Christianity / Buddhism (personal crisis)

[Future_Prodigy]

I am very intriqued by Eastern doctorines of belief and drawn to them most of time as they are very pragmatic in nature in eradicating the suffering of the mind. I am overjoyed with the notion of being able to achieve a state of peace and tranquility in ones mind. Now before someone says anythign I know Chrisitanity centering prayer nad the East has the Jesus Prayer (which is always warned against using unless properally trained) but they just do not have that kind of practical equivalency to that of eastern meditation.

I have read so many articles by priests and nuns that practice zazen, vipassana or other eastern meditations and have actually said this is what Christianity teachs to. This boggles my mind though, the buddha dharma (buddhism) teaches anatman, or no self (i.e. going against the christian belief in the important of our bodies, soul and seems to go against any catholic eschatological doctrine). I am puzzled as to how any self respecting christian affiliate themselves with a system of belief whose number one tenet is anatman and egolessness. Christianity teaches the exact opposite, we have a soul! I am not even touching on the issue the issue of samsara (cycle of rebirths or reincarnation) either! I do understand prateyasumutpada, and i aggree with it but **i am struggling with anatman at the moment and how it can relate to a christian belief/practice. **

As I have stated I am very drawn to Buddhism (specifically zen) for its practical solution to attaining true peace and happiness and allowing one to live a ‘real life,’ not a superficial materialst life liek most of us do. Please don’t tell me to pray, etc… i have enough issues with prayer and I don’t feel the presence of God in prayer, I never get this warm feeling others talk about and this is preciosuly why i am drawn to Zen… I can make a change and attain results… i can become conscious and aware and to live a life in a way that causes no harm to myself, other living beings, and to by practicign meditation alleviate suffering. Basically im sick of repeatin creeds and set prayers… im more drawn to the mystical contemplative side of things… i dont want to know about st john of the cross’ mystical exp but want to feel the Divine liek he did. I want to feel at true peace… traditional orthodox chrisitanity just is not filling that spirtual void. SO the above question i ask out of sincere spirtual journeying…i would like to keep my christian beleifs if possible but pursue some eastern ways of things.

 

[Gnosis]

It might not be neccessary to subscribe to the philosophy of no-self in order to reap the rich benefits of a meditative life. The Bible says we are created in the image of God, to a mystic like me this is a real profound hint as to the nature of the soul. Meditation can be a practice for enhancing awareness - opening ourselves up and becoming increasingly aware of our conectedness through the Spirit of God. Through meditation we can begin to explore the real “size” of our soul, so to speak.

The simple practice of observing breath can recall the moment that the body was infused with the breath of divine life, we can use awarness of the breath to bring attention to that divine flow in our bodies that pours out of God in his desire to create.

And of course, we can sit in silence and simply allow ourselves to be. Whether you ascribe to the totality of Buddhist philosophy or not, it remains true that our conceptions of life, so often driven by egoistic desires, contribute significantly to suffering. Meditation is a way to touch the point of the soul where benevolence and compassion flows, a way in which we can analyze and consider how we might handle situations differently, what adjustments in our person we need to make to lessen our burdens.

Silent meditation can also be a form of prayer. It is certainly true that God remains forever beyond language. Sometimes silence is the most effective form of praying.

 

[KarenNC]

.i would like to keep my christian beleifs if possible but pursue some eastern ways of things.

First, realize that I am neither Christian nor Buddhist, but I do not advise that anyone leave the faith of their family and heritage lightly or without exploring all possibilities within it, as you are doing. Kudos for that. There is usually a much wider continuum of practice within a faith than the vast majority of folks realize unless they specifically go looking for it.

Here are a few links that may provide some additional food for thought or dialogue with folks who are going along a similar path

frimmin.com/faith/lotuscross.html
emptybell.org/
geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/6198/christianbuddhist.html
zcoc.org/chstzen.htm

You may also want to investigate some of the different strands of Christian mysticism–Thomas Merton, for instance.

Good luck on your journey.

 

[rossum]

I am very intriqued by Eastern doctorines of belief and drawn to them most of time as they are very pragmatic in nature in eradicating the suffering of the mind. I am overjoyed with the notion of being able to achieve a state of peace and tranquility in ones mind. Now before someone says anythign I know Chrisitanity centering prayer nad the East has the Jesus Prayer (which is always warned against using unless properally trained) but they just do not have that kind of practical equivalency to that of eastern meditation.

