Buddihism and Christiantiy

[ahimsaman72]

cont…
quoted from StubbleSpark

Also, in my above comparison regarding the universality of Catholicism versus the limited nature of Buddhism, I was not trying to compare apples and oranges. It is just that, as Catholics, we are taught that Truth has his own nature – we recognize it when we see it. So we can also recognize when a given belief system has a little truth, some truth, or in the case of Catholicism the fullness of the truth.

So the argument that Buddhism remains inconstant – changing fundamental “truths” depending on the place and time, that its full practice is limited to a given extrinsic cultural mindset, that certain personality types cannot as easily access those truths … all these arguments are indeed condemning for the Catholic mind. They are big red flags that say: seek elsewhere.

I never said that fundamental “truths” change and depend entirely on place and time. I’m simply saying that some practices (extrinsic) are mostly cultural. All schools believe in the Buddha and the four noble truths and the eightfold path and that morality, meditation and wisdom lead to nirvana. How one practices these can vary depending on the culture. All roads lead to nirvana however.

All I am saying, is that if you want to win Catholic converts to Buddhism, you would want to downplay those traits.

I personally don’t want to win Catholic converts. I don’t believe in trying to get others over to “my way of thinking”. Buddhism doesn’t want to “win” converts either which is obvious since as I stated before that Buddhism hasn’t forced people to believe as they do which doesn’t work anyway. People have to be convinced of themselves that a path is right or wrong for them. I hope to don’t misunderstand my intentions here on the forum.

I have been on a long, arduous journey for some time now to find the spiritual path I’m destined to be on. In the end, I have to make that choice, whether it is Christianity, Buddhism or something else. I expect others to do the same. To do otherwise is to be dishonest with one’s own conscience.

And, there is no room for downplaying traits of Buddhism. I am not ashamed of Buddhism or the teachings and would never downplay certain traits because it is politically correct to do so or seems erroneous at first glance. Again, to do otherwise would be dishonest and slandering the Buddha and his teachings. I do not have full understanding of the faith, only a limited one. I am not free from error in my own understanding.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

ComradeAndrei:

The ability to reason is one of the main things that God gave us and separates us from the brute beast. If you want to throw that out, very well, but then you really have no argument. Truth is absolute, that is all there is to it. It doesn’t matter what I think it is or what you think it is, Truth is Truth. Reason and logic get us a whole lot closer to Truth than experience. Experience counts for diddly because it is so easily swayed by bias and preconceived notions of every sort.

Yes, reason and self-awareness separate us from brute beasts. No, no, I don’t throw out reason. I simply don’t think reason is the only tool at our disposal for discovering truth. According to the Buddha, experience - seeing realtiy for what it is cannot be an intellectual understanding, it must be an experienced understanding. I disagree that reason and logic get us closer to the Truth. They, along with faith and conscience guide us to the Truth.

Knowledge is often superior to experience. I know that living a life of sin is bad for me, spiritually and often physically. I do not need to experience it to know it, and it would proift me more the less I do experience it.

I disagree. The best lessons to be learned are learned experientially, not intellectually. If my father tells me the stove is hot - very well, the stove is hot then. He tells me it will burn me to touch it. That’s fine. I have an intellectual grasp, not an experiential one. I have to experience how painful it is to touch the stove in order to not ever do it again.

Well, reason AND faith get us to Truth. We have seen, begining in the 18th century the divorce of Reason and Faith in Western philosophy-and the disasterous results.

God gave us the ability to reason, and he also revealed Himself to us through His Son, Christ Jesus. We have the ability to ascertain natural Truth, and we have Divine Truth as revealed to us by God Himself. Thus it naturally follows that Truth is obtainable, not only possibly but as an absolute necessity.

You can reject the premise that logic illuminated by Christ gets us absolute Truth, but I can just as easily reject any premise of Buddhism. That gets nothing done.

Revelational truth is found in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Angels and prophets have revealed many things over many years. Revelation cannot be the ultimate way of finding truth. Revelation along with reason and conscience have to work together.

OK that you don’t believe so, but plenty of people have gotten this thought in their head. The point is, Buddhism’s “inclusiveness” is its error. That is what may guide less knowledgable folks away from the Straight and Narrow.

