"Buddhists are more at peace"

[tuviskazinai]

Yes, thank you for the answer. I know that everyone suffers and that this may be caused by wanting worldly things. But that homeless man in New York wants water, food, love.
I perfectly understand these Buddhist Noble Truths but my question was more directed to the Why. Why did he have to suffer in this way and not the selfish immoral millionaire downtown.

O.K. Let’s try it this way. A baby is born with cancer, lives and struggles for 3 months and dies. Why did this innocent have to suffer like this in a Buddhist world? Surely, the Buddhist explanation can possibly be because of the bad deeds the baby did in a past life? Is this not what Buddhism teaches: karma? I’m pretty sure on this. Is there a relationship between how a person lives his or her life here and now on this planet, what good or bad they’ve done, and what they can expect in their next life. Isn’t reincarnation ultimately a way to explain this inexplicable suffering.

Well, they must have done something bad in a past life. I believe Buddhism teaches this. I’m trying for you to make the connection between reincarnation and what type of suffering one endures as their souls attempt to reach nirvana in the many cycles of death and birth. Does a person suffer if and because they have done incredibly horrendous deeds, murder, etc. in a past life?

And do you accept as a Buddhist that you may come back in a future incarnation as a monkey, or cat, with emotional equanimity? I do not think we are speaking beyond each other and I think you understand my wanting to know WHY this person (the little baby) suffered the way she did? Is it possibly because of what wrong she did in a past life?

God Bless!

I’ve been asking a lot of these same questions, KyivAndrew.

One of the things that my Hindu friend told me (and I don’t know to what extent Buddhist and Hindu views on karma are related, or whether there are varying points of view depending on the specific tradition of Hindu or Buddhism…so those of you who know better than I do, forgive me if I am simplifying in lumping them all together!) is this:

Karma shouldn’t be seen as a punishment, as in, you killed seventeen people in your first life, so you’re coming back as a walrus in the second. Rather, it’s the idea that you come back into life so as to learn things that you haven’t learned yet in your previous lives. So, the homeless man might be miserable not because he “deserves” it, but because maybe this is his chance to “see how the other half lives” if he hasn’t already seen that in a previous life. And if a person is charitable in a given reincarnation, it’s probably because he’s seen first-hand what misery is like in another life, and so now he’s going to be more compassionate.

I may be getting this all wrong, but my understanding is that karma is oriented towards purification and enlightenment rather than through punishment and tit-for-tat retribution. Of course, for me this still leaves the question of our free will (is it really radical if we all end up in the same place – Nirvana, or something like it – sooner or later? does it need to be radical for it to be meaningful?). This is my biggest question about reincarnation. But maybe that’s a question for another day!

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[tuviskazinai]

I consider Buddhism a much more peaceful religion, and, in my opinoin (if you don’t like it, don’t reply to it, or at least be respectful) rational religion. That can be argued, which is exactly why I don’t care to argue it, cause religion starts fights, even if they all preach peace. I hope Buddhism grows in size, cause I believe it is a great religion for people to join, and live by.

I do think that sometimes “argumentation” is necessary, to some extent, to get people to realize where they might be complacent, where they might be called to change, and what the stakes are in a particular debate…as long as this “arguing” is done charitably, of course. That said, I for one have no desire to argue…you’re exactly the kind of person I was hoping to see on this thread! That’s why I posted my question…to try to learn. Because this forum gives me so much food for thought when it comes to Catholic things, but I don’t want to forget that the world is made of more than Catholics.

So respond as often and as vehemently as you like…I’ll definitely benefit from it and won’t view it as antagonistic.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[tuviskazinai]

This is a claim that Buddhists make, in part I believe because they look at the overly legalistic understanding of sin that is common among many Western Christians. In practice, it seems to me that they have something very close–they certainly have an understanding of wrongdoing and of selfish cravings that pull people away from compassion and enlightenment. I recognize that there are very different metaphysical assumptions behind the Buddhist doctrines of tanha and “unskillful actions.” But traditional Buddhism clearly doesn’t think that people are just fine and only need to relax and accept themselves (even Zen seems a bit edgier than that). They do have an understanding that radical change is needed, including practices of spiritual discipline that will result in inner transformation. (Yes, I know that in Mahayana this is about realizing what is already there, and that perhaps what I’ve said applies better to Theravada.)

I definitely agree here…I have a tendency to simplify with things that I don’t understand!! But I shouldn’t have, and you’re right.

Well, there are some problems with modern Western Christian practice in that regard–pews were a bad idea from the start, in my opinion. The Orthodox have a much better approach, and one that is much more similar to medieval Western Christianity. But praying in a medieval church can be a powerful spiritual experience.

