Catholics, Christians, Muslims, whatever you are -- How Do You View Buddhism?

[AJTheMan]

I have read and have a copy of the Buddhist bible (lotus sutra)

The Lotus Sutra is not the Buddhist “Bible.”

and I don’t recall every reading anything about satan in particular. One thing I will say, having lived in Japan for eight years and back in Japan again, the many beliefs in different types of gods and some of the beliefs of the different mythological creatures (Kapa, Oni, different obake), is that most of these creatures are mischivous by nature and are in most cases trying to deceive or frighten man (sounds very much like satan and his fallen angels to me). What is also funny is the Oni, in Japanese mythology, are credited to showing the Japanese people how to make weapons and conduct war (evil showing men how to do evil, my opinion).

This is Japanese Mythology and is not native to Buddhism. This happens in a lot of countries, including in Theravada countries, the citizenry mixes the Buddhist practices with beliefs in local customs and deities.

The rest of your post pretty much deals with only Christianity. This is supposed to be a “Buddhist” thread, not a “Christianity in the East” thread. You guys, Ronin and Tsuwano, should finish the conversation in Private Messaging instead of derailing my thread.

Namo Tassa.

 

[Contarini]

The devil uses many truths to maintain his lies.

John 8:44 ESV
44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Exactly. Scripture rebukes your blasphemy. Satan *has nothing to do with the truth. *That contradicts what you are saying.

What the devil did in the book referenced by the buddhist is take a teaching of the Lord and claim it as his own. That is vile because it is a ploy to get undeserved glory from man, glory that should go to God alone.

Who is trying to get glory here? Satan? Buddhists aren’t giving glory to Satan. Buddha? Well, maybe, but who knows if Buddha actually said this, and all the indications we have are the Buddha didn’t care about getting glory for himself personally but just cared that people follow his teachings and find freedom from suffering.

Nothing in the text as cited supports your interpretation. You are simply asserting this on the basis of your own heretical theological assumptions.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

What a puny God you follow. His saving power is limited by the speed at which Christian missionaries could sail across the world.

DD2007 is a Calvinist. So that’s not how it works for Him. His God ordains who will be saved and then sovereignly ensures that missionaries will get to those who have been predestined for salvation (or perhaps, if he’s very generous, he thinks that God might sometimes arrange for people to hear the Gospel through some miraculous means). This is a pretty horrific teaching, but it’s not subject to the "puny God’ criticism, in my opinion.
Do you actually think about this stuff before you post it? Even a little thought will tell you that the Tanakh is from God as well. That is two books that are from God.

Not by the Christian reckoning. The “Bible” includes both the Tanakh and the New Testament.

Edwin

 

[PJM]

=AJTheMan;5637251]I was wondering the Catholic take on Buddhism. What do you guys think of it?

Edit: Yay! 100 posts! I honestly didn’t think I’d last long here. You guys have been very hospitable. Thanks for it. :egyptian:

Budist like non christian Eastern sects are focused on “SELF” no god, NO GOD! Therefore they are not really a religion at all.

Besides Jesus could never look like Buda, cause He gave away alot more bread than He ate:thumbsup:

 

[ronin67]

Budist like non christian Eastern sects are focused on “SELF” no god, NO GOD! Therefore they are not really a religion at all.

Besides Jesus could never look like Buda, cause He gave away alot more bread than He ate:thumbsup:

It does have alot to do with better ones self. It also stresses helping others, however I will agree that Buddhism to me is more of a philosophy then a way to salvation (my opinion). I agree with the above post (I stand corrected), the Lotus Sutra is not the Buddhist bible, it is a book of how to stop your own suffering as a human being and many good stories. It is a persons guide to living like one should be living anyway (being good in behavior and to your fellow human beings). Nothing in the Lotus Sutra shows us a direct route to nirvana or guarentees it. A very interesting read never the less.

Take Care and May God Bless!

Ed

 

[AJTheMan]

Budist like non christian Eastern sects are focused on “SELF” no god, NO GOD! Therefore they are not really a religion at all.

Besides Jesus could never look like Buda, cause He gave away alot more bread than He ate:thumbsup:

Buddhism is a religion in that some of it is devotion, some of it is faith, and some of it is self help. Self-help philosophies usually don’t include faith and devotion. Buddhism is a religion, no doubt. At the core of Buddhism is the belief that the Buddha and his Dhamma lets us end the cycle of Rebirth. Doesn’t sound very secular to me.

