X
xTheFormlessOne
Guest
eastern philospophy ultimately believes in a static universe.
As of now…
This violoates
- Thermodynamics
- observations in astronomy such as red shifting
- General Relatitivity equations
- The Book of Genesis
- Status
As of now…
This violoates
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
D
dramaqueen
Guest
Dear Karl,
there is a part of me that completely agrees with you but the other part is …well surprised you asked that question. you sound disappointed but when you take into consideration that this is a conversation between a philosophy (Buddhism is not a religion- never was never will be) and a religion why the surprise? you have Buddhist saying Buddhism is great and Catholics telling Catholicism is great which is a completely natural progression of the discussion (by natural i mean human nature). think about it. Consensus can only be made that we will never disagree. we can learn from each other but we will always disagree. That’s a fact of life. No matter how you look at it. But here’s where I’m puzzled catholic person asking if you can be both? how can a true catholic even ask that question it seams absolutely absurd to me but then again Catholics are not exactly known for their knowledge or other religions/philosophies. If you are not sure about your religion or have many question find the answers to them. i say this because i firmly believe that there is areal danger for you salvation if you go out there searching the whole world for answers when in fact all you need to do is look into your own back yard. A lot of people don’t agree with this but I have seen it first hand (and i have been there myself but i always knew where i belong and where the Good Lord has called me to be). So don’t think of this discussion as competition between who’s right and who’s not Holy Spirit always finds a way for the right message to be send across instead i believe prayer is needed for all those who second guess their religion by searching for answers elsewhere. I hope this will brighten your spirits a bit and that you’ll take this along with everybody else out there as a great opportunity to learn more about people, Buddhism and most importantly Catholic Church
C
Contarini
Guest
What is your definition of “religion”? I keep asking this. People seem to think that it’s an odd question, and yet clearly people are using the word “religion” in conflicting and maybe deeply confused ways. It’s hard to tell, because no one wants to define it.
It seems to me that Buddhism is a religion by the most commonly used and most useful definitions. Lycorth linked to an online dictionary that gave about eight definitions, most of which do apply to Buddhism. (As I pointed out, many of those definitions also apply to things we wouldn’t normally call “religions.”) But I don’t think we should base theological points on whether something is a “religion” or not.
After saying that Buddhism is not a religion, you go on to say that Catholics shouldn’t need to look outside their own “back yard.” But in fact Catholics have always done this. We (I say “we” because I claim the pre-Reformation heritage as well) wouldn’t have the work of St. Thomas Aquinas–or that of most of the Church Fathers–without pagan Greco-Roman philosophy.
That’s one of the reasons I have fought against an automatic “no” answer to the OP’s question. It seems clear to me that Christians need to engage in the same careful process of sifting and discernment with regard to Eastern philosophy that early and medieval Christians engaged in (and modern Christians continue to revisit) with regard to Western pagan philosophy. Either automatic rejection or automatic acceptance short-circuits that process. Many Christians have articulated a blanket rejection of Western philosophy as well, but that rejection has never taken hold and is hard to maintain consistently.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes, He does. Even Aquinas thought this, although what he meant by this is simply that God bestowed being on everyone and everything that exists and has willed for all creatures to have some goods. Aquinas did not think that God wills for all people the good that is eternal life, but I and most modern Christians respectfully disagree with Aquinas on this point.
Love and justice are not in competition. God isn’t love some of the time and justice some of the time. God is eternally whatever He is, and in Him (as Aquinas taught) what we perceive as separate attributes are one eternal Essence.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Many Catholics disagree with you. You are speaking for a very particular–I am tempted to say sectarian–interpretation of Catholicism.
Of course you may say that the many Catholics who disagree with you aren’t really Catholics. Which would strengthen the case for describing you as a sectarian!
