Can you be both Catholic and Buddhist?

[Sonic]

I have recently become interested in Buddhism as a philosophy. While I am a Catholic, believe in God (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), the Bible, and sacred tradition, I also find myself sharing some common beliefs with Buddhists.

I don’t consider Buddhism a religion although it’s usually classified as one. There are no God(s) or Goddess(es) in Buddhism.

I was wondering if I could be a Catholic-Buddhist without going against Catholic teaching. Any thoughts?

Mariah, there are different kinds of Buddhism. Many people in the west aren’t exposed to actual Buddhism. Instead, they are often exposed to a modified version that is marketed for the western market.

Buddhism is generally divided into three different groups: Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayāna Buddhism (also known as Tantric or Esoteric Buddhism). Within these three groups, you’ll find various traditions: Zen (known as Chan in China), Pure Land, Nichiren, Tibetan, Shingon, Tendai and Shinnyo-en.

While they all share some basic beliefs, the various groups differ enough to make them distinct.

All religions share certain truths. Truth is truth, but Catholics believe that the Catholic church contains the fullness of truth.

What people often do is pick out various truths in other religions that are found in Catholicism, and assume that the other religion is a reflection or counter part of Catholicism. Often they do not see the forest because of the trees. One tree does not make a forest.

I have often seen something similar in Japan, where many non-Christians have very little knowledge about Christianity and attempt to make connections with it based on similarities. At an Inari shrine, one worshiper believed that the Inari Kame might be the Christian God. This was based on his own personal observations from television, but none of his reasons were based on actual knowledge of Christianity. I mention this to show that not only Christians are guilty of these types of assumption.

I have seen people in the west do the same thing with Buddhism… or rather the more new age versions of Buddhism marketed to the public.

I would suggest learning as much as you can about Catholicism, but also make an effort to learn more about actual Buddhism to see in what ways the religions differ… and how the various traditions in Buddhism differ from each other.

 

[catharina]

Would you so kind as to provide the quote where it says it is okay to have a statue of Buddha in your home. Thanks.

I don’t believe it is proper to have a statue of a Buddha in a Catholic home.
Why would you IMAGINE that I do think so?
Do YOU think so???

I suppose if a Buddhist were a guest in your home and
he brought one in to keep in his room, then that’s allowable.

 

[catharina]

re Pope John Paul II and Buddhism (original source is
Crossing the Threshold of Hope, the Pope’s own writings)

The following from a commentary:

74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:f6t5uafrZhcJ:www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm%3Fid%3D121+threshhold+of+hope,+buddhist+practices,+catholic+teachings&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

"**Pope John Paul II … our late pontiff really didn’t pull any punches, calling Buddhism “in large measure an ‘atheistic’ system’.” He pulled the carpet out from under comparisons to Catholicism by pointing out that the ultimate end of man for Christians is union with God, while for Buddhists it is Nirvana (complete detachment, or a state of nothingness). **

Two separate warnings concluded the Pope’s remarks on this subject. **The first deals with the notion of extracting certain characteristics of Buddhism and incorporating them into Catholic practice:

For this reason it is not inappropriate to caution those Christians who enthusiastically welcome certain ideas originating in the religious traditions of the Far East—for example, techniques and methods of meditation and ascetical practice. In some quarters these have become fashionable, and are accepted rather uncritically. First one should know one’s own spiritual heritage well and consider whether it is right to set it aside lightly.** Here we need to recall, if only in passing, the brief but important document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “on certain aspects of Christian meditation” (10/15/1989). Here we find a clear answer to the question “whether and how [Christian prayer] can be enriched by methods of meditation originating in different religions and cultures”.

**Second, relating Buddhism to the New Age movement and its Gnostic aspects, the Pope wrote:

A separate issue is the return of ancient gnostic ideas under the guise of the so-called New Age. We cannot delude ourselves that this will lead toward a renewal of religion. It is only a new way of practicing gnosticism—that attitude of the spirit that, in the name of a profound knowledge of God, results in distorting His Word and replacing it with purely human words. Gnosticism never completely abandoned the realm of Christianity.** Instead, it has always existed side by side with Christianity, sometimes taking the shape of a philosophical movement, but more often assuming the characteristics of a religion or para-religion in distinct, if not declared, conflict with all that is essentially Christian.
**By means of these and other articulate remarks, the Holy Father clearly drew a sharp line between Buddhism and Christianity, rejecting any notion that the two are of like purpose and insisting that Buddhist principles are to be gravely cautioned against." **

 

[aicirt]

How would you feel if catholic priests started telling it’s members to practice the Seventh-Day Adventist beliefs but also tell them not to become one? What is the difference?

