A
Ahimsa
Guest
Hi Oriel,
What do you mean by the term “spiritual selfishness”?
- Status
What do you mean by the term “spiritual selfishness”?
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Ahimsaman72,
Your understanding of Buddhism is quite good.
Must have been that Baptist upbringing.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Ahimsaman72,
Your understanding of Buddhism is quite good.
Must have been that Baptist upbringing.
- Baptist upbringing!!!Thank you!
I have found Buddhism to be quite a challenge to my Western mind! Although I have meditated off and on for about a year and studied some - I have sped up my practice recently. There’s so much there to explore.
When I became a vegetarian 9 months ago my whole family were
and :bigyikes: . I did it for health reasons, but also so that other beings (animals) wouldn’t have to suffer. That’s pretty hard to explain to a bunch of meat-eating Southern Baptists!!!Feel free to add to or correct my understandings, because after all, I’m a newbie.
Peace…
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
A
Ahimsa
Guest
DominvsVobiscvm said:
If the Buddha somehow became a Catholic Saint, then that opens up a lot of possibilties for inter-religious dialogue. It also implies that the Buddha is considered to be in Heaven.
F
FelixBlue
Guest
You are right to say that desire is implied withing the noble eightfold path. But here is the point, well-made by the passage you quoted: even this desire (dhamma-chanda) passes away. The goal is thus stated in negative terms. What is nibbana/enlightenment? It is no-desire, no-persistence, no-intent, and so forth. The state where one is no longer caught up in the cycle of becoming.
The big question is this: can this state be positively described? Christians describe heaven as the beatific vision, which, is a participation in full and actual Being…which turns out to be the life of Love, the life of the holy Trinity. Negatively stated, the beatific vision is a turning away from self, a dying to self, or, perhaps one could say, the cessation of ego-desires (could I even throw in kamma-chandra here?).
I understand that in Buddhism, the goal is the cessation of suffering by means of the cessation (complete) of desire (kamma-chandra). This is the goal negatively stated. One of the means to this end is the motivation provided by dhamma-chandra, along with right practice, and so forth. (By the way, please let me know if I am misrepresenting things…I’m trying to reduce it to very simple terms.) My question is can this goal be positively stated…in specific terms, rather than something like “enlightenment”, and if so, how?
A
Ahimsa
Guest
If you look at Mahayana Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism, you find lots of positive descriptions of Nirvana/Nibbana, in part probably because those traditions represent further developments that add often elaborate language to the very “minimalistic” language of Theravada. Still, I’ll stick to Theravada, to make things more interesting.
Theravada usually stays away from positively describing Nibbana, because it is so unlike anything else. Instead, the Theravada texts do give very “positive” language when describing the various heavens (or “lokas”), and the implication is that Nibbana is even more “positive” than the heavens. Some names used to describe these heavens include: Pure, Peerless, Clear-sighted, Beautiful, Untroubled, Very Fruitful, Refulgent Glory, Unbounded Glory, and Streaming Radiance. And the beings in these heavens enjoyed all kinds of powers, delights, and happiness.
In fact, when the Buddha first talked to someone, he first tried to convince them of the positiveness of (1) generosity, (2) virtue, and (3) the desirability of going to the heavens. To those who had the desire to become monks, the Buddha would then go further and describe the drawbacks of sensual life (including the drawbacks of the heavens), of dukkha, and of Nibbana, the ultimate goal. But to house-holders, those who wanted to enjoy the family life, children, spouses, and so forth, the Buddha did stress the positive aspects of heavens, using very positive language.
F
FelixBlue
Guest
Ahimsa and Ahimsana72,
The charm or nobility or truth of Buddhism is that the Buddha cut out all the “extras” and got right down to business. Using his own experience (including, if one accepts it, his many lives before his incarnation as Gautama) and reason, he determined what the problem was–suffering caused by desire–and determined the solution–the complete cessation of desire and hence, suffering.