Edwin
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
Again, you can’t know much about the practices of Catholicism and all that if you’re not even Catholic! What makes you so sure that many Catholics dis-agree with me? Then again, you can’t be as certain as you think you are since you’re not even Catholic…
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
God doesn’t love everyone:
“He who said, ‘I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,’ loved Jacob of his undeserved grace, and hated Esau of his deserved judgement” (St Augustine, Enchiridion, xviii)
Ps. 5:5; 11:5; Lev. 20:23; Prov. 6:16-19; Hos. 9:15
God is Love He is also Justice.
“He who said, ‘I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,’ loved Jacob of his undeserved grace, and hated Esau of his deserved judgement” (St Augustine, Enchiridion, xviii)
Ps. 5:5; 11:5; Lev. 20:23; Prov. 6:16-19; Hos. 9:15
God is Love He is also Justice.
C
Contarini
Guest
Actually, I can. I understand that there’s an “insider” perspective that I lack (I was a candidate for admission to the Catholic Church for two months, and I have occasionally received the Eucharist illicitly, though I regret having done this and do not make a practice of it, and I’ve read a lot of Catholic theology and spirituality and have practiced most of the standard non-sacramental devotions at one point or another–but I recognize that none of this quite adds up to being a Catholic). But I can certainly know a lot about Catholicism without being Catholic. It’s odd that you would deny this. One can know a lot about anything if one takes the trouble to learn.
Not being Catholic does not prevent me from listening to what Catholics say, and from reading Catholic books. That’s how I know that many Catholics disagree with you. They say so. Not to mention the Catholic churches that I’ve seen advertising yoga or other Eastern practices. Shucks, one could learn about that just from this forum–from all the conservative Catholics who complain about it!
It doesn’t take much to figure out that your view is not representative of all Catholics–if it was, there wouldn’t be so many folks on this forum griping about how most Catholics aren’t “real” Catholics.
Edwin
D
dramaqueen
Guest
What is your definition of “religion”? I keep asking this. People seem to think that it’s an odd question, and yet clearly people are using the word “religion” in conflicting and maybe deeply confused ways. It’s hard to tell, because no one wants to define it.
Region implies Deity - God. Buddha is not God. Even cradle Buddhist do not like term religion as definition for Buddhism most i met anyway, besides they are always the ones correcting me in this and that should stand for something. Shouldn’t it??? Please bare in mind these are not Hollywood Buddhists these are people who have been brought up in Buddhist families through out generations (Nepal, China, Sri Lanka and Indonesia). So if you insist on Definition of Religion that i guess Religion is belief in Deity - God who created all things living (or just all things). If you had one single conversation with a Buddhist about this you would understand exactly what i mean. Philosophy on the other hand is a way of life and that is exactly what Buddhism is a way of life, there is no after life, no salvation, no God only here and now. I know these a very (if not extremely) simple terms to apply but they are a fact about Buddhism.
Contarini;6602979:
After saying that Buddhism is not a religion, you go on to say that Catholics shouldn’t need to look outside their own “back yard.” But in fact Catholics have always done this. We (I say “we” because I claim the pre-Reformation heritage as well) wouldn’t have the work of St. Thomas Aquinas–or that of most of the Church Fathers–without pagan Greco-Roman philosophy.
Interesting you should bring St. Thomas Aquinas a man strong in faith and devotion to Holy Trinity and Mother Mary. He dared to venture outside the realm of Catholic Church precisely because he was firm in his belief. He knew the truth and i do believe, being well read that he was, he simply combined the ancient with the modern (of his age). He saw God reviling himself since the beginning of time, it was humans who chose to misinterpret the truth and God intended it for chosen people anyway) he did not adapt any of the pagan philosophy. However, Greco - Roman philosophy lives even today. Who does not agree with Socrates - I know i know nothing or Descartes (a priest) I think therefore I am - but that is not a religion it’s philosophy. Being aware of something and knowing something (feeling it, seeing it even hearing it does not make a religion- religion requires conscious effort of believing). Can you see where I’m going with this? Strong faith is a predisposition for quest outside the Catholic Church but when you fail to even define religion i would strongly recommend dig deeper within yours first before you go defining something else - that’s where the danger lies.