I am Buddhist, so feel free to ignore any biases in what I say. The Jesus Prayer does not require training as long as you restrict yourself to no more than fifteen or twenty minutes at a time and do not interfere with your breathing. Let your breathing flow naturally and set the pace of the prayer to match your breathing. Do not change the rhythm of your breathing to match that of the prayer - that can cause problems:Bishop Kallistos Ware has sound advice for those who simply can’t find a suitable guide. “But those who have no personal contact with starets my still practice the Prayer without any fear, so long as they do so only for limited periods - initially, for no more than ten or fifteen minutes at a time - and so long as they make no attempt to interfere with the body’s natural rhythms.”

Source: Saying the Jesus Prayer

I am puzzled as to how any self respecting christian affiliate themselves with a system of belief whose number one tenet is anatman and egolessness. Christianity teaches the exact opposite, we have a soul! I am not even touching on the issue the issue of samsara (cycle of rebirths or reincarnation) either! I do understand prateyasumutpada, and i aggree with it but i am struggling with anatman at the moment and how it can relate to a christian belief/practice.

Egolessness is there is Christianity - “not my will but thine” is pretty close to egolessness. Buddhist techniques work whether or not you believe in the theory behind then, though it is easier to understand the explanations if you do know something about Buddhism. It is perfectly possible to try the techniques - counting breaths, vipassana or Soto Zen style “just sitting” - without adhering to Buddhist beliefs. If a particular technique is useful to you then keep on with it.[The Buddha said: ] “Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias toward a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, ‘The monk is our teacher.’ Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

Source: Kalama sutta A.N. 3.65
Techniques are to be judged on their practical effect - do they lead to benefit and happiness?

I can make a change and attain results… i can become conscious and aware and to live a life in a way that causes no harm to myself, other living beings, and to by practicign meditation alleviate suffering.

An excellent summary of Buddhism.

Basically im sick of repeatin creeds and set prayers… im more drawn to the mystical contemplative side of things…

Repetition has a place in mysticism also: “Om mani padme hum. Om mani padme hum. Om mani padme hum …” It is just another technique that works for some people and not for others.

i dont want to know about st john of the cross’ mystical exp but want to feel the Divine liek he did. I want to feel at true peace… traditional orthodox chrisitanity just is not filling that spirtual void. SO the above question i ask out of sincere spirtual journeying…i would like to keep my christian beleifs if possible but pursue some eastern ways of things.

From the Buddhist side there is no problem with retaining Christian theology while using Buddhist techniques. I suspect that a number of the apparent differences in theology are not real but are down to the attempt to describe the indescribable, God or nirvana, in words. To say anything about God is to limit God, to confine Him within words, and God cannot be so confined. All descriptions of nirvana are false. The Tao which can be spoken is not the true Tao.

I wish you success, whatever path you choose.

rossum

 

[GregoryPalamas]

As has been stated, Buddhism is a very practical religion. When a disciple, Malankyaputa, objected to Buddha having not addressed several questions regarding the after life Buddha did NOT respond by denying the existence of God or of the after life. He simply said that they were questions of a speculative nature and were not fruitful questions in overcoming suffering. He was not an atheist or even an agnostic but rather a non-theist. Questions about God did not concern him.

One can carry that just so far. In India God means “universal soul”. In Buddhism soul is a construct of the “sixth sense” and so is finally an illusion. This is a devastating critique of secularism but it is not particularly useful for the Monotheist either.

While I think a person could be led astray if they try to “theologize” (nama rupa?) too much from what one might learn from the doctrine of anatta or dependent origination I would think that the meditative methods may in themselves not be harmful.

CDL

 

[Future_Prodigy]

While I think a person could be led astray if they try to “theologize” (nama rupa?) too much from what one might learn from the doctrine of anatta or dependent origination I would think that the meditative methods may in themselves not be harmful.

CDL

I used to think along those lines but everywhere i read, it says things like upon meditating you will realize your true self… the truth of anatman. This is what i fear for anatman goes directly against christianity. I have often wondered how all these christian zen practioners have solved this obvious problem. Yes we are to deny our selves but christianity always posits the existence of a self (even if we are supposed to deny it for a higher good), the existence of a soul and the importance of the body itself (i.e. bodily ressurection!). It seems Buddhist doctrine goes against this, no?