Buddhism’s wide spectrum of practices is its greatest asset. It appeals to many different cultures and spread rapidly in Asia because of this. It is now taking root in America and Europe. (It’s been in Europe longer of course). It appeals to men’s reason and conscience.

No, it can’t be a false dichotomy. I do believe people often set up false dichotomies, but this isn’t one of them.

I shall now continue from my last post.As I said with the Graeco-Roman religions, Christianity poses a challenge to any opposing religion-Christ is the ONLY way, there is absolutely no other. Thus, you CANNOT accept “truths” in Christianity and Buddhism because they do not work together.

I understand this is the Catholic understanding and is also true in Buddhist sects. I don’t think you can ultimately (as I have said before) mesh Buddhism with Judaism, Christianity or Islam. However, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism and Bon are more compatible.

Let us begin with the Truth of Christianity-Jesus Christ. Christianity CANNOT be true and cannot have anything of real moral value if Christ is not God. If Christ is not God, then He cannot be a “great moral teacher” because He would be a liar. He clearly claimed to be God and if this claim is not true, than what about all of His teachings that follow?

Now you can say, “Well, Truth is Truth no matter who says it. If Hitler says ‘2+2=4’-is it not still true?”

That is true, however, than it is not Christianity’s truth. Someone else has the fullness of Truth.

I was raised in Christianity and have nothing but respect for that faith and for Christ and God. I don’t believe Christ was a liar. However, I don’t have confidence that Scripture and/or Tradition is accurate or unbiased. He taught universal principles of love for oneself and others and had compassion for people. All of those attributes are commendable and unique.

cont…

 

[ahimsaman72]

cont…
quote from Comrade Andrei

We claim absolute Truth when it comes to Salvation. We also say we respect the “truths” found in Buddhism (and we do) but not because they have something we don’t but rather they have something that we have in its fullness. Buddhism does not profit eternal salvation one bit in and of itself, however, it can be a means in that it is a yearning of Mankind that points toward the True Gospel. Mankind knows there is something more than this temporal life, and God is pleased when men seek to find HIm and follow what they find with total conviction.

That being said, Buddhism can never be the Way, the Truth, and the Life-only Christ can. Thus, we respect the little bit of light that the Buddha found-but we already have the whole Light with Christ in His Church.

I admire your zeal for your faith. Your convictions are commendable. While I don’t share your beliefs, I respect you and them and I believe you have reciprocated that. And for that, I thank you for our present discussion. Dialogue is important between religions and a mutual sense of respect and admiration are needed.

While Buddhism and Christianity are indeed different we can take away from both some very important concepts.

Some of these are:

Love your neighbor as yourself.
Respect others.
Do not kill
Do not steal
Do not commit adultery
Do not be sexually immoral
Be merciful
Be compassionate
These and many others can bind us together. Let us focus on them and not solely on our differences

Peace…

 

[StubbleSpark]

ahimsaman72:

I personally don’t want to win Catholic converts. I don’t believe in trying to get others over to “my way of thinking”. Buddhism doesn’t want to “win” converts either which is obvious since as I stated before that Buddhism hasn’t forced people to believe as they do which doesn’t work anyway. People have to be convinced of themselves that a path is right or wrong for them. I hope to don’t misunderstand my intentions here on the forum.

Don’t you love me? Is it better to let me continue in error? Wouldn’t Buddhist strictures on compassion for the suffering demand that you take a more active role helping the lost?

If you really believe Buddhism is true, then why are so indifferent to my fate? If this doctrine of compassion and enlightenment is so wonderful, then why not use that compassion and enlightenment to share this with your common man?

Also, I cannot help but notice you seem to working from the Protestant historical model – the one that has been censored with the Church-sized hole in history.

Free will is absolutely necessary for a person of the age of reason to be saved. You cannot “force” people to believe in Christ anymore than you can force someone to love. At the risk of changing the topic of this thread, I challenge you to name one incident where the Church “forced” a people to become Christian.

 

[Ahimsa]

StubbleSpark:

If you really believe Buddhism is true, then why are so indifferent to my fate?

According to Buddhism, you don’t have to be a Buddhist, in order to enter into heaven.

Besides, you seem like a nice guy. I’m sure the Buddhas will be compassionate toward you in the afterlife.

