Buddihism and Christiantiy

[katewithak]

rossum:

My apologies, I did not mean to imply that. Within Christianity in general both the Catholic and Orthodox tradition have analogues to meditation - the Rosary and the Jesus Prayer are just two examples. The Protestant traditions often seem to have neglected this element of religion.

Exactly right, there is indeed nothing to get rid of. It is coming to that realisation which is the difficult part. You spend much time and effort climbing the mountain and at the top you find nothing: “y en el monte nada”.

At the level you are talking there is no realizer and nothing is realized. These things may appear to be happening, but it is just an appearance. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 36, he died age 80. Nirvana is here and now, not something after death.

rossum

That is why I like Christianity- He is a God with no punch line and my life is no joke. With Buddhism I would spen my whole life trying to get rid of something I did not have anyway and then at the end there is a big ahHa- you dummy- you are doing the impossible! Punch lines. With Catholicism, there is no punch line. I’ll stick with that.

 

[StMarkEofE]

The major difference between Buddhist practice and Christian is meditation. The closest approach to Buddhist meditation I have seen within Christianity is the Jesus Prayer.

My “Zen” experience in praying the Jesus Prayer is to sit in front of my icon corner and become very relaxed and on a slow and steady inhalation say the words: “Lord Jesus Christ Son of God” (breathing in Christ) and on the slow exhalation say the words: “Have mercy on us sinners” (expelling our worldly cares). Of course this can be said anytime you feel the need to say it.

 

[Ahimsa]

StMarkEofE:

The major difference between Buddhist practice and Christian is meditation. The closest approach to Buddhist meditation I have seen within Christianity is the Jesus Prayer.

My “Zen” experience in praying the Jesus Prayer is to sit in front of my icon corner and become very relaxed and on a slow and steady inhalation say the words: “Lord Jesus Christ Son of God” (breathing in Christ) and on the slow exhalation say the words: “Have mercy on us sinners” (expelling our worldly cares). Of course this can be said anytime you feel the need to say it.

Buddhists pray, too. Not all (or even most) Buddhist contemplation is “pure meditation”, completely without thought, with an open, clear, sky-like mind – very few people can contemplate in that fashion, Buddhist or otherwise. Much of Buddhist contemplation is very much like Christian prayer, where a word or phrase or set of images is directed towards the Divine.

But you point to a major difference between Buddhism and Christianity. In Buddhism, the ultimate goal of going beyond thought, and beyond the idea of “otherness”, is clearly emphasized; whereas in Christianity, directing one’s thought towards communion with (rather than going beyond) the Divine “other” is the emphasis. Again, there are exceptions: the more devotional forms of Buddhism, and the more meditative forms of Christianity (like Pseudo-Dionysius).

 

[rossum]

StubbleSpark:

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

The Buddhist answer is “That question is not useful”.“The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the view that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the view that the universe is not eternal etc. [many views omitted here] Whatever view obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.”

(Malunkyaputta sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63)

StubbleSpark:

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.

If the existence of a miracle-working God is allowed then we do need a time machine since in that case we cannot just assume that God did not intervene for that particualr man or that particular oak tree. Your logic only works on the assumption that there was no miraculous intervention in the specific events in question.

StubbleSpark:

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

From a Buddhist point of view, it is not useful. From a scientific point of view it is useful for its own sake. Whether it will have a practical purpose depends on what science discovers. What has no practical use now may have one in future. Lasers were once described as “a solution in search of a problem”; we have now found plenty of problems for them to solve.

rossum

 

[StubbleSpark]

rossum:

The Buddhist answer is “That question is not useful”.

This can rephrased: Buddhism does not have an answer to this question. Buddhism cannot answer this question. Buddhism does not care about this question. All three of which I have already proposed on this thread.

rossum:

If the existence of a miracle-working God is allowed then we do need a time machine since in that case we cannot just assume that God did not intervene for that particualr man or that particular oak tree. Your logic only works on the assumption that there was no miraculous intervention in the specific events in question.

