Buddist on Catholic answers?

[rossum]

Why do we need to avoid these. They are mostly fun especially the sensual misconduct. I’m not sure why we need to avoid these things if there is no such thisg asa sin. So I dont go to whereever and I’m reborn to do it all over again. SOunds like fun to me not toture?

If you throw a stone straight up in the air it will come down and hit you on the head. If you don’t want to be hit on the head by falling stones, then don’t throw stones straight up in the air. All your actions have effects. If you don’t want the effects then don’t do the 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

rossum

 

[openmind77]

christians greatly desire attachment. that being ultimately perfect attachment to Perfect Being.

also, christians sin by omission as well as commission.

from our Savior come the words, depart from me you evil ones, when i was hungry you did not feed me, when i was naked you did not clothe me …

also, why is it reasonable to equate an animal with a human being?

Did not realize you were responding to me - it helps to quote.

You are quite right - these are indeed very important words of Jesus. The ones that follow are just as important - ‘inasmuch as you did not do it to the least of these, you did not do it to Me’.

But I did not equate animals to human beings. I just said that Buddhist concept of ahimsa covers non-violence towards all creatures (human beings are of course included and the most important ones).

 

[NextElement]

Why do we need to avoid these. They are mostly fun especially the sensual misconduct. I’m not sure why we need to avoid these things if there is no such thisg asa sin. So I dont go to whereever and I’m reborn to do it all over again. SOunds like fun to me not toture?

By the way how do you kow that Buddha was not reborn. Have you checked everywhere for him. Maybe he was reborn but too embarassed to let you know?

We need to avoid them because they have negative repurcussions in this life, or the next. When you’re reborn, it’s certainly not “I get another fun life of killing and sensual misconduct!”, it’s that you get yet another life of suffering and misery. That’s all life is: You are born, you constantly desire things, you grow old/sick, and die. And the process repeats. If repeating that sounds fun, you must be out of your mind! But Buddhism teaches how to quell those human desires and focus on what’s really important: freeing yourself from samsara and suffering.

 

[Grym]

I think you are getting things mixed up Brendan. Let me try to explain.

That was because that monk was an idiot.

In all fairness. I have heard this reasoning you mentioned from very many lay people in my homeland Sri Lanka. That a monk should fall to the same explanation is awful.

I am not that much into karma reasoning. I live by the belief that acting skillfully is a reward in it self and not a hunt for merit.

But if I should attempt an answer to the question is that nobody can forsee the result of karma. The simple thumbrule is that skillfull action leads to good results and that unskillfull action to the reverse. And that nobody can escape their own karma.

So since you ask someone else to kill for you you have acted unskillfully and the result of that verbal action will befall you.

But on the other hand such an act will not ever stop you from attaining Awakening even if it might make it a bit harder.

Living an ordanary life it is not possible to entirely avoid killing insects and bugs and such. If not for your own sake then for the sake of your family. But there are better ways.

Infrasound for instance will keep rats away. I have tested it and it works fine.

/Victor

 

[mek42]

No, it is not the same. The core of Buddhism is self-interest, not love. In fact love is seen as an attachment that one aims to be released from. Ultimately the aim is not to care for one’s fellow man, but to get to a point beyond that, to a point where ones fellow man does not matter.

Buddhism is a self-centred belief system, it’s all about a person achieving their own enlightenment through removing attachments. This also involves removing one’s attachment to humanity.

The monk that advised me did so from an orthodox Buddhist theological standpoint. Why ought I to care about someone else taking the ‘karmic rap’ on my behalf? Why should I develop an attachment? That’s his karma, not mine.

I thought the core of Christianity was a self interested act of belief from which salvation is earned. From this state of grace, one then is asked to love, but offering the love without the self interested act of belief is insufficient for salvation.

 

[eddie_too]

i received my RC faith at my baptism when i was ten days old.

i do not recall any self-interested aspect to that.

 

[Grym]

i received my RC faith at my baptism when i was ten days old.

i do not recall any self-interested aspect to that.

Simpelfying it.

All action is based on desire or aversion. Desire and aversion are based on feelings. Good and bad in relation to the self.

So you act toward what is good for the self and away from what is bad for the self.

All action is selfcentered.