 

[Future_Prodigy]

p.s. am i correct in understanding a lot of the contemplative CHRISTIAN practices are essentially the same as buddhist samatha, zazen and other calming techniques? THey all stress emptying the mind of thoughts and distractions via following the breath or a saying and to have one pointedness focus on that, without the distraction of outside thoughts. They all stress this and the calming and peaceful benefits that arise form it. I often am puzzled to if i am readign a christian or buddhist contemplative/meditative practice.

 

[FCEGM]

p.s. am i correct in understanding a lot of the contemplative CHRISTIAN practices are essentially the same as buddhist samatha, zazen and other calming techniques? THey all stress emptying the mind of thoughts and distractions via following the breath or a saying and to have one pointedness focus on that, without the distraction of outside thoughts.

Recall St. Teresa of Jesus’ statement that if you would desire supernatural contemplation you’d best cultivate the virtues! It is not in prayer that the self-emptying is to be pursued, but in the life of the will, i.e., in the virtues to be accomplished: denial of self is to be of the senses and passions and pride of mind, and this follows essentially from the goal, which is not union of consciousness with the energy of the cosmos behind all the definite manifestations seen as an illusion, but, rather union of love with the Trinity of Divine Persons dwelling within by grace, a union of wills. Self-emptying of the will of desires contrary to or besides the love of God is the task.

Prayer, active prayer, fosters this by placing before us the One Whom the heart desires, so that for His sake everything one does in one’s state of life is done first for the love of God. And this does not eliminate all other desires a la Buddhism; far from it. It orders the desires, especially for those whose vocation is to bring the love of Christ into the arena of family life and work. The acquired “contemplation” possible is thus the prayer of simplicity, in which all the particular desires of the affective faculty are gradually unified in a loving regard when one prayers. And it is this state of acquired affective unity that is dried up by the passive purification of the senses and the approach of the supernaturally infused prayer of quiet. Thus there is an essential correlation of means to end in acquiring the prayer of simplicity, i.e, loving gaze of united affections available to our wills to love the One Lord.

Maritain says it well:

“The Soul in order to arrive at her last end must act, whether she make use of her own activity aided by Grace, or whether God reserve to Himself the initiative of moving her, of placing her in the state we call passive because the activity of the soul when placed in it, although in reality raised above itself is characterized by its complete dependence on the Divine Action, and the suspension of its human method of production. Until God shall introduce us into his repose we should ourselves make use of all our faculties with a view of our sanctification and that of our neighbour. ‘O Love, O God,’ cried St. Gertrude, ‘he who is courageous and alert in the labour of they love, will keep himself continually before the Royal Face.’
“We must therefore consecrate the whole effort of our intelligence, as of our will, to know and love God, to make him known and loved.
“But the intelligence itself can only develop its highest powers in so far as it is protected and fortified by the peace given in prayer. The closer a soul approaches God by love, the simpler grows the gaze of her intelligence and the clearer her vision.
“’None,’ says Tauler, ‘understand better the nature of real distinction than those who have entered into Unity.’ But no one enters into Unity save by Love,” Prayer and Intelligence, pp. 3-5.

This is most important. There is no shortcut to union. At first there is the arduous carrying of each bucket of water from the well to the watering space. Only with infused supernatural prayer, first of recollection and later of quiet, do we get “indoor plumbing”, as it were.

The wisdom also is different since it is the wisdom of Trinitarian Love: “Wisdom opened the mouth that was dumb, and made the tongues of babies speak, Alleluia! (Wisdom 10:21) - entrance antiphon of Easter Thursday.

It is not in prayer, then, that one should look for help or similarity from the East unaware of God of Israel and His Christ. It is rather in the practices that curb the passions and ego and anger and lust and self-indulgence, i.e., in the asceticism of detachment that one can find the bridge. Our Saints and mystics already have this and have it better, since they do it out of Love, and not from the impersonal work of attaining emptiness.

 

[Ahimsa]

In order to understand “anatman”, or “anatta”, you have to understand what “atman” or “atta” is, from a Buddhist perspective. It doesn’t do any good to easily equate the “soul” with “atman”, because people have a thousand and one ideas and hypotheses and theories and out-right guesses concerning what the “soul” actually is.

The first thing to keep in mind is that “atta” is something that is totally and absolutely under your conscious control – that is, it is totally and absolutely “yours”.

