time is an attribute of the universe, but the universe had to have had a cause.

The universe does not have to have had a cause. An eternal universe with no beginning does not need a cause. A universe which is only apparent, not real, does not need a cause. A self-caused universe does not need a separate cause. You seem to be happy with a God without a cause, why cannot there be a universe without a cause?

Thus there had to be a cause preceding time itself.

You cannot legitimately use the word “preceding” in that sense unless you already have time. Without time how do you tell which is before and which is after? Without time you cannot separate cause (prior in time) from effect (subsequent in time).

However, it may be a mute point discussing what happened before time, because then we are speaking within the context of time.

Again, you are using a time dependent word, “before”, in the absence of time. You cannot do this. You can only have “before” and “after” if there is already time to measure things against. In the absence of time “before” has no meaning.

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?

Nagarjuna’s point is that nothing can have independent existence - everything is interdependent. God is “The Creator” but He cannot be “The Creator” unless He has actually created something. In the absence of something created, the most that God can be is “Creator-in-waiting” or “Creator-to-be”. It might be possible to envisage something that did exist independently of time, but that thing would be unchanging because it would be independent of time. The Christian God is not an unchanging God. The Bible of an unchanging God would be very boring: ‘On the first day God said “Let there be light.” On the second day God said “Let there be light.” On the third day God said “Let there be light.” …’ An unchanging God cannot act within time as the Christian God does. Because God changes then God must be dependent on time and thus cannot be independent of time.

rossum

 

[csr]

Because God changes then God must be dependent on time and thus cannot be independent of time.

God doesn’t change, He acts. He is not dependent upon time, but perhaps we might say that He invented time as a kind of structure for our development, for our good. As the Scriptures say, this is a ‘very acceptable time’.

 

[rossum]

God doesn’t change, He acts.

Any timebound action implies change. That part of God which said “Let there be light” was active on day one and inactive on day two. It changed from inactive to active to inactive again. An unchanging God either takes no action forever or repeats the same action(s) forever. If there are changing actions then there must be a corresponding change in the actor.

He is not dependent upon time, but perhaps we might say that He invented time as a kind of structure for our development, for our good. As the Scriptures say, this is a ‘very acceptable time’.

If He is a cause (= creator) then He is dependent on time. A cause cannot be a cause without time. In the absence of time cause and effect are not distinguishable. You say that God created the universe, and not the other way round, because He existed before the universe. In the absence of time you cannot say “before” so that argument fails.

rossum

 

[rossum]

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.

Do not judge all of Christianity be the worst of what you see in Christians. Buddhism also fails if you judge it by the worst Buddhists. Try to separate what is valuable from what is not. Gandhi said: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Sadly, many Christians fall short of Christ.

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.

You have to find something that works for you. It would be as wrong to reject something just because it was Christian as it would be to accept it just because it was Christian. Try things for yourself and see how they work:[The Buddha said:] “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
This is not a recipe for anarchy, the criteria include “not blamable” and “praised by the wise”, but it is a mandate to try things for yourself and not merely accept them on the basis of any claimed authority.

There is much that is worthwhile in Christianity. When Buddhists talk about many paths leading to the mountain top, those paths include most versions of Christianity.

rossum

 

[csr]

Any timebound action implies change. That part of God which said “Let there be light” was active on day one and inactive on day two. It changed from inactive to active to inactive again. An unchanging God either takes no action forever or repeats the same action(s) forever.

The question of time and God has occupied some of the best minds for centuries. Your comfort in making various declarations should be seen as ego, not as insight. God dwells in inapproachable light, and I suspect that He is outside of time as well as being its Creator.

Other things bother me about Buddhists. For example, my thought to explore religious vocation was deemed “good” by my new Buddhist sister-in-law. Yet she disagrees with much of what my religion professes. So why is it “good”? It’s just willed slipperiness, dishonesty so deeply ingrained that it now masquerades as virtue. The truth is I don’t need the approval of a Buddhist. I don’t need the DL to say that Christianity is good enough for my sorry butt.

Buddhism, ignoring the cultural tendencies toward superstition and witchcraft, may offer some natural benefits. But God offers us grace, a share in the life of God, which comes to us through His Son.

 

[csr]

Buddhism is not good enough for the Dalai Lama. I pray for his eventual conversion to the true faith.

 

[rossum]

Other things bother me about Buddhists. For example, my thought to explore religious vocation was deemed “good” by my new Buddhist sister-in-law. Yet she disagrees with much of what my religion professes. So why is it “good”? It’s just willed slipperiness, dishonesty so deeply ingrained that it now masquerades as virtue.