And I don’t understand your second point. The Buddha was really quite thin, mandating that he and his followers only eat as much so that they can keep living.

 

[AJTheMan]

It does have alot to do with better ones self. It also stresses helping others, however I will agree that Buddhism to me is more of a philosophy then a way to salvation (my opinion). I agree with the above post (I stand corrected), the Lotus Sutra is not the Buddhist bible, it is a book of how to stop your own suffering as a human being and many good stories. It is a persons guide to living like one should be living anyway (being good in behavior and to your fellow human beings). Nothing in the Lotus Sutra shows us a direct route to nirvana or guarentees it. A very interesting read never the less.

Take Care and May God Bless!

Ed

Theravada use the Pali Canon, which was recited by Buddha’s apostles every day after the death of Buddha until they could write his sayings down. They still chant his parables every day…because the Sangha (Monks) are the Dhamma(Truth) keepers.

Mahayana use many scriptures that have arose over the years after the time of Buddha’s death. I don’t know much about Mahayana Scriptures. I bet that Rossum could tell you though.

 

[rossum]

Budist like non christian Eastern sects are focused on “SELF”

Hardly.“All the elements of reality are without self.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

Dhammapada 20:7

Besides Jesus could never look like Buda, cause He gave away alot more bread than He ate:thumbsup:

Read the Vimalakirtinirdesa sutra. In Chapter Ten, the Bodhisattva Vimalakirti feeds 80,000 people from a single bowl of rice.

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

rossum

 

[ronin67]

Hardly.“All the elements of reality are without self.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

Dhammapada 20:7

Read the Vimalakirtinirdesa sutra. In Chapter Ten, the Bodhisattva Vimalakirti feeds 80,000 people from a single bowl of rice.

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

rossum

Interesting, did he (Bodhisattva Vimalakirti) write this account himself or did others witness and write the account you are talking about? If the event was witnessed, who witnessed it? Just a question.

Take care and May Christ be with you.

Ed

 

[rossum]

Interesting, did he (Bodhisattva Vimalakirti) write this account himself or did others witness and write the account you are talking about? If the event was witnessed, who witnessed it? Just a question.

Vimalakirti did not write it. Various of the Buddha’s followers were present:Thus, eight thousand bodhisattvas, five hundred disciples, a great number of Sakras, Brahmas, Lokapalas, and many hundreds of thousands of gods and goddesses, all followed the Bodhisattva Manjusri to listen to the Dharma [at Vimalakirti’s house].

• VKN, Chapter Five
  That of course does not count the 80,000 inhabitants of the city of Vaisali who were fed and who also witnessed the event.

All Buddhist scriptures, with a few known exceptions such as the sutra of Hui-Neng, were recited at the First Council immediately after the Buddha’s death. Many of the witnesses to the events of the Buddha’s life were still alive.

Initially scriptures were recited, not written. Theravada scriptures still preserve the oral form, with many repetitions and stereotyped formulae. Mahayana scriptures have been adapted more to the written form, but go back to an original contemporary with the originals of the Theravada. All themes emphasised in the Mahayana are present, though perhaps less heavily emphasised, in the Theravada.

rossum

 

[ronin67]

Vimalakirti did not write it. Various of the Buddha’s followers were present:Thus, eight thousand bodhisattvas, five hundred disciples, a great number of Sakras, Brahmas, Lokapalas, and many hundreds of thousands of gods and goddesses, all followed the Bodhisattva Manjusri to listen to the Dharma [at Vimalakirti’s house].

• VKN, Chapter Five
  That of course does not count the 80,000 inhabitants of the city of Vaisali who were fed and who also witnessed the event.

All Buddhist scriptures, with a few known exceptions such as the sutra of Hui-Neng, were recited at the First Council immediately after the Buddha’s death. Many of the witnesses to the events of the Buddha’s life were still alive.

