Buddihism and Christiantiy

[ComradeAndrei]

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.

Well, would you care to defend your absolute statment?

There are some things that have a variety of different ways to go about doing-the old “there is more than one way to skin a cat” deal. I like to make mashed potatoes with the skins on them, someone might not but we both have equally valid ways of making mashed potatoes and neither one of us can claim moral superiority on the endevor. However, we are not dealing with trivial temporal matters here.

You say that dualism is “attachment” and "ignorance. I say that practicing false relgions is a damnable action and that Christ is the only way. Either I’m right or you are, show me how this is not so.

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.

I’m sorry but that is just rediculous.

Let us just pretend to look at Scriptures as a purely historical document, not Inspired Word of God or nothing.

You say you buy the part about Christ teaching people to be merciful and compassionate than you say that His other statements to unbelievers aren’t true because they don’t jive with His apparent compassion. What if I say that the “mean Jesus” was the logical and good one and that the Evangelists were just yanking your chain and put the warm and fuzzy stuff in there just to lure poor saps in so that we could rule over them and set up our own exclusive club in which only the “saved” are saved?

Also, you have a incorrect view of compassion. Does compassion mean letting everything go? Jesus came down here to save us, is He going to say “Just do whatever you want, but be compassionate to each other-just don’t make each other mad…”

He is compassionate AND just. He came to redeem us, to bring us into salvation through belief and service to Him. He is not going to say, “I’m the Way, the Truth, and the Life…but you don’t actually have to believe that. You don’t have to take up your cross and follow Me, nor do you have to believe in Me. By the way, you can believe in false gods too.”

That is false compassion. False compassion and false charity are not virtues.

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.

Everybody came up with folk remedies and home medicines (those that work and those that didn’t) but that isn’t the point.

We systematically set up institutions to care for the sick and dying no matter who they were. We gave (and give) to the poor and needy in an institutionalized manner. We nurish the soul and the body-even of nonbelievers and people unrelated to us.

Acupuncture and acupressure may very well work (I don’t know if they do, but if so good deal) but did it take up the matter of caring for the sick and the poor? Individual families may have, they did in pagan Rome too. But the Church is Mother to us all and She has always cared for Her children.

 

[StubbleSpark]

Concerning the Protestant view of history:

You said “Buddhism has never forced people to convert.”

I took this to mean that you are working under the notion that Christianity has. Hence the confrontational statement.

Sorry if I sound hostile. Logic is cold and sharp. There is no hostility.

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.

Tell me you love me, hold my hand and walk me straight into oncoming traffic. Is this love? It has the appearance of love and it has the sound of love, but it does not act like love. Is this love?

I agree with everything you said about letting people live their faith as their consciences guide them, but how does sharing your faith with the intention of saving them violate this? Again, you seem to be working under a certain Protestant preconception.

Am I forcing you to believe by sharing with you right now? How have I encroached on your liberties by wanting you to become Catholic? Am I armed with a Crusader sword or planting the flag of Spain into your skull?

Love wants the best for the object of that love. Wouldn’t enlightenment be the best for me? Is it guaranteed that all who do not attain enlightenment on their own have the door held open for them?

If the answer to that question is yes, then I am saved and the practice of Buddhism is mere window-dressing.

If the answer is no, then you should probably be more concerned for my impending torment.

Regardless of the answer, your faith should move you to share with everyone. It is a gem that actually grows greater and more precious the more you give it away.

It is not a game of numbers. Revelations shows a world in apostasy where Christians are a hunted minority. As a minority in the US, I have never found the numbers game even remotely valid. The whole world could believe a lie but that would not make it true.

Such is the nature of truth. Truth is that which always is. That which is not constant is by definition not true. Truth is not subject to the wills or consciences of men (but men can subject themselves to the rule of Truth). Anyone who teaches otherwise does not even know what the word means.

 

[StubbleSpark]

About the martial arts:

I have practiced Karate, TaeKwon Do, Kendo, and Taiji Quan.

In many ways, Asia looms large in my life and there are many aspects of Asian culture that I esteem highly. Among them, Buddhism and the martial arts. So you can imagine that I think FIST OF THE NORTH STAR TOTALLY RULES!!!