Now, think about this. Is there anything that is totally and absolutely under your conscious control, something that you can totally manipulate at any time you want, under any condition, within any context?

We all know the Buddha said that the body is not “atta”, because we can’t totally control what our bodies do – eventually, our bodies will get sick, get old, and get dead. So, there is nothing in the physical body that is “atta”.

What about the mind? Is the mind “atta”? Sure, we can control the mind to a large degree, but not totally. Just like our body, our mind changes constantly, and is not under our total control.

“But wait!”, you might ask, “Didn’t the Buddha, or Christ, have total control over their minds?” I’m glad you asked. The mind is the collection of thoughts that you “perceive” (not necessarily perceive visually, however). You might perceive a thought of greed, or happiness, or lust. And you have little, if any, control over whether such a thought pops into your mind. The Buddha and Christ also had such thoughts pop into their minds – that’s just the way the world works. But, whereas most of us “stick” to a thought of greed, or lust, or hatred; and then act on that thought; in the case of Buddha or Christ, they simply allowed such thoughts to pass freely through their minds, and back out to wherever the thought came from. The Buddha and Christ didn’t get “stuck” on their thoughts. So the Buddha and Christ can’t totally control which thoughts enter into their minds (thus, the thoughts are not “atta”), even though, unlike us, the Buddha and Christ can remain “unstuck” when a thought does enter their minds.

So, your body is not atta, and your mind (that is, your thoughts, feelings, conceptions, perceptions) is not atta.

Nama/rupa is not atta.

Now the question becomes: is the Buddha saying that everything is not atta? Well, is there anything other than body (that is, physical matter) or mind (that is, thoughts, feelings, conceptions, perceptions)?

What *is it that makes it possible *to perceive the body? What is it that makes it possible to perceive the mind? If the Buddhist talks of nirvana, then what or who is it that makes it possible for nirvana to be “known”? Can the physical body “know” nirvana? Certainly not. Can a thought, or feeling, “know” nirvana? I think not. Then who, or what makes all of this knowledge, of body, of mind, possible in the first place?

*That *cannot be spoken about in words. That is what you have to discover. That – and only that – is your “soul”, if you so choose to use the overly used word “soul” to describe such an indescribable, ineffable That. The Buddha chose to simply keep quiet. People say, “I have a soul”. How can you have something like That? You mean the soul is over there, and you have it??? It’s like saying, “I have God”. Impossible! To say anything about That would simply mislead people into thinking that That was something they could see, perceive, or conceive, and, ultimately, control.

No one can even totally control the body, nor the mind, let alone That which makes knowledge of the body or the mind possible in the first place.

Having said all this, let’s look at this concept of “soul”. What do you mean by “soul” exactly? You probably don’t mean That. I assume you mean some sort of spiritual something that survives after death. Perhaps after you die, your will experience yourself separating from your body, perhaps you’ll have a spiritual body of some sort that will meet the spiritual bodies of your loved ones who have passed away before you. You’ll meet your grandmother, and she will look radiant and young, with a glorious spiritual body, and she will lead you through a bright tunnel into the next phase of your life.

[cont.]

 

[Ahimsa]

[cont.]

By “soul” I assume you mean this bright, glorious body that you’ll possess after you die, or that your grandmother possesses once you meet her. If that is what you mean by “soul”, then the Buddha never denied such a soul. You can read tons of Buddhist literature, and never will you see the Buddha denying such a soul. I dare you to prove otherwise!

What the Buddha said, though, was that even this type of glorious spiritual body-type soul, was not un-changing and not totally under your control. Even the heavenly spiritual bodies go through alterations and evolutions, even if they do it at a much smaller rate of change. After your next death, you might exist in such a glorious soul-body for a million years. Indeed, may you so have such a glorious spirit-body! But, unless you are totally “unstuck” like the Buddha or Christ, you will have further lessons to learn, and those lessons will require new bodies, whether physical or other types of spirit-bodies.

So have fun in your physical body, have fun with your mind, have fun with your soul-body after you die! All of these things change. Relax! They are not totally under your control!

Ultimately, no human being can claim total control over anything at all. It’s futile! Give it up! The only thing you can do is Let go! And trust! And love!

 

[Future_Prodigy]

Ultimately, no human being can claim total control over anything at all. It’s futile! Give it up! The only thing you can do is Let go! And trust! And love!