If only it were that simple. For one, one has to address the intuition that we as human assume and expect our desires to be fulfilled. Further, we see this as natural to human nature. Buddhism denies this upon the grounds that there is no real, enduring human nature. Human nature, as we perceive it, is merely a passing, a becomming.
But is it?
The major problem with Buddhism, in my view, is that the solution to the problem is indeterminate and, thus, impersonal. While the Buddhist may claim a kind of “mystery” status for nibbana, in reality, he is claiming no-knowledge. It is good…but how? What? This is what human beings long to know.
I believe that this is where Christianity is superior to Buddhism (from a philosophical/analytical point of view). Christianity claims a certain knowledge of the goal. The goal is to leave behind the petty, uncertain becoming of the Self, for the fulfilled, certain participation in divine Being. This Being is not impersonal, but as Exodus 3 implies, it is personal (that is, relational) in that God is revealed not only as “self-subsisting Being” (I Am), but as “I Am [to].” The “to” is implied. I Am…to my people Israel. I Am to the gentiles. I Am to the whole of creation, which yearns for the freedom of the sons of God (Romans 8). In himself, God the Father is to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
What does this imply? The structure of reality is relational: it is love. Fulfilled personal beings (which we are…even if our being, for now, is merely a becoming) relate. Whereas the key problem of human existence is an objectification of everything (I-It), where everything is turned into an object of desire (Augustine termed this the “lust for domination” in his City of God), the solution is the quiet dying of the “I” and the looking toward the “You”–God and others (as fulfilled in the summary of the law, to love God and love your neighbor). There are two movements: death to self and a full turning toward the other. This can only be done in the fullness of Being (not a becoming) which/who is God.
By the way, I had a friend in college (UT Austin) who was a former Southern Baptist turned Theraveda Buddhist. His name was Carlin (I don’t recall his last name). He would sit with our Catholic apologetics group in the free speech area of campus and argue for Catholicism as the true form of Christianity. Since then, I have lost touch with him…and wonder where he is (the last I knew, he was in S. Korea). A long shot…
The charm or nobility or truth of Buddhism is that the Buddha cut out all the “extras” and got right down to business. Using his own experience (including, if one accepts it, his many lives before his incarnation as Gautama) and reason, he determined what the problem was–suffering caused by desire–and determined the solution–the complete cessation of desire and hence, suffering.
If only it were that simple. For one, one has to address the intuition that we as human assume and expect our desires to be fulfilled. Further, we see this as natural to human nature. Buddhism denies this upon the grounds that there is no real, enduring human nature. Human nature, as we perceive it, is merely a passing, a becomming.
But is it?
The major problem with Buddhism, in my view, is that the solution to the problem is indeterminate and, thus, impersonal. While the Buddhist may claim a kind of “mystery” status for nibbana, in reality, he is claiming no-knowledge. It is good…but how? What? This is what human beings long to know.
I believe that this is where Christianity is superior to Buddhism (from a philosophical/analytical point of view). Christianity claims a certain knowledge of the goal. The goal is to leave behind the petty, uncertain becoming of the Self, for the fulfilled, certain participation in divine Being. This Being is not impersonal, but as Exodus 3 implies, it is personal (that is, relational) in that God is revealed not only as “self-subsisting Being” (I Am), but as “I Am [to].” The “to” is implied. I Am…to my people Israel. I Am to the gentiles. I Am to the whole of creation, which yearns for the freedom of the sons of God (Romans 8). In himself, God the Father is to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
What does this imply? The structure of reality is relational: it is love. Fulfilled personal beings (which we are…even if our being, for now, is merely a becoming) relate. Whereas the key problem of human existence is an objectification of everything (I-It), where everything is turned into an object of desire (Augustine termed this the “lust for domination” in his City of God), the solution is the quiet dying of the “I” and the looking toward the “You”–God and others (as fulfilled in the summary of the law, to love God and love your neighbor). There are two movements: death to self and a full turning toward the other. This can only be done in the fullness of Being (not a becoming) which/who is God.
