Buddist on Catholic answers?

[Servant19]

Exclusivity tends to breed violence: “You must believe as I do or else God will torture you”, all to easily becomes, “You must believe as I do or else I will torture you.”

Mr. Durga?

http://www.sivadurga.com/images/maaDurga.jpg

That is Ms. Durga, the Headmistress.

I mean that there appears of be a difference at a superficial level. When analysed more thoroughly the difference disappears.

No. It is a truth for cats that fresh meat is an essential component of their diet so directly killing their food is not a wrong action. For humans, fresh meat is not essential, so directly killing your food is a wrong action.

There is also the problem that there are many more claims to truth than there are actual truths. We also have the problem of how to express truth. The three expressions: 1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 1 = 10 and 1 + 1 = 1 are all true given different sets of underlying assumptions: base 10 arithmetic, base 2 arithmetic and logic.

Try it and find out for yourself. Zen is Boring contains a good description from a Soto Zen perspective.

The Buddha spent six years training and 45 years out preaching in society. His preaching would not have been as effective without the six years training.

Yes it does. If something is permanent then it is present at all possible times. If something changes then there are times when it is present and times when it is not. A thing cannot be both present and not present at a given time. At best we can analyse it into separate parts, some of which are present while others are missing.

It is not the same orange, it is different. Difference excludes sameness. Buddhism sees the world as basically changing with a veneer of apparent permanence overlaid. The world flows, like Heraclitus’ river or your changing orange.

rossum

LOL!

Love your work rossum, Ms. Durga it is!!

In response for your consideration dear friend, I would like to ask you to ponder a few things, if I may:

1. I agree totally in regards to exclusivity of salvation etc. There should never be exclusivity of salvation. We are all one. The nature of reality is however that consequences occur as a result of actions. What those consequences are relate to the action. The intent behind the action is also important. It is the consequence that is also important. Salvation is self-fulfilling, not necessarily fulfilled by Durga. Is it possible that we have a set of spiritual laws, which are EXACTLY like the natural laws.

You jump off a building, a natural law will take over and you will fall. Consequence. Falling
You be truthful, a spiritual law will take over and you develop in an unknown, non-tangible way.

In the Baha’i Writings there is the concept of the baby in the world of the womb that is used to describe our spiritual progress. The baby, while in the womb has little, if any need for its legs, arms, mouth etc, yet it still develops them in the knowledge that when it is born they will be of use. In like manner, in this world we do not NEED to be truthful, respectful, courteous, kind, loving, honest, courageous, determined, patient etc (all attributes of the soul) yet we do develop these qualities, whether consciously or unconsciously. Were we to put conscious effort into the process of developing these qualities (which are in no way physical qualities) then the “consequence” has bearing on the “lustre” of our souls/spirits, which is a requirement of the life beyond. This conscious effort is a process. The tree does not form from the seed SUDDENLY, neither does the diamond form from a carbon atom SUDDENLY, its a long “process” requiring effort.

Not sure if that makes any sense?

1. I do meditate, pray and have plenty of devotional moments throughout my day. These meditations revolve around reflecting on the Words which educate me on how I can improve the “lustre” of my soul. I also pray to the Supreme Consciousness, Ms. Durga, God, Allah (whatever) to assist and confirm me in my efforts.

When the bird flaps its wings hard enough to take flight, it is at those moments of effort when the breezes blow upon its feathers and wing it upon further heights…

1. The Buddha spent pretty much a tenth of His life in reflection, and the other 90% in action. Such is the importance of action. I totally agree, one is not acceptable or even possible without the other. I also personally believe that the two (reflection and action) can be carried out concurrently. Spend 1.5 hours of your day in reflection, meditation and reflection, 10 hours in action of what was reflected upon and the rest of your day sleeping

“Bring thyself to account each day…”

1. When it comes to the substance of the soul, we should try to dissociate ourselves from thinking “physically”. The soul and its eternality are related to a realm as different as is the human relam from the mineral realm. I tyhink when we start to associate scientific principles to something that is beyond scinece, it naturally becomes irrational.

I used the orange analogy, maybe incorrectly, to imply that while change is possible in the mirror of the soul, it does not remove it from its eternality. It is a permanent fixture to what it is to be a human being. the physical body has no relevance to our humanity when compared to the soul

 

[SteveVH]

…and how would that be achieved Steve?

It was achieved in Jesus Christ; the union of God and man. We achieve this union through the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist. We become one with Him in the most intimate way possible on this earth. He becomes us and we become him; the mystical Body of Christ.

This gift was meant for all on earth that we may all truly be one in Jesus Christ. It is a shame that so many reject it.

 

[Servant19]

It was achieved in Jesus Christ; the union of God and man. We achieve this union through the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist. We become one with Him in the most intimate way possible on this earth. He becomes us and we become him; the mystical Body of Christ.