Finite=limited. Anything that is finite can be understood by man. Our finite minds have limited grasp of the infinite, but the finite is all good.

All finite things have a beginning and an end, the universe is finite, therefore the universe could not have caused itself – this is an inescapable conclusion.

Keep in mind this argument does not paint a complete picture of the all that is known of God in the Judeo-Christian tradition (how could it be complete? God is eternal). What it does is simply state how the fact that a force outside of the confines of space and time (and therefore eternal and powerful enough to cause the universe) started the whole thing.

You have not given an adequate counter argument that does not beg the question. But rather than derail the topic of this thread, why not give another answer to what the force could be?

If, like your faith, you would rather not approach the issue at all, fine. But do not pretend that not asking the question in the first place is somehow a better way to answer it. If you have no answer, you have no answer. We can move on from there.

Besides, ridiculing the most scientific faith in the world for also being the biggest supporter of the concept of a miraculous reality (ie sacramental universe) strikes me as something of a moot point.

rossum:

From a Buddhist point of view, it is not useful. From a scientific point of view it is useful for its own sake. Whether it will have a practical purpose depends on what science discovers. What has no practical use now may have one in future. Lasers were once described as “a solution in search of a problem”; we have now found plenty of problems for them to solve.

I agree with Ahimsaman72’s comment that science needs to reigned in by right reason and a moral compass. Science without conscience is Auschwitz. But your comment, rossum, illustrates beautifully the truth of the assertion that science was born of Catholic culture and probably would only ever have been born of Catholic culture.

Excuse me, I had a tear welling up. Feeling a little misty…

I suppose this fact resonates with Catholics and rings hollow for everyone else.

But the one criticism I would like to make concerning your above statement is that it is pessimistic. It seems to take a dim view of the achievements science has won for man in the world of health, technology, and even the sharing of the abundance of goods or ideas. Remember, these victories were not won without sacrifice. If you hold your freedom to be a sacred treasure of the willing martyrs who have gone before, then you must also be more respectful of science as well.

The day may come when you thank Buddha for some “miracle” cure for one of your loved ones…

Sure there have been abuses. But hammers, books, the internet, and modern vehicles have been abused too…

 

[rossum]

StubbleSpark:

This can rephrased: Buddhism does not have an answer to this question. Buddhism cannot answer this question. Buddhism does not care about this question.

A question’s relevance depends on where the boundaries of the discussion are drawn. The Goldbach Conjecture is relevant to a mathematical discussion, but not to a history discussion. The American Revolution is relevant to a history discussion but not to a mathematical discussion. What does Christianity have to say about the Goldbach Conjecture? Christianity does not have an answer to this question. Christianity cannot answer this question. Christianity does not care about this question. How much does this say about Christianity? Very little. In just the same way you have said very little about Buddhism.

Christianity is a religion based in history; much of the Bible is history. Hence historical questions such as the origins of the universe can be relevant to Christianity. Buddhism is not based in history, Buddhist scriptures contain almost no history beyond the Buddha’s lifetime. Historical questions are usually of very little relevance to Buddhism; such questions are left to the appropriate experts. In this case I suggest that you ask a cosmologist. You might find The Myth of the Beginning of Time interesting.

StubbleSpark:

the universe is finite

That depends on how you define “the universe”. If you accept that the universe is all that exists, that God exists and that God is infinite then the universe is not finite since it contains God.

StubbleSpark:

But rather than derail the topic of this thread, why not give another answer to what the force could be?

As I said, for Buddhism this is not a religious question so I am content to refer it to cosmologists. I have given a link above to some interesting ideas proposed by one cosmologist. No doubt other cosmologists will have different hypotheses. Buddhism accepts the existence of the universe, and describes it as unsatisfactory, changing and soulless. For Buddhism religious questions begin here and now, not in the past: “Whatever view obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.”

StubbleSpark:

If you hold your freedom to be a sacred treasure of the willing martyrs who have gone before, then you must also be more respectful of science as well.