Ahem.

I know all about the “fight for defense” and “no forming giant robot unless they first transform into giant monster” rules. They still form a firm foundation for my daily life.

My point with brining up martial arts and Buddhism is that it is an odd fruit for a pacifist faith. A monk can throw himself to a starving lion out of compassion and another monk can spear a soldier of an emperor with whom his monastery has bad relations.

But in the end, this is greatest temporal gift Buddhism has given the world. Don’t get me wrong, I revel in it. But at the same time I know where to find greater fruit.

I know you will see this as more irrelevant apples-and-oranges comparing. In the throes of my mysticism though, I consider it a sign.

 

[StubbleSpark]

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.

How is it moot? The universe could not have caused its own existence. No matter forms itself without the action of the influence of other matter. This means if there is no God, then there is no universe.

But there is a universe, so therefore there is a God.

The logic is airtight. It may be moot to contemplate the state of karma now that we are in seeming chaos but contemplating origins gives us a greater understanding of Who put us here in the first place and that helps us map out future history.

You can actually come to a liberating conclusion. What is moot about that? What if the Buddhist were to contemplate origins? Would there be something wrong in it? Would you try to stop him?

 

[Gnosis]

Buddhism does not see the universe in a linear fashion as does Christianity. There is no beginning and there is no end, there is only change…which gives the impression of a beginning and an end. Yet this is only perception. Buddhism does not see any core identity to anything, it sees only things that are proped up by countless other factors, thus their identity is completely dependent on external factors. This is a world of change, inevitably what we have labelled to be “some thing” will no longer fit the identity we applied to it. Thus we may conclude that it has “ended” and something else has “begun” or been “created”.

There never was a time when there was nothing, for nothing has never been. There is no reason to believe that there ever was “nothing”, as there clearly is “something”.

 

[ahimsaman72]

ComradeAndrei:

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?

I have faith that enlightenment can be attained. The earliest teachings of the Buddha are good evidence of his teachings, but they are not divinely inspired nor are they infallible. They are the best guide, however. I “buy into” the Bible as a religious text that carries a lot of weight, teaches universal principles and is in many parts very beautiful. I just don’t think it is infallible either. I don’t think every letter is inspired or every quote from Jesus is true.

From my personal study and from reading Buddhist teachings, I find that I can observe that his teachings are accurate. I don’t have to have blind faith alone. I can see that all things change. I can see that eventually this body I call “myself” will get sick, get old and eventually die. I can see that suffering is a part of this life and Buddha has prescribed a natural way of transcending that suffering. I can’t do that with Christianity. I can pray, read the Bible, treat others well, but my salvation is still dependent on God’s mercy.

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.

But Judaism disregards Christianity as invalid because Jesus is not considered the Messiah. Islam disregards Christianity for much the same reason. They all find the other’s revelations (whether Paul’s or Muhammed’s) to be ridiculous. So, who is right? Each have valid points. Each make good arguments.

I personally find a lot of commonality between myself and Joseph. He was searching for truth and followed the path he believed was right. I personally don’t believe God’s revelations would stop at any certain time. I used to think that, but it’s strange to consider that God would somehow stop speaking to his creation. Why would he do that? Doesn’t he want to continue to speak to us?

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.

In the end, it goes back to authority. I’ve had this discussion with many Catholics and this is where it usually stops.

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

Those internal revelations may apply only to me or to the whole world. Each person is responsible for following their own conscience.

 

[ahimsaman72]

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

I believe I was comparing the present situation with Buddhism being in the minority and there being little tolerance for it in a monotheistic society.

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…

I have to explain the afterlife a little bit, because you might not understand how it works (in Buddhism). There are 31 planes of existence (that the Buddha taught) with 6 realms of existence. There are 3 below the human realm. There is the animal realm, hungry ghost realm and the hell realms. All states of existence are temporary - they are not eternal. Because everything changes (remember that is one of the important concepts in Buddhism) no one state is the eternal home.

