Buddist Monk, or Catholic Priest?

[concerneduser]

Hi, I am trying to help a friend out who was born catholic but lost almost all faith. How am I supposed to answer this question. ‘Why should I listen to a priest?..how about a Buddhist monk’…‘both are devout in their religions and claim to know the truth’.

As a Christian, it is easy to say that the Buddhist is wrong, but trying to explain this to someone who is very, very lost and almost an atheist, or a agnostic, is extremely tough.

Any thoughts? I remember a priest once saying how the pagans in the times of Jesus would think they are right, and that they thought their prayers were being answered ( but they were just mistaking them or something?)…but I don’t remember how to really explain the difference to someone who truly is that lost.

How can I show them that there is a difference between the devout Buddhist monk, and the Catholic priest? Help please, thank you,

 

[streetpreacher]

Eastern religions are about how you can reach God, Christianity teaches how God can reach you, and he did so literally in person. Eastern religions teach that you have to do this or that, to achieve the goal, Christianity teaches that one must only accept the free gift of salvation there is nothing you can do to achieve it, outside of believing. Eastern religions teach that there is no eternal salvation, that you have to come back over and over again, and if you are the elite, you get to finally achieve some vague state of grace away from it, while Christianity teaches the importance of this one life on earth, get it right here or that’s all she wrote, no “do overs”

The two have nothing in common in their core values and cannot be compared to each other any more then the color red is compared to the works of Mozart…

Your friend sounds like he’s ice cold, it’s a far better state then luke warm, but not one you at all want to reside at for long. If you want to help him along, you can show him the value of Christianity, what it stands for, and compare it to all of the other faiths, show that we have the fullness, and the others do not. If he has a mind and his heart and mind is opened, he’ll be back on board with the faith with us. Also, likely, he left something he didn’t even know in the first place, this is where education of the “true” church is paramount.

 

[callmeChris]

In my opinion, a Priest is of the sect that believes and serves Christ, the Son of the Living God and his teaching. While on the other hand a buddist monk though may be wise doesnt have the same beliefs as Christians, therfore cannot lead you to Christ. The Priesthood is understood to have begun with the Last Supper, when Jesus Christ instituted the Eucharist. The theology of the Catholic priesthood is rooted in the priesthood of Christ and to some degree shares elements of the ancient Hebraic priesthood as well. A priest is one who presides over a sacrifice and offers that sacrifice and prayers to God on behalf of believers. The ancient Jewish priesthood which functioned at the temple in Jerusalem offered animal sacrifices at various times throughout the year for a variety of reasons.

Also one vital thing to look over is the basic beliefs of buddism. Buddist Walpola Rahula reveals what buddists believe:

1**.The Buddha is our only Master.

2.We take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha.

3.We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God.**

4.Following the example of the Buddha, who is the embodiment of Great Compassion (Mahakaruna) and Great Wisdom (Mahaprajna), we consider that the purpose of life is to develop compassion for all living beings without discrimination and to work for their good, happiness, and peace; and to develop wisdom leading to the realization of Ultimate Truth.

5.We accept the Four Noble Truths, namely Dukkha (Suffering), the Arising of Dukkha, the Cessation of Dukkha, and the Path leading to the Cessation of Dukkha; and the universal law of cause and effect as taught in the pratitya-samutpada (Conditioned Genesis or Dependent Origination).

6.We understand, according to the teaching of the Buddha, that all conditioned things (Samskara) are impermanent (Anitya) and dukkha, and that all conditioned and unconditioned things (Dharma) are without self (Anatma).

7.We accept the Thirty-seven Qualities conducive to Enlightenment as different aspects of the Path taught by the Buddha leading to Enlightenment.

8.There are three ways of attaining bodhi or Enlightenment, according to the ability and capacity of each individual: namely as a disciple (sravaka), as a Pratyeka-Buddha and as a Samyaksam-Buddha (perfectly and Fully Enlightened Buddha). We accept it as the highest, noblest, and most heroic to follow the career of a Bodhisattva and to become a Samyaksam-Buddha in order to save others.

9.We admit that in different countries there are differences with regard to the life of Buddhist monks, popular Buddhist beliefs and practices, rites and ceremonies, customs and habits. These external forms and expressions should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha.

Take a look at the first 3 beliefs:bigyikes:. When you see or hear those things, you know what you do? You run the other way!