For instance an action based on the wish for salvation.

IMO
/Victor

 

[eddie_too]

grym

i disagree. Jesus did not need saving. He performed the ultimate sacrifice.

also, it seems quite incoherent to say that a person who is by nature fulfilled by the truth is being selfish when he or she embraces the very pupose of their existence. that makes no sense to me. it carries the implication that the person who rejects the purpose of their existence is being unselfish. again, a very incoherent concept.

if you want to be unselfish, do wrong.

if you want to do right, you are being selfish.

if that is what you are learning from buddhism, i suggest you find something that leads you to a more coherent world view.

you are touting that familiar satanic concept, good is bad and bad is good.

do you really believe there is not such thing as altruism or love?

 

[Grym]

grym

i disagree. Jesus did not need saving. He performed the ultimate sacrifice.

also, it seems quite incoherent to say that a person who is by nature fulfilled by the truth is being selfish when he or she embraces the very pupose of their existence. that makes no sense to me. it carries the implication that the person who rejects the purpose of their existence is being unselfish. again, a very incoherent concept.

if you want to be unselfish, do wrong.

if you want to do right, you are being selfish.

if that is what you are learning from buddhism, i suggest you find something that leads you to a more coherent world view.

you are touting that familiar satanic concept, good is bad and bad is good.

do you really believe there is not such thing as altruism or love?

First of all I am talking about You and not Jesus. Second of all you are confusing evil with selfish and then muddeling it upp so bad ends up as good and vice versa.

Selfish is not the same as Evil.

I do not think it is *me * who needs a more coherant worldview. Mines just peachy but thanks for your concearn.

/Victor

 

[eddie_too]

the definition of the word selfish that i am using is this, taken from the merriam webster dictionary: “self·ish adjective \ˈsel-fish\ : having or showing concern only for yourself and not for the needs or feelings of other people.”

if you are using a different definition, you should tell people that. this is the most common definition of the word and people who persist in this selfishness are sinning.

for example, people who intentionally try to eliminate from their lives concern, compassion, acts of charity toward others such as praying for others or caring for the physical needs of others so that they themselves might have this time on earth primarily for their sole benefit, whether it be physical or spiritual, are committing a sin.

 

[eddie_too]

also, i thought you were talking about human beings. Jesus is a human being.

so, you were really only talking about some human beings, not all?

 

[eddie_too]

grym wrote, “All action is selfcentered.”

when i show an example of an action that is not self-centered, grym responds, “except for the actions of that human being”.

if one can change the ground upon which one is standing, then, of course, on could never be incorrect in an assertion.

 

[Grym]

grym wrote, “All action is selfcentered.”

when i show an example of an action that is not self-centered, grym responds, “except for the actions of that human being”.

if one can change the ground upon which one is standing, then, of course, on could never be incorrect in an assertion.

Pleae try to stay focused Eddie.

I did not use the phrase selfish you did. And then you got it entangled with evil and finally managed to muddle up good and bad all on your own account.

I had nothing to do with that.

Nowhere in that definition you posted is it evident that Evil and Selfish are the same thing either.

And I was in that particular case talking about you not Jesus. Are you with me so far?

If you really have a relevant question then we can maybe get back on track?

/Victor

 

[eddie_too]

grym,

you are right. the original assertion used self-interest and some used self-centered. i introduced selfish.

however, my point is that not all human acts are motivated by self-interest. not all human acts are self-centered.

i used Jesus Christ as an example of a human being not being motivated to act by self-interest or self-centeredness.

i know so many people who are motivated to act by the love of Christ that it makes no sense at all to agree that everyone acts based on self-interest.

i would agree that acting out of self-interest in not in and of itself sinful.

 

[Veedar]

No. Buddhists believe that to kill anotheer creature has a negative effect on one’s karma. I was advised, by a very emminent Buddhist monk, that it would be better for me to get someone else to kill the rats, so as to avoid the negative karmic effects on me. So it’s OK to have someone else take the rap for something on my behalf?

