It is a religion. There is stuff wrong with it.Yes!
budhism is no religion at all. It is strictly philosophy. keep the commandments and there is nothing wrong with budhism.
At a recent Communion Service led by a (Catholic) Pastoral Associate we were asked to share our thoughts of the Scripture just read (dispensing with the Priest’s pre-prepared sermon): “Jesus is in everyone” and “We are all equal” 2 shared thoughts going unchallenged, proving the heresy of Universalism is alive in our midst.Does no one else find this very idea disturbing?
It veers awfully close to moral relativism and the thought that nothing is good, nothing is bad, and there are no universal truths.
No. IMO, you cannot be Catholic and Buddhist—and it doesn’t matter what individual priests might seem to believe; they would be leading others astray, which is wrong.
Inferring if we do not seek answers outside the Catholic Faith we are not intelligent?In response to another post, I think an intellectual,academic interest in Buddhism, or any other faith for that matter, is healthy and aids in understanding of how others relate to and perceive Christianity; in that regard we become better equipped for dialogue. Or at the very least we have the opportunity to know ourselves better.
The term “Buddhism” is a very generic term. What do you mean, how do you define it? There is diverse usage in the Buddhist community - Tibetan Buddhists struggle to dialogue with Zen Buddhists who may use similar phraseology but with different meaning. (Dzogchen Tibetan Buddhism appears similar to Zen until one breaks the surface.)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.
It would be nice if you provided the context and passage for what you have written.Buddhist Teaching - When Siddhatha Ghutama achieved Enlightenment the Gods begged him to turn the wheel of dhamma, to teach them.
Salvation is a term in theism. It does not exist in the same context in Buddhism. As you may know, once Siddhartha left his royal palace, he saw things that disturbed him greatly. These things were a revelation to him. It was this revelation of truth that led him to establish the middle way - the path to liberation - not salvation.In precis Buddhist Teaching is that man can achieve his own salvation,
The Buddha never claimed superiority in character to any god. The path that he taught was a *more excellent *path. That does not mean what I believe is implied here. He was a humble and gentle teacher. In his world there were many gods and goddesses that he learned about as a boy. They had their place in the world and he didn’t demonize them. Please explain what you mean by “supreme”.can be supreme to God
Again, I would ask that you provide some background for this kind of claim so that even if it were true, the whole context could be given.and God will bow down before him
Siddhartha didn’t know the Christian God as you know him. To him, all gods were not the eternal, all-powerful beings (which characteristics you apply to the Christian God)and seek from him instruction for his own liberation
Regardless of the mis-steps in getting to your final conclusion here, I believe (as you do), that the two systems of thought are incompatible.Totally incompatible with any Catholic Dogma.
Humans are typical humans - no matter what religion, social group or nation they belong to. They can be misguided and downright silly. That’s not the fault of the religion. Just as it’s not Christianity’s fault that a minority of Christians slander the name of Christ by their behavior.The term “Buddhism” is a very generic term. What do you mean, how do you define it? There is diverse usage in the Buddhist community - Tibetan Buddhists struggle to dialogue with Zen Buddhists who may use similar phraseology but with different meaning. (Dzogchen Tibetan Buddhism appears similar to Zen until one breaks the surface.)
I remember Vietnamese Zen Buddhists visiting the Tibetan Buddhist community wherein at the time I was resident…and attempting to convert us.
Pure Land Buddhism, which I settled into, is sometimes seen as a divergence from the Buddha’s true path of liberation as well. But, I don’t let that bother me. They have their path, I have mine. There are a hypothetical 84,000 dharma doors said to lead people to liberation that the Buddha taught us. Mine is but one, theirs is but another. Most Buddhists understand this principle. If they do not, or have forgotten it, it’s their fault, not the fault of the teacher.Some Buddhists refuse to recognize Tibetan Buddhism as a pure form of Buddhism, and vice versa. As Buddhism travelled it is said to have been coloured by, or absorbed or even corrupted by the environment in which it found itself.
With the Western Buddhist Order are we witnessing the emergence of Western Buddhism?