Oh yes, I also agree here. I was just putting words into someone else’s mouth. I am all for knees and pews and medieval churches.

I think that one of the interesting things about religious practice is the way it involves all of the senses and all of the arts. You have the beauty of the church or temple, the music, the incense (ideally)…the texts have a literary quality…but also, you have a transformation of the body into a work of art, through all of the associated gestures (whether it’s in yoga, or whether, in the Christian tradition, it’s kneeling, the orans posture, the signs of the Cross, the genuflections, etc.). Kneeling, for me, automatically puts me into a spirit of prayerfulness because it’s so uncommon a position in daily life…and I think we need things like that to remind us of the distinction between the sacred and the profane when we worship!

You Europeans don’t know what you have! (Well, I’m actually a citizen of an EU member nation myself, but I’ve lived in the U.S. since I was six.)

Which EU nation?
Actually, for me it’s the opposite situation – I’m American, and I’m only studying in Paris!

The bigger issue is that Buddhism coexists more comfortably than Christianity with cultural patterns that violate Buddhist teaching. Christianity has certainly compromised its ideals many times. But there has always been a good deal of discomfort with this. Because of the Buddhist understanding of rebirth and karma, it’s accepted that it may take people many lives to become enlightened. So in countries like Burma, which have been Buddhist for centuries, monarchs might do plenty of violent things and make up for it by building monasteries and donating to them lavishly (much like medieval Christian monarchs). People who engaged in such violent acts would be acquiring bad karma, but they could make up for it to some extent by supporting monks, and while they wouldn’t become enlightened right away they have plenty of lives to work on it.

I found this example particularly illuminating. Thank you.

At least, so it seems to me. I’m no expert on Buddhism.

But even in talking about the differences between Mahayana and Theravada, you prove that you understand it better than probably most of us!

I feel a little embarrassed contributing to a discussion of something about which I know so little. I know that we can’t generalize about “Buddhism,” and yet here I am doing it, while it always gets my goat when people generalize about “Christianity.” And with the Mahayana and Theravada distinctions,and others, I feel a little like my friends must feel when I tell them I go to a Jesuit parish for Mass. “But I thought you were Catholic?” / “I am.” / “Then why are you going to a Jesuit service?” / “The Jesuits are Catholic.” / “But I thought they were Jesuits.” / “The Jesuits are a Catholic religious order.” / “Oh…So, are they also Christian?”

hehe.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[Charlemagne_II]

As to where peace is more likely to be found, that seems to me an unsolvable question unless we have agreed upon what is meant by peace. Is peace resignation to one’s karma? This seems to me a recipe for status quo and the acceptance of a kind of fatal misery that cannot be overcome in this life. The peaceful karmic slums of China and India are prime targets for Christian charity as Mother Teresa found out.

Socrates said the whole point of life is to learn how to die well … did he mean in peace? Is the death of a Buddhist more peaceful than the death of a Christian? When a Buddhist does wrong, does he go to confession as a Catholic might and seek peace and strength from the Almighty? Does he even believe in the Almighty? There seems to be considerable difference of opinion on this score. Does atheistic Buddhism bring peace and forgiveness at the point of death? Is forgiveness not even in the Buddhist’s karma because there is no one to forgive?

“The rough, shorthand way of putting the difference is that the Christian pities men because they are dying, and the Buddhist pities them because they are living. The Christian feels sorry for what damages the life of a man; but the Buddhist is sorry for him because he is alive.” G. K. Chesterton

 

[Charlemagne_II]

BareKnuckler

I consider Buddhism a much more peaceful religion, and, in my opinoin (if you don’t like it, don’t reply to it, or at least be respectful) rational religion. That can be argued, which is exactly why I don’t care to argue it, cause religion starts fights, even if they all preach peace.

I don’t track this. Atheism also causes fights with religion, and is usually the aggressor, in case you hadn’t noticed it through the 20th century.

That religious differences are a matter of dispute is entirely natural. This is because religion deals with absolutes, for the most part, and no one likes to have his absolutes trashed. I daresay even the Buddhists don’t like it, though they might be resigned to it.

But the wars between Christian countries (Catholic and Protestant) were never so much a matter of doctrine as they were a matter of money. Doctrine got trumpeted as the reason, because common men, lied to as they have always been lied to, would more likely fight for their religion than they would fight for the king’s money or property.

I cannot believe that the Buddhist peoples have never gone to war. They have warred against life itself by preaching against resistance to fate.

By the way, according to Buddhist karma, when the unborn are ripped untimely from their mother’s womb, does that mean they were abortionists in a previous life?