You can also view the link below. It will take you to the *Catechism On Call *website. I hope it will help
catechismoncall.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/catholic-heaven-vs-buddhist-nirvana/

 

[Sufjon]

Hi, I am trying to help a friend out who was born catholic but lost almost all faith. How am I supposed to answer this question. ‘Why should I listen to a priest?..how about a Buddhist monk’…‘both are devout in their religions and claim to know the truth’.

As a Christian, it is easy to say that the Buddhist is wrong, but trying to explain this to someone who is very, very lost and almost an atheist, or a agnostic, is extremely tough.

Any thoughts? I remember a priest once saying how the pagans in the times of Jesus would think they are right, and that they thought their prayers were being answered ( but they were just mistaking them or something?)…but I don’t remember how to really explain the difference to someone who truly is that lost.

How can I show them that there is a difference between the devout Buddhist monk, and the Catholic priest? Help please, thank you,

Hi concerneduser: It is very good of you to worry about your friend. I think it might be wise to encourage your friend to follow his or her own hunches on who to see. People usually tend to take more stock in solutions they come up with on their own rather than solutions given to them by others. All that is needed from a friend is a little nudge here and there to help them stay on course, the way you would a toy tug boat in a stream. It has it’s own path and you can give it a tap here and there to keep it off the rocks. That said, why not encourage your friend to see both a priest and a Buddhist monk? The monk will have no religious agenda to sell, because from a practical perspective, Buddhism is more of a way of life than a religion. Anyway, if you tell your friend not to look here or there, it is human nature to feel compelled to do just that and go both here and there.

Over time it’ll become clear that your friend is already experiencing God by being with you. You in turn are experiencing God through your friend. Your kindness and love are the way to both of your awakenings.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[rinnie]

I would tell him to go back and pray on it and study the bible. Then I would ask him can a Buddist Monk offer you forgiveness for your sins? Can he take the bread and wine and change it into the food we need for eternal life, etc. Thinng’s like that. But be kind and understanding as he is into his search.

Then when you let him show YOU that it is Peter who was given the keys to the kingdom, he will find out for himself the correct answer.

And in the process by your compassion and love you have done something that would make our Lord so so happy. You went out, and found one of his sheep for him. and brought them back home. Oh how our Lord will rejoice on that day, and how you will have eternal joy in your heart. God bless you, and I will pray that God’s grace will help you to do what is being asked of you

 

[rossum]

Then I would ask him can a Buddist Monk offer you forgiveness for your sins?

Sin is a Christian concept not a Buddhist one. In Buddhism there is no sin and there is no forgiveness of sin. Instead there are actions and the consequences of those actions:Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

– Dhammapada 1:1-2
If you do the crime then you do the time.

Can he take the bread and wine and change it into the food we need for eternal life, etc.

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

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

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

– Assu sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 15.3

However it is possible that the OP’s friend is not actually interested in Buddhism per se, but was just saying “people who believe in other religions are just as sincere as Christians, just as devout and also claim to know the truth”. That is not an easy question to answer, though the Buddha was asked that question and answered it. If the friend really is interested in Buddhism then refer him to the Kalama sutta:[The Buddha said:] “Now, look you Kalamas, do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea ‘this is our teacher’. Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blameable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them. … Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

– Kalama sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 3.65
If he wants to decide between religions then he has to look at the results he gets from them. “By their fruits shall you know them,” as another religious leader said.

rossum

 

[rinnie]

Sin is a Christian concept not a Buddhist one. In Buddhism there is no sin and there is no forgiveness of sin. Instead there are actions and the consequences of those actions:Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

– Dhammapada 1:1-2
If you do the crime then you do the time.

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

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

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

– Assu sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 15.3

However it is possible that the OP’s friend is not actually interested in Buddhism per se, but was just saying “people who believe in other religions are just as sincere as Christians, just as devout and also claim to know the truth”. That is not an easy question to answer, though the Buddha was asked that question and answered it. If the friend really is interested in Buddhism then refer him to the Kalama sutta:[The Buddha said:] “Now, look you Kalamas, do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea ‘this is our teacher’. Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blameable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them. … Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

– Kalama sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 3.65
If he wants to decide between religions then he has to look at the results he gets from them. “By their fruits shall you know them,” as another religious leader said.

rossum

Yes I agree it is a Christian teaching, but I am thinking that his friend is indeed a Christian

I am pretty sure he never denied Christ.