Now, there are indeed consequences based on a person’s actions in their lifetime. It is a cause and effect balance that cannot be denied. If I kill someone in this existence, I will assuredly suffer being killed 10 times over in one of the planes in the hell realms. (There are different degrees of hell). This as you probably know is “karma”, simply every action, whether morally bad, good or neutral has an effect. That’s of course an idea that you wouldn’t disregard (I don’t think).

That’s one of the reasons why morality is so important. People will continue in the cycle of death and rebirth as long as they continue to walk their ignorant paths (ignorant in the sense of unrealization of the truth). If you come back and party some more you would of course still be subject to the painful experiences of brith, sickness, old age and death one more time.

If one comes back as an animal or a bug or as a hungry ghost, their exhaustion of karma will determine the length of existence in that particular realm. Of course, a bug or a hungry ghost can’t really strive too hard to get out of their predicament. Once their evil deeds from the past have been payed for then they will be free to go into a higher realm. I realize this might seem rather ridiculous, but it does make sense.

There is no “free ride” in Buddhism, no matter what people may think.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

ComradeAndrei:

Well, would you care to defend your absolute statment?

This statement is based on the Buddha’s teaching and subsequent teachers after him and is based on the practice of meditation and general observance of nature. The observance of nature is easy. As I said in an earlier post…water and waves have the same nature, but they appear different to our senses. Just because they appear differently doesn’t mean they are. We can tell they have the same nature by putting them under a microscope.

There are some things that have a variety of different ways to go about doing-the old “there is more than one way to skin a cat” deal. I like to make mashed potatoes with the skins on them, someone might not but we both have equally valid ways of making mashed potatoes and neither one of us can claim moral superiority on the endevor. However, we are not dealing with trivial temporal matters here.

I absolutely agree with your analogies here. However, I don’t believe there is any difference in “skinning a cat in different ways” compared to supposedly more “eternal matters”. Reality is reality, no matter how you slice it.

You say that dualism is “attachment” and "ignorance. I say that practicing false relgions is a damnable action and that Christ is the only way. Either I’m right or you are, show me how this is not so.

I posted a link to an article where HH the 14th Dalai Lama spoke about this kind of notion that Buddhism or Christianity is totally right in and of itself. I promise I’m not just making up my beliefs as I go along .

I’m sorry but that is just rediculous.

Let us just pretend to look at Scriptures as a purely historical document, not Inspired Word of God or nothing.

You say you buy the part about Christ teaching people to be merciful and compassionate than you say that His other statements to unbelievers aren’t true because they don’t jive with His apparent compassion. What if I say that the “mean Jesus” was the logical and good one and that the Evangelists were just yanking your chain and put the warm and fuzzy stuff in there just to lure poor saps in so that we could rule over them and set up our own exclusive club in which only the “saved” are saved?

I can buy him being consistent whether it’s “mean Jesus” or “kind Jesus”. I can’t buy the apparent contradiction that he is merciful to “believers” and unmerciful to “unbelievers”. People’s actions should be counted against them as good or bad, not by the judgement of a God they might or might not believe in.

Also, you have a incorrect view of compassion. Does compassion mean letting everything go? Jesus came down here to save us, is He going to say “Just do whatever you want, but be compassionate to each other-just don’t make each other mad…”

He is compassionate AND just. He came to redeem us, to bring us into salvation through belief and service to Him. He is not going to say, “I’m the Way, the Truth, and the Life…but you don’t actually have to believe that. You don’t have to take up your cross and follow Me, nor do you have to believe in Me. By the way, you can believe in false gods too.”

That is false compassion. False compassion and false charity are not virtues.

My definition of compassion that it is both a heart issue and one of external action. If I say I love you in my heart then I should show that by being kind, considerate, merciful and truthful no matter what. That is compassion.

Everybody came up with folk remedies and home medicines (those that work and those that didn’t) but that isn’t the point.

We systematically set up institutions to care for the sick and dying no matter who they were. We gave (and give) to the poor and needy in an institutionalized manner. We nurish the soul and the body-even of nonbelievers and people unrelated to us.

Acupuncture and acupressure may very well work (I don’t know if they do, but if so good deal) but did it take up the matter of caring for the sick and the poor? Individual families may have, they did in pagan Rome too. But the Church is Mother to us all and She has always cared for Her children.