Thats where I am at right now… through meditation i can achieve this. I have a ton of bent up gruges, and hatred inside of me and everywhere i read meditation can help free these binding thoughts. I was just affraid i would slip away from the orhtoodox teaching of christianity.

Ahimsa, your definition of anatman is quite different from that i learned about in my indian philosophy class. You’re saysing that buddhists ackonwledge an underyling self existent self ?

From what i rememebr from the class:

anatman, is the key difference btw bramanical and buddhist schools. Its concept of no self is talked about, in terms of anitya, everything is changing nothin is fixed, everything is impermanent… so no fixed self, its in process of change, no underlying unifying self. above and beyond certain processes there is no self. doesnt have a seperate and permanent existence. Self is a process, no seperate and permanet existence. Nothin more than a number of mental and physical processes. he calles them skandhas, 5 aggregates. suffering is a result as being attached to these processes and idea somethin that exists over and above them.

This seems problematic for christian eschatology!?

Hinduism on the other hand says there is a underlying self existent self… the the pearls on a necklace… buddhism would say only the pearls no string that underlies them tying their existence together… hinduism would say there is a string and this string is your Self.

 

[cestusdei]

In the Incarnation we discover that our physical body is not just a throw away thing. God redeemed us by taking flesh and suffering in the flesh. We share in that by receiving his flesh and blood in the Eucharist. We have only one shot at life, not many. Buddhism is incompatible with Christianity at its very core.

 

[Ahimsa]

Thats where I am at right now… through meditation i can achieve this. I have a ton of bent up gruges, and hatred inside of me and everywhere i read meditation can help free these binding thoughts. I was just affraid i would slip away from the orhtoodox teaching of christianity.

Meditation can help you understand your grudges and hatred inside of you, but it has to be the right sort of meditation, the right meditative approach. If you wish to discover more compassion and love, then you are gonna have to meditate on compassion and love. Easier said than done? You bet. From my personal experience, the typical Zen-type meditation just isn’t built for cultivating that sort of compassion – which is not to say that Zennists are not compassionate, or cannot uncover their inherent compassion by doing Zen, but that cultivating compassion is not meditation-on-the-breath’s primary goal. (And by ‘Zen meditation’, I mean either Soto or Rinzai approaches.)

If you want compassion-cultivation, from a Buddhist approach, then you would want to practice contemplations that specifically address that issue. Theravada, Mahayana, and Tibetan traditions all contain such compassion-inducing practices. However, having said that, one also has to address the issue of the purpose of meditation. Yes, people can have tremendous breakthroughs via sitting meditation – their heart chakras can open, their kundalini can arise, satoris galore! But all that is secondary to the real purpose of meditation, which is insight (to one degree or another) into the very nature of conditional reality. So even if one’s chakras open, or kundalini arises, one has to have a stable life beyond the meditation cushion, if one hopes to integrate those experiences into one’s life. If one’s life outside the ashram, or dojo, or meditation center, does not exhibit compassion; then to try to meditate as a way to resolve that issue, just won’t cut it. If you read the Buddhists texts, you’ll see that the Buddha did not tell people whom he just met, “Meditate!” He first told them, “Get right with your neighbor, with your wife, with your spouse, friends, the community, and the wider world. Protect life; don’t kill unnecessarily. Be generous with your time and knowledge; don’t steal or be stingy. Maintain a committed relationship; don’t scatter your energy in debauchery. Tell the truth in all your doings; don’t lie in order to gain the upper hand for yourself. Be alert, be prepared for anything; don’t allow drink and drugs to numb you to the realities of your life.” In fact, much is made of the five moral rules of Buddhism (don’t kill, don’t steal, etc.), but not too many people know that there is a rule that comes before even those five: the practice of generosity, of open-handedness, “dana”, where one liberally gives to those in need, as well as to the holy sages and monks. Meditation cannot exist outside of this basic moral and ethical framework. And if you do meditate, you have to engage the moral and ethical teachings of the Buddhist just as ferociously as a tiger engages a deer.

Ahimsa, your definition of anatman is quite different from that i learned about in my indian philosophy class. You’re saysing that buddhists ackonwledge an underyling self existent self ?