Initially scriptures were recited, not written. Theravada scriptures still preserve the oral form, with many repetitions and stereotyped formulae. Mahayana scriptures have been adapted more to the written form, but go back to an original contemporary with the originals of the Theravada. All themes emphasised in the Mahayana are present, though perhaps less heavily emphasised, in the Theravada.

rossum

Thank you sir. Any specific names? Example for Christ, two of the original disciples contributed two books of the four gospels (Matthew and John). Luke (the devine physician) compiled eye witness accounts from those who witnessed and experienced the miracles of Jesus in person. Peter (another original disciple/the rock which Christ identified that he would build his church on), contributed several book to the New Testament. Any specifics like the New Testament of the Holy Bible?

Take Care and May God Bless!

Ed

 

[rossum]

Thank you sir. Any specific names?

In theory Ananda, the Buddha’s cousin and attendant recited all the sutras at the First Council. I suspect that in practice it was more of a collective effort between the assembled monks, Ananda included.

After the First Council Buddhism split into different schools which started to write down their scriptures about 100 BCE, 400 years after the Buddha died. The earliest written versions of both the Theravada and Mahayana sutras date from this time. We have partial canons from about four of the eighteen schools, fragments from a few others and a complete canon from the Theravada. Mahayana sutras exist in Tibetan and Chinese translations with a few surviving in Sanskrit in Nepal and in various archaeological sites along the Silk Road.

Nearly all sutras are anonymous. The only exceptions are a few later additions to the canon that have named authors. Buddhist scripture has many layers, as does the Bible. Some parts are later than other parts in written form. Dating is much complicated by the tradition of remembering texts rather than writing them down. Much of what appears to be newly written may just be a shift from esoteric (remembered and not written) to exoteric (written down).

Even today there are still esoteric traditions in Tibetan and Japanese (Shingon) Buddhism where oral transmission from an initiated master is essential.

rossum

 

[ronin67]

In theory Ananda, the Buddha’s cousin and attendant recited all the sutras at the First Council. I suspect that in practice it was more of a collective effort between the assembled monks, Ananda included.

After the First Council Buddhism split into different schools which started to write down their scriptures about 100 BCE, 400 years after the Buddha died. The earliest written versions of both the Theravada and Mahayana sutras date from this time. We have partial canons from about four of the eighteen schools, fragments from a few others and a complete canon from the Theravada. Mahayana sutras exist in Tibetan and Chinese translations with a few surviving in Sanskrit in Nepal and in various archaeological sites along the Silk Road.

Nearly all sutras are anonymous. The only exceptions are a few later additions to the canon that have named authors. Buddhist scripture has many layers, as does the Bible. Some parts are later than other parts in written form. Dating is much complicated by the tradition of remembering texts rather than writing them down. Much of what appears to be newly written may just be a shift from esoteric (remembered and not written) to exoteric (written down).

Even today there are still esoteric traditions in Tibetan and Japanese (Shingon) Buddhism where oral transmission from an initiated master is essential.

rossum

Thank you for the explaining sir. Again, I use to read the Lotus Sutra quite a bit when I considered myself a Buddhist (1990-2000). The thing that really bothered me were the lack of witness evidence. Being a retired COP, evidence can make or break anything. I just could find enough of this in Buddhism to accept it as a devine truth that guaranteed passage to heaven. The big kicker for me that brought me back to Christ was the miricle of the resurrection. Seen by his disciples, the woman that followed him and 500 more witnesses, for 40 days after his resurrection. That is a tough one to beat. Again, looking at it from another perspective. If the resurrection of Christ Jesus never occurred, as promised to his disciples, do you really believe they would have given up their life to preach this lie and be martyed in the process for this lie??? Just a thought from me.

Take Care and May God Bless!

Ed

 

[Tsuwano]

The Lotus Sutra is not the Buddhist “Bible.”

This is Japanese Mythology and is not native to Buddhism. This happens in a lot of countries, including in Theravada countries, the citizenry mixes the Buddhist practices with beliefs in local customs and deities.

The rest of your post pretty much deals with only Christianity. This is supposed to be a “Buddhist” thread, not a “Christianity in the East” thread. You guys, Ronin and Tsuwano, should finish the conversation in Private Messaging instead of derailing my thread.

Namo Tassa.

Sorry about that. I didn’t mean to hijack the thread. Just got carried away a bit. I’ll stick to thoughts about Buddhism from now on.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

How do I view Buddhism…

Ehh… giant bead necklaces and fighting monks? >>;;;
Okay, I’m making an idiot out of myself aren’t I? ><ll

Oh well, what can I say? The most I’ve seen of Buddhism come from movies and cartoons.