This gift was meant for all on earth that we may all truly be one in Jesus Christ. It is a shame that so many reject it.

Hi Steve, when you say you become one with Him, what does that oneness DO to the person receiving the Sacrament?

When you say “we become Him”, are you saying that there are currently 1.2 billion Jesus Christs on the planet right now?

 

[rossum]

The nature of reality is however that consequences occur as a result of actions. What those consequences are relate to the action. The intent behind the action is also important. It is the consequence that is also important.

The Buddha divided non-Buddhist religions into Useful and Not Useful. The Useful ones say exactly what you say: actions have consequences. The Not Useful ones do not make this connection – Fatalism for instance where the consequences are already determined no matter what actions you take.

You jump off a building, a natural law will take over and you will fall. Consequence. Falling You be truthful, a spiritual law will take over and you develop in an unknown, non-tangible way.

Gravity is a common metaphor for Karma. The Abrahamic religions tend to use the metaphor of Criminal Law, with a list of crimes/sins, a Judge and a list of punishments. Karma is not like that, there are no crimes/sins and no Judge and punishments are replaced by consequences. It works more like the laws of physics: actions have consequences.

1. I do meditate, pray and have plenty of devotional moments throughout my day.

Excellent practice.

I used the orange analogy, maybe incorrectly, to imply that while change is possible in the mirror of the soul, it does not remove it from its eternality.

This is one of the specific points about Buddhism; where others see an unchanging core with a changing wrapper, Buddhism only see the changing wrapper. The ‘unchanging core’ is not real but is instead a mental construct, generated inside our heads, and projected onto the actual external object. It is merely a form of reification, and all reification is an error.

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

rossum

 

[brjoseph]

Tell us why your religion(in your opinion) is more logical than ours and the right one? Christian free to participate.

Well, let’s begin with a simpler question: you know we’re Catholic Christians. I’ve spent time studying Buddhism, spent a year learning in a monastery. So first, what type of Buddhist are you? Mahayana? Vajrayana? Therevada? See, knowing if we’re talking to a Buddhist following a path of Japanese Zen or Thai Vipassana or Tibetan Nyingma or any of the other multitude of Buddhist philosophical and cultural paths really does make a difference in knowing where you’re coming from and being able to properly and courteously answer your rather oddly confrontational question… so, how about we start over from here?

 

[Servant19]

Well, let’s begin with a simpler question: you know we’re Catholic Christians. I’ve spent time studying Buddhism, spent a year learning in a monastery. So first, what type of Buddhist are you? Mahayana? Vajrayana? Therevada? See, knowing if we’re talking to a Buddhist following a path of Japanese Zen or Thai Vipassana or Tibetan Nyingma or any of the other multitude of Buddhist philosophical and cultural paths really does make a difference in knowing where you’re coming from and being able to properly and courteously answer your rather oddly confrontational question… so, how about we start over from here?

Now there’s a true man of God. Welcome to the thread joseph

 

[Servant19]

The Buddha divided non-Buddhist religions into Useful and Not Useful. The Useful ones say exactly what you say: actions have consequences. The Not Useful ones do not make this connection – Fatalism for instance where the consequences are already determined no matter what actions you take.

Gravity is a common metaphor for Karma. The Abrahamic religions tend to use the metaphor of Criminal Law, with a list of crimes/sins, a Judge and a list of punishments. Karma is not like that, there are no crimes/sins and no Judge and punishments are replaced by consequences. It works more like the laws of physics: actions have consequences.

Excellent practice.

This is one of the specific points about Buddhism; where others see an unchanging core with a changing wrapper, Buddhism only see the changing wrapper. The ‘unchanging core’ is not real but is instead a mental construct, generated inside our heads, and projected onto the actual external object. It is merely a form of reification, and all reification is an error.

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

rossum

Hi rossum, very interesting points. I was unaware of the concept of Useful and Not Useful religions. I am actually firmly of the belief that all religions that originate from Ms. Durga are of the Useful kind, yet human interpretation and adornments and cultural influences slowly shape the religion into a Not Useful one. It is usually at this period in history that Ms.Durga manifests herself to renew religion into a Useful one again.

As is poignantly revealed in Hindu Scripture.

“When righteousness is weak and faints, and unrighteousness exalts in pride, then my Spirit arises on earth. For the salvation of those who are good, and the destruction of evil in men, I come to this world, from age to age”

So, may I ask, how is it that with the knowledge that there is action and consequence that you do not believe in a human soul, and assumably an afterlife?

As per the baby in the world of the womb analogy where the baby may not develop correct vision etc, the consequences of such things are not necessarily manifested at the time of the disability, but rather when the baby exits the world of the womb into this one.