Nor does that seem to be a peaceful prospect … at least for abortionists.

 

[rossum]

As to where peace is more likely to be found, that seems to me an unsolvable question unless we have agreed upon what is meant by peace. Is peace resignation to one’s karma?

Buddhism tends to follow the Stoic line. There are some things that we cannot change and there are some things that we can change. Buddhism points out where it is most useful to make our efforts to get the results that we want.

When a Buddhist does wrong, does he go to confession as a Catholic might and seek peace and strength from the Almighty?

No, Buddhism has neither sin nor the forgiveness of sin. Actions bring results: good actions bring good results and bad actions bring bad results.

Does he even believe in the Almighty?

Almost certainly not, Buddhism does not have any equivalent of the Abrahamic creator God. The closest is the Adi-Buddha which is a late development in response to Buddhism’s contact with Islam and is not a common concept.

Is forgiveness not even in the Buddhist’s karma because there is no one to forgive?

No god has the power to alter karma: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
If you do the crime then you do the time.

rossum

 

[tuviskazinai]

“The rough, shorthand way of putting the difference is that the Christian pities men because they are dying, and the Buddhist pities them because they are living. The Christian feels sorry for what damages the life of a man; but the Buddhist is sorry for him because he is alive.” G. K. Chesterton

I found this Chesterton quote to be really powerful…as with everything that Chesterton writes!..but I wonder what a Buddhist’s reaction might be to it? Is this really fair?

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[rossum]

I found this Chesterton quote to be really powerful…as with everything that Chesterton writes!..but I wonder what a Buddhist’s reaction might be to it? Is this really fair?

Reasonably fair:[The Buddha said:] “What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?”

“As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.”

"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

"This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

“Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father… the death of a brother… the death of a sister… the death of a son… the death of a daughter… loss with regard to relatives… loss with regard to wealth… loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.”

Assu sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 15.3
Buddhists work to avoid this repeated suffering, disease, old age and death.

rossum

 

[Daedelus76]

Buddhists do believe in sin, but it’s less juridical than Catholicism in some ways, in other ways more strict. “Defilements” are sins- basicly the Ten Commandments minus the bit about God, perhaps. Plus, many Buddhists consider killing animals bad, so abstaining from meat is good. The sins are based on natural law kind of things, not divine revelation. Buddhist moral philosophy traditionally wasn’t that different from Catholicism in some respects, with some exceptions- Buddhism traditionally doesn’t conduct marriages and generally the idea of contraception isn’t prohibited, though traditionally abortion was considered evil. Buddhism is more “glass half full” in its worldview, at least starting out. Whereas Christianity sees the world as fundamentally good, but fallen, Buddhism sees the world as fundamentally bad, but capable of being changed (by enlightenment and bodhisattva-hood).

In the end I found Buddhists, at least in the US, to not really be all that serene and peaceful as they make out. I had a meditation teacher that used to talk about struggling with feelings of anger, even though he’d meditated for decades and took bodhisattva vows, he still was obsessed with “his house” when the neighbor kids played the stereo on their boat too loud. Sure, they have more stuff together than the average irreligious heathen person nowdays, and meditation DOES work… but the worldview isn’t any more rational or sane than the Christian one in the end, and I believe, even less so.

When a Buddhist does wrong, does he go to confession as a Catholic might and seek peace and strength from the Almighty?

In a manner of speaking, yes

Repentence Gatha

All evil actions ever commited by me since of old,
Due to my limitless greed, anger, and ignorance
Born in my body, speech, and mind
Now I repent for it all

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I know there are such things as Buddhist monks and nuns. Are there also the equivalent of bishops and popes? I mean, is there any central unifying force to give Buddhism a real and certain definition, or is Buddhism somewhat “Protestant” by containing within itself a great variety of sects?

 

[rossum]

I know there are such things as Buddhist monks and nuns. Are there also the equivalent of bishops and popes? I mean, is there any central unifying force to give Buddhism a real and certain definition, or is Buddhism somewhat “Protestant” by containing within itself a great variety of sects?

It is more like Protestants. Each sect has its own authorities - the equivalent of bishops etc. - but each only has authority within his own sect.

rossum

 

[BareKnuckler]

I know there are such things as Buddhist monks and nuns. Are there also the equivalent of bishops and popes? I mean, is there any central unifying force to give Buddhism a real and certain definition, or is Buddhism somewhat “Protestant” by containing within itself a great variety of sects?

lol I do not think you can really compare Bishops and Popes to Buddhist members. You have leaders of every temple. I guess, in someway, I don’t know how really, you can compare the Dalai Llama to the Pope.