I don’t know why a Jesuit priest would be a Zen teacher. I don’t know if calling him a Zen teacher means he is a practicing Buddhist. Or if it means he teaches about Zen in a comparitive religion course on a university level. Scott Hahn on EWTN was a former Presbyterian and certainly writes about the differences in his books. Now if either Hahn or the Jesuit priest advocated you can be both, I too would have a problem with that.

 

[aicirt]

Then I suppose you’re also committing idolatry by simply owning a statue of Mother Mary.

Having a statue and worshipping a statue are 2 entirely different things. I have a sofa and a piano in my living room, and I don’t worship either one. Now, if I can resist the temptation ( ) to worship 2 huge pieces of furniture, I’m sure I can muster up the will power to also not worship a 6-inch statue.

Miz

Use the actual Catholic Church as a visual. Do you see a statue of Buddha? Then you only put in your home what you see in your Church.

Maybe it would help in your conversion if you discussed the use of a statue of Mother Mary with your religious instructor.

 

[Dale_M]

Use the actual Catholic Church as a visual. Do you see a statue of Buddha? Then you only put in your home what you see in your Church.

Erm… I can think of a lot things in someone’s house which wouldn’t be found in a Catholic church, but which are perfectly acceptable. A bed, a computer, a pool table, etc

St Peter’s Square, in Vatican City, has an Egyptian obelisk, which was a symbol of the sun-god Ra. But Pope Sixtus V had it excavated (it was half buried in Rome), hauled to the front of St. Peter’s Basilica, and set up. I think in that context a decorative statue of Buddha is morally neutral. What would make it unacceptable would be if the homeowner had reverence for it, or held superstitions involving it.

 

[Ahimsa]

Erm… I can think of a lot things in someone’s house which wouldn’t be found in a Catholic church, but which are perfectly acceptable. A bed, a computer, a pool table, etc

St Peter’s Square, in Vatican City, has an Egyptian obelisk, which was a symbol of the sun-god Ra. But Pope Sixtus V had it excavated (it was half buried in Rome), hauled to the front of St. Peter’s Basilica, and set up. I think in that context a decorative statue of Buddha is morally neutral. What would make it unacceptable would be if the homeowner had reverence for it, or held superstitions involving it.

I would think a Catholic could have reverence for a statue of a Buddha, just like one has reverence for a picture of one’s grandparents. “Veneration”, though, would be a different issue.

 

[rlg94086]

As a former Tibetan Buddhist turned Catholic, my view:

Buddhism is too big and diverse to be discussed without reference to the specific schools and practices involved. Some practices and beliefs conflict, some don’t, some might seem to conflict but can be reconciled legitimately in your own mind. If you are exploring notions of interdependence or emptiness as philosophical concepts or useful ways to think about problems, there probably isn’t any conflict. If you aren’t a practicing Buddhist (by which I mean taking refuge vows), you probably aren’t in direct conflict.

There are certain doctrines found in many Buddhists traditions that directly conflict as well as certain general principles that you will need to choose among. The big ones will be glaringly obvious: rebirth, the lack of belief in an unchanging Creator, vs the divinity of Christ and salvation through Him, etc. On these, you need to fall on the side of Catholicism to be Catholic.

I looked into Buddhism once as a teen. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the book I read, but I think it was a form of Tibetan Buddhism. The idea seemed to be to rid oneself of your ego or sense of “self.” Ironically, of course, “you” can’t get rid of “you” in an active sense, because then “you” would be doing it. That’s where meditation comes in…it is an emptying of self.