 

[StubbleSpark]

ahimsaman72:

Secondly, is metaphysics the only path to knowledge and understanding? If that is your measuring stick alone, then we cannot produce any meaningful dialogue. Do you understand how God made the world - exactly? You know the end result, not how he did it. When you look at a flower do you know how it was made? Can you detail the construction from start to finish? The questions are endless. Is the Christian God the only “causer” of existence? My mother and father caused me into existence. You cannot reproduce yourself, but you can reproduce someone like you. Even if you posit that God is the ultimate cause, you can only do so in faith.

Indeed, the questions are endless, but that does not mean we cannot make progress by asking them.

I never said metaphysics was the sole rule, just the one Buddhism lacks. Every time I point out that we have mysticism and logic in spades, you point out logic is not the only way. I know that – we have both ways. My point is the one locked into didactic and narrow worldview is Buddhism.

As far as the Creator is concerned, the existence of the universe DEMANDS the his existence. Logically, one cannot exist without the other.

As I said before, nothing in the universe causes itself. All effects are preceded by causes. You can follow this chain of cause and effect backward through time and you will find the number of causes actually decreasing as the universe simplifies more and more. Keep going … all the way back to the Big Bang. How does it start? Does it start itself? Nothing in the universe starts itself, not even the universe. Only an outside force can do this.

You could say that this chain of cause and effect goes back into infinity but that obviously cannot be the case. If there is no first cause (first cause = infinity)=(first cause=0) then the chain of cause and effect NEVER STARTED which means the chain of is broken which means nothing here would be in existence, everything having been caused by a preceding thing.

This means that something outside the universe and not bound by the same laws of cause being preceded by effect produced the universe.

This cause is what we call God.

Just a review. I am sure you are familiar with all five of St. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs for God. I just wanted to point out that faith and reason mean just that: faith and reason. That these are not conflicting forces that drive us to confusion, but complimentary forces, each affirming and uplifting the other in a growing synergy.

The true faith is equally accessible from both angles. A purely logic-based exploration will be just as fruitful and rewarding as a purely mystical exploration. That is why our faith produces as many Mother Theresas as we do Fr Georges-Henri Lemaitres (Jesuit priest, physicist, and astronomer who originated the Big Bang theory – your textbooks probably left out the “priest” part).

In the end, it is entirely logical to conclude that
IF God is the author of reality and
IF Catholicism is the faith created by God,
THEN the further you get from Catholicism, the further you are from reality yourself.

This is not boasting nor is it an exaggeration. It is a simple statement of fact – one that is not a much a “leap” of faith as it is the soaring symphony of faith and reason.

Before the Red Crescent, was the Red Cross – before that were the Hospitaliers. Before the Church, there was no such thing as a hospital or university in human history. Along with science, these temporal gifts to the whole world indicate the degree to which mankind as a whole is indebted to the Church.

If Buddhism is indeed the compassionate and giving faith it claims to be, why weren’t these innovations born of her thought systems? As you said, Buddhism is older and her influence far-reaching. If she has had more time and equal or greater influence, you would expect her contributions to be greater and more peaceful than subjectivist philosophy and martial arts.

 

[StubbleSpark]

Ahimsa:

According to Buddhism, you don’t have to be a Buddhist, in order to enter into heaven.

Besides, you seem like a nice guy. I’m sure the Buddhas will be compassionate toward you in the afterlife.

If the practice of Buddhism is unnecessary, then why practice it at all?

I suspect you are misinterpreting the teaching. Wouldn’t a statement like this be reserved for explaining the fate of those who have never known about Buddhism and not for a person like me – who, having thoroughly studied its precepts, found them lacking, and rejected them wholeheartedly?

If that is not the case, then the first question still applies.

My advice: you need to start caring what people think and what they believe or the world will never become a better place.

If you are not trying to win me over to Buddhism, that means you do not care what I believe.

And that cheapens this whole conversation. If you do not care, then why are you talking to me?

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Yes, reason and self-awareness separate us from brute beasts. No, no, I don’t throw out reason. I simply don’t think reason is the only tool at our disposal for discovering truth. According to the Buddha, experience - seeing realtiy for what it is cannot be an intellectual understanding, it must be an experienced understanding.