I commend (again) the caring and compassionate actions of the Church in setting up hospitals in an institutionalized manner, however I don’t see that this is a morally greater accomplishment than the village medicine-man healing those in his rural village.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

StubbleSpark:

Concerning the Protestant view of history:

You said “Buddhism has never forced people to convert.”

I took this to mean that you are working under the notion that Christianity has. Hence the confrontational statement.

Sorry if I sound hostile. Logic is cold and sharp. There is no hostility.

Some religions have. Islam has consistently done so in certain countries which can be documented. I don’t have specific evidence that Christianity has done so. Well, I’m glad there’s no hostility . It’s okay to be passionate about your faith and beliefs. Hostility tends to hurt dialogue and ends discussions quickly.

Tell me you love me, hold my hand and walk me straight into oncoming traffic. Is this love? It has the appearance of love and it has the sound of love, but it does not act like love. Is this love?

I agree with everything you said about letting people live their faith as their consciences guide them, but how does sharing your faith with the intention of saving them violate this? Again, you seem to be working under a certain Protestant preconception.

But I don’t believe we are walking into oncoming traffic together . The article I linked to in a previous post by the Dalai Lama helps explain some of this. I don’t believe sharing your faith with people violates their right to choose their faith. I hope I didn’t imply that. I don’t know what protestant pre-conception I’m using - can you help explain?

Am I forcing you to believe by sharing with you right now? How have I encroached on your liberties by wanting you to become Catholic? Am I armed with a Crusader sword or planting the flag of Spain into your skull?

No, no force. I thought we were having some dialogue on our respective faiths . What are you talking about?

Love wants the best for the object of that love. Wouldn’t enlightenment be the best for me? Is it guaranteed that all who do not attain enlightenment on their own have the door held open for them?

I agree with the first sentence. I think enlightenment would be best. The Dalai Lama has said (in his book on the four noble truths) that he would like all people to be Buddhists. However, as can be seen by the article I linked to - he doesn’t think that Christians or anyone else need convert. If they only took principles from Buddhism and used them in their own faith - that’s perfectly acceptable.

If the answer to that question is yes, then I am saved and the practice of Buddhism is mere window-dressing.

If the answer is no, then you should probably be more concerned for my impending torment.

Regardless of the answer, your faith should move you to share with everyone. It is a gem that actually grows greater and more precious the more you give it away.

This is not a “saved” vs. “unsaved” dilemma. In Mahayana Buddhism, all people have Buddha nature. Getting to that Buddha nature and realizing it is the goal. So, there is no “he’s a Buddha”, “he’s not a Buddha”. There is only realizing what we already have. “Saved” vs. “unsaved” is dualistic thinking that doesn’t exist in Buddhism.

I share when I have the opportunity (or am asked) about my spiritual life. I’m just as likely to share my Buddhist beliefs as well as what you would call “Christian” principles or beliefs. I encourage anyone to meditate, be the best moral person they can be and live wisely. That’s Buddhism - whether or not you want to put that label on it.

It is not a game of numbers. Revelations shows a world in apostasy where Christians are a hunted minority. As a minority in the US, I have never found the numbers game even remotely valid. The whole world could believe a lie but that would not make it true.

Such is the nature of truth. Truth is that which always is. That which is not constant is by definition not true. Truth is not subject to the wills or consciences of men (but men can subject themselves to the rule of Truth). Anyone who teaches otherwise does not even know what the word means.

I’m glad it’s not a game of numbers. I don’t believe it is either. The seasons come and go every year. They always follow in the same order year after year. This is change. Is not this change true? It’s true because we can see it and verify it. It’s the easiest form of observational truth we can come by.

Truth is both conventional and ultimate. Do you agree? Truth is subjective and absolute with properties of temporal and eternal (respectively). Wouldn’t you agree that you (as a human being) are conventional or subjective and temporal compared to God who is absolute and eternal? This seems to be accurate, doesn’t it?

The dualitistic thought that light is light and dark is dark (for example) is true in the conventional way, but in the absolute way they are the same.