I have a science degree, though I have not actually worked as a scientist. I am very respectful of science, which is why the majority of my posts here are in the evolution threads opposing various unscientific creationist views.

rossum

 

[StubbleSpark]

rossum:

A question’s relevance depends on where the boundaries of the discussion are drawn. The Goldbach Conjecture is relevant to a mathematical discussion, but not to a history discussion. The American Revolution is relevant to a history discussion but not to a mathematical discussion.

Let me know when you get close to making a point.

rossum:

What does Christianity have to say about the Goldbach Conjecture? Christianity does not have an answer to this question. Christianity cannot answer this question. Christianity does not care about this question. How much does this say about Christianity? Very little. In just the same way you have said very little about Buddhism.

Thank you. I was going to suggest that, out of fairness, you could propose questions which Christianity does not answer but that Buddhism addresses. I will read the Conjecture later. But given your utter lack of understanding of Christianity (see below), your presumptuousness concerning the Catholic response is singular. In the end, how much weight can expect the Church to have on a idea that bills itself as nothing more than “conjecture”?

rossum:

Christianity is a religion based in history;
much of the Bible is history. Hence historical questions such as the origins of the universe can be relevant to Christianity.

The question of the origins of the universe are especially relevant because we worship the One who made it. History and science (and any other study of the human mind) are all relevant to Christianity because they all reveal something about God.

rossum:

In this case I suggest that you ask a cosmologist. You might find The Myth of the Beginning of Time interesting.

Very interesting reading, although I generally find Sci Am a little fluffy and sensationalist. How did the strings come about, I wonder?

rossum:

That depends on how you define “the universe”. If you accept that the universe is all that exists, that God exists and that God is infinite then the universe is not finite since it contains God.

You have a remarkable ability to ignore what I write while pretending to answer it. What is the sound of one hand clapping? A Catholic trying to explain his faith. I believe I carefully explained the concept of transcendent supernatural vs natural on this very thread more than once. “Contains God” indeed…

rossum:

As I said, for Buddhism this is not a religious question so I am content to refer it to cosmologists. I have given a link above to some interesting ideas proposed by one cosmologist. No doubt other cosmologists will have different hypotheses.

Does not relate in Buddhism but does matter (pun intended) in Christianity which is why you posted the link in a Catholic forum and why you bother to post on the evolution threads here. Thank you for agreeing with me.

If other cosmologists will have diffferent hypotheses, then you cannot definitively call the beginning of time a “myth,” can you?

rossum:

Buddhism accepts the existence of the universe, and describes it as unsatisfactory, changing and soulless…

Your words, not mine.

rossum:

I have a science degree, though I have not actually worked as a scientist.

A non-practicing, fallen-away scientist. How sad. I bet if you became Catholic and threw off the unscientific shackles of your Buddhist theology, then studying the universe would be much less “soulless” and “unsatisfactory.” You would essentially be trying to touch the face of God. Like the painter, the poet, the mathematician, the philosopher, the physicist…

rossum:

I am very respectful of science, which is why the majority of my posts here are in the evolution threads opposing various unscientific creationist views.

I sure hope somebody pointed out that Catholics are not strict creationists in the sense that we must see Genesis as the literal depiction of creation. We believe God created everything but that we do not know for certain the exact process (ie, He may have created the strings first).

And if they did say so, did you read it?

 

[BryPGuy89]

Montie Claunch:

In Intro. To Logic class last semester My teacher started rambling on about how the Bible and Buddist writings (philosphy, something like that) was like 90% the same or something. Has anyone heard of this? What is the same? Is it really that much? I thought they didn’t beleive in any God? Are there any good books or websites addressing Buddism (sp?)? Thanks and God Bless.

I have heard that the moral and ethic beleifs are almost identical. To my study I have come to understand that they are very similar. Buddhists are normally agnostic and don’t turn to a God for any salvation, but turn to finding enlightenment. I don’t have any specific sorce or reference, sorry.