It should not bother you. When Buddhists say that there are many paths leading to the mountain top, we mean it. Most forms of Christianity will help you progress up the mountain. Buddhism has less distractions and irrelevancies on the path and is a more direct route, but we are not going to force you to follow a route that you do not want to go down. I am sure that your sister-in-law is genuine in what she says; each of us needs to find a path that works for us.

There are a few forms of Christianity that do not go to the mountaintop: extreme Calvinism and those which treat OSAS as a “Get out of Hell Free” card. Basically any belief that disconnects our actions from the result of our actions - a denial of moral law - is not helpful.

As an example of what I mean by “distractions and irrelevancies”, compare the five moral rules of Buddhism:* avoid injury to living things.

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

with the Ten Commandments. The rules about how many gods you can worship and what you can and cannot do on certain days of the week are not required. Those extra rules do not prevent the paths of Christianity or Judaism reaching the mountaintop, so it is perfectly understandable for any Buddhist to encourage you to follow that path. The Christian path will reach the same destination by a more roundabout route. All of the Buddhist moral rules can be found in the Bible.

Christianity is less strong on meditation, especially in many of the Protestant traditions, but that is easily added to Christian practice or just borrowed from elsewhere in the wider Christian tradition.

“Love others as you love yourself” - the Buddha.

rossum

 

[Nullasalus]

The important thing to take away from buddhism as a Catholic is that it is tremendously, amazingly, mind-bogglingly malleable. The variety of schools of thought, the diversity of cosmologies, the views on everything from God, gods, science and the supernatural put all the collective diversities among western theism to shame.

At core, there is an essence throughout all the traditions and schools about how to regard life, thought, and general existence. But this core is so stripped down that it’s hardly a distinct ‘religion’ at all - and you’ll find a large part of the core already present in the monastic traditions of Catholicism anyway. There’s a fundamental difference at heart, since Catholics regard the self as having a central reality and immortality in a positive sense, and buddhists regard that center as illusion and/or I suppose dangerous idea to hold. On the other hand they’re not all that persuasive about the point, both in teaching and by practice.

As such, I don’t really view the core as much of a threat - it’s misunderstood, if anything. The core philosophy of buddhism is about as atheistic as Adam Smith’s philosophy of economy - utterly unrelated to the question, more pragmatic than anything else. Not exactly foreign to Catholicism either.

(Caveat: I could picture some more comprehensive schools of buddhist thought as incompatible with catholicism - but those get out of basic pragmatism and into odd cosmologies that are vastly more difficult to rationally defend. There’s also a more recent and very western materialist-secular ‘buddhism’, but not only are they in utter discord compared to just about every other tradition/school on the matter, but their views make it hard not to justify running out in the street and jumping in front of the first Mack truck going fast enough to get rid of you.)

 

[csr]

Buddhism is full of distractions, serious ones at that. Buddhism has serious distractions to offer. For one thing, there are whole schools of thought about “hungry ghosts” and other oddments. But more particularly worth noting, Buddhism fails to point out specific dangers a person can fall into. Sexual sins are serious problems a person needs to be aware of. But more important than that, perhaps: Buddhism not only fails to recognize that Jesus is God, but also fails to prevent adherents from dabbling in witchcraft and sorcery. Buddhism provides no meaningful warning against all kinds of error. As such, it lulls people into feeling fine about themselves and about what others may be doing, and thereby distracts them from the true Way.

Laxity of moral understanding is a disconnect from the Way. Certainly I can agree that we mustn’t imagine that our actions are separated from consequences. But in the true faith, they are not. Meanwhile, for the Buddhist, given the moral laxity and lax understanding of moral truths, in effect, there is a serious disconnect between the two.

Christianity doesn’t impose, it informs. Christianity does not “force” a path, nor does it impose “rules” about how many gods may be worshipped. Rather, Christianity is literally the Way. There is only one God. We aren’t making it up.

Suffering helps, if one has a good example to follow. I think the best opportunity people have for abandoning the new age, buddhist, etc., path, is when they truly begin to suffer from some cause and find no real explanation for it, or find that they are implicitly blaming themselves for evil. Then they turn to the truth, if they have seen it lived well.

Buddhist moral truths are misguided. Any of the truths you enumerate are without a real foundation. For example, there is no reason why we should avoid eating cows, avoid laughing, avoid coffee. But these things my SIL thinks are important, to the point that she tries to impose her silly views on my brother. (No, I’m not getting it confused with Hinduism.) Without Christ, moral truths are at risk of being misapprehended.

Christianity is less strong on meditation, especially in many of the Protestant traditions, but that is easily added to Christian practice or just borrowed from elsewhere in the wider Christian tradition.