Peace…

 

[Mickey]

ahimsaman72:

I can buy him being consistent whether it’s “mean Jesus” or “kind Jesus”. I can’t buy the apparent contradiction that he is merciful to “believers” and unmerciful to “unbelievers”. People’s actions should be counted against them as good or bad, not by the judgement of a God they might or might not believe in.

I cannot contribute much to this Buddhism thread, because I am not terribly familiar with it. However, I would like to address the apparent dichotomy of Jesus being “merciful” and “unmerciful”.

Jesus says in Matthew 7:21-23, “Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven,** but he who does the will of my Father **in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then will I declare to them, I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness”.

I don’t believe this is being “mean” or “unmerciful”, but rather an important lesson on obedience. We must do the will of God, not of man. Jesus is not familiar with those who call Him Lord, but do not obey God’s will.

**A truly intelligent man has only one care – wholeheartedly to obey Almighty God and to please Him. The one and only thing he teaches his soul is how best to do things agreeable to God, thanking Him for His merciful Providence in whatever may happen in his life. For just as it would be unseemly not to thank physicians for curing our body, even when they give us bitter and unpleasant remedies, so too would it be to remain ungrateful to God for things that appear to us painful, failing to understand that everything happens through His Providence for our good. In this understanding and this faith in God lie salvation and peace of soul. **
St. Antony the Great A.D. 250-350

Peace and blessings,
Mickey

 

[ahimsaman72]

StubbleSpark:

About the martial arts:

I have practiced Karate, TaeKwon Do, Kendo, and Taiji Quan.

In many ways, Asia looms large in my life and there are many aspects of Asian culture that I esteem highly. Among them, Buddhism and the martial arts. So you can imagine that I think FIST OF THE NORTH STAR TOTALLY RULES!!!

Ahem.

I know all about the “fight for defense” and “no forming giant robot unless they first transform into giant monster” rules. They still form a firm foundation for my daily life.

My point with brining up martial arts and Buddhism is that it is an odd fruit for a pacifist faith. A monk can throw himself to a starving lion out of compassion and another monk can spear a soldier of an emperor with whom his monastery has bad relations.

But in the end, this is greatest temporal gift Buddhism has given the world. Don’t get me wrong, I revel in it. But at the same time I know where to find greater fruit.

I know you will see this as more irrelevant apples-and-oranges comparing. In the throes of my mysticism though, I consider it a sign.

In Tibet the outlook is different than in China. In Tibet the Dalai Lama did not see fighting as an option when his country was overtaken. Peace was always the right answer. However, in China (for instance) the Zen/Chan viewpoint was different. The monks were taught martial arts to safeguard the temple and its belongings. They did not seek out war, but sought to protect themselves, their way of life and the treasures of the temple.

It is often labeled a pacifist faith but the Buddha only cautioned against war. He counseled kings not to wage war because it was unwise and never really solved problems. Violence was not the rule, but the exception. You will get different answers from different traditions. I recommend anyone to go to www.e-sangha.com and see the Buddhist topics related there. I have no great answer as to the apparent dichotomy, but to say that the first Buddhist precept to “not kill” is better rendered “do not murder”.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

StubbleSpark:

How is it moot? The universe could not have caused its own existence. No matter forms itself without the action of the influence of other matter. This means if there is no God, then there is no universe.

Right now, there is a “first cause thread” on the forum. I recommend this line of thought be taken there. There are atheists and Catholics debating very well with that topic. It is still a moot concept because even if we could figure out the origin of all things, that still would not solve the riddle of birth, sickness, old age and death.

But there is a universe, so therefore there is a God.

The logic is airtight. It may be moot to contemplate the state of karma now that we are in seeming chaos but contemplating origins gives us a greater understanding of Who put us here in the first place and that helps us map out future history.

You can actually come to a liberating conclusion. What is moot about that? What if the Buddhist were to contemplate origins? Would there be something wrong in it? Would you try to stop him?

I don’t see how knowing our origins is a tool that can help us map out future history. Can you elaborate as to why you believe this?

Peace…

 

[StubbleSpark]

Gnosis:

Buddhism does not see the universe in a linear fashion as does Christianity. There is no beginning and there is no end, there is only change…which gives the impression of a beginning and an end. Yet this is only perception. …This is a world of change, inevitably what we have labelled to be “some thing” will no longer fit the identity we applied to it. Thus we may conclude that it has “ended” and something else has “begun” or been “created”.