 

[Daedelus76]

I know there are such things as Buddhist monks and nuns. Are there also the equivalent of bishops and popes? I mean, is there any central unifying force to give Buddhism a real and certain definition, or is Buddhism somewhat “Protestant” by containing within itself a great variety of sects?

Buddhism has alot of different structures.  Overall the focus is on lineage more than hierarchy.  It's more like a master-student relationship.     Buddhism doesn't have a certain definition, though the 4 Noble Truths and 8 Fold Path, 3 Marks of Existence (= emptiness) are the basics (and these aren't dogma in the Catholic sense - "life is suffering" doesn't mean that if I say "life is good", I'm a heretic.  It's more about what is spiritually useful rather than "objective truth").    There actually aren't that many Buddhist "sects" (there are really only 3 real "sects", Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana / esoteric Buddhism), they view themselves more as "schools" usually.  It's not uncommon for Buddhists to study with multiple schools or traditions.   In Japan, starting in the late middle ages, this became illegal, but this is the exception, not the rule.

And the Dalai Lama is definitely not “the Pope” of Buddhism. There are some east Asian Buddhists who, while having respect for the Dalai Lama as a monk and student of the Dharma, would view the idea that he’s the reincarnation of a quasi-divine being (or Lama-ism in general) as superstition. He doesn’t really have authority in the Western sense over anybody except those people he inspires.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

BareKnuckler

In post #19 you list the following as essentials of Buddhism:

*The Buddhist religion teaches that people always suffer and it provides a way to help those who are suffering. Buddhism is formed by four basic rules.
They are:

1. Everybody’s life is filled with suffering from birth to death:
2. Suffering is caused by people wanting worldly things;
3. By controlling wants suffering will end;
4. The EightFold Path teaches us how to control these wants.

The Eightfold Paths are:

1. The true understanding of the Four Noble Truths;
2. The true thought-having friendly thoughts about people and all forms of life;
3. The true speech- speak nicely and honestly and avoid harsh words against anyone or anything;
4. The true action- act from your heart and do not be vain and avoid \ violence;
5. The true work-work in a profession that will not hurt another;
6. The true effort- work to improve yourself;
7. The true mindfulness- be compassionate and think before you act, and;
8. The right concentration- Focus and concentrate on religious meditation.*

Since there is no mention of God in any of this, would it be fair to say that Buddhism is more an ethical system, a philosophy of existence and human destiny rather than a religion?

I guess my question is, where, if anywhere, does God fit into Buddhism? I’ve heard many scientific types say that if they were to choose a religion, they would choose Buddhism. Is this because Buddhism does not seriously address the question of God and man’s relationship to God … a relationship that many in the scientific community seem to abhor?

 

[BareKnuckler]

BareKnuckler

In post #19 you list the following as essentials of Buddhism:

*The Buddhist religion teaches that people always suffer and it provides a way to help those who are suffering. Buddhism is formed by four basic rules.
They are:

1. Everybody’s life is filled with suffering from birth to death:
2. Suffering is caused by people wanting worldly things;
3. By controlling wants suffering will end;
4. The EightFold Path teaches us how to control these wants.

The Eightfold Paths are:

1. The true understanding of the Four Noble Truths;
2. The true thought-having friendly thoughts about people and all forms of life;
3. The true speech- speak nicely and honestly and avoid harsh words against anyone or anything;
4. The true action- act from your heart and do not be vain and avoid \ violence;
5. The true work-work in a profession that will not hurt another;
6. The true effort- work to improve yourself;
7. The true mindfulness- be compassionate and think before you act, and;
8. The right concentration- Focus and concentrate on religious meditation.*

Since there is no mention of God in any of this, would it be fair to say that Buddhism is more an ethical system, a philosophy of existence and human destiny rather than a religion?

I guess my question is, where, if anywhere, does God fit into Buddhism? I’ve heard many scientific types say that if they were to choose a religion, they would choose Buddhism. Is this because Buddhism does not seriously address the question of God and man’s relationship to God … a relationship that many in the scientific community seem to abhor?

lol, I do not believen a God. I did, once upon a time. I am a student of both Taoism and Buddhism. According to Wikipedia (it is good for vocabulary, usually) Buddhism, would be a religion. I believe Buddhism is a religion, but I also believe all religions are a philosophy, and I also believe everyone has a opinoin on all matters.

God doesn’t have to fit into a religion, for it to be a religion, unless you have a definition you cling to, which is fine, and then, of course, many religions would not in-fact, be religions to you, which may seem to me.