OK, so then what is reality? How do you know your experience trumps logic? Furthermore, if this life isn’t reality then how can we experience it?

I disagree that reason and logic get us closer to the Truth. They, along with faith and conscience guide us to the Truth.

I would agree, depending upon what we think of as “faith” and “conscience”. Blind faith profits nothing, I can have faith in all sorts of incorrect things. Likewise, my conscience can be on the fritz or improperly formulated.

The best lessons to be learned are learned experientially, not intellectually. If my father tells me the stove is hot - very well, the stove is hot then. He tells me it will burn me to touch it. That’s fine. I have an intellectual grasp, not an experiential one. I have to experience how painful it is to touch the stove in order to not ever do it again.

I still say that it is better to know good or bad and how to handle them then have to trudge through and find out. I believe my father because he knows better than I. That is what got Adam and Eve it trouble, God told them not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge but they disobeyed and did it anyways.

It is a matter of authority, I don’t need to burn myself to know not to touch the burner on a stove, I can trust the authority of my father that it is hot enough to cause serious pain or injury. Furthermore, it profits me more to have never burned myself than to do so.

However, to tie in the example to God the Father-He is a merciful God, slow to anger and abounding in mercy. Even if I stubbornly rebel against His authority and decide to disobey Him, He has mercy on my stupidity. One needs to then ask forgiveness through the channels He arranged and then continue to walk in His ways. However, our patroness and role model the Blessed Virgin Mary being sinless should be our guide. Her life was perfectly walked in and through God’s grace. He told her not to touch the burner and she never did. Deo Gratias!

Revelational truth is found in Judaism, Christianity and Islam…

Why cannot revelation be the ultimate of Truth? It is the very Word of God.

We need to separate true revelation from false. God revealed Himself through Christ. The Apostles preached the Truth, Paul said to hold fast to what he taught and not to fall to any false gospel-even if brought by an “angel”.

Revelation sets the ground work. From it we can use reason to come to a better understanding of the faith once and for all delivered unto the saints. Thus from Christ’s revelation, we can come to doctrines such as Transubstantiation. Conscience can only be correctly formed in submission to Christ. While the Natural Law is written on every human heart, to deny Christ is to deny that very Natural Law.

Buddhism’s wide spectrum of practices is its greatest asset. It appeals to many different cultures and spread rapidly in Asia because of this.

That is because it did not run into a religion that taught Truth as an absolute. Buddhism can just change itself to be palatable to the masses, but this change does not speak well for its truth.

It is now taking root in America and Europe. (It’s been in Europe longer of course). It appeals to men’s reason and conscience.

I would venture to say that it appeals more to the sense of people who do not like absolutes. It is a wide and easy way, there are no damnable sins and no sense of sacrifice and suffering for a higher good.

I don’t think you can ultimately (as I have said before) mesh Buddhism with Judaism, Christianity or Islam. However, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism and Bon are more compatible.

Well, then Buddhism must make a truth statement-Buddhism is right and monotheism is wrong. They cannot exist together forever.

He taught universal principles of love for oneself and others and had compassion for people. All of those attributes are commendable and unique.

He also taught that He was God and was the only Way. However, if you don’t trust Scripture or Tradition, how can you say what He taught?

I admire your zeal for your faith. Your convictions are commendable. While I don’t share your beliefs, I respect you and them and I believe you have reciprocated that. And for that, I thank you for our present discussion. Dialogue is important between religions and a mutual sense of respect and admiration are needed.

Thank you and I also think that dialogue is important.

 

[ahimsaman72]

StubbleSpark:

Don’t you love me? Is it better to let me continue in error? Wouldn’t Buddhist strictures on compassion for the suffering demand that you take a more active role helping the lost?

My friend - I do love you - enough to let you make your own decisions and follow your own path. I don’t believe my path is superior to your path. However, the experience I’ve had with Buddhism has shown that it is more satisfying, makes sense and will lead me to Buddhahood for my benefit and all others.

The bodhisattva (one who delays entering nirvana to help sentient beings reach buddhahood) has great compassion and loves beings - that’s why they stay in this world - to help others. Their goal is not selfish, but very selfless. And in the end, you are I are the same being made of the same substance and nature. How could I not love you and/or myself?