There never was a time when there was nothing, for nothing has never been. There is no reason to believe that there ever was “nothing”, as there clearly is “something”.

Yes, thank you I already know the Buddhist attitude toward change as I hope I have already demonstrated on this thread.

As for the idea of there always being “something,” it is not a given. To say matter always existed and will always exist is to say the universe is eternal – like God. But matter is not eternal. You make the same mistake the polytheists make – you assume the universe is necessary. But the fact is it need not exist.

Even if you believe the universe is constantly exploding and imploding (which it isn’t doing – right now it is being ripped apart by dark matter with no sign of slowing). You still beg the question: where did the endlessly exploding and imploding universe come from? Its existence still does not explain itself. Nor is it sufficient to say its existence (which is an effect) is its own cause. To do so would be to reverse cause and effect and that would be nonsense.

The following hopefully explains why the First Cause argument is important for spiritual understanding (so, more for ahimsaman72 than for Gnosis):

We see the change of the material universe and, instead of saying “change is truth,” we acknowledge that change points to eternal, unchanging Truth.

True, change is a constant – in the material world. We agree with you that all is in flux, and even, thanks to the laws of thermodynamics, in a state of continual decay. But to say this change is Truth itself is to put the material on a pedestal above the supernatural (angels, God, our souls).

Which leads me to my original argument. If the proof of First Cause (let’s not debate it, but pretend for the sake of argument) is true, you have an example of a man using observations of nature to transcend nature.

The Buddhist does the same thing, but I would say the Buddhist argument is flawed in that it does not take into account the full nature of nature. “All is ephemeral” is absolute statement concerning the natural world only. The idea comes from natural observations and points right back at the natural world.

We see the change of the universe as sign that the material world is not truth itself. Just as evil is a hole in the fabric of good, change is a lack of truth. We understand only that which is constant is Truth and only that which is Truth is supernatural.

What evidence do we have of the supernatural in this world? Love! Order (as in Natural Order which would also be Justice), and Fidelity. In the natural world, these forces are maintained by the existence of their Source. In our souls, we can only maintain them inasmuch as we maintain oneness with that Source.

But this oneness is part of a personal relationship because the Source not only has intellect but is Intellect itself. All intellect emanates from His. All persons get their personhood from His personhood.

(By the way, Source is the fifth of Thomas Aquinas’ proofs of the existence of God. He basically posits that all forms of energies get their power from a greater source, like sparks from a fire. So the eternal forces like Good, Love, Justice, etc also have their sources. Aquinas was a Scholastic, which meant that when he proposed an idea, he would also think of every possible counter argument and refute those as well. Feel pity for the atheists on the First Cause thread.)

Finally, I have to admit that I have not read the Dali Lama’s article on why Christians should not become Buddhists because I feel it would only prove my point – that Buddhism is not necessary, or, if it is, it does not foster a wholesome and authentic compassion for the non-Buddhist.

 

[StubbleSpark]

The dualistic thought that light is light and dark is dark (for example) is true in the conventional way, but in the absolute way they are the same.

Did you know that Christians used the word “dualism” to define the heresy that light and dark are, as you say “in the absolute way … the same”?

This idea is most dangerous, even demonic. I hope I can explain to you why in just a few sentences.

First of all, we have God. He transcends the natural = supernatural. He is eternal = unchanging. He is Truth = unchanging.

We know from the testimony of His Son that He loves us. We also know that he is the Source of goodness. But there is evil in the world. How to explain?

Evil is good’s lack. It comes from the choices men make through our free will. Men have free will because if God were to force us to obey Him, it would not be love (and therefore not eternal). God gives us free will to make love possible. Evil only enters into the picture when we choose to turn away from Him.

If God is Good one day and Evil the next, then he has changed (like that which is natural, material) and is not eternal and therefore is not God (sorry Mormons). Whatever that entity is, it is not God.