Anyway, it struck me as very existentialist (e.g. Being and Nothingness). The only parallels I see with Catholicism is that we are to align ourselves with God - turn ourselves from focusing on “me” to an outpouring of love for others and Our Lord. You don’t lose your identity, but you lose your selfishness. Our meditation, therefore, is different in that you don’t empty yourself…you fill yourself with God’s love by letting His grace move you to do His will.

 

[CesarAugustus]

Erm… I can think of a lot things in someone’s house which wouldn’t be found in a Catholic church, but which are perfectly acceptable. A bed, a computer, a pool table, etc

St Peter’s Square, in Vatican City, has an Egyptian obelisk, which was a symbol of the sun-god Ra. But Pope Sixtus V had it excavated (it was half buried in Rome), hauled to the front of St. Peter’s Basilica, and set up. I think in that context a decorative statue of Buddha is morally neutral. What would make it unacceptable would be if the homeowner had reverence for it, or held superstitions involving it.

The obelisk is in Saint Peter’s Square because it was present in the moment of St Peter martyrdom

I read that somewhere, I don’t remember where, maybe a Catholic Encyclopedia?

Blessings!!!

 

[catharina]

The obelisk is in Saint Peter’s Square because it was present in the moment of St Peter martyrdom

I read that somewhere, I don’t remember where, maybe a Catholic Encyclopedia?

Blessings!!!

Gratias, C.A.

 

[rossum]

How would you feel if catholic priests started telling it’s members to practice the Seventh-Day Adventist beliefs but also tell them not to become one? What is the difference?

I would hope that all Catholic priests told their parishioners to follow some SDA and Buddhist beliefs: “You shall not kill”, “You shall not steal”, “You shall not bear false witness”, “Love others as you love yourself” and so on are common to all three. There are differences but by practising one you are also inevitably practising part of the other two.

As a Buddhist I do not think that you can be both Catholic and Buddhist. There are places where both overlap but there are also places where the two differ greatly. You can incorporate some elements of Buddhism into Catholicism. For instance, some meditations involve just sitting, breathing and counting to ten – none of those three are against Catholicism. Much of Buddhist morality is compatible with Catholicism. The meditations are mixed, some are OK for Catholics others are not. Most of the theology is incompatible.

rossum

 

[Contarini]

They (jesuits) are encouraging Christians to practice buddhism.

Why is it okay for them to “teach” or “practice” it?

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you. (Otherwise we can start asking things like “why is it OK for Christians to play baseball?”)

What in the specific statement you quote do you find incompatible with Christianity?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Yes, certainly. I don’t know where I said otherwise. But a noble goal in route to something greater is not enough.

No one on this thread so far has remotely suggested that Buddhism is “enough.”

I would have no problem accepting that a Buddhist could become a Christian, drawing on their previous experience in that tradition to strengthen their new faith, but it is the idea of a Christian joining Buddhism and trying to be some sort of hybrid Christian-Buddhist that is problematic and should be resisted.

Depending on what this “joining” and this “hybrid” might be (so far both the friends and enemies of the idea have been regrettably vague), I might very well agree with you. But if Buddhism is designed to foster a state of mind that is spiritually helpful (although not “enough” from a Christian perspective), then it remains at least possible that some Buddhist practices might be legitimate and useful for Christians.

And? We’re not talking about what has value. We’re talking about what is acceptable in the Christian tradition.

How can you distinguish between these two things? If there is anything of value that is not acceptable in the Christian tradition, then clearly Christianity is not true. Because Christians claim that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, the Life, the Logos through whom everything hangs together. If there is anything good that does not point to Jesus, then Christianity is a lie, period.

And the fact that you’re getting on your self-righteous high horse over what practicing Buddhists themselves have told me

I’m getting on my “high horse” about your hasty interpretation of what Buddhists have told you. I didn’t disagree with anything the Buddhists have told you. Indeed, I pointed out that what they told you contradicts your suggestion that Buddhism is somehow “self-centered.”

. When my Buddhist acquaintances told me that part of the goal of their meditation is to transcend “the self” or annihilate “the ego”, I wasn’t going to jump up and tell them “but Buddhism says the self doesn’t exist”!

Of course not, because that is exactly what they were telling you, though perhaps not in technical philosophical language. My point is that Buddhism is clearly not self-centered precisely because of what they were telling you, and you should have been able to see that. You interpreted me as saying exactly the reverse of what I was saying.