If you really believe Buddhism is true, then why are so indifferent to my fate? If this doctrine of compassion and enlightenment is so wonderful, then why not use that compassion and enlightenment to share this with your common man?

It is not indifference. I practice Buddhism so that I not only help myself reach enlightenment and eradicate suffering, but so that when I am a Buddha (totally enlightened), then I may help you and others not suffer. This is the Mahayana ideal - the bodhisattva way. I express compassion by using kind words, helping wherever I can and by making vows to save all beings. I also include in my practice these phrases out loud:

May all people be free from danger
May all people be happy
May all people be healthy
May all people live with ease.

I say this over and over and also substitute “all people” with “I”, “my family”, “my wife and children”, etc. This is compassion.

Also, I cannot help but notice you seem to working from the Protestant historical model – the one that has been censored with the Church-sized hole in history.

I don’t understand your meaning. Can you explain further please?

Free will is absolutely necessary for a person of the age of reason to be saved. You cannot “force” people to believe in Christ anymore than you can force someone to love. At the risk of changing the topic of this thread, I challenge you to name one incident where the Church “forced” a people to become Christian.

I don’t claim to know specific instances where the Catholic Church has forced itself on others. I know that Muslims have forced conversions (under threat of death) in the Phillipines. Your tone seems sharp as if I have offended you terribly. If this is true, then I apologize. My only intent here on this thread is to have meaningful dialogue and help clear misconceptions whenever possible in Buddhism

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

StubbleSpark:

If the practice of Buddhism is unnecessary, then why practice it at all?

I suspect this post was intended for me, but Ahimsa’s comments were quoted.

Buddhism is one path among many. It is as necessary as any other path. Spirituality is important for the overall health and well-being of humans, so practicing something is better than practicing nothing.

I suspect you are misinterpreting the teaching. Wouldn’t a statement like this be reserved for explaining the fate of those who have never known about Buddhism and not for a person like me – who, having thoroughly studied its precepts, found them lacking, and rejected them wholeheartedly?

If that is not the case, then the first question still applies.

My advice: you need to start caring what people think and what they believe or the world will never become a better place.

If you are not trying to win me over to Buddhism, that means you do not care what I believe.

And that cheapens this whole conversation. If you do not care, then why are you talking to me?

Again, I don’t understand the apparent hostility. The world will be a better place when we stop expecting everyone to fit our conception of how they should be. I personally believe peace and diplomacy are the ideals for the societies of the world. It is through peaceful means and compassionate hearts that the world ultimately becomes better.

I care that people use violence to solve problems. I care that sentient beings suffer at the hands of cruel people. I care about the fact all people everywhere should have a right to worship whomever, wherever and whenever and whatever their conscience and law permits them to.

Winning people is never the goal. Is winning all that matters in religion? Is winning converts like another notch on the bedpost that has no intrinsic meaning, but to foster a maligned selfish viewpoint? Are statistical numbers that show there are 1 billion Catholics but only 500 million Buddhists really that important? Does it make you feel superior somehow?

These are questions I ask rhetorically in order to further dialogue. With so much hostility I am afraid dialogue will become impossible shortly.

Peace…

 

[Mickey]

ahimsaman72:

Again, I don’t understand the apparent hostility. The world will be a better place when we stop expecting everyone to fit our conception of how they should be. I personally believe peace and diplomacy are the ideals for the societies of the world. It is through peaceful means and compassionate hearts that the world ultimately becomes better.

1 Corinthians 13:3

And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor,] and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

 

[ahimsaman72]

ComradeAndrei:

OK, so then what is reality? How do you know your experience trumps logic? Furthermore, if this life isn’t reality then how can we experience it?

I believe at present that the original Buddha attained enlightenment. I also believe that he taught others the way to enlightenment which he himself attained. I believe the earliest writings bear this truth out. For now, belief and reason are what I have. I have to have faith to follow the Buddhist path. But, when I attain the goal, what use is faith? Who hopes for what he has already attained? I have to ultimately experience enlightenment in order to know what it is.

I would agree, depending upon what we think of as “faith” and “conscience”. Blind faith profits nothing, I can have faith in all sorts of incorrect things. Likewise, my conscience can be on the fritz or improperly formulated.

Faith in the sense that I am using it means precisely what Hebrews points out. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for - the evidence of things not seen”.