It is true that the effect on your mind will be greater if you plunge a knife into an animal with your bare hands, as opposed to buying a piece of meat at the grocery store. That is part of what karma is, what Catholics call “temporal consequences of sin, which stain the soul/mind and need to be purged”. Some people stop eating meat after actually seeing how animals are murdered to become tasty food on people’s plate. If you work in a slaughterhouse, chances are your conscience will have been hardened to the point where seeing innocent animals slaughtered will have no effect on you, or even worse, you might enjoy it (sadism). And so you may not be able to generate enough compassion to actually REPENT. Karma is not a cosmic justice system. It is cause and effect. If you go down that path, you will reap the consequences.

That does not mean that eating meat is OK. It is not OK. It is not OK for the animals who suffer tremendously because humans lack compassion for other species. It is also not OK for the people who eat corpses, because they are not able to experience the fullness of their own capacity to love and empathize with all living beings, since they must harden their hearts towards the suffering of non-human animals to be able to meat meat without suffering pains of conscience. And the loss of universal compassion a terrible loss, both for the suffering animals and for the humans.

Also, there is no such thing as your “own” karma. First of all, you are not a separate self. You are connected to the entire universe, and the entire universe is connected to you. Being selfish is a form of delusion, because it rests upon a misconception of the nature of realty. If you have an angry, bitter and delusional mind, others will notice, and perhaps suffer, due to your behavior. If you have a peaceful, happy and clear mind, others will enjoy being around you. So your so called “personal” enlightenment matters a lot. It could mean the difference between a solid marriage and a divorce, between your children becoming criminals or saints. If you think about the interconnectedness of all things, which is very important in Buddhism, you argument falls to pieces.

You are wrong. Religion is not an intellectual pastime, religion is about truth. Truth is absolute.

All truths depend on the nature of things, and they change. It is true that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. In a billion years, it will be true that it is about 14,7 billion years old. Truth depends on the suchness of reality, and reality cannot be pinned down for a microsecond. Even the truth “things change” is not constant, because that which the word “things” refers to is changing, and change cannot be pinned down either.

The four noble truths and the eight-fold path are really not that difficult to grasp. Buddhism really is not so complex. However it is an inherently self-centred belief system, it’s all about one’s own karma, and one’s own search for enlightenment. It is a belief system where compassionate acts are driven by self interest.In fact love for one’s fellow man is ultimately seen as an attachment to be broken free from. At the core of Christianity is Love, at the core of Buddhism is self-interest.

Apparently, Buddhism is not THAT easy to understand, since you have misunderstood it so profoundly. Also, love is for the sake of the other, and not just oneself. If it comes from attachment, it is not love but addiction, and such “love” really IS selfishness.

 

[Grym]

grym,

you are right. the original assertion used self-interest and some used self-centered. i introduced selfish.

however, my point is that not all human acts are motivated by self-interest. not all human acts are self-centered.

i used Jesus Christ as an example of a human being not being motivated to act by self-interest or self-centeredness.

i know so many people who are motivated to act by the love of Christ that it makes no sense at all to agree that everyone acts based on self-interest.

i would agree that acting out of self-interest in not in and of itself sinful.

Lets just agree to disagree. But I will agree to that it would be nice if you were right and I was wrong.

/Victor

 

[eddie_too]

grym,

agreed.

veedar,

the RCC teaches us that there is nothing immoral about killing animals or eating animals.

the RCC does not teach that it is better to be a vegitarian or vegan than someone who has meat in their diet.

 

[Veedar]

grym,

agreed.

veedar,

the RCC teaches us that there is nothing immoral about killing animals or eating animals.

the RCC does not teach that it is better to be a vegitarian or vegan than someone who has meat in their diet.

Yes, the RCC also taught that there was nothing immoral in keeping slaves. And it taught that slaves should submit to their masters. What does it teach now? The RCC taught that there should not be religious freedom, because nobody has a God given right to believe a lie. What does it teach now? The RCC taught that it was a good thing to execute heretics so they could not lead other souls to hell with their false teaching. What does the RCC teach now?

Doctrines develop, thankfully, and when it comes to animal rights, our church still has a loooong way to go.

 

[eddie_too]

Jesus ate meat.

Jessu never sinned.

 

[NextElement]

Jesus ate meat.

Jessu never sinned.

The Buddha ate meat as well. He just never killed them, and would only accept meat as a gift from the lay people.