And so, with all this talk about the individuals’ relation to whatever the ultimate goal is of their Buddhist practice, I came away with the idea that Buddhism is self-centered in essence because of its internal focus. It is not about God, it is about you and purifying yourself and annihilating your ego and all that other stuff. You, you, you. Not God, but you.

That doesn’t make sense. How can annihilating your ego mean that the focus is on you?

“Annihilating your ego” means that you practice mindfulness and compassion so that the line between you and other beings comes to be seen as the relative, subjective, totally unimportant thing it is (according to Buddhist teaching). How in blazes you can describe this as “self-centered” is beyond me.

The ultimate goal may be to get rid of this “you”, but that is neither here nor there to me.

That’s a truly astounding statement. How can the ultimate goal of what they are doing be “neither here nor there”? I thought your argument was based on a claim about the ultimate goals of Buddhism being different from those of Christianity. Now you say that ultimate goals are irrelevant. Is it irrelevant that the ultimate goal of Christianity is union with the Triune God?

It still struck me as ultimately inwardly focused, stopping short of transforming any of that introspection into works for God (because, as you’ve admitted, Buddhism does not lead to God).

It doesn’t claim to lead to God, and it is obviously not enough in itself to get you to union with God as Christians define it, no. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t point *toward *God.

One could, but I didn’t in the post you are replying to.

Of course you didn’t. What you said was that *Buddhism *was self-centered, in spite of admitting that the goal of Buddhism is to get rid of the self. That’s obviously self-contradictory.

Yes, through Him all things were created. This means that the money changers in the temple, all kinds of ancient and modern idolaters, and all heretics and blasphemers also belong in this category. Yet we are not to be like any of them.

We were talking about things, not persons. Heretics, idolaters and blasphemers are persons. But heresy, idolatry, and blasphemy are not things. They are perversions, privations of goodness. Only goodness truly exists, according to the Fathers. And all goodness points to Christ.

We are not to be like heretics, idolaters, and blasphemers with regard to their heresy, idolatry, and blasphemy.

I apologize if anything I have said here offends you, and I ask your forgiveness for anything written in haste and passion.

I’m not concerned with whether you offend me, or with your passion (except for the sake of your own soul–but my own soul is in too much danger in that regard for me to point any fingers at you). I’m concerned with the fact that you contradict yourself in your claim that Buddhism is self-centered, and that your too quick dismissal of the good in other religions contradicts the metaphysical assumptions on which orthodox Christianity rests.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I didn’t say they “didn’t exist”, I said the Church has all of them, and in much better form.

We are debating the existence of the “rich teachings” whose existence in Buddhism you flatly denied. You then went on to say that there were truths in Buddhism, but that all of them were found in Catholicism in much better form.

Based on that post, what I thought we were discussing was whether there were any teachings in Buddhism which might be of value to a Catholic. You do in fact deny that there are any such teachings, right? And you deny this on the basis of the fact that you didn’t find them. That is a frivolous claim.

One could also say that if I were in “spiritual need” at the time and if Buddhism couldn’t cut the mustard, it all the more condemns it.

From what I’ve read, Buddhists don’t think that Buddhism meets everyone’s spiritual needs at every time, so no, it doesn’t condemn Buddhism on the basis of Buddhism’s own claims. Buddhists might say that your consciousness just needs a few more lifetimes before it has the kinds of needs that Buddhism meets. For now, perhaps you need Christianity.

From the perspective of a non-Buddhist who thinks that Buddhism has “rich teachings,” there is, of course, even less problem in affirming that those teachings may not have been what you needed at that point in your life.

Yes, but Catholicism is the truth, Buddhism isn’t.

That would be relevant if we were talking about the truth of your claim. But I wasn’t. I said that your claim is frivolous–your experience does not provide enough weight on which to rest a conclusion about whether “rich teachings” exist in Buddhism or not. Such teachings may not exist. But since you agree that someone could be Catholic for three years and conclude that there are no “rich teachings” in Catholicism, it follows that your experience is entirely compatible with the existence of “rich teachings” in Buddhism, or even with the claims of Buddhism being true (which is a completely different question).