He who holds a dualistic view cannot believe in an eternal, all-good, all-loving God because good and not good (evil) are relative in the absolute (and if God existed, He would be absolute). You could have an all-good God but he would not be Ultimate. Such a god would have to share the cosmos with his co-god, the evil twin.

The dualistic view holds that light is a thing and darkness is also a thing.

The Christian view holds light is a thing and darkness is its lack.

Therefore, in order to hold a dualistic view, you must reject the Christian’s idea of God as well as our idea that goodness is eternally refulgent.

So you may say the Buddhist does not reject the idea of the Creator God outright, but nothing in its materialism and dualism leave room for the Christian God. It therefore necessitates a formal rejection of God on the part of the Christian convert to Buddhism.

 

[ahimsaman72]

StubbleSpark:

Did you know that Christians used the word “dualism” to define the heresy that light and dark are, as you say “in the absolute way … the same”?

This idea is most dangerous, even demonic. I hope I can explain to you why in just a few sentences.

First of all, we have God. He transcends the natural = supernatural. He is eternal = unchanging. He is Truth = unchanging.

We know from the testimony of His Son that He loves us. We also know that he is the Source of goodness. But there is evil in the world. How to explain?

Evil is good’s lack. It comes from the choices men make through our free will. Men have free will because if God were to force us to obey Him, it would not be love (and therefore not eternal). God gives us free will to make love possible. Evil only enters into the picture when we choose to turn away from Him.

If God is Good one day and Evil the next, then he has changed (like that which is natural, material) and is not eternal and therefore is not God (sorry Mormons). Whatever that entity is, it is not God.

He who holds a dualistic view cannot believe in an eternal, all-good, all-loving God because good and not good (evil) are relative in the absolute (and if God existed, He would be absolute). You could have an all-good God but he would not be Ultimate. Such a god would have to share the cosmos with his co-god, the evil twin.

The dualistic view holds that light is a thing and darkness is also a thing.

The Christian view holds light is a thing and darkness is its lack.

Therefore, in order to hold a dualistic view, you must reject the Christian’s idea of God as well as our idea that goodness is eternally refulgent.

So you may say the Buddhist does not reject the idea of the Creator God outright, but nothing in its materialism and dualism leave room for the Christian God. It therefore necessitates a formal rejection of God on the part of the Christian convert to Buddhism.

Buddhism does reject the idea of a Creator God. The Buddha rejected that notion. The emphasis is on the “Creator” part. He had no problem beleiving in deities, just not in one deity that “created” everything from nothing.

Peace…

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Isn’t dualism in the philosophical sense OK though? That the corporeal and the incorporeal are different, at least not identical to each other-i.e. our body and soul are not identical?

Yes, the Gnostic “dualism” is definately a heresy.

Buddhism does reject the idea of a Creator God. The Buddha rejected that notion. The emphasis is on the “Creator” part. He had no problem beleiving in deities, just not in one deity that “created” everything from nothing.

So, where did we come from? Life had to have an ultimate cause, an infinite regression does not make sense.

 

[ahimsaman72]

ComradeAndrei:

Isn’t dualism in the philosophical sense OK though? That the corporeal and the incorporeal are different, at least not identical to each other-i.e. our body and soul are not identical?

Yes, light is not dark and vice versa to our eyes. A fish is not a bear, etc. That is true in regards to phenomenon, but at the level of neumenon (or ultimate) they are the same - from the same source and have the same nature.

So, where did we come from? Life had to have an ultimate cause, an infinite regression does not make sense.

Buddha did not teach the ultimate origin. He taught simply that we existence (in this world) is a cycle of birth and death with no known beginning and no known end. To speculate as to origins was to lose one’s self into a never-ending puzzle that didn’t serve a practical purpose.

Peace…

 

[StubbleSpark]

ahimsaman72:

Buddhism does reject the idea of a Creator God. The Buddha rejected that notion. The emphasis is on the “Creator” part. He had no problem beleiving in deities, just not in one deity that “created” everything from nothing.

Yes, but these are pagan deities. Though they are more powerful than us mere mortals, they are bound to the natural world – if the universe ceased to exist, so would they.

Buddha did not teach the ultimate origin. He taught simply that existence (in this world) is a cycle of birth and death with no known beginning and no known end. To speculate as to origins was to lose one’s self into a never-ending puzzle that didn’t serve a practical purpose.