Parts edited here…

Why cannot revelation be the ultimate of Truth? It is the very Word of God.

We need to separate true revelation from false. God revealed Himself through Christ. The Apostles preached the Truth, Paul said to hold fast to what he taught and not to fall to any false gospel-even if brought by an “angel”.

Revelation is subjective. Gabriel is used in all three monotheistic faiths with different messages for those faiths. Angels revealed themselves to Joseph Smith, to Muhammed?, to Jews and Christians throughout history. How do you separate true from false ultimately? You might say Tradition, but then I have to ask who gave them the right to do so. You might say God. It becomes a circular argument.

Revelation sets the ground work. From it we can use reason to come to a better understanding of the faith once and for all delivered unto the saints. Thus from Christ’s revelation, we can come to doctrines such as Transubstantiation. Conscience can only be correctly formed in submission to Christ. While the Natural Law is written on every human heart, to deny Christ is to deny that very Natural Law.

I can agree that revelation sets a groundwork and that reason follows. For me that revelation can be external or internal. For you that would probably consist of external only - I don’t know.

That is because it did not run into a religion that taught Truth as an absolute. Buddhism can just change itself to be palatable to the masses, but this change does not speak well for its truth.

Unfortunately, in places like Afghanistan that had large numbers of Buddhists in times past, now great Buddhist structures have been defaced and destroyed because they could not accept this supposed “idol worship”. Statues have been desecrated and abandoned.

I would venture to say that it appeals more to the sense of people who do not like absolutes. It is a wide and easy way, there are no damnable sins and no sense of sacrifice and suffering for a higher good.

I would disagree here. The morality and conduct here in this existence determines the stage of our next existence. If murder and other wrongs are committed here they must be repented of and extinguished either in this life or the next. “A man reaps what he sows”.

Morality is central to Buddhist thought and practice. Suffering for the higher good is paramount in the Mahayana Buddhist tradition. It is the greater vehicle that teaches that the bodhisattva ideal is compassionate and brings the most good.

Well, then Buddhism must make a truth statement-Buddhism is right and monotheism is wrong. They cannot exist together forever.

Dualism - the view that this is wrong because this is right is not acceptable. This is what would be called “attachment” and “ignorance” and will make us continue on our journey in the cycle of birth and death.

He also taught that He was God and was the only Way. However, if you don’t trust Scripture or Tradition, how can you say what He taught?

Thank you and I also think that dialogue is important.

I just don’t believe the Scriptures are absolutely true. I believe they have truths, just don’t contain “the whole truth” and “nothing but the truth”. I don’t believe it’s logical for Christ to be compassionate and heal people and be merciful to your enemies and then in the next breath to say “away from me… I never knew you…” The text seems changed and biased.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

1 Corinthians 13:3

And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor,] and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

As always - wisdom from a friend that is the healing balm of Gilead!

Peace my friend…

 

[ahimsaman72]

StubbleSpark:

Indeed, the questions are endless, but that does not mean we cannot make progress by asking them.

Wow, where do I begin? hmmm… yes, the questions are endless and we make progress by asking them - I agree .

I never said metaphysics was the sole rule, just the one Buddhism lacks. Every time I point out that we have mysticism and logic in spades, you point out logic is not the only way. I know that – we have both ways. My point is the one locked into didactic and narrow worldview is Buddhism.

Buddhism doesn’t need the metaphysical in its system, that’s probably the reason why it is does not appear to be so important. I don’t remember quibbling over mysticism and logic, but I realize that mysticism plays a part in the Catholic faith. It obviously doesn’t in my former protestant faith. I thought Buddhism had a broad worldview . That’s what people seem to think anyway.

As far as the Creator is concerned, the existence of the universe DEMANDS the his existence. Logically, one cannot exist without the other.

As I said before, nothing in the universe causes itself. All effects are preceded by causes. You can follow this chain of cause and effect backward through time and you will find the number of causes actually decreasing as the universe simplifies more and more. Keep going … all the way back to the Big Bang. How does it start? Does it start itself? Nothing in the universe starts itself, not even the universe. Only an outside force can do this.