I don’t believe in equality or egalitarianism

Whatever that may mean in this context. I hope it doesn’t mean that you don’t believe in reason. If you don’t, then there is no point having any conversation with you at all, and you are probably a heretic from a Catholic perspective.

Nice attempt at an insult.

I am sorry for insulting you. I should not have done that. Jesus used financial metaphors, so I shouldn’t criticize you for doing the same.

For a so-called “Christian” to gainsay that I find very… suspicious…

I don’t know of what you suspect me. If you suspect that I think there are indeed “rich teachings” to be found in non-Christian religions, then you are right. If you suspect that I think that your experience is not universal, and that other honest seekers have found much of value in Buddhism that you did not find, then again, you are right.

Edwin

 

[Lycorth]

We are debating the existence of the “rich teachings”; whose existence in Buddhism you flatly denied. You then went on to say that there were truths in Buddhism, but that all of them were found in Catholicism in much better form. Based on that post, what I thought we were discussing was whether there were any teachings in Buddhism which might be of value to a Catholic. You do in fact deny that there are any such teachings, right? And you deny this on the basis of the fact that you didn’t find them. That is a frivolous claim.

I didn’t say I didn’t find them; I proved that I found them by not just mentioning the core sets of Buddhist values but by mentioning that the Church has the same teachings in superior form. I understand you’re offended by the fact that I think Buddhism is garbage, but your offense doesn’t change the facts nor does it change my own experiences with Buddhism, which I will use to help people understand that Buddhism is in every way inferior to the teachings of God.

From what I’ve read, Buddhists don’t think that Buddhism meets everyone’s spiritual needs at every time, so no, it doesn’t condemn Buddhism on the basis of Buddhism’s own claims. Buddhists might say that your consciousness just needs a few more lifetimes before it has the kinds of needs that Buddhism meets. For now, perhaps you need Christianity.

Yes, that’s what a Buddhist might think. However, what infidel religions teach is immaterial to the facts at hand.

From the perspective of a non-Buddhist who thinks that Buddhism has “rich teachings,” there is, of course, even less problem in affirming that those teachings may not have been what you needed at that point in your life.

Everyone needs a doctrine of right action, right thought, right orientation, etc. There is never a case where someone doesn’t need a sound moral compass. Problem is, Buddhism simply doesn’t provide that. There is a moral compass there, but it is weak and insufficient, not to mention Godless and inherently orientated towards ultimate rejection of the lordship of Christ and the authority of His Church.

That would be relevant if we were talking about the truth of your claim. But I wasn’t. I said that your claim is frivolous–your experience does not provide enough weight on which to rest a conclusion about whether “rich teachings” exist in Buddhism or not. Such teachings may not exist. But since you agree that someone could be Catholic for three years and conclude that there are no “rich teachings” in Catholicism, it follows that your experience is entirely compatible with the existence of “rich teachings” in Buddhism, or even with the claims of Buddhism being true (which is a completely different question).

Not sure what you’re getting at, here. Lots of words but little meaning. Like it or not, not everyone who tries Buddhism falls in love with it. My experience provides more than enough weight for me; now if I were someone who claimed that my experiences with Buddhism lead me to conclude that Buddhism is the truth, I suspect you would not be gainsaying a single word of mine. Funny how double standards work, innit?

Whatever that may mean in this context. I hope it doesn’t mean that you don’t believe in reason. If you don’t, then there is no point having any conversation with you at all, and you are probably a heretic from a Catholic perspective.

I am not a heretic. Ironic how you are so quick to cast judgments upon me but I cannot be allowed to cast judgments upon Buddhism. Equality and egalitarianism are unreasonable and non-existent. There is nothing in this world that is equal to one of its fellows. Mere reason alone leads to this conclusion.

I am sorry for insulting you. I should not have done that. Jesus used financial metaphors, so I shouldn’t criticize you for doing the same.

Apology accepted

I don’t know of what you suspect me. If you suspect that I think there are indeed “rich teachings” to be found in non-Christian religions, then you are right. If you suspect that I think that your experience is not universal, and that other honest seekers have found much of value in Buddhism that you did not find, then again, you are right.