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Steve, when you say you become one with Him, what does that oneness DO to the person receiving the Sacrament?

It brings us into a one-flesh union with God.

When you say “we become Him”, are you saying that there are currently 1.2 billion Jesus Christs on the planet right now?

In a manner of speaking, yes. We are to be Christ to the world. That is the purpose of the Church; his mystical Body.

 

[Servant19]

It brings us into a one-flesh union with God.

In a manner of speaking, yes. We are to be Christ to the world. That is the purpose of the Church; his mystical Body.

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?

 

[rossum]

Hi rossum, very interesting points. I was unaware of the concept of Useful and Not Useful religions. I am actually firmly of the belief that all religions that originate from Ms. Durga are of the Useful kind, yet human interpretation and adornments and cultural influences slowly shape the religion into a Not Useful one. It is usually at this period in history that Ms.Durga manifests herself to renew religion into a Useful one again.

As is poignantly revealed in Hindu Scripture.

“When righteousness is weak and faints, and unrighteousness exalts in pride, then my Spirit arises on earth. For the salvation of those who are good, and the destruction of evil in men, I come to this world, from age to age”

Buddhism has a similar concept. Everything changes, and so is temporary; that includes Buddhism. Eventually Buddhism will decline and disappear on a timescale of about 5,000 or 10,000 years. Then it will be rediscovered by the future Buddha, the Maitreya.

So, may I ask, how is it that with the knowledge that there is action and consequence that you do not believe in a human soul, and assumably an afterlife?

There is an afterlife, a rebirth, for most people. The circumstances of our next life are conditioned by our previous actions. The process repeats. If we are enlightened before we die then we are not reborn and the process ceases.

We are not the same from moment to moment within a single life – today I have memories that I did not have yesterday. Tomorrow I will have memories that I do not have today. What we are now is conditioned by our past actions. What we will be in future is conditioned by our current and past actions. There is no single soul, merely a chain of causation. A chain may at first glance appear to be a single object, but it is not. It is a series of links, each connected to other links. Remove all the individual links and there is no chain left. What we think of as a single person is actually a series of linked persons; the changing wrapper is obvious, the internal ‘soul’ is a false mental construct.

rossum

 

[ffg]

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?

I don’t want to jump into your back and forth and won’t.

But I think if you are really interested in understanding the answer that Jesus is the ‘how’ in connecting God and man, understanding the history of the world we are currently sitting upon would help.

Steve said the how is: “It was achieved in Jesus Christ; the union of God and man.”

You earlier said “How can the painted comprehend the Painter” - The answer is “when the painter chooses to paint himself into the painting and teach”.

Of course, then we happen upon the ‘Why?’.

In it’s most simplest form, it would seem the ‘Why’ could be summed up in ‘letting the painted know there is a Painter’.

We could delve into how doing such an act must be out of Love of the painted as well. Otherwise, why make the effort?

 

[brjoseph]

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?

Yes and no. It’s being way oversimplified here. Saying we’re one with Christ isn’t saying we ARE Christ.
Think of it this way. Say a man’s last name is “Smith.” If he has a son, his son is flesh of his flesh, literally. This boy is entirely and completely Smith, just as much as his father is. He is wholly Smith.
But he’s NOT his father, and it’s entirely possible- even likely- that he will say and do things that are utterly against his father’s will. The father may even abhor some of these statements or behaviors by the son.
HOWEVER, the son is STILL Smith, head to toe, and the father, as a good parent, loves the boy anyway. Now, all the younger Smiths out there may not be doing the will and desire of Papa Smith, but they remain Smiths, and none of their bad behavior can be said to be their Dad’s.

 

[SteveVH]

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?

Yes, the position you stated is blasphemous. But that is not the Catholic position nor the meaning intended. When we consume Christ in the Eucharist we are filled with his grace and truly become one with him. This does not mean that our free will and rational mind is removed from us. We are still free to choose sin and when we sin, we loose this grace and return to a broken relationship with God. To be Christ to everyone is our call. To fail at this in some degree is human. That is why we need Christ to save us.

 

[Servant19]

Thankyou ffg, brjoseph and Steve.

So if we are still free to choose sin, and “The father may even abhor some of these statements or behaviors by the son” (as brjoseph put it), then what purpose does this union of God with man serve?

If the union of God with man results in manifest atrocities, then surely it puts into question the entire process doesnt it?

 

[brjoseph]

Thankyou ffg, brjoseph and Steve.

So if we are still free to choose sin, and “The father may even abhor some of these statements or behaviors by the son” (as brjoseph put it), then what purpose does this union of God with man serve?

If the union of God with man results in manifest atrocities, then surely it puts into question the entire process doesnt it?