Christianity is very strong on mental prayer but there is more to worship of God than that. Meanwhile, Buddhist meditation tends toward annihilation of the self, which is not what worship of God and mental prayer are about. Once again we can see that Buddhism is a distraction. The early natural benefit of meditation deludes the adept into thinking that she is progressing along the way. But she’s not, in fact. She’s going her own way, quietly.

 

[rossum]

Sexual sins are serious problems a person needs to be aware of.

Here you are applying Christian concepts to Buddhism. Buddhism has neither “sin” nor “forgiveness of sin”; we have unskillful actions and their consequences. I have already said that sexual morality for laypeople is more relaxed in Buddhism, though there are still liberal and conservative strains as there are within Christianity.

But more important than that, perhaps: Buddhism not only fails to recognize that Jesus is God,

And Christians fail to recognise that Jesus is a Bodhisattva .

Buddhism provides no meaningful warning against all kinds of error. As such, it lulls people into feeling fine about themselves and about what others may be doing, and thereby distracts them from the true Way.

We obviously differ over what is the true path. What I was trying to express in my last post was how your sister-in-law might be thinking. I was trying to explain why she genuinely meant it when she said “good” when you expressed the wish to follow a religious vocation. She was not being deceptive.

Laxity of moral understanding is a disconnect from the Way. Certainly I can agree that we mustn’t imagine that our actions are separated from consequences. But in the true faith, they are not. Meanwhile, for the Buddhist, given the moral laxity and lax understanding of moral truths, in effect, there is a serious disconnect between the two.

In the strict Calvinist version of Christianity there is an absolute disconnect; your destination is decided by God before you are born and nothing you can do can affect it. OSAS can have a similar disconnect. Buddhism has less of a disconnect than Christianity because there is no equivalent of the forgiveness of sin - if you do the crime then you do the time.

Christianity doesn’t impose, it informs. Christianity does not “force” a path, nor does it impose “rules” about how many gods may be worshipped. Rather, Christianity is literally the Way. There is only one God. We aren’t making it up.

I suggest you read the first few of the Ten Commandments again, particularly the bit about not worshipping other gods. My scriptures differ from your scriptures on how many gods there are and how important they are.

Buddhist moral truths are misguided.

I am puzzled here. Are you saying that:love others as you love yourself - the Buddhais misguided, whereaslove others as you love yourself - Jesusis not misguided? A great deal of the morality of the two religions overlap. As I said, all of the Buddhist five moral rules can be found in the Bible.

For example, there is no reason why we should avoid eating cows, avoid laughing, avoid coffee. But these things my SIL thinks are important, to the point that she tries to impose her silly views on my brother.

The first moral rule is to avoid injury to living things, hence many Buddhists are vegetarian. Not eating cows would fit in with that. Laughter I have not seen before, though the Buddha told monks to smile rather than laugh. Some laypeople follow some of the monastic rules as well. The fifth moral rule is to avoid intoxicants. Have you ever tried meditating after drinking a can of Red Bull? Caffeine is a mild intoxicant and strong enough to interfere with meditation.

Meanwhile, Buddhist meditation tends toward annihilation of the self

Buddhist meditation tends towards the realisation that what you thought was your “self” actually isn’t. All that is annihilated is your mistaken notion of self. You cannot annihilate what is not there.

rossum

 

[juhothenero]

Buddhist meditation tends towards the realisation that what you thought was your “self” actually isn’t. All that is annihilated is your mistaken notion of self. You cannot annihilate what is not there.

on the foundation this is problem with a buddhist teaching… since it goes from Christian God loves all individually towards you actually do not exist as an individual. This way of thinking has a big ability for destruction of oneself and also others.

Calvinists are not christian nore are any other denominations christians then catholics. This is if one unterstands catholic teaching on the name christian which means to be a part of the body of chirst which is the catholic church. If one is not in communion with the pope then one is not christian in a strict sense of the word.

Buddhist also have a problem with no God which causes extreme relativism.

 

[rossum]

Calvinists are not christian nore are any other denominations christians then catholics. This is if one unterstands catholic teaching on the name christian which means to be a part of the body of chirst which is the catholic church. If one is not in communion with the pope then one is not christian in a strict sense of the word.

Matthew 7:21 “Not every one that saith to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven”. You are not the one who gets to decide who is and who is not a Christian.

Buddhist also have a problem with no God which causes extreme relativism.

Buddhism does not have a problem with no God; if anything Buddhism is the opposite:At that time, Shakro Devanan Indrah was present with his retinue of twenty thousand gods. Among them were the God Moon, the God Universal Fragrance, the God Jeweled Light, and the Four Great Heavenly Kings with their retinues, ten thousand gods in all. There was the God Comfort, and the God Great Comfort, with their retinues, thirty thousand gods in all.