What I find suspect is someone touting something that is condemned by the Church on a Catholic forum. Do you mean to encourage Buddhism or simply mean to cause arguments? I ask this because it should be obvious to anyone who registers on a Catholic forum that Buddhism is not going to be accepted and that arguments will ensue when Catholics defend the Catholic position on the matter. That is what I find suspect.

 

[Contarini]

Hmmm. I don’t think the commandment has an escape clause such as “but you can keep an idol if it is a cultural thing.”

You’re begging the question: what is an idol?

It means no other false gods before Me.

Indeed.

Let’s look at it another way. Would Jesus have kept a statue of Buddha? Would He have kept Hindu gods, or Baal? NO.

Would Jesus have kept a statue of Himself, or His Mother? Pretty clearly not, for the same reasons you give–Jews didn’t have statues of their own saints and heroes either, or of their God.

We aren’t Jews. Not even first-century, Second-Temple Jews of the kind Jesus was.

Go that route and you have to be a Protestant at least, and maybe a Unitarian.

“But we’re not worshipping it” argument. Buddha was a man who is treated like a god.

Define “treated like a god,” and explain how this is different from the way Catholics venerate saints.

Edwin

 

[Lycorth]

You’re begging the question: what is an idol?

  A statue, etc, that represents a deity or holy figure venerated by another religion.  Buddha clearly falls into that category.

Would Jesus have kept a statue of Himself, or His Mother? Pretty clearly not, for the same reasons you give–Jews didn’t have statues of their own saints and heroes either, or of their God. We aren’t Jews. Not even first-century, Second-Temple Jews of the kind Jesus was. Go that route and you have to be a Protestant at least, and maybe a Unitarian.

  Jesus wouldn't have kept statues of Himself of or Mary not because of Jewish laws which He came to abolish but because He would have no need to keep a holy reminder of Himself in order to increase and encourage faith in Himself, and He would have no need to keep a statue of Mary because He wouldn't need to encourage any Marian devotion within Himself.   Jesus came in a Jewish body but did not come to perpetuate Jewish practices as a whole, only that which God taught the Church to keep. But that's another matter, entirely.

Define “treated like a god” and explain how this is different from the way Catholics venerate saints.

It’s vastly different, since Catholic do not worship saints, merely pray to them in order to ask for their intercession (ie, prayers) on the behalf of the one praying or for some other person or cause. Non-Catholics venerate their gods, etc, for a variety of reasons, none of them having to do with asking for intercession to the Christian god. Some of them may consider their gods, etc, divine and to have divine powers of their own origin, whereas Catholics know that no saint has godlike powers or anything that does not come from God.

 

[Contarini]

I didn’t say I didn’t find them;

You said that they did not exist. You said in post #14:

There are no “rich teachings” to be found in Buddhism.

Given the context and the qualifications you went on to make, I understood that you did not mean “there are no truths in Buddhism” but rather “none of the teachings of Buddhism can enrich Christian faith and practice or be of value to someone who is already a Catholic.” That is what I understand us to be debating. Those are the “teachings” you didn’t find.

I proved that I found them by not just mentioning the core sets of Buddhist values but by mentioning that the Church has the same teachings in superior form.

I know. What we are debating is whether the Buddhist form of those teachings is of value to someone who already has the Church’s version–whether, as Merton thought, there are aspects of Buddhism that can help someone be a better Christian, even a better Catholic.

I understand you’re offended by the fact that I think Buddhism is garbage, but your offense doesn’t change the facts

But you haven’t presented facts that are any more relevant to the question at issue than the testimony presented by an ex-Catholic to show that Catholicism is garbage.

I don’t mean that your experience doesn’t matter. Of course it matters a lot to you, and it matters to the rest of us when taken together with the relevant experiences of many other people, some of whom have had your experience, and many of whom have not.

nor does it change my own experiences with Buddhism, which I will use to help people understand that Buddhism is in every way inferior to the teachings of God.

But that’s not a legitimate use of the experience of one person.

Yes, that’s what a Buddhist might think. However, what infidel religions teach is immaterial to the facts at hand.

No, it’s not. When you make the claim that Buddhism is “condemned” for not meeting your spiritual needs, it is only just to point out that Buddhism does not claim to meet everyone’s needs. What is the point of arguing about a straw-man claim that Buddhism does not make?