First cause is for another thread. I don’t concern myself with first causes and most Buddhists don’t either. It’s a moot point. The end result of cause and effect (karma) is that this world is full of unsatisfactory conditions and the Buddha prescribed a way through it.

You could say that this chain of cause and effect goes back into infinity but that obviously cannot be the case. If there is no first cause (first cause = infinity)=(first cause=0) then the chain of cause and effect NEVER STARTED which means the chain of is broken which means nothing here would be in existence, everything having been caused by a preceding thing.

This means that something outside the universe and not bound by the same laws of cause being preceded by effect produced the universe.

This cause is what we call God.

Please see above.

Just a review. I am sure you are familiar with all five of St. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs for God. I just wanted to point out that faith and reason mean just that: faith and reason. That these are not conflicting forces that drive us to confusion, but complimentary forces, each affirming and uplifting the other in a growing synergy.

The true faith is equally accessible from both angles. A purely logic-based exploration will be just as fruitful and rewarding as a purely mystical exploration. That is why our faith produces as many Mother Theresas as we do Fr Georges-Henri Lemaitres (Jesuit priest, physicist, and astronomer who originated the Big Bang theory – your textbooks probably left out the “priest” part).

I have never read St. Thomas Aquinas. I’ve read C.S. Lewis - does that count?

In the end, it is entirely logical to conclude that
IF God is the author of reality and
IF Catholicism is the faith created by God,
THEN the further you get from Catholicism, the further you are from reality yourself.

This is not boasting nor is it an exaggeration. It is a simple statement of fact – one that is not a much a “leap” of faith as it is the soaring symphony of faith and reason.

Those are two big “IF’S”. It’s a premise that demands blind faith.

 

[ahimsaman72]

continued…

quote from StubbleSpark

Before the Red Crescent, was the Red Cross – before that were the Hospitaliers. Before the Church, there was no such thing as a hospital or university in human history. Along with science, these temporal gifts to the whole world indicate the degree to which mankind as a whole is indebted to the Church.

Of course - the Church has shown compassion to those suffering in a systematic and large way. I would caution though, that India and China have a long and proud history of healing practices. They weren’t institutionalized methods, but still have provided healing for thousands of years using natural remedies and holistic practices. Healing arts like acupuncture and acupressure have been in China for quite some time.

If Buddhism is indeed the compassionate and giving faith it claims to be, why weren’t these innovations born of her thought systems? As you said, Buddhism is older and her influence far-reaching. If she has had more time and equal or greater influence, you would expect her contributions to be greater and more peaceful than subjectivist philosophy and martial arts.

Healing the body is important, but releasing the mind from attachments is given the upmost attention, so creating hospitals is not the ideal method for helping people reduce suffering. It does, obviously, but who can escape old age, sickness and death?

It is better to take the antidote that frees both mind and body. I recall saying that Buddhism is older and has assimilated into many cultures and is still a driving force in Asia. That doesn’t mean Buddhism reaches farther than Christianity. I’ve never said Buddhism has equal or greater influence. That would be inaccurate.

The effect of Buddhism on societies it has touched can only be subjective. I don’t have any information that gives me a list of great contributions to *societies *as a whole. I like to think that the morality in the 5 precepts that are minimum requirements for Buddhists is a good foundation for any society in that if people follow it - the society would benefit. Morality is key to living the Buddhist life. Without morality in Buddhism you have an empty, intellectual pursuit, not a religious faith.

I don’t understand why the martial arts are brought up. I suppose if you look on the surface, you could say that they are violent and are directly opposed to Buddhist precepts. They aren’t actually and the reason is very simple. The martial arts have been used (1) for self-defense and (2) for exercise and health benefits.

If a Buddhist is using martial arts to pick on people, then his intentions are wrong and do not coincide with the Buddha’s teachings. I don’t think many Buddhists would think self-defense is contradictory to the Buddha’s teachings. As a matter of fact, if I knew karate and didn’t help someone who was being attacked, then I would be responsible for the same shameful acts as the people who neglected the man who was robbed before the good samaritan came along.

There is no discrepancy between martial arts and Buddhism that I can see. Perhaps you care to elaborate on why you think there is?

Peace…

 

[Mickey]

ahimsaman72:

The martial arts have been used (1) for self-defense and (2) for exercise and health benefits.