Not quite. I’m saying that the word “self” is an English term that doesn’t help us understand “atman” or “atta”. The Buddha never denied that we have a “self”, that is, a body and a mind. What the Buddha denied was that this body-and-mind-complex was something totally under our control, something totally “ours”, something unchanging and permanent. It was constantly changing, and exhibited perpetual instability, to one degree or another. The Buddha defined “atman” (or “atta”) as something totally under our control. Under those definitions, the body-mind-complex was not “atman”/”atta”. But I would say that we don’t even need the terms “atman” and “atta” in order to understand the Buddha. Those are terms originating from an Indo-Aryan linguistic culture – surely we Westerners can find phrases that translate what those terms mean, phrases that do a better job than “no-self”.

However, I am saying that the Buddha recognized that there is something, That, something beyond words, something other than body and mind. If you want to call That a “self existent self”, that’s simply using more words to describe something that is totally beyond words. Naming That in terms of “self” would be like describing the sun in terms of how it tastes – the words just don’t apply.

[cont.]

 

[Ahimsa]

In other words, the Buddhist denial of “self” is a denial of the possibility of any word, any term, any description, any concept at all, to describe That which is neither matter nor mind. In Christian terms, the Buddhist would be using “apophatic” language, the language that says that God is “not this, not that”. The Eastern Orthodox Church is famous for its love of apophatic language, so I would suggest that if you want to see if Christians also have a “no-self” language”, you might want to check out Eastern Orthodox. Another Christian who uses “no-self” language is Bernadette Roberts, who wrote several books on her realization of “no-self” within a Catholic meditative context.

From what i rememebr from the class:

anatman, is the key difference btw bramanical and buddhist schools. Its concept of no self is talked about, in terms of anitya, everything is changing nothin is fixed, everything is impermanent… so no fixed self, its in process of change, no underlying unifying self. above and beyond certain processes there is no self. doesnt have a seperate and permanent existence. Self is a process, no seperate and permanet existence. Nothin more than a number of mental and physical processes. he calles them skandhas, 5 aggregates. suffering is a result as being attached to these processes and idea somethin that exists over and above them.

This seems problematic for christian eschatology!?

Yes, it would seem problematic. But think about this “ko-an”:

What is it, that is aware of the five skandhas? What is it, that is aware that “everything is impermanent”?

Now, don’t try to put a label on what That is, unless you are sure that you can label it. And before you can try to label That, you have to know what That is. And if you think you know what That is, show me!

Hinduism on the other hand says there is a underlying self existent self… the the pearls on a necklace… buddhism would say only the pearls no string that underlies them tying their existence together… hinduism would say there is a string and this string is your Self.

I love my Hindu brethren very much, but the problem with naming That is that as soon as you label it, name it, and try to control it; you think you now understand it. If you name something, then you have obviously reached the stage of believing that “it” has a name, and is sitting over there somewhere, where I can see it. But That cannot be seen, neither is it over there, and it surely ain’t an “it”!

Naming That – and I don’t care what name you give it – is attempting to reduce That to an object, in other words, an idol. That’s why in the Eastern Orthodox Church, apophaticism is so respected, because to ignore the fact that God is not an object, not “over there”, not an “it”, is to make God into an idol. The Eastern Orthodox Church does, of course, give God labels – like “good”, “loving”, and “just”, but it also recognizes that those labels do not touch who/what God is in His Essence, and His Essence is Unknowable and Un-Labeled.

Whatever exists that is not matter or mind, is so unlike anything you have ever known, that to compare it (by naming it or labeling it) to whatever you have known, is sacrilege of the highest order.

The Buddha refused to name it “self” because we all know what a “self” is: it’s our own body and mind! And if the Buddha had named “it” a “self-existent self”, then we would have immediately begun to think, “Ah ha! It’s a self-existent self! It’s eternal, and something I can hold on to forever!” And since you can only hold on to an “object”, we see that naming *That *a “self” can create more confusion than it’s worth.

Don’t get me wrong. If you want to name That a “self-existent self”, then I would suspect that the Buddha would say, “Go ahead. Just remember your ‘self-existent self’ is neither ‘self’, nor ‘self-existent’, nor ‘self-existent self’.” You can name That anything you want. You can name it a ‘green-eyed bougabaloo’, if you just keep in mind that it’s neither ‘green’, nor ‘green-eyed’, nor a ‘green-eyed bougabaloo’. (And if you talk to many Hindus of the Advaitic variety, they too will agree with the Buddhists. Then again, many Hindus will disagree with the Buddhists, but hey, that’s life.)

