Buddist on Catholic answers?

[openmind77]

Please tell us more about this.

Specifically, what will happen in this return?

I am sorry that seems off topic. This is the wrong thread for it. The only thing I will say - It will definitely not be the End of the World - in fact, just the beginning of a whole new glorious one.

 

[openmind77]

if sin is an offense against God, then it must be forgiven before any union with God is possible.

Many do not it see this as an offense against God - it is an offense against the injured person (or animal) which apart from repentance and seeking forgiveness, needs to be paid for by the offender in some way.

Undoubtedly each person has to be completely pure (you may call it sinless) before union with God is possible.

Also God is far more forgiving than Catholics seem to believe.

 

[rossum]

How do other religions deal with sin?

I cannot speak for other religions, but in Buddhism there is no concept of “sin”. Sin is an idea from Christianity, and is not found in Buddhism. Buddhism has unwise actions, and the only way to deal with them is to pick yourself up, dust yourself off and say, ‘well, I won’t do that again.’ Actions have consequences, and once you have done the action the consequences are inevitable. All you can do is to avoid repeating the action in future. Where there is no sin there can be no forgiveness of sin either.

Well, Buddhists just strive to be better at what they do if they are knowledgeable about Buddhism, as some are just born into it and call themselves Buddhist and feel that if they just pray to Buddha or go to a Temple that they can absolve themselves of their sins/bad karma.

No. You can reduce the sentence – get time off for good behaviour – but you cannot avoid consequences entirely. Even the Buddha died at age 80. Death is a consequence of birth, and birth is a consequence of failing to attain nirvana in the previous life. Actions have consequences.

rossum

 

[Grym]

Even the Buddha died at age 80. Death is a consequence of birth, and birth is a consequence of failing to attain nirvana in the previous life.
rossum

I do understand what you are saying but I think some who read this are gonna be pretty .

No ?

lol.

/Victor

 

[Grym]

Tell us why your religion(in your opinion) is more logical than ours and the right one?

I can explain why the dhamma from my personal perspective is more logical than Christianity from my pov. No problem.

But no one can explain why Buddhism is the “right one” out of a basket of religions.
What is the right one depends on what an individual is looking for in a philosophy.

So here goes: (Please do not get mad because I am answering the question and if I am mistaken on some point in my understanding of Christianity then I hope someone will correct me)

1. The Dhamma is built on a dualistic, binary worldview. On one hand there is Nibbana and on the other there is the world. Nibbana is a total negation of the buddhist view that the world is subject to change, empty of objective meaning and filled with dissatisfaction.

So the Buddhist view of the world is per definition logical (binary) in nature.

1. Further the rest of the Dhamma can be derived from or validated against this dualistic view. Which is very appealing.

Christian worldview is on the other hand not built on a logical system at all.

1. There are to my knowleadge no logical nor rational contradictions in the dhamma. Which is also very appealing. Christianity is full of logical contradictions.
2. The dhamma is testable and reproducable. It is built on a clearly defined set of excersises that when perforemed yields in advanced mentioned results. Anybody can try it in small steps and confirm for themselves the results. Therefore no blind faith is required.In that way the Dhamma corresponds to modern science. In Christianity blind faith in God at least is required.
3. The dhamma encourages personal experience and own judgment before faith in Authority. This too is often the case in modern science. In Christianity there has to be faith in Authority. This might not have anything to do with logic but it is really appealing since I think you should try to rely on yourself as far as possible.
4. It places the salvation in your own hands and not not at the mercy of any god. Which might not have anything to do with logic nor rationality but I find it appealing just the same.
   This is not the case in Christianity where someone else must judge you for you to come to Heaven or to be resuerrected on the final day.
5. The fruits of the Dhamma can be attained here and now in this lifetime. Which is more logical than to wait for a promise of heaven after death or the resurrection to come in some distant future.
6. The cosmology of Buddhism explain a lot of what seems like contradictions in the Christian view.

Peace!
Victor

PS
The Dhamma is not a religion and it is not a philosphy nor a life science nor a phychology any other category that is normally used.

The Dhamma is the Dhamma.
DS

 

[Grym]

I do understand what you are saying but I think some who read this are gonna be pretty .