There was the God King Brahma, ruler of the Saha World, as well as the great Brahma Shikin and the great Brahma Brilliance, and others, with their retinues, twelve thousand gods in all.

Saddharmapundarika sutra (Lotus Sutra) Chapter 1
Mathematically you are a lot closer to “no God” than I am.

rossum

 

[Nullasalus]

Do you want gods? Buddhism has quite an assortment to offer, with wide varieties of pantheons in one school or another.

Do you not want gods? That’s okay, you can ignore them entirely if you choose, even deny that they exist at all.

Do you want supernatural? Oh, that’s there in abundance - all kinds of hells and intercessory powers, etc.

Do you want no supernatural? Don’t worry, you can ignore that too. Possibly even ignore reincarnation.

Do you want truth? Hey, buddhism can claim to be the only accurate religion in town, with all the most justifiable beliefs and principles - with whatever standard you like. The Dali Lama strongly discourages devotion to the Dorje Shugden.

Do you want relativism? Don’t worry - there’s all kinds of paths to enlightenment - be a christian, be a jew, quite possibly be a scientologist. The Dali Lama strongly encourages devotion to your preferred faith. Why, buddhism isn’t really a religion at all.

Do you want a peaceful faith? Buddhist schools have historically stressed non-violence and world peace.

Do you want a warlike faith? Buddhist schools were integrated into martial societies, from the mongols to Japan in the era leading up to World War II.

Do you want a social religion? Buddhism has concepts of bodhisatvas and saint-like beings regularly intervening in order to help others achieve peace.

Do you want a personal religion? Buddhism lets you utterly eschew all concepts of focusing on others, and can advocate total self-reliance.

Do you consider morality important? Buddhism has a long tradition of promoting a morality surprisingly congruent with the moral views of Christianity and western theism in general.

Do you dislike moral imperatives? Buddhism has a long tradition of apathy towards morality, and has been surprisingly detached from the moral views of Christianity and western theism in general.

Do you want to integrate buddhist thought with your faith? By all means - Jesus was a bodhisatva you know. Quite a lot of the Catholic saints may well have been as much too.

Do you want buddhism to be utterly opposed to Christianity? By all means - Jesus was far too worldly to be a bodhisatva, and the Old Testament God was clearly unenlightened.

… Again, this isn’t to denigrate the core of buddhist teaching. I think it’s rather positive. I also think western theism - and Catholicism in particular - oddly enough offers a vastly better implementation and understanding of that core thought.

It makes no sense to attack buddhism, because any part of it can be tossed over the rails by an adherent if necessary. The only essential part is ‘Be aware of yourself and your desires, strive to control not only your habits but the appetites that produce those habits, and strive for a peaceful mental state’. Not exactly news to Christians, even if more people need to do it.

Even the talk about ultimate annihilation or denial of the self doesn’t matter so much, since just what that means inevitably spins off into ‘I don’t know, I’m not there yet, it is beyond words’ or koans. You could make a strong argument that those core, areligious buddhist principles seem like they’d come in awfully handy for those expecting eternal life with God.

 

[juhothenero]

Matthew 7:21 “Not every one that saith to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven”. You are not the one who gets to decide who is and who is not a Christian.

That quote from the bible has nothing to do with the issues, just implies that i am going to hell for telling what the catholic church teaches on this matter. Not my own idea as I am still a lutheran. Though soon i be catholic. If one is a catholic that implies that one must believe the church being a body of christ on the proof that christ said church would never teach error. Christian word means the person who is a member of that body. One is not a member of that body if one is not a member of the church. For example i am not a member of the church so not yet a member of the body of christ.

This fantastic misquoting makes me doubt the things said about buddhism. The implication of it is hateful.

Anyway the first and the most important error was not disproved. That is that of view of individual in buddhism.

 

[rossum]

The only essential part is ‘Be aware of yourself and your desires, strive to control not only your habits but the appetites that produce those habits, and strive for a peaceful mental state’. Not exactly news to Christians, even if more people need to do it.

Correct.To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one’s mind - this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

Dhammapada 14:5
You are also right that everyone knows what they should do, but few actually do it.

rossum

 

[rossum]

If one is a catholic that implies that one must believe the church being a body of christ on the proof that christ said church would never teach error.

I suggest that you read Lumen Gentium:15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.
I think that Lumen Gentium has more authority than you in this matter: “… are honoured with the name of Christian.”

Anyway the first and the most important error was not disproved. That is that of view of individual in buddhism.

The views of the individual differ between Buddhism and Christianity. To a Buddhist, the Christian view is in error. One of the three fundamental errors is to look for a soul in that which is soulless.

rossum