Everyone needs a doctrine of right action, right thought, right orientation, etc. There is never a case where someone doesn’t need a sound moral compass. Problem is, Buddhism simply doesn’t provide that. There is a moral compass there, but it is weak and insufficient,

In what way? Certainly some Buddhists, like Masao Abe, have admitted that Buddhism (he was speaking about Zen in particular) has something to learn from Christianity when it comes to ethics.

 Not sure what you're getting at, here.

Plenty of people have the same experience with Catholicism that you had with Buddhism. Hence, your experience does not by itself prove anything.

Like it or not, not everyone who tries Buddhism falls in love with it.

I’m quite aware of that. You have no legitimate reason to think that I would disagree with this statement.

My experience provides more than enough weight for me;

Indeed. But you aren’t talking to yourself. You are talking to other people on a discussion forum, and your experience isn’t good enough for other people.

now if I were someone who claimed that my experiences with Buddhism lead me to conclude that Buddhism is the truth, I suspect you would not be gainsaying a single word of mine.

True, because you would be making a statement about your own experience. If you had said “my experiences with Buddhism led me to conclude that Buddhism is not true,” I would not have gainsaid that either. But you didn’t say that. You said, “there are no rich teachings in Buddhism.” You stated a universal negative (almost always a bad idea, since it’s practically impossible to prove) on the basis of your experience.

If someone had said “there are no rich teachings in Christianity,” of course I would have been all over them.

Funny how double standards work, innit?

Yes. One of the funniest things about them is that people who engage in them have no qualms about accusing others of using double standards.

You have explicitly said that your experience counts against Buddhism but the bad experiences others have had with Catholicism don’t count against Catholicism. That’s a double standard.

You then invent a fictitious situation in which I hypothetically am guilty of a double standard, and then gloat about my guilt. But in fact you can’t show that I have been guilty of a double standard.

I am not a heretic.

You are right that I shouldn’t have said that. I was frustrated by your equation of basic logic and fairness with some supposedly heretical ideology called “equality and egalitarianism.” My point was simply that orthodox Catholics are supposed to use reason, not despise it. Or maybe I’ve just read too much Chesterton

 

[Contarini]

Equality and egalitarianism are unreasonable and non-existent. There is nothing in this world that is equal to one of its fellows.

I fail to see how this is relevant to anything. One doesn’t need to believe that Buddhism is equal to Catholicism (I agree with you that this would be a false claim–indeed I think it would be meaningless) in order to have problems with a blatant double standard when it comes to how much weight should be given someone’s personal experience.

What I find suspect is someone touting something that is  condemned by the Church on a Catholic forum.

Apparently you haven’t been here very long, then. This forum is open to non-Catholics, and being non-Catholics, we sometimes disagree with Catholic teaching Indeed, Catholics sometimes do as well, but that’s another issue

As a matter of fact I don’t think I have maintained anything in this thread that has been condemned by the Church, though I agree that the tone of recent Vatican statements about Buddhism is at variance with the way I approach the subject. (However, the tone of those statements is also at variance with the tone of Vatican II on this topic. So one can’t base too much on a difference in tone, obviously.)

Do you mean to encourage Buddhism or simply mean to cause arguments?

Are you one of those people who thinks that “arguments” are pointless, frivolous things that people engage in for no good reason? To me, an argument is a way of trying to understand the truth better, and hopefully help others do so as well.

When I see a statement that seems false or unreasonable to me, I challenge it. This often steps on people’s toes, but it seems to me to be an entirely legitimate form of behavior on a forum dedicated to religious discussion.

I ask this because it should be obvious to anyone who registers on a Catholic forum that Buddhism is not going to be accepted and that arguments will ensue when Catholics defend the Catholic position on the matter.

Sure. I don’t think what you are defending is necessarily the Catholic position, mind you–certainly many Catholics disagree with you. But of course I expect arguments on an Internet discussion forum.

Edwin

 

[Lycorth]

You said that they did not exist. You said in post #14: Given the context and the qualifications you went on to make, I understood that you did not mean “there are no truths in Buddhism” but rather “none of the teachings of Buddhism can enrich Christian faith and practice or be of value to someone who is already a Catholic.” That is what I understand us to be debating. Those are the “teachings” you didn’t find.