 

[Sufjon]

And in the process by your compassion and love you have done something that would make our Lord so so happy. You went out, and found one of his sheep for him. and brought them back home. Oh how our Lord will rejoice on that day, and how you will have eternal joy in your heart. God bless you, and I will pray that God’s grace will help you to do what is being asked of you

Hi Rinnie: What you wrote is a very beautiful expression of a very kind heart.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[concerneduser]

Thanks for all of your (name removed by moderator)ut and prayers! I will do my best to help enlighten my friend and be there for him along this journey.

 

[Sufjon]

Thanks for all of your (name removed by moderator)ut and prayers! I will do my best to help enlighten my friend and be there for him along this journey.

Good luck concerneduser: Everyone would be fortunate to have a friend like you to care about them.

 

[steveb1]

Just a comment about some of the things said about Buddhism, chiefly that Buddhism eschews “eternal life” and the existence of God:

1. Buddhism does claim to offer eternal life as an existential mode of being as well as a timeless abode in “the other realm” (the Pure Land, for instance, or one of the Buddhist heavens, or as a timeless Bodhisattva, etc.). Eternal life as an existential mode of being is remarkably similar in Buddhism and in Christianity. Just as Jesus did not preach merely a non-worldly “pie in the sky” heaven, but rather heaven as entry here and now into the living reign of the living Father… so to Buddhism aims at entry into Buddhahood here and now, in this life. And in Christianity and Buddhism, one prime means of this is a process of dying to self or ego (ego defined as the anxious, grasping self).

In fact, Luke’s Gospel portrays Jesus’ way of the cross as a “daily” dying to self, in terms very similar to many Buddhist texts as well. “Dying to self to find one’s (real) Self” is a credo that Christians and Buddhists share, especially on a parabolic level, as many of Jesus’ parables describe this paradoxical “death-into-life” spirituality… as does Paul’s “kenotic” christology and his idea that we die and rise with Christ in baptism.

1. Buddhism does not claim to deny all reality to God. Buddha did believe in devas, gods, and Brahma. However, Buddha also taught that the highest state is not godhood, but rather Bodhi or Nirvana. Gods may exist, said Buddha, but like people, they too are in need of achieving true selflessness. Therefore, Buddha said that even gods are lacking in the highest spiritual virtue, if they lack the qualities of Enlightenment.

However, Buddha’s - and many many Buddhistic schools’ - descriptions of the Ultimate Reality are similar to Christian descriptions of God. For example, as with some Christian philosophical definitions of God - and some Christian mystics’ testimonies, God, like Nirvana, is “Unborn, Unconditioned”, through which all beings are spiritually reborn, and without which such rebirth cannot happen. As in various Christian descriptions, Buddhism’s Ultimate Reality is Absolute, Silence, No-Thing-Ness, Pure, Boundless, the Plenum-Void, Vast, Radiant, Perfect, All-Embracing, Wise, and Compassionate. Moreover, Buddhism contains many descriptions of Ultimate Reality which are functionally equivalent to Christian descriptions of the Godhead.

Buddhism’s Ultimate Reality is not necessarily alike in all points to God in Christianity. But at many points the two are not diametrically opposed, and are in fact surprisingly similar

 

[rossum]

1. Buddhism does claim to offer eternal life as an existential mode of being as well as a timeless abode in “the other realm” (the Pure Land, for instance, or one of the Buddhist heavens, or as a timeless Bodhisattva, etc.). Eternal life as an existential mode of being is remarkably similar in Buddhism and in Christianity.

All the many Buddhist heavens (and hells) are temporary. The Pure Lands are temporary as well. The Pure Lands are desirable because it is much easier to attain nirvana when living there than it is when living on Earth. Since the First Noble Truth tells us that life is suffering then eternal life would be eternal suffering. Something to be avoided.

Just as Jesus did not preach merely a non-worldly “pie in the sky” heaven, but rather heaven as entry here and now into the living reign of the living Father… so to Buddhism aims at entry into Buddhahood here and now, in this life. And in Christianity and Buddhism, one prime means of this is a process of dying to self or ego (ego defined as the anxious, grasping self).