Philosophy and Religion are not conflicting terms they are completely opposite. They are intertwining, sure, but Philosophy cannot be a religion or vise versa. Christianity also has a philosophers and philosophy(ies) but it’s underlying definition is that of a Religion.
God Bless and all the best in you discoveries.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
That is one way to define religion. It is not generally how scholars of the subject define it.
I know a lot of Christians who don’t want to admit Christianity is a “religion,” either. Again, it all depends on how you define it. I think the best approach is to take a very wide definition. The approach that you are taking–which your Buddhist friends appear to share–is to use Christianity and other Western monotheistic religions as the base for the definition of “religion.”
Not knowing your Buddhist friends, I can’t be sure why they take this approach, but my guess would be that they don’t want you to assume that their tradition has the same basic assumptions and claims as Christianity. They may be concerned with the kind of knee-jerk hostility demonstrated by many folks on this thread–the automatic classification of statues of Buddha as “idols,” for instance.
It may be that the entire modern scholarly enterprise of describing and classifying specific members of a broad genus called “religion” existing all over the world was misguided from the start. But what you need to be clear on is that you are in fact rejecting that entire enterprise when you say “Buddhism isn’t a religion.” You are basically saying that unless you are a monotheist (at least in the modified sense in which many Hindus are monotheists) you don’t have a religion.
That would exclude Buddhism, but it would also exclude ancient polytheistic traditions, Chinese religions, etc. You are essentially saying that unless you are some kind of monotheist you don’t have a religion. (I say “some kind of” because of course Hindus recognize all kinds of gods who are manifestations of or emanations of Brahman.)
There’s a doctrine of rebirth. There’s a whole complex system of heavens and hells and various other worlds into which one can be reborn. So I’m not sure what you are talking about here.
Not in the Christian sense. But there is certainly a human predicament (extending beyond the frontiers of this life, contrary to what you say) from which we need deliverance. In that sense there definitely is a doctrine of salvation.
It is precisely because I have “dug deeper” that I question shallow definitions of religion.
Religion scholars generally are very cautious about defining religion. Indeed, some would say that the entire discipline is in crisis right now, because the old (19th and earlier 20th century) assumption that there is a generic thing called “religion” of which particular religions are instances has come under a lot of scrutiny.
For more on this, you might read this article by Paul Griffiths, a Catholic theologian who is also an expert on Buddhism.
Aren’t you contradicting yourself? How can things that are “completely opposite” be “intertwining”?
Since you define religion as belief in a Creator God, it would follow that philosophy has nothing to do with such belief. St. Thomas Aquinas would be very surprised to hear this, unless by “belief” you mean specifically what Aquinas calls “faith”–that is to say, a belief that cannot be fully proved by reason. But this raises problems, since as Aquinas points out something that is held by one person as a matter of faith may be held by another as a matter of reason (such as the existence of God, or God’s creation of the world–though not, Aquinas thinks, the temporal beginning of the world). So for Aquinas philosophy and theology (he would use “religio” for a way of life or form of worship, not a set of beliefs) have overlapping subject matter but different methodologies. Maybe that’s what you mean by your “completely opposite but intertwining” statement.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I and many other Christians (including most of your fellow Catholics) disagree with St. Augustine on this point.
Scripture certainly does speak of God “hating” the wicked. The consensus of the Christian tradition is that this is not to be taken literally but refers to God’s rejection of their wickedness. Ironically, your friend St. Augustine paved the way here, arguing that when the Psalms speak of God “destroying” the wicked they often mean that God converts them so that they cease to be wicked.
Indeed. And God is both of these things inseparably–I agree with Aquinas that God’s attributes are one single indivisible Essence and that the distinction between them exists only in our minds.
You persistently assume (without arguing for) that “love” and “justice” are somehow mutually incompatible.