If the “no-self” idea bugs you, like I said above, I suggest reading up on Eastern Orthodox apophatic theology, and the books of the Catholic mystic Bernadette Roberts, especially her book The Experience of No-Self, in which she actually describes her realization of “no-self”, but as a result of her Catholic/Christian meditative practices, rather than Buddhist ones.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

I am still a bit thrown off… orthodox eschatology stresses the importantce of the body and especially a soul that enters into the next phase of existence (Heaven or Hell)… and this is not some all encompassing It that does that, it is something that is unique to each and everyone of us. Something that belongs to us alone. the whole basis of the resurrection is based upon this.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

so you don’t believe in a “soul” which ALL of christianity teaches yet you are trying to make them compatible and in aggrement ? I am maybe misunderstandign you!

 

[rossum]

so you don’t believe in a “soul” which ALL of christianity teaches yet you are trying to make them compatible and in aggrement ? I am maybe misunderstandign you!

Mankind is made in the image of God, and mankind’s resemblance to God lies in the soul rather than the body.

If you accept that God is infinite then it is not possible to constrain God within words - how can the infinite be contained within the pages of a book? The analogies of the finger pointing at the moon, or the blind men and the elephant can apply here.

If the human soul resembles God then it also cannot be constrained within words. Buddhists use words like “anatman”, Hindus use words like “atman”. Neither correctly describes the reality. Buddhists meditate and see anatman. Hindus meditate and see atman. Christians meditate and describe what they see in Christian terms: “nada, nada, nada …”

Don’t get too hung up on the words, if the words are forming a barrier to your practice then try to detach yourself from the words and concentrate on the practice. Christianity has lived with mystics for a long time: Dionysios the Areopagite, Meister Eckhardt, St John of the Cross and others. The relationship has not always been comfortable but there is enough in the history of Catholic Christianity to give you something to work on without having to give up your Christian belief.

Ahimsa’s points about the importance of dana (charity) and sila (morality) as well as meditation are well made.

rossum

 

[Ahimsa]

I am still a bit thrown off… orthodox eschatology stresses the importantce of the body and especially a soul that enters into the next phase of existence (Heaven or Hell)… and this is not some all encompassing It that does that, it is something that is unique to each and everyone of us. Something that belongs to us alone. the whole basis of the resurrection is based upon this.

Well, the body is important! A Buddha can appear only in, and as, a human body.

My question would be: What is it that is “unique” to each of us? Can you point to it? Can you “show” me it? Is it an “objective” thing? Is it an “it”?

 

[Ahimsa]

so you don’t believe in a “soul” which ALL of christianity teaches yet you are trying to make them compatible and in aggrement ? I am maybe misunderstandign you!

How do you define “soul”?

If you’re asking if I believe in an after-life, then yes, of course.

 

[lavalamp]

I am very intriqued by Eastern doctorines of belief and drawn to them most of time as they are very pragmatic in nature in eradicating the suffering of the mind. I am overjoyed with the notion of being able to achieve a state of peace and tranquility in ones mind.
…
As I have stated I am very drawn to Buddhism (specifically zen) for its practical solution to attaining true peace and happiness and allowing one to live a ‘real life,’ not a superficial materialst life liek most of us do. Please don’t tell me to pray, etc… i have enough issues with prayer and I don’t feel the presence of God in prayer, I never get this warm feeling others talk about and this is preciosuly why i am drawn to Zen… I can make a change and attain results… i can become conscious and aware and to live a life in a way that causes no harm to myself, other living beings, and to by practicign meditation alleviate suffering.

I wish you well in your struggle Prodigy and will pray for you. It seems to me that you need a firmer grasp of what is true. The primary features of God, yourself, the world in general etc. are knowable, maybe not perfectly at the moment, but at least discernible for the purpose of making decisions. It would be worthwhile for you to decide what you know/believe about these things before looking for a solution to the problem of suffering/ achieving peace of mind.

It seems to me that you are looking to use meditation as a kind of drug to dull your sensitivity to pain or somehow transform you into a better person. While certain meditation techniques might make you feel more relaxed/at peace with yourself/detached, I don’t think any will be a permanent solution, ie you can’t avoid all pain all the time no matter how much progress you make in your meditations. In other words, as Augustine said, “you have made us for thyself, O God, and our hearts are restless, until they rest in thee.”