Buddist on Catholic answers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timi_Celcer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
openmind77 said:
I am not a Buddhist (you need an ‘h’ in your spelling), but I just want to comment that no religion (at least among the major ones) is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Different religions are appropriate for different people depending on their mentality/temperament as well as their state of spiritual development.

Among the major religions:

Overall, I think Christianity is best for most average human beings.

Buddhism is good for highly educated people, it is just too intellectual and abstract/complex for most people who don’t want to think too much.

Islam is best for less educated people - its strictness and simplicity (only One God!) gives their lives structure and stability.

Hinduism is too tied to a specific culture (India) and is appropriate only if you are born in that culture.
Click to expand...
Is that meant as criticism? (if so I’m hardly angry)
I get skittish when I someone says a religion belongs in a culture. Most likely because of the volkish nutters running round on my branch of the Paganism tree.
 
Lokadottir said:
Is that meant as criticism? (if so I’m hardly angry)
I get skittish when I someone says a religion belongs in a culture. Most likely because of the volkish nutters running round on my branch of the Paganism tree.
Click to expand...
Criticism of what? I did not even mention Paganism - I don’t think it is a major religion, but that is not a criticism.
 
openmind77 said:
Criticism of what? I did not even mention Paganism - I don’t think it is a major religion, but that is not a criticism.
Click to expand...
Oh no, not to me. I meant to Christianity.
Paganism is closer to Buddhism in that you generally can figure out whats useful on your own.
 
Lokadottir said:
Oh no, not to me. I meant to Christianity.
Paganism is closer to Buddhism in that you generally can figure out whats useful on your own.
Click to expand...
No it is not criticism of any religion. I am just saying different religions are appropriate for different people depending on their temperament and intellectual/spiritual developemnt.
 
openmind77 said:
No it is not criticism of any religion. I am just saying different religions are appropriate for different people depending on their temperament and intellectual/spiritual developemnt.
Click to expand...
Okeydokey! Just checking. 🙂
 
Cmc1972 said:
Didn’t Buddha deny himself to find himself?
Click to expand...
Not that I am aware of.
Cmc1972 said:
I’m pretty sure Buddha would be against taking an ak-47 into a McDonalds and blasting the patrons.
Click to expand...
Agreed. :D.
Cmc1972 said:
There may be no wording in Buddha like sin but their are guidelines which are comparable to “thou shall not…”
Click to expand...
Yupp there is!
Cmc1972 said:
True wisdom is found when you realize that you are a fool.
Click to expand...
I would like to think that true wisdom is found when you learn to avoid judgement of this kind about yourself and others? I believe wisdom is to see the world as it truly is without personal evaluation.
 
Bahaitruth said:
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.
Click to expand...
Err. If you are referring to the Buddhist Nirvara it has nothing to do with heaven nor hell.

Or is there a Nirvana in the Bahai faith?

/Victor
 
Matthew_Light said:
In the Baha’i Faith it is called the Valley of True Poverty and Absolute Nothingness.
Click to expand...
If Bahaithruth was talking about the Baha’i Faiths Nirvana then I still fail to see how his/her original comment is relevant to the thread?

In case Bahaithruth was talking about the Buddhist Nirvana I think there is a misunderstanding about what the Buddhist Nirvana is. It has nothing to do with Heaven nor Hell nor Absolute Nothingness.

I think Rossum explained it earlier?

/Victor
 
I’ve recently discovered Buddhism and started meditating frequently and thinking on what the Buddha had to say. Very great philosophy/religion and I think I could call myself a Buddhist now.

I would encourage everyone to try to see past the human desires that are the root of your suffering…
 
If birth is the consequence of unenlightened death, and, presumably, the existence of humanity is itself impermanent, why did man become into existence?
 
mek,

i think, i could be mistaken since i am not a budhhist, that budhhism leaves many questions of this nature unanswered.

for example, and again i could be mistaken due to my ignorance, there is no concept of Creator in budhhism.
 
eddie_too said:
mek,

i think, i could be mistaken since i am not a budhhist, that budhhism leaves many questions of this nature unanswered.

for example, and again i could be mistaken due to my ignorance, there is no concept of Creator in budhhism.
Click to expand...
I’d welcome a noncreator evolutionary response also.
 
To most Buddhists, there is not a central creator figure. Buddhists generally believe that the universe and all the matter and energy in it has always existed in one form or another. Humans are nothing special, they came into existence through evolution. The Buddha taught us how to enlighten our human minds to become one with the universe.

EDIT: I’m new to the practice, and rossum could probably give you a better explanation on the official Buddhist teaching.
 
does that mean that order is a necessary part of reality?

to posit that human reality is uncreated does not make sense to me since every element of reality that we know of is dependent.

even stars, if we are to believe the scientists, come in to and go out of existence, i.e. are dependent.
 
mek42 said:
If birth is the consequence of unenlightened death, and, presumably, the existence of humanity is itself impermanent, why did man become into existence?
Click to expand...
Two reasons are possible. Either some god did not live a very good life and was relegated to human level for his/her next life. Alternatively some non-human animal lived a good life and gained human status in their next life.

Remember that in Buddhism material life is not confined to Earth, there is life on other planets. Hence “human life” may mean “intelligent material life on other planets” as well. If a place was not available on Earth, then a similar life-form on another planet might come into play.

rossum
 
NextElement said:
I’m new to the practice, and rossum could probably give you a better explanation on the official Buddhist teaching.
Click to expand...
The official Buddhist teaching is that there is no official Buddhist teaching. There are many sects of Buddhism, each with its own teachings. Different sects will differ over many details. Pretty much like most other religions really: “homoousion” or “homoiousion”? The Buddha described his teachings as a “flavour”, which you could recognise. He didn’t sweat the details. In particular he didn’t bother with irrelevant questions:

At one time the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the Simsapa Grove. Then the Blessed One, taking a few Simsapa leaves in his hand, said to the monks: “What do you think, monks? Which are the more numerous, the few leaves I have here in my hand, or those up in the trees of the grove?”

“Lord, the Blessed One is holding only a few leaves: those up in the trees are far more numerous.”

"In the same way, monks, there are many more things that I have found out, but not revealed to you. What I have revealed to you is only a little. And why, monks, have I not revealed it?

“Because, monks, it is not related to the goal, it is not fundamental to the holy life, does not conduce to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, tranquillity, higher knowledge, enlightenment or Nibbana. That is why I have not revealed it.”

– Simsapa sutta. Samyutta Nikaya, 56.31

rossum
 
mek42 said:
If birth is the consequence of unenlightened death, and, presumably, the existence of humanity is itself impermanent, why did man become into existence?
Click to expand...
Whatever do you mean? For what reason *wouldnt *they have come into existance?

When ever did the prospect of Death ever stop anyone from doing something?

I mean reasoning like that the entire world would come to an immediate stand still…right?

/Victor
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top