Kevin - thank you for your response. It is up to you if you wish to infer that as my meaning regarding intelligence. What I was intending to convey, not infer, is that we should not be ignorant in our understanding of other realities, even as we seek to hold steadfast to our own beliefs. And to use as a tool of deeper understanding. I agree that a Christian, and Catholic turn to Christ. I, personally, had to let go of my traditional understanding of “turning to Christ” and practice emptiness, so I could allow Christ to embrace me. Again, speaking from my own expereince, Buddhist philosophy has provided the tools to do this.Inferring if we do not seek answers outside the Catholic Faith we are not intelligent?
“Om mani padme hum” - you may seek answers in “the one dwelling in the heart of the lotus”. A Catholic turns to Christ.
It would be nice if you provided the context and passage for what you have written.
I, personally, had to let go of my traditional understanding of “turning to Christ” and practice emptiness, so I could allow Christ to embrace me. Again, speaking from my own expereince, Buddhist philosophy has provided the tools to do this.
I don’t know this, and I don’t see how anyone can, from a historical point of view. Intended by whom? The “historical Buddha” is a much mistier figure than the “historical Jesus,” and there are almost no statements one can make about the historical Jesus without a significant number of serious scholars disagreeing. Any statement about Buddhism based on what Siddhartha Gautama allegedly intended is going to be either wild speculation or sacred tradition.Buddhism, as you know, was not initially intended as a religion.
Of course, that doesn’t narrow it down. I’m looking for the actual text if you can provide it. That might help us with the discussion.The Prajnaparamita Sutra given on Vultures peak.
I’m afraid the two terms are irreconcilable. There is no “salvation” in Buddhism. Nowhere will you find that idea because it is not a Buddhist concept. Release, liberation and extinguishing of craving is a totally different animal from sin, guilt, judgment and punishment meted out by an external Creator.Salvation in terms of liberation from results of khamma.
Then you do not understand the planes of existence in Buddhism. gods will one day cease to become gods. Animals will one day cease to be animals. Humans will one day cease to be humans. It’s a revolving door of sorts. The gods are no better or worse than a hungry ghost. Both continue in the cycle of birth and death. It’s a hard concept for a monotheist to accept. I understand that.If the Gods turn to him, begging him for instruction, hierarchy is implicit.
The Buddha didn’t know your Christian God or should I say your conception of Him. He did not know of a single, all-powerful, eternal Creator such as you believe the Christian God to be.Then Buddha was not Enlightened in wisdom. Or else the Christian God as Jesus reveals Him is a myth, an illusion.
I will concede that we REALLY do not know the intent of Siddhartha’s teaching, as much was passed on orally. However it was shown that the religion of the day was lacking. The same arguement has been made for, and against Christianity; that is was a new religion, or evolving of Judaism. That being said, I think as a philosophy Buddhism has value; if one wishes to pursue as a religion that is their choice. I think understanding and wisdom is key. What matters is what one believes in their own heart. Who can judge the heart but the Divine. Thank you for your insight.Thanks for your kind words. I do question this statement:
I don’t know this, and I don’t see how anyone can, from a historical point of view. Intended by whom? The “historical Buddha” is a much mistier figure than the “historical Jesus,” and there are almost no statements one can make about the historical Jesus without a significant number of serious scholars disagreeing. Any statement about Buddhism based on what Siddhartha Gautama allegedly intended is going to be either wild speculation or sacred tradition.
Some scholars suggest that the “four noble truths” and other basic Buddhist teachings didn’t develop till centuries after Gautama. There’s really no certainty about the matter.
The earliest Buddhist texts we have, if I’m not mistaken, are rules governing the life of the sangha, the monastic community. The philosophical ideas are found in somewhat later texts, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they weren’t around earlier. But the evidence doesn’t particularly support the idea that Buddhism was originally a philosophy that developed religious trappings. It may originally have been a community of monks and nuns dedicated to the search for enlightenment, which eventually developed philosophical ideas about how enlightenment was found and attributed them to the legendary founder of the movement (though most people seem to accept that there was a historical Gautama who gave up a privileged lifestyle, tried various forms of asceticism, and eventually claimed to reach enlightenment and be able to teach others how to do so, founding a community as a result). We just don’t know. We have no way of knowing.
Edwin
Mystic Warrior - I believe my understanding of Buddhism, although in an infant stage, is similar to yours. I see the differences in the system but see value in both. I take as example the planes of existance; the realms. Exploring the ultimate truth of human nature helps a monotheist like myself realize why I create my own suffering in trying to know the unknowable. WHy so much effort, so much struggle? Acceptance of self leads to freedom to embrace the metaphysical, the ineffable.Of course, that doesn’t narrow it down. I’m looking for the actual text if you can provide it. That might help us with the discussion.