By the way, I had a friend in college (UT Austin) who was a former Southern Baptist turned Theraveda Buddhist. His name was Carlin (I don’t recall his last name). He would sit with our Catholic apologetics group in the free speech area of campus and argue for Catholicism as the true form of Christianity. Since then, I have lost touch with him…and wonder where he is (the last I knew, he was in S. Korea). A long shot…
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Hi Felix,
Nope, that’s not me. Given that Theravada is often called “Southern Buddhism”, I can see the connection with Southern Baptists.
I agree that Theravada Buddhism looks very “impersonal” from the outside looking in. But Theravada isn’t the only Buddhist tradition, and I would even suggest that other Buddhist traditions that are more devotional and focused on personal relationships with a particular Buddha might serve as a more useful comparison with Christianity. One of these other traditions of Buddhism is Jodo Shu, which teaches devotion to Amida Buddha, as explained in excerpt below:
**
** ** Jodo Shu Pure Land Buddhism offers universal salvation through the primal vow of Amida Buddha. Anyone and everyone is offered a simple and straightforward way of achieving rebirth in the Pure Land, and subsequent Buddhahood, through a personal relationship with Amida Buddha. **
** Honen’s [born 1133 CE] Pure Land teachings came about because he saw that not everyone has the ability to achieve nirvana or buddhahood in this life. Through the vows of Amida Buddha, buddhahood is available to all who have faith in Amida Buddha and recite the Nembutsu, Namu Amida Butsu. **
** Jodo Shu is a path that anyone can follow to achieve release from the cycle of rebirth, but it is only one path. The Buddha said that there are 84,000 dharma doors. Jodo Shu offers advantages over other Buddhist paths in our modern world, as the path is simple and not time-consuming. All of us have many demands on our time, and paths that require retreat, chanting in a foreign language, or many hours a day in contemplation or meditation are difficult to practice and still be in the world with demands of family, work, and society. **
** Some people may prefer the traditional monastic path of Theravada as a route to nirvana. Some may prefer to use the practices of Mahayana to seek buddhahood and salvation of all sentient beings. And others may prefer the rigorous fast path of Tantrayana. **
** In this life, you will achieve benefit from any Buddhist practices you choose. Jodo Shu practice can bring rebirth in the Pure Land and enlightenment, and is easy for anyone to follow.**
O
oriel36
Guest
Within the Christian contemplative experience there are a number of pleasent and even joyful experiences which do not emerge from being exposed to the normal outward circumstances which generate comparable experiences such as relaxation,good food,funny situations ect.
The Spiritual equivalents are of a much higher order and many people now and throughout history have put themselves through rigorous training to block out the sensual ones to reach the Spiritual ones hence many contemplative traditions based on isolation and asceticism.
Christians will go along that road with many other traditions but the nature of Christ and Christianity does an about face and accepts not isolation but all those things which human nature abhors from being in contact with daily life and all the little and great humiliations that are suffered for the sake of building up from within (vine and branches) in whatever way possible from the smallest kindness to the greatest masterpiece of music,art or literature.
What was most destructive for Apostolic Christianity and remains so is the division among denominational traditions for cultural and political events that happened centuries ago and no longer matter.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
The ending of suffering is not simple in practice nor in thought. Siddhartha Gotama became the Buddha because after days of intense meditation and concentration he reached enlightenment and he saw his past lives and knew his names in those lives, etc.
It is human nature to desire and have our desires fulfilled - of course. Just because it is natural doesn’t mean it’s right or okay to be in such a condition. There is no denial of the natural nature of humans as inherently being one characterized by desires and the pursuit of their fulfillment in Buddhism. To the contrary, the Buddha understood that fact better than anyone. By looking deeply into that concept He came to the understanding of what became the four noble truths and eightfold path. Buddhism doesn’t deny this fact, but sees it as a flaw and seeks to remedy that flaw.
The fact that there is no enduring, eternal human self doesn’t play at all in the characteristic of desire in human nature.