 Your logic skipped a beat somewhere... the statement that being one with the Lord via communion while still retaining free will in NO way suggests or even implies that when Man fails to behave in a godly way that it's somehow God's fault, or that that communion is the CAUSE thereof. In fact, you undermine this position, (though well couched in question form,) by pointing out that God disapproves of these things. (in red, above.)

Communion with God serves to draw us closer to Him and find Him within us; not to turn us into automatons incapable of transgression… which you’re clearly aware of, because you yourself said, this transgression something the man must choose himself. (in blue, above.)
Not knowing you, I must ask… are you really this uninformed confused about Christian theology and Catholic doctrine, or are you simply arguing against it from a perspective of feigned ignorance? Either way I’m happy to continue, I’d just like to know up front what the real score is.

 

[Servant19]

Hi br

I must say my statement indicating that the union with God RESULTS in manifest atrocities was incorrectly worded.

My point is that when I proposed that the underlying purpose of all religions is to bring about a betterment to the world, human beings and all created things, Steve responded by say that no, Catholicisms purpose is to bring about a union between God and man, a reparation of a lost relationship. This is done through participation in the Sacraments.

Now, my question is, what is the point in all this? It begs a foundation of salvation which can be achieved by doing nothing.
By this logic, salvation is attained by partaking of the Sacraments, and it can be deduced therefore that this union, this salvation, and fulfilling our purpose as human beings can be attained even if we were to conduct atrocities.

I could very easily partake in the Sacraments on Sunday, and by Monday have sexually abused an unsuspecting victim, yet feel fine by the fact that I still have this union with God and my salvation is assured.

Do you follow that logic at all?

 

[eddie_too]

rossum makes it sound like “a buddhist is a a buddhist because it makes him feel better”.

nothing wrong with wanting to feel better: but, it seems the buddhist believes that this world is all there is and thus feeling better about existing in this world is all there is for a human being.

this might work for people of privilege for whom strife and want are minor irritants, but to the vast majority of human beings for whom life involves great struggles, it seems lacking in substance.

a inquiring person must ask the buddhist, so what? so you feel better being a budhhist than not being a budhhist. what makes you believe that the good feeling you get from being a buddhist is what life is all about?

 

[rossum]

rossum makes it sound like “a buddhist is a a buddhist because it makes him feel better”.

That is a part of it; Buddhism’s overall aim is to reduce suffering. The Four Noble Truths are formed as a medical diagnosis. Suffering is the disease and the Buddhist path is the practical cure for the disease.

nothing wrong with wanting to feel better: but, it seems the buddhist believes that this world is all there is and thus feeling better about existing in this world is all there is for a human being.

We have 27 heavens, sixteen hells and many many lifetimes. Does that count as “this world”? We also have life on other planets in the universe. You are correct in one way. We are all here and now. Any solution that is not possible here and now is useless to us. Jam tomorrow but never jam today does not give us any jam. The Buddha attained nirvana in India at the age of 35. He died 45 years later at the age of 80. His solution works here and now and is not jam tomorrow.

a inquiring person must ask the buddhist, so what? so you feel better being a budhhist than not being a budhhist. what makes you believe that the good feeling you get from being a buddhist is what life is all about?

“Love others as you love yourself.” – Bhadramayakara vyakarana sutra 91. If we see others suffering then we cannot be free of suffering ourselves. Compassion is one of the Buddhist virtues, Brahma Viharas, which all should practise.

You would do well to learn more about Buddhism before commenting on it.

rossum

 

[eddie_too]

Jesus died for me. budhha lived only for himself.

why would i study the teachings of buddha when i can study the teachings of the Christ?

 

[ffg]

Now, my question is, what is the point in all this? It begs a foundation of salvation which can be achieved by doing nothing.
By this logic, salvation is attained by partaking of the Sacraments, and it can be deduced therefore that this union, this salvation, and fulfilling our purpose as human beings can be attained even if we were to conduct atrocities.

I could very easily partake in the Sacraments on Sunday, and by Monday have sexually abused an unsuspecting victim, yet feel fine by the fact that I still have this union with God and my salvation is assured.

Do you follow that logic at all?

It seems like we might need to start from the beginning, I don’t mind going back and forth, but if you are interested, the Bible and the Catechism of the CC would be good places to start.

Sin breaks union with God. So to say you could sin and be in union with God is not accurate (there are details here that would only confuse at this point, mostly based around specifics of sin).

The Catholic Church does NOT teach that you earn your way to Heaven. So though I participate, I still have hope in God’s Mercy for after earthly death. Why? because I am a creation, I am owed nothing, the fact I just took a breath was because of God, His Love.

The Catholic Church exists to protect, defend, and deliver God’s revealed Truth.

Of course the painted can only reveal what the Painter informs them of, no?