/Victor

Sorry Rossum.
Mea Culpa,
I misread one of the 'birth’s in your text as ‘death’.

When I reread it the line is perfectly clear.

/Victor

 

[rossum]

1. The Dhamma is built on a dualistic, binary worldview. On one hand there is Nibbana and on the other there is the world. Nibbana is a total negation of the buddhist view that the world is subject to change, empty of objective meaning and filled with dissatisfaction.

This is one of the differences in perspective between the Theravada and the Mahayana. The Mahayana makes much less of the difference. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35, he died at age 80. For 45 years he was living in the same imperfect world as the rest of us while simultaneously in nirvana. Nirvana is attained during life, not after it.

Each of us can only attain nirvana while living here and now in the imperfect world we have. There is no real difference between here and now (samsara) and nirvana.

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

 

[Grym]

This is one of the differences in perspective between the Theravada and the Mahayana. The Mahayana makes much less of the difference. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35, he died at age 80. For 45 years he was living in the same imperfect world as the rest of us while simultaneously in nirvana. Nirvana is attained during life, not after it.

Each of us can only attain nirvana while living here and now in the imperfect world we have. There is no real difference between here and now (samsara) and nirvana.

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

Your point being?
Because what you said does not contradict what I said. As you well probably know. That is one of the prime paradoxes of the Dhamma that you have to understand to be able to progress on the Path.

You are stating the Arahant point of view which is pointless for us worldlings because if you can not make a differens between Nibbana and Samsara there can be no path. Obviously?

Then in which case the Dhamma is pointless.

/Victor

 

[rossum]

Because what you said does not contradict what I said.

Indeed. The difference is one of perspective. Emphasising difference is helpful to some people; emphasising sameness is helpful to other people.

rossum

 

[Grym]

Indeed. The difference is one of perspective. Emphasising difference is helpful to some people; emphasising sameness is helpful to other people.

rossum

Cool.

Speaking of paradoxes here is one.

*If you do not like the answer you shouldnt have asked the question.
*



/Victor

 

[Bahaitruth]

For me, emphasis of difference is more important.

Baha’u’llah’s Last Valley and Last City is similar to Buddhist atheism. Bahaullah makes the opposite claim of Sufism.

 

[Grym]

For me, emphasis of difference is more important.

In that case it seems to me Bahaism will only contribute little or nothing towards world peace?

Baha’u’llah’s Last Valley and Last City is similar to Buddhist atheism.

Nope. Untrue. I think I know of at least one (living) atheist buddhist saint.

But this seems totally unrelevant to this thread..

 

[Grym]

For me, emphasis of difference is more important.

In that case it seems to me Bahaism will only contribute little or nothing towards world peace?

Baha’u’llah’s Last Valley and Last City is similar to Buddhist atheism.

Nope. Untrue. I think I know of at least one atheist buddhist saint.

But this seems totally unrelevant to this thread..

 

[Bahaitruth]

But this seems totally unrelevant to this thread..

Was agreeing with rossum that from my perspective (bahai), Nirvana is achievable in this present lifetime on earth. Both heaven and hell are found here, one is reunion with the Beloved and the other is separation or distance from the Beloved. “Beloved” is synonymous with Nirvana in this sense.

 

[Cmc1972]

I am bamboozled by this statement. So it was Jesus that committed atrocities to young children? It was Jesus who promoted the Inquisition?

Surely this interpretation of the meaning of the Religion of Christ is blasphemous, no?

Free will.

 

[Cmc1972]

Nirvana is not “nothingness”. The Buddha was in nirvana for the last 45 years of his life on earth; that was not “nothingness”.

Eternal life is eternal suffering:

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

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

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

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

– Assu sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 15.3

Nirvana is not nothing or oblivion.

[The Buddha said] “There is, monks, an unborn, an unbecome, an unmade, an unconditioned. If there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, no escape would be possible from the born, become, made, conditioned. But precisely because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, escape from the born, become, made, conditioned is possible.”

– Udana 8.3

To begin to understand the Mu koan, you need to know the pronunciation of the relevant Chinese character at the time the koan originated in China. The current Jabamese pronunciation of that character is “Mu”. The old Chinese pronunciation was different:

Q: “Does a dog have Buddha nature?”

A: “Wu!”