I’m afraid the two terms are irreconcilable. There is no “salvation” in Buddhism. Nowhere will you find that idea because it is not a Buddhist concept. Release, liberation and extinguishing of craving is a totally different animal from sin, guilt, judgment and punishment meted out by an external Creator.
Then you do not understand the planes of existence in Buddhism. gods will one day cease to become gods. Animals will one day cease to be animals. Humans will one day cease to be humans. It’s a revolving door of sorts. The gods are no better or worse than a hungry ghost. Both continue in the cycle of birth and death. It’s a hard concept for a monotheist to accept. I understand that.
The Buddha didn’t know your Christian God or should I say your conception of Him. He did not know of a single, all-powerful, eternal Creator such as you believe the Christian God to be.
Peace…
MW
There is tremendous value in both, my friend. I’ve been on both sides of the equation and tell you that both have beautiful elements. We do create our own suffering, however when others suffer, we also suffer. We are all a part of the cycle of birth and death. Look at Siddhartha’s first experience with death, old age and sickness. We all have family members who die, get old and become sick. That makes us suffer as well - until we realize the truths that Buddhism offers.Mystic Warrior - I believe my understanding of Buddhism, although in an infant stage, is similar to yours. I see the differences in the system but see value in both. I take as example the planes of existance; the realms. Exploring the ultimate truth of human nature helps a monotheist like myself realize why I create my own suffering in trying to know the unknowable. WHy so much effort, so much struggle? Acceptance of self leads to freedom to embrace the metaphysical, the ineffable.
Peace to you as well.
Whether or not we are brothers in faith, we are brothers in our hearts. In the midst of remaining faithful to God and the Church, you see the value in such people as His Holiness the Dalai Lama. I see value in Pope John Paul II. I have a great admiration and respect for who he was and what he believed. He was a true Catholic and lover of all things holy. You have been true to your heart and your mind. A rare find indeed!I’d like to add something to my earlier reply and modify something.
**
But the Church does not embrace any one particular philosophy as her own. She prefers to remain free and unencumbered to avail herself of truth wherever she finds it.
- A clarification:** I spoke of Christianity as having a philosophy. That’s not strictly true, though, it is true in a certain sense. There is a Christian way of “doing” philosophy. One can be a Christian philosopher, a philosopher who is also a Christian. And there is a papal encyclical entitled “On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy” (Aeterni Patris) by Pope Leo XIII. St. Augustine made use of Platonic philosophy when he made his great synthesis of theology and philosophy. St Thomas made use of Aristotelian philosophy in his synthesis, and Pope John Paul II used phenomenology in developing his marvelous Theology of the Body.
2) More about Buddhism: Buddhism looks for God and says it finds none, only beings who imagine themselves to be gods but who plummet back into samsara with the rest of us mortals as soon as they have “used up” their good karma. Buddhism looks for a soul and finds none, thus the teaching on anatta, “no soul” or more correctly, “no self”. It finds instead nothing. No thing. Hence the much misunderstood notion of the “void” which would perhaps be better translated as “no-thing-ness” than “nothingness”. It is the ground from which things can arise. It is full of possibility. Karma and reincarnation, while not the same as the New Age ideas, are other basic teachings of Buddhism.
But Christianity teaches that God creates each individual as a unique soul and a body, and that we are born physically once and die physically once, then the judgment. Hard to square these two religions with each other.
I’m not saying there isn’t much to be admired in Buddhism. I’ll always have a warm place in my heart for the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. Discovering Buddhism probably saved my life when I was jaded with Christianity and had given up ever understanding it. I still have much affection for the Dalai Lama and other teachers. But I was and am committed to seeking and adhering to the truth and I have to acknowledge that to claim to be both Buddhist and Christian at the same time is to practice deception, either on oneself or others or both. One is either Buddhist or Christian or one is neither. As a serious and committed Catholic, I can’t receive the Body and Blood of Christ and then slip out the back and practice the Dharma in the alley. I choose Christ and I cannot, will not, worship at some other altar, as if hedging my bet.
Of course, that doesn’t narrow it down. I’m looking for the actual text if you can provide it. That might help us with the discussion.