I don’t believe there is correct understanding here about nirvana. My favorite Buddhist monk/author Thich Nhat Hanh describes in one of his books the concept of “phenomena” and “neuomena”. He goes on to say that you really can’t describe neuomena (vertical relationships) by ascribing characteristics that are in the realm of phenomena (horizontal relationships). You can’t accurately describe heaven or nirvana accurately or in terms that we can truly understand by using a concept that we only know through our senses - by what we see and feel. Heaven and nirvana are beyond our ability to truly understand their true nature.
Everyone has an idea of heaven. There are some descriptions in Revelation, but this is limited. We sincerely don’t really know what heaven is like and will be like with our Christian understanding. And so, even the Buddhists can’t accurately describe nirvana in words and meanings that we can understand. That’s not the fault of heaven or nirvana. The problem lies in our ability to understand those concepts. On the contrary, Buddhism claims complete knowledge of the true nature of all things. All things are impermanent.
CONTINUED…
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
I believe both Christianity and Buddhism have adequate and equally valid goals. They admittedly are different, but that doesn’t mean that the goal of Buddhism is less superior than the goal of Christianity.
The fundamental problem is how we view things. We view things outside of ourselves based on what we view about ourselves. We view things as pleasant or unpleasant based on our perceptions and feelings about a certain object. These are similar concepts in Christianity. Christianity speaks of renunciation and so does Buddhism. We renounce “I” and our unwholesome desires - both in Christianity and Buddhism. The difference is the goals - as you pointed out. The end result is different. The means to get there are very similar.
In Buddhism there is a dying to self also, but instead of turning to God or heaven, there is turning to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha and nirvana. There is a relational aspect in Buddhism. Buddhism relates to a person also - the historical Buddha. I would disagree that Buddhists somehow embrace “nothing”. They embrace the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha as pivotal to attaining the end goal.
You never know about those Southern Baptists! When you don’t have set beliefs that’s what happens - you can believe anything!
Peace to you Felix…
F
FelixBlue
Guest
Ahimsaman,
So, here is my question: you have remarked that Buddhism teaches “all things are impermanent.” Is that because they, in themselves are impermanent, or because each human is impermanent, and therefore each person’s perception of things impermanent? I ask, because, if the former, then the dharma, and the rest are impermanent. Is that accurate? If so, what does that imply?
I agree with you and Tich Nhat Hanh that it is very difficult to describe vertical realities with horizontal language. Thomas Aquinas argued that it is only possible to do so by analogy. Even so, the effort is useful, if not perfect.
Cheers
So, here is my question: you have remarked that Buddhism teaches “all things are impermanent.” Is that because they, in themselves are impermanent, or because each human is impermanent, and therefore each person’s perception of things impermanent? I ask, because, if the former, then the dharma, and the rest are impermanent. Is that accurate? If so, what does that imply?
I agree with you and Tich Nhat Hanh that it is very difficult to describe vertical realities with horizontal language. Thomas Aquinas argued that it is only possible to do so by analogy. Even so, the effort is useful, if not perfect.
Cheers
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Good question dear Felix.
All things are impermanent - physical and mental elements in the universe. Although there are deeper meanings of impermanence, the basic one I come away with is - all things change. They are constantly in transition. They have no lasting quality. The easiest example which we can verify is our history of existence.
We were once 5 years old and expressed thoughts as 5 year olds. We became 15 years old and our understanding and thought processes became much different. As a matter of fact, we change from moment to moment. One moment we are thinking of lunch and the next we are thinking of making a phone call. Our thoughts change and therefore our universe changes.
In Buddhism - there is no independent self in a tree, a flower or a human or animal. There is “interbeing” between all phenomena. All phenomena exist interdependently. So, there really is no “they” or “us”, you see. This is fundamental Buddhism. Once we can let go of our idea that “we” exist independently of nature and other humans, we can attain enlightenment.