One thing’s for sure though, there sure are different kinds depending on the country that it’s confusing. :ehh:

 

[Dhamma81]

If you guys want a fantastic introduction to Theravada Buddhism then I suggest "In The Buddha’s Words, by Bhikkhu Bodi. It is well worth the read.

rossum-

I applaud you for your support of us Buddhists but I’m a little disturbed by your quote of "the only truth is there is no truth…this is just nihilism and not at all Buddhism. This is not a harsh judgement, just an observation from a fellow Buddhist. The only reason the law of kamma works is because the universe we live in is a moral one, and if there is no truth then morality is all relative. This is an issue all of us who profess any religion ought to be aware of because modern secular society is at it’s heart nihilistic.

With metta,
Justin

 

[AJTheMan]

If you guys want a fantastic introduction to Theravada Buddhism then I suggest "In The Buddha’s Words, by Bhikkhu Bodi. It is well worth the read.

rossum-

I applaud you for your support of us Buddhists but I’m a little disturbed by your quote of "the only truth is there is no truth…this is just nihilism and not at all Buddhism. This is not a harsh judgement, just an observation from a fellow Buddhist. The only reason the law of kamma works is because the universe we live in is a moral one, and if there is no truth then morality is all relative. This is an issue all of us who profess any religion ought to be aware of because modern secular society is at it’s heart nihilistic.

With metta,
Justin

Well, Rossum is Zen, I think. You might not know but in the Zen tradition, contradictions are popular in their koans.

Namaste.

 

[AJTheMan]

Sorry about that. I didn’t mean to hijack the thread. Just got carried away a bit. I’ll stick to thoughts about Buddhism from now on.

It’s fine. Everything is fine in moderation, even a bit of Christianity but you guys were starting to dominate the thread. It’s all good though. I love you no less for it.

How do I view Buddhism…

Ehh… giant bead necklaces and fighting monks? >>;;;
Okay, I’m making an idiot out of myself aren’t I? ><ll

Oh well, what can I say? The most I’ve seen of Buddhism come from movies and cartoons.

One thing’s for sure though, there sure are different kinds depending on the country that it’s confusing. :ehh:

Ha, no, surprisingly, Buddhism is really misunderstood in American Culture. It’s all right that it’s foreign to you.

To your last point, you’re pretty much right. Buddhism has many different Schools. You know, like Catholicism, Methodism, Lutheranism? Well we have Theravada, Mahayana, Tibetan, Zen(Cha’n) and many others.

Some countries are mostly Theravada, others mostly Zen and others mostly Tibetan.

 

[rossum]

Well, Rossum is Zen, I think. You might not know but in the Zen tradition, contradictions are popular in their koans.

I am Mahayana. My theory is Madhyamika, my practice is mostly Theravada with a little Tibetan thrown in. I am closer to Soto Zen than to Rinzai Zen so I do not use Koans.

See my response to Dhamma81 for details of my sig.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I applaud you for your support of us Buddhists but I’m a little disturbed by your quote of "the only truth is there is no truth…this is just nihilism and not at all Buddhism. This is not a harsh judgement, just an observation from a fellow Buddhist. The only reason the law of kamma works is because the universe we live in is a moral one, and if there is no truth then morality is all relative. This is an issue all of us who profess any religion ought to be aware of because modern secular society is at it’s heart nihilistic.

I am not saying that there is no truth. I am saying that “ultimate truth” is as illusory as ultimate anything. There is no ultimate, there is only here and now.Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana.
Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara.

Whatever is the end of Nirvana, that is the end of Samsara.
There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.

• Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 25:19-20
  If we try to look for a hidden “ultimate reality” (nirvana) below the ordinary world (samsara) then we are wasting our time. The Buddha attained enlightenment, and nirvana, at age 35. He lived in the same ordinary world that we do. He got rained on, felt hungry, got ill and died just as we all do. At the same time he was in nirvana. We are not looking for something apart, what we are looking for is here and now. How can it be anywhere else? - we can only ever be here and it can only ever be now.The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.
andThere is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

• Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought

I have also noticed that my sig is good for starting philosophical discussions.

rossum