How could this puzzle be never-ending? If the universe is a finite thing, then it stands to reason that, like all things within the universe, there is a before and an after for its existence.

Is the universe eternal? The Christian answer is: “obviously not.”

If the Buddhist were to agree, then we know for certain that contemplating origins (and endings) is a finite endeavor. Aquinas has shown that our rational minds have the sufficient capacity to reach both corners of existence, beginning and end.

We don’t need to use a time machine to travel back thirty years to find out a grown man came from his mother, or that an oak came from an acorn.

All these things are, as you say, simple observations of nature. As human beings it seems we have been wonderfully blessed with the intellect to follow these inquiries to their logical conclusions.

Here is a question: is the scientific pursuit of the question of origins an unending puzzle that serves no practical purpose?

I am beginning to see anew the relationship between the Catholic concept of mystery and its forming powers in the creation of the natural sciences…

 

[ahimsaman72]

StubbleSpark:

Yes, but these are pagan deities. Though they are more powerful than us mere mortals, they are bound to the natural world – if the universe ceased to exist, so would they.

He acknowledged “Indra” and “Brahma” and other hindu gods - yes. And yes, they were bound to this universe and unable to transcend it. These gods would cease to exist if the universe did not exist. (as a note: this is my understanding, which may or may not be true. Ahimsa could clarify this for us if he is still watching this thread)

How could this puzzle be never-ending? If the universe is a finite thing, then it stands to reason that, like all things within the universe, there is a before and an after for its existence.

But there is no defineable beginning or end to the universe. We can’t tell when it began or when it will end. That would be presumptous to assume we know these things. Therefore, not absolutely knowing the beginning or end is never-ending. Can we tell the beginning of God? Do we know how he came into existence? These questions are puzzling and outside our human ability to know.

Is the universe eternal? The Christian answer is: “obviously not.”

If the Buddhist were to agree, then we know for certain that contemplating origins (and endings) is a finite endeavor. Aquinas has shown that our rational minds have the sufficient capacity to reach both corners of existence, beginning and end.

But we can’t see the beginning or ending of “existence”. I refer you to my previous notes above.

We don’t need to use a time machine to travel back thirty years to find out a grown man came from his mother, or that an oak came from an acorn.

This is true. The acorn begat the oak tree. But how did the acorn come about? From an oak tree. It’s a circle of existence that has no defineable beginning or ending. Acorns will always begat trees and trees will always bring forth more acorns. The mystery is in who or what “turned the wheel” of this chain of events.

All these things are, as you say, simple observations of nature. As human beings it seems we have been wonderfully blessed with the intellect to follow these inquiries to their logical conclusions.

Humans have been “blessed” with their intellect. And, yes we can follow logical conclusions, but I absolutely believe there are mysteries beyond logical computation. God is a mystery. Though we may say he revealed himself through Jesus Christ and can follow logical steps, inevitably we run into a place where logic doesn’t answer all the questions we have.

Here is a question: is the scientific pursuit of the question of origins an unending puzzle that serves no practical purpose?

I have a limited knowledge of science (very limited ), but I think it serves some purposes. It shows the “how”, but has not solved the “why” of existence. And, if we try to get those “why” answers scientifically we are deluding ourselves. Science cannot answer why we are here. With respect to origins, science has not proven it. There are theories, but no “smoking gun” that I know of. In the end, it serves no practical purposes for solving the riddle of birth, sickness, old age and death and doesn’t teach us how to transcend these sufferings.

I am beginning to see anew the relationship between the Catholic concept of mystery and its forming powers in the creation of the natural sciences…

The Catholic faith is very deep and mystical. It is a great faith that I have great respect for and defend when the teachings and intentions of it are slandered.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

I am posting a link to a site which describes a Buddhist nun who began a foundation devoted to helping people with medical care, education and other needs. It’s worth posting because this particular nun had an encounter with three Catholic nuns and the result is interesting. This goes back to the postings about the Catholic influence in the world in regards to hospitals.

tzuchi.org/global/master/themaster/biography/bio08.html%between%