Agreed. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35 and died at age 80. We do not have to wait until after we die. On a minor point, Buddhists do not so much deny self as realise that what we thought was self actually isn’t. We realise that we had been mistaken all along and that what we thought was our ‘self’ wasn’t…

However, Buddha’s - and many many Buddhistic schools’ - descriptions of the Ultimate Reality are similar to Christian descriptions of God.

All descriptions of nirvana are false. Here is one from Nagarjuna:Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana.
Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara.

Whatever is the end of Nirvana, that is the end of Samsara.
There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.

• Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 25:19-20

rossum

 

[steveb1]

All the many Buddhist heavens (and hells) are temporary. The Pure Lands are temporary as well.

Thanks for your informed reply

Just a clarification - my understanding is that “the” Pure Land (singular) as presented by Shinran Shonin in Jodo Shinshu is a permanent “state” or (words fail here) “locale”. Its only impermanent aspect relates solely to the practitioner, who although s/he arrives in the Pure Land already embraced by Amida, yet undergoes one further modulation into a boddhisattva and is then presented the option of returning to samsaric life as a helper.

But Amida’s Western Land remains permanently, functioning (so to speak) as a clearing house for the innumerable sentient beings who will continue to be entering therein. Am I mistaken in thinking that Shin’s Pure Land is permanent rather than temporary…?
Thanks in advance for any information.

 

[rossum]

But Amida’s Western Land remains permanently, functioning (so to speak) as a clearing house for the innumerable sentient beings who will continue to be entering therein. Am I mistaken in thinking that Shin’s Pure Land is permanent rather than temporary…?

Our sojourn in Amida’s Pure Land is temporary. The Pure Land itself remains until there are no more living beings to guide to nirvana. Once all have attained nirvana then there is no more need for it and it will disappear since Amida’s vows will have been fulfilled. “Impermanent are all compound things.”

rossum

 

[steveb1]

Our sojourn in Amida’s Pure Land is temporary. The Pure Land itself remains until there are no more living beings to guide to nirvana. Once all have attained nirvana then there is no more need for it and it will disappear since Amida’s vows will have been fulfilled. “Impermanent are all compound things.”

rossum

rossum, thanks for this important information, it’s appreciated

 

[rinnie]

May I also add that while I am a RC, I still believe that God can make anyone an example of his Love by giving his Grace to all of us.

We can all learn much from eachother on how to get along, be kind, compassinate etc. I believe that God is alive in All faiths, and any Goodness anywhere.

While I agree that many faiths differ, we still can see God in them. He is alive in each and everyone of us, if we let him be.

 

[winagain]

Hi, I am trying to help a friend out who was born catholic but lost almost all faith. How am I supposed to answer this question. ‘Why should I listen to a priest?..how about a Buddhist monk’…‘both are devout in their religions and claim to know the truth’.

Truth is one thing, belief quite another, don’t you think? Wouldn’t you say that belief, as belief, is insufficient? If it was sufficient, then belief because it wad belief, would be truth. But in fact we have myriads of forms of belief even within Catholicism, thought eh"canon" of the Church claims to be unitary despite regular changes in form over the last 2K years.

Yet all that time God has been god, even from before time. God hasn’t changed. Out thoughts about God change even with our moods. And our beliefs about God are not God as God is. Yet we are all made in the image and likeness of God. So each one of us is a walkin’ talkin’ image of the Creator. Now since only about a third of the world population, and less and less going back to CE33, are/were Christian, that leaves a few folks unaccounted for. Say everyone who is non Christian and everyone before 1CE going back about what, 190,000 years to when Homo sap first appeared.

Now all those folks were created in the image and likeness of God, as are you and I. I don’t know about you, but for me, personally, it would be the height of arrogance to claim that NONE of those myriads of people didn’t put in some heavy serious work about who or what they are relative to God. And all of them have/had their own being as a pattern or template to look at. So somewher in all the think=gs that they discovered about their I & L, there has to be some Truth.

Now I would suggest that since Buddhists, particularly the non dualists of that time and region, as well as all of them through history even till now, have put in serious work looking into the human soul, that item being common to all of us, well, they might have discovered something. This might be particularly so since they include some factors that the Church studiously ignores, despite it’s own mystics screaming loudly about them. Yes, I mean Aquinas and a slew of others.

Oh well. If it was me, I’d listen to both. Why? The Church tends to be exoteric and “ascending” while the Buddhists tend to be exoteric and “descending.” It is good toe be aware of both and act from an informed position.