If “love” and “justice” are really two different things, then I think the approach of the Talmud is much preferable to that of Christianity. The Holy One, Blessed be He, prays to Himself that His mercy will overcome His justice. When the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits down in the throne of justice, He sees that if He judges the world by strict justice He will have to destroy it, so He arises from the throne of justice to sit in the throne of mercy.
If Christianity is an improvement on this, it is because Christianity rolls love and justice into one and points to Jesus as the point where the union of the two is demonstrated. If the Incarnation and Atonement are just the means by which God shows mercy to some people while reserving “justice” for others, then they are pointless doctrines and we should all convert to Judaism.
Edwin
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
We actually agree on something!
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Letter last night from my spiritual director - he also thinks God loves everyone!
In precis, objectively God loves everyone but subjectively it depends upon our free will, our accepting or rejecting of that love. Seems (collectively) we are all right. Does God send people to Hell? No, our free will does that. Perhaps this the pain of the Crucifixion.
In precis, objectively God loves everyone but subjectively it depends upon our free will, our accepting or rejecting of that love. Seems (collectively) we are all right. Does God send people to Hell? No, our free will does that. Perhaps this the pain of the Crucifixion.
K
KarlJ2112
Guest
My original point is that there is alot of argumentation going on here that is nothing more than simple one-up’s manship in quoting Aquinas, the Catechism or some such other official text. Which of course is a fine application of Greek logic that came to us from the Pagans at the time of Christ. Interestingly enough some early Church people questioned the use of this pagan way of thinking when it came to religious matters but then everyone recognize that logic is part of the natural law that God wrote into the heart of Man according to the catechism. (CCC 1954)
Accordingly if we examine Buddhism it began with an honest attempt to understand suffering and to compensate for it. Second it offers a practical non-religious way to discipline ones-self and overcome things such as selfishness and other things we refer to as sinful. Since it is a creation of Man it is imperfect but it is a valid starting point. The people of the east who followed these teachings were in fact partially prepared to receive the gospel but due to an ineffective approach, cultural differences, and poor translations the efforts to convert the east has been very slow. One might add that we didn’t do so hot in Europe either but that’s another story.
To bew succesful we should return to the Master… Chirst. He became a man and came among us teaching us slowing and just enough allowing us a lifetime to learn it and allowing the Church to develop through time. "He didn’t show up with the bible and the Cathechism and say here you go theres a test next week.
To actually address the original question I would say that Buddha’s original teaching are simply a philosophy that is analogous to early monasticism. For whatever reason the Buddhists did not get a transmission of the gospel that they understood, The Jesuits made some progress during the Renaissance but they got recalled. What’s difficult is learning to separate God’s Truth from Cultural trappings, Big T from little t tradition basically. That’s because by the Time the Jesuits preached the Eastern religions had taken there early philosophies and added a bunch of religious trappings that are external to the fundamental philosophies. I’d much rather see a Buddha statue in a home than some of the other things I’ve seen in Catholic homes like the ever present sports team ****. Sports teams, Movie stars and rock stars are more like idols than Buddha. Buddha represents philosophically, someone searching for the Truth. In that sense I’d rank Buddha with an early prophet worthy of respect which is typically what he receives but it varies among all the Buddhist sects. Mostly the statue issue is irrelevant.
On the other hand many modern people have more in common with other culture that they due with The Judeo-Christian traditions (little t) and so if you interact with them you need to understand where they are so you can provide useful information. It’s a touchy subject. How would you explain the Eucharist to a hunter gatherer society that did’nt know how to bake bread and ferment grapes? A big problem when converting Native American Indians still probably is but that’s way off topic.
I used to write on these types of forums years ago but I quit because I became more interested in thumping my opponent that discussing things. I’m here today mostly to see whats going on and I came upon this discussion which hits close to home as a long time martial arts practitioner. Despite years of reading and understanding eastern religion and philosophy my faith is solid. I have been an adult catechist for over a decade and I have over 300 texts on the Bible, theology, Catholic history etc. And find it very tempting to lapse back into the finely honed arguments flowing through these forums but I look back to when my friend Jay wanted to join the Church. He knew I was familiar with Eastern Culture and as a Buddhist he told me he was tired of being lectured to by well meaning Catholics. We worked together and I learned as much about my faith as he did about his.