 

[sabriner]

People tend to say that Christianity and Buddhism are similar in many ways. However, in the “few” ways in which they are different make them COMPLETELY different. Christianity has a God. Buddhism has not.

Chesterton has some interesting things to say about it…I remember something in his book “The Everlasting Man” about comparing the religious art. Saints are sometimes depicted as they are here on earth as hungry, poor, eyes wide looking up to the heavens while the Buddhist is relaxed, eyes closed… Basically, the Catholic looks to God, the Buddhist looks to himself.

The peace God gives to us is not of this world.

I have nothing against those people who are buddhists…only buddhism. And still then I submit to treating them with respect and love so that they find truth and TRUE peace.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

In the Buddhist literature, if there is no God, it would seem we have to search for peace within ourselves, and there is no one to give a helping hand. Is there in Buddhism any passage as comforting as this?

John 14:27 (New International Version)

“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.”

 

[SecretBeliever]

Hi,

I used to follow Buddhism, the Jodo Shinshu sect of Mahayana Buddhism. I’m not very erudite but I can tell you my own thoughts of why I came back to Christianity. First off, the OP wondered about whether Buddhists are more at peace. One of the points that would be made at our Buddhist study classes, was that Buddhists have engaged in less warfare than the Western world – to show that it is “superior to Christianity” I guess, but as some posters have noticed, a good number of Buddhist “wars” have probably gone un-learned by Westerners. Except one thing that comes to mind off the top of my head is the horrendous, unconscionable torture of POWs by the Japanese during World War II. Notice that the kamikaze pilots were trained, I think, in Zen “doctrine” also. Nobody in the temples I went to ever mentioned any of that stuff. Hm. Reminds me of the suicide bombers that are prevalent nowadays.

We used to get together with different Buddhist sects in fellowship rather than spend time condemning the different sects’ beliefs. OK, that’s nice. But by the same token, someone wise once said something about someone who doesn’t believe anything falls for anything – I don’t know the saying exactly, but you get my drift. The idea was that you can take many different buses to get to Tokyo but they all get there.

I personally tried different practices, stuff that sort of interested me at the moment, but it all ended up in a sort of gray pudding spirituality that really didn’t help me too much at all. It also allowed me to engage in all kinds of sinful behavior because as some of you have pointed out, basically “you get what you pay for. Who cares, it’s my life anyway.” Ya know?

So although there are of course many moral Buddhists, there are also some who are not – Look at all the “monks” in Thailand who are trans-something-or-others who have to be schooled in etiquette of various kinds. I think the lack of a founding rock of morality (i.e. God’s law) leads to the feet planted firmly in mid-air. That’s where I was headed towards, and it was not good.

BTW “karma” technically really means “ACTION”. Nothing else. Not the cause & effect concept, which is a different term that escapes me right now. Oh yeah, that’s the other thing, there were many Buddhas to accommodate many attitudes. If you didn’t like one sect, you could try another. Kinda like Protestantism. Also, the Dalai Lama is the spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhism. Even though we revered him, I guess all Buddhists do, he wasn’t “over” us operationally so to speak.

I think the final straw was that I didn’t have anyone to pray to. There’s only so much navel gazing you can do before you get bored with it. The Buddha who was the head honcho of our sect was Amida Buddha. All you had to do was say his name once in complete “faith” and you were headed directly for the Pure Land (Nirvana) when you died, no reincarnation necessary.

I’ll mention also that I was no dabbler when it came to Buddhism. I had never been so “on fire” for a religion, shamefully not even Christianity (at the time anyway)! I was in it for several years.

I firmly believe in God. He created us to love and for us to love and serve Him (and Who wants us to talk to Him!). There is no higher Truth.

Love to you all.

 

[JohnPaul64]

I used to look into Buddhism awhile back, I practiced a meditation called zazen. You would sit with proper posture and count your breaths eyes open slightly. You would never latch onto a thought and if something came to mind you’d let it go by. The whole thing was geared to being in the moment and not letting your mind think of yesterday or tommorow, just being in the moment. Nothing religeous about it. While it was very peaceful to do I get more from my daily praying and saying the rosary. There is no comparison to the peace and love recieved from Jesus and Mary.

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

Christian (Catholic) meditation is very different from Buddhist meditation. In Catholic circles meditation is not so much an act of emptying onself to be receptive to God; that is contemplation. When a Catholic meditates, he generally tends to think prayerfully upon a particular passage of scripture, etc, to find its deeper meaning or application to his life. For more on contemplation, look up St. Theresa of Avila. As to Eastern Catholicism/Christianity, I don’t know if they share this view (I am a Roman Catholic).