Why would I be attracted by an offer of eternal suffering? Look at the Assu sutta I quoted above. One of the causes of suffering is “being separated from what is pleasing”. Christians, like Buddhists are told to love their neighbours as themselves. Can you be happy while those you love are being eternally tortured. Those victims are people you love as yourself. How can you be happy knowing that those you love are suffering eternally? The Christian afterlife, as described, is an eternity of suffering for everyone.

I have read some of both, though not the particular books you mention. Thomas Merton in particular is very impressive:

[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything - without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya… everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton

rossum

You have chosen your path. My path will begin when I am united with the trinity and receive God’s grace after my death.

Jesus was perfect. No one else has ever been perfect, and will not till he comes again.

B

 

[Cmc1972]

I can explain why the dhamma from my personal perspective is more logical than Christianity from my pov. No problem.

But no one can explain why Buddhism is the “right one” out of a basket of religions.
What is the right one depends on what an individual is looking for in a philosophy.

So here goes: (Please do not get mad because I am answering the question and if I am mistaken on some point in my understanding of Christianity then I hope someone will correct me)

1. The Dhamma is built on a dualistic, binary worldview. On one hand there is Nibbana and on the other there is the world. Nibbana is a total negation of the buddhist view that the world is subject to change, empty of objective meaning and filled with dissatisfaction.

So the Buddhist view of the world is per definition logical (binary) in nature.

1. Further the rest of the Dhamma can be derived from or validated against this dualistic view. Which is very appealing.

Christian worldview is on the other hand not built on a logical system at all.

1. There are to my knowleadge no logical nor rational contradictions in the dhamma. Which is also very appealing. Christianity is full of logical contradictions.
2. The dhamma is testable and reproducable. It is built on a clearly defined set of excersises that when perforemed yields in advanced mentioned results. Anybody can try it in small steps and confirm for themselves the results. Therefore no blind faith is required.In that way the Dhamma corresponds to modern science. In Christianity blind faith in God at least is required.
3. The dhamma encourages personal experience and own judgment before faith in Authority. This too is often the case in modern science. In Christianity there has to be faith in Authority. This might not have anything to do with logic but it is really appealing since I think you should try to rely on yourself as far as possible.
4. It places the salvation in your own hands and not not at the mercy of any god. Which might not have anything to do with logic nor rationality but I find it appealing just the same.
   This is not the case in Christianity where someone else must judge you for you to come to Heaven or to be resuerrected on the final day.
5. The fruits of the Dhamma can be attained here and now in this lifetime. Which is more logical than to wait for a promise of heaven after death or the resurrection to come in some distant future.
6. The cosmology of Buddhism explain a lot of what seems like contradictions in the Christian view.

Peace!
Victor

PS
The Dhamma is not a religion and it is not a philosphy nor a life science nor a phychology any other category that is normally used.

The Dhamma is the Dhamma.
DS

In Buddhism as my understanding goes there guidelines to be followed like the four noble truths and the eight fold path? Didn’t Buddha deny himself to find himself? I’m pretty sure Buddha would be against taking an ak-47 into a McDonalds and blasting the patrons.

There may be no wording in Buddha like sin but their are guidelines which are comparable to “thou shall not…”

True wisdom is found when you realize that you are a fool.

 

[Servant19]

Free will.

Hi CMC, could you elaborate on what you are trying to convey here please?

.

 

[rossum]

There may be no wording in Buddha like sin but their are guidelines which are comparable to “thou shall not…”

Correct:

• Avoid injury to living things.
• Avoid taking what is not given.
• Avoid sensual misconduct.
• Avoid false and malicious speech.
• Avoid intoxication.

rossum

 

[Lokadottir]

The claim that Jesus is still alive shows that He failed to enlighten Himself. Only the unenlightened live again after they die. Why should I follow an unenlightened Bodhisattva like Jesus when I can follow a fully enlightened Buddha like Gotama?

It is an error to assume that all Christian ideas carry over into Buddhism. In Buddhism eternal life is eternal suffering. To live again after dying is a sign of failure, not of success. When the Buddha died he did not live again; that is the mark of his success.

rossum

So from a Buddhist perspective Jesus messed up because he returned from death. Why is this so awesome and sort of funny to me?
Talk about different perspectives.