Ah, I see the misunderstanding. My fault for not being clear. I contend that Buddhism’s teachings are “rich” in any way, because they are poor, vague, and insufficient compared to the fullness of Church teaching in matters of right action, etc. That is what I mean; I certainly know Buddhism has teachings, per se.

I know. What we are debating is whether the Buddhist form of those teachings is of value to someone who already has the Church’s version–whether, as Merton thought, there are aspects of Buddhism that can help someone be a better Christian, even a better Catholic. But you haven’t presented facts that are any more relevant to the question at issue than the testimony presented by an ex-Catholic to show that Catholicism is garbage.

I don’t need to present anything. Other posters on this thread have already addressed the question. I don’t need to repeat what has already been said.

I don’t mean that your experience doesn’t matter. Of course it matters a lot to you, and it matters to the rest of us when taken together with the relevant experiences of many other people, some of whom have had your experience, and many of whom have not. But that’s not a legitimate use of the experience of one person. No, it’s not. When you make the claim that Buddhism is “condemned” for not meeting your spiritual needs, it is only just to point out that Buddhism does not claim to meet everyone’s needs. What is the point of arguing about a straw-man claim that Buddhism does not make?

The point is that Buddhism, despite its claims, ought to be for everyone or it is for no one. Moral values are absolute, not relative. Even though Buddhism, yes, is relativistic and does not claim to be the one, true way, either it has worthy values for all or it has nothing for anyone.

In what way? Certainly some Buddhists, like Masao Abe, have admitted that Buddhism (he was speaking about Zen in particular) has something to learn from Christianity when it comes to ethics.

Yes, Buddhists have a lot they can learn from the Church.

Plenty of people have the same experience with Catholicism that you had with Buddhism. Hence, your experience does not by itself prove anything.

I was one such person, once. I do not claim that my experience, while factual, is the penultimate reason why Buddhism is wrong. Buddhism is wrong because it is not what the Church teaches, and the Church teaches what God wants it to.

I’m quite aware of that. You have no legitimate reason to think that I would disagree with this statement.

Your tone towards me seems to suggest otherwise.

Indeed. But you aren’t talking to yourself. You are talking to other people on a discussion forum, and your experience isn’t good enough for other people.

Experiences are good enough. Just because it doesn’t reinforce your opinion doesn’t mean that my experiences aren’t good enough for others to learn by.

True, because you would be making a statement about your own experience. If you had said “my experiences with Buddhism led me to conclude that Buddhism is not true,” I would not have gainsaid that either. But you didn’t say that. You said, "there are no rich teachings in Buddhism."You stated a universal negative (almost always a bad idea, since it’s practically impossible to prove) on the basis of your experience.

Actually, I state both and stand by each.

If someone had said “there are no rich teachings in Christianity,” of course I would have been all over them.

Nice of you.

Yes. One of the funniest things about them is that people who engage in them have no qualms about accusing others of using double standards. You have explicitly said that your experience counts against Buddhism but the bad experiences others have had with Catholicism don’t count against Catholicism. That’s a double standard. But since Catholicism teaches the truths of God, it is therefore the truth. Buddhism, ultimately, does no such thing, therefore it is wrong. Thus, if I had a bad experience with something that does not come from God, using that bad experience as a teaching tool against that something has a special validity to it. Again, since I do not believe in equality or egalitarianism, I do not give Buddhism the same respect I do Catholicism.
Contarini;6570801:

You then invent a fictitious situation in which I hypothetically am guilty of a double standard, and then gloat about my guilt. But in fact you can’t show that I have been guilty of a double standard.

It is easy to see that you are guilty of such, and I invent nothing, thank you. Deal with the fact I have no love for Buddhism and be done with it. You are not going to change my mind.

You are right that I shouldn’t have said that. I was frustrated by your equation of basic logic and fairness with some supposedly heretical ideology called “equality and egalitarianism.” My point was simply that orthodox Catholics are supposed to use reason, not despise it. Or maybe I’ve just read too much Chesterton

Or perhaps not enough Chesterton