The story I made up is a combination of a story used in a Buddhist Monastery, My story with Jay and the Stories about Apostles arguing in the New Testament. I write too much.
D
Disciple96
Guest
I feel very real and warm affection for His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama. When I was still Buddhist, I felt very real and warm affection for Pope John Paul II (I’ve been studying his writings for a few years, currently reading Love & Responsibility, wow!). When I was going through the “conversion” process (really, when does it cease? We are all in need of turning back to God at every moment!), I had to translate all Catholic Christian terms into Buddhist and yoga terms. I finally thought my head would explode. After a few years, I finally started hearing Catholicism on its own terms. And I finally felt like I was beginning to begin to begin to begin understanding what it meant to be beginning to begin to be a disciple of Christ. Thank the Lord!
I gradually was able to turn loose of the Buddha. But I have not forgotten him. I have not come to see him as an enemy. I see my time spent with the Buddhadharma as time spent preparing my heart and mind to receive the Gospel, to which I was not receptive before. Buddhism gave me new eyes and new ears. I will always be grateful for those years.
Peace be to you, MysticWarrior. I am pleased to think of you as my brother.
I’d be your sister, by the way. 
To those who think we should remain closed to the truth and wisdom to be found in other religions: Dialogue between philosophies/religions such as Buddhism and Catholicism can be fruitful. It is encouraged by the Church. The Dalai Lama himself is a child of God and so loved by God. St. Paul spoke to people of different cultures and religions and he spoke to them on their terms. The Gospel is open to, and for, all. And all truth, all wisdom, wherever it is found, is acknowledged as truth and wisdom by the Church. And how else should it be? Since God, the Creator of the Universe, is the source of all truth, all wisdom and all that is good.
Peace be to you all.
J
jjjhens
Guest
For further reading on this topic, as to nuts and bolts regarding similarities/differences, I suggest reading “Benedict’s Dharma: Buddhist’s Reflect On The Rule Of St. Benedict”. It features a nice modern translation of the Rule of St. Benedict too.
FYI, this book was an outgrowth of a gathering of Benedictine & Buddhist monks at Gethsemani Abbey back in 1996 (Thomas Merton’s monastery). Both traditions see value in learning about the other, which I think can only be a good thing if one hopes for religion to unite rather than divide. I would hazard to guess that Thomas Merton would likely concur.
FYI, this book was an outgrowth of a gathering of Benedictine & Buddhist monks at Gethsemani Abbey back in 1996 (Thomas Merton’s monastery). Both traditions see value in learning about the other, which I think can only be a good thing if one hopes for religion to unite rather than divide. I would hazard to guess that Thomas Merton would likely concur.
D
dramaqueen
Guest
Dear Edwin,
Mu apologies for not being intellectual enough in answering your quires. perhaps it was a bit too bold on my side to even attempt at such a this and i know that I know nothing (hence the Socrates quotation). I merely know what i have experienced and seen and i draw my conclusion form that (plus few books). I have million burning question about Catholic Church and the World but i have simply come to terms with the fact that some questions will never get answered because they are not meant to be answered or understood. A devout apologist once told me some questions will be answered only in heaven when we meet our Heavenly Father and when you think about it, I mean really think about it it makes perfect sense. Our mission on earth is not to get answers anyway. As far as Buddhism and Philosophy well maybe not being a native speaker or English i cannot find the right words that explain my thoughts exactly the way i want them to i simply wanted to say that Philosophy unto itself is not a Religion, religions movement has philosophy embedded into it (explaining it or whatever you want to call it) but it cannot be a religion. i might not make much sense to an well read intellectual such as yourself but that’s what i have come to know and i don’t think i am that off the charts either regardless of what Aquinas would say.