 

[rossum]

“Contains God” indeed…

If you object to the use of any word to “contain” God then you have a problem, since God is contained in words like “eternal”, “transcendent” etc. The Bible consists of words so can the Bible contain God? When using words to refer to anything transcendent we always come up against the problem of describing the transcendent in language since language is inherently non-transcendent. Buddhism has the same problem with the description of nirvana; all descriptions of nirvana are false because any such description has to use words. The same can be said of any description of a transcendent God. One of the resolutions is to use paradox, as in my sig; another is Vimalakirti’s method:Then the Bodhisattva Manjushri said to Vimalakirti, “We have all given our teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the the entrance into the principle of nonduality.”

Thereupon Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.

The Bodhisattva Manjushri applauded Vimalakirti: “Excellent! Excellent, noble sir! This is indeed the entrance into the nonduality of the bodhisattvas.”

(Vimalakirtinirdesa sutra Ch 9)Perhaps an equivalent might be “nada, nada, nada, y en el monte, nada”.

StubbleSpark:

I sure hope somebody pointed out that Catholics are not strict creationists in the sense that we must see Genesis as the literal depiction of creation.

I am aware that many (?most?) Catholics are not strict creationists. However some people on the forum are, and they say that they are Catholic. It is those people that I argue against; I am against the distortion of science required to fit a literalist viewpoint.

rossum

 

[StubbleSpark]

rossum:

If you object to the use of any word to “contain” God then you have a problem, since God is contained in words like “eternal”, “transcendent” etc. The Bible consists of words so can the Bible contain God? …

No. You cannot use the word “contain” to mean “describe” and then say words that describe God contain Him in the sense that they somehow limit His being.

This is a logical fallacy and leads to the heretical view called Idealism. If what you say is true, I would burn to a crisp every time I said the word “sun” because the word contains the sun itself. Every time I said “refrigerator” a Frigidaire would come clunking out of my mouth.

Nor is it the case that a creation can limit its creator. Just because I pour my heart into creating a symphony, writing a novel, or sculpting a statue – this does not mean that I am somehow confined within my creation. If the symphony is burned or the statue is destroyed, I still remain unharmed. By putting the final period of the last sentence of my novel, I do not suddenly cease to exist anywhere except in the novel (thank God!)

You can say of course that a created piece of art “contains” part of me, even part of my soul, but you cannot use the word “contains” as you do to mean “confine” or “restrict” the very essence of my being.

All forms of language and communication are abstractions of the reality they represent. While it is true that words have an intrinsic power over our minds, in the end they are just representative of the reality they point to. We have to be careful not confuse the abstraction with the reality.

This is the problem with Idealism and Scientism. Scientism looks at those abstractions and confuses them for absolute reality. Numbers, for example, are a purely quantitative abstraction of reality. They are useful in studies that rely on concise quantitative data but in the end, the numbers are still mere abstractions. The reality has a life of its own.

Idealism says our minds “create” the universe by perceiving it and that nothing is certain but the fact of perception. This internalizes that which is external and is a very dangerous and unscientific take on reality. In fact, you can argue with people who hold this view that “reality is real” until you are blue in the face and they will deny it up and down.

If they are small-minded they may think they have won the argument, but by holding such views what they are in fact doing is giving away the keys to the kingdom to those who do believe in reality.

I think you already know this, but only apply it sporadically as if it were not universally true. I should tell you to think about the mystery of God in the same way you think about the science of nature.

No scientific theorem will ever be able to explain the totality of nature. In fact, the more you study, the more questions come up.

This is what the Church calls a “mystery”. Not that it is an enigma that cannot be understood, but that it is an unending tapestry of truth and beauty that will forever yield more and more marvelous fruits. Not until we transcend our present mortal state will we be granted the fullness of this mystery to our angelic intellects and see Him “face to face.”

At times, God “condescends” to us by using our little abstractions and speak directly. But for the most part, the language of God is reality. Inasmuch as science works to understand that reality without presuming its abstractions “confine” reality, and inasmuch as the methods and fruits of science are morally good, it is a godly pursuit equal to philosophy, theology and art.