There is no discrepancy between martial arts and Buddhism that I can see. Perhaps you care to elaborate on why you think there is?

I must concur here. I have a black belt in the Korean martial art of Tae-kwon-do and this is exactly what is taught. Even though Tae-Kwon-Do is an aggressive art, self-defense is the only acceptable application.

Peace,
Mickey

 

[ahimsaman72]

Mickey:

I must concur here. I have a black belt in the Korean martial art of Tae-kwon-do and this is exactly what is taught. Even though Tae-Kwon-Do is an aggressive art, self-defense is the only acceptable application.

Peace,
Mickey

I know this is completely off-topic (sorry Mods!) but I had to tell you that me and my family are going to join the local YMCA soon and will sign up for tae-kwon-do! That’s so neat that you are (obviously) well advanced in that art already! I took Isshinryu as a teenager and really liked it. It was all about self-defense. A rule we lived by was never use our skills for selfish purposes - only when we had to. The more I learn about you the more I love you my friend?!?

Peace…

 

[Mickey]

ahimsaman72:

I know this is completely off-topic (sorry Mods!) but I had to tell you that me and my family are going to join the local YMCA soon and will sign up for tae-kwon-do! That’s so neat that you are (obviously) well advanced in that art already! I took Isshinryu as a teenager and really liked it. It was all about self-defense. A rule we lived by was never use our skills for selfish purposes - only when we had to. The more I learn about you the more I love you my friend?!?

Peace…

Very cool! You’re gonna love it. It is a strenuous workout but you will be molded into the best of shape in a very short period of time. This is a very disciplined art and will contribute to many virtues. Good luck my friend!

Blessings,
Mickey

…and now back to your regularly scheduled program.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Here is a website article that speaks about the Dalai Lama and his urging that Christians not convert to Buddhism.

ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_051121dalailama.shtml

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I believe at present that the original Buddha attained enlightenment. I also believe that he taught others the way to enlightenment which he himself attained. I believe the earliest writings bear this truth out. For now, belief and reason are what I have. I have to have faith to follow the Buddhist path. But, when I attain the goal, what use is faith? Who hopes for what he has already attained? I have to ultimately experience enlightenment in order to know what it is.

So what convinces you that “enlightenment” is the way? You believe “the earliest writings bear this out” but you don’t buy into the Bible? Are these writings divinely inspired and if not, why are they any more accurate than the Bible?

Revelation is subjective. Gabriel is used in all three monotheistic faiths with different messages for those faiths. Angels revealed themselves to Joseph Smith, to Muhammed?, to Jews and Christians throughout history. How do you separate true from false ultimately?

Well, Judaism develops into Christianty-thus their revelations are valid and we don’t question that. Islam comes along hundreds of years after Christ with a religion they aped from us. Belloc has an interesting article on that subject.

After that, Joseph Smith was just one of many false prophets that came along, and probably crazy as well. As a Christian he should have known that the Bible itself says that there is no further revelations other than those that have been delivered once and for all to the saints. So, there couldn’t have been a Book of Mormon because there was to be no more revelations.

You might say Tradition, but then I have to ask who gave them the right to do so. You might say God. It becomes a circular argument.

It isn’t a circular argument, just look at the historical facts. You don’t need to appeal to Authority in order to disprove Islam and modern Judaism.

I can agree that revelation sets a groundwork and that reason follows. For me that revelation can be external or internal. For you that would probably consist of external only - I don’t know.

So are your internal revelations universal? Do they apply to all mankind or just you?

Unfortunately, in places like Afghanistan that had large numbers of Buddhists in times past, now great Buddhist structures have been defaced and destroyed because they could not accept this supposed “idol worship”. Statues have been desecrated and abandoned.

Yes that is unfortunate; but what, praytell, is your point with it?

I would disagree here. The morality and conduct here in this existence determines the stage of our next existence. If murder and other wrongs are committed here they must be repented of and extinguished either in this life or the next. “A man reaps what he sows”.

Yeah, but who cares? In Buddhism I’m not going to be burning in Hell for all eternity if I feel that getting some blow and a few hookers would profit me more than working on “enlightenment”. What if I don’t feel like getting enlightened and just want to come back and party hard some more? Or if I come back as an animal or a bug, I don’t have to go to work or have any responsibilities.

cont…