God bless you Edwin
A
anthonyjb
Guest
Based on mystical experiences the Lord has permitted me- and yes, Jesus acts in us everyday folk in extraordinary ways as much as he does with monks- I would say that while the many descriptions and words of Buddhist “satori” or enlightenment are realistic, the ultimate end is our need for a savior. The mystical experiences of Zen Buddhism require a certain high degree of interior tuition, and sensory-based God-illumination to open up the spirit. St. John of the Cross describes our natural connection to God that comes from an infusion of the Holy Spirit through the natural senses. This is why nostalgia is so important to people. They are recovering some “light” that was infused in the past through sensory memory. But the very fact that the "Dark Night of the Soul " exists, as if the soul is undermined by every other possibility of recovering light and life except through the Savior, Jesus Christ, proves to the soul that the sensory realm of mysticism is only a beginning, or temporary.
- The “nothingness” of Buddhism is as follows: Due to a combination of deep intuition (one ancient Zen Master stated that enlightenment could not occur without this higher intuition), and a sudden distraction away from one’s inward attention, a person’s attention is further turned outward as in a chain reaction. If the soul goes deeper into this very natural state, further turned outward from the illusion of self as separate from the rest of the world (our child-like nature of perceiving) , neurotic tension is annihilated. In fact, Zen Buddhism contends that any mental formation is the product of interior tension produced by the rational mind. That is to say, there is tension in the body and mind when it perceives or generates a perception of separateness from the very thoughts and perceptions it generates. And that is the normal “neurotic” state of affairs we humans are in. In otherwords, adults are generally neurotic. This is true by virtue of the fact that we do not perceive as we should, free from preconceived notions that paint over what we look at, free of the rational or duplicity . But I would like to assert that the discriminating, rational, Western mind, which suppresses this higher intuition, is a kind of God given tool that allows manipulation and understanding of the natural world for purposes of survival in a material existence. This may be at the expense of the spiritual experience, but that is part of our exile here on earth. In our exile, God gives us the intellect to improve our lives. Unfortunately, that tool is often misused.
If studies of the brain were taken of children and Zen Masters, no doubt their brain patterns would look similar.
Immersion in the arts, and concentration on certain skills can help restore some of that wholeness. But that is not to be confused with the actual satori experience. So, with most of us, even those who have experienced a true satori (many will claim to have had this experience, but the outcome is not a simple matter of going back to one’s old self). As much as one is open’s up to the “eternal” , it is also a rupturing of one’s entire being, and sense of locality if one falls back from satori). In my personal experience, my clinging to Jesus Christ after the fall from satori was the only way to survive. - The Lord allowed me to fall from this delight (satori really is an experience of the Holy Spirit because it is all that God is- peace, light, life, love, etc)to show me my “Terrible nothingness”. There are many “nothingnesses”, one of which is the blissful return to the “Original Nature”, or non-neurotic/God’s-light-through-the-Senses sort of perception. It is presumed that all Zen Masters achieve this wonderful state of being. It is natural, and good, but doesn’t answer to all of the “nothingnesses”. I was permitted to fall hard, and far from the spiritual well-being that I knew for one purpose. To actually perceive my spiritual growth in Jesus Christ and perceive the hidden nearness to Christ that a sacramental life along with suffering and normal everyday existence leads to. After a devotion through the rosary and a Divine Mercy novena, I was making the bed with my wife, thinking that this was a wonderful, humble little task. I actually heard a voice say “say yes to Jesus”. I said my little yes inside, and then suddenly my little yes became this great epic Yes to Jesus interiorly. In a flash I was healed of a certain debilitating state that was a year long. I had been so spiritually stricken for a year that I could barely get out of a chair. But the big Yes flashed through my being, not only healing me, but also teaching me. I sensed the presence of Jesus Christ in that illumination. And the illumination was much purer and holier. That is to say, I had been purified greatly.
- Status