There are supposedly 84,000 dharma doors - doors of teaching. And there is a need to open even more doors for future generations (as TNH points out). Here is a quote from his book, “Living Buddha, Living Christ”:
Each of us, by our practice and our loving-kindness, is capable of opening new Dharma doors…The Buddha relies on us for the Dharma to continue to develop as a living organism - not a stale Dharma, but a real Dharmakaya, a real “body of teaching”…
In another place in speaking of teachings:
…"*true teaching is not static". *
So, though the Buddha had his original teachings - they are not static. They change also. Prior to his death, Buddha had this to say:
“Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.”
So, the Buddha’s dharma is not historical teachings only. It is ongoing teaching that is true - whether ancient or modern. The Dharma trascends time and space. It is a living, breathing organism like “us”. It grows and changes. So, in a sense it is “impermanent”. Even if the Dharma is impermanent though, that wouldn’t be a bad thing. As TNH pointed out - “true teaching is not static”. It wouldn’t make the Dharma any “less true”.
I understand your logic and where your questions are coming from. And I agree that we have to use analogy in describing neuomena. But, as it is truly impossible to define neuomena - it is better to not try to define it - but to experience it.
Peace to you…
P
puzzleannie
Guest
so when the candle flame is extinguished, only the candle itself remains. the candle without a flame is useless. The candle was created for one purpose, to shed light as long as it exists. the candle may either burn up its substance in fulfilling its purpose for existence, or it will be extinguished, and remain a lump of wax forever, losing nothing, but purposeless, useless. Where is Edna St Vincent Millay when you need her.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Hello puzzleannie!!!
Actually, I wasn’t trying to go too far in my analogy into the existence and purpose of the candle and its relation to the flame
.I was trying to focus on the concept of the flame only and draw the correlation between a person performing the action of extinguishing the flame of the candle and the person who seeks to extinguish the craving and attachment from their minds and bodies to attain enlightenment.
One practices good conduct, mental development and understanding to put an end to suffering. Suffering = the cycle of birth and death which we are all caught up in. This involves both physical and mental purification. One purifies body and mind to achieve this end goal of nirvana. Desire, ill-will and ignorance are the causes of suffering. They must be purified and extinguished in our lives. Once these are extinguished in our present existence - we are free from the cycle of birth and death.
So, if we wanted to expand the analogy of the candle and flame, I would do it this way:
The flame of the candle is suffering (the effect of the candle being lit), the extinguishing of flame = “nirvana”
The candle is desire, ill-will and ignorance - the causes of suffering which continues the cycle of birth and death.
The act of extinguishing is the culmination of “us” (which is our physical and mental existence) walking the eight-fold path which leads to the end of both the cause and effect of suffering.
In the Buddhist philosophy, words and concepts you used such as “created for one purpose” and “forever” do not mean anything. They are not real concepts. There are causes and effects and nothing lasts “forever”.
Peace…
S
stellina
Guest
I hope you’re right, but my admittedly limited experience with Buddhists (all converts) weren’t nearly that pleasant. They were just as zealous & self-righteous as anyone else could be. I got quite a virtual (via e-mail) tongue-lashing this summer from a Buddhist because I saw and liked “The Passion”, thus showing that I’m a fool who follows a “false” religion. I realize that they may not be typical and that nasty people of this stripe exist in every religion (I freely but regrettably admit that many Catholics do), but it didn’t leave me with a very good impression to say the least. Or is there perhaps more of a difference in attitude between those born into Buddhism & converts?
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Just a side note on how Indians at the time of the Buddha envisioned a candle going out. In ancient Indian physics, the flame going out was considered not “extinct” but rather no longer definable to one place. It was no longer “bound” to the candle; it was now free, and unbound. In fact, “nibbana”, according to one source, literally means “the Unbinding”. (I suspect that you can even see “unbinding” in the word nibbana, assuming that “bana” is related to the similar sounding English word “bind” – and “nir” being related to “un” and “non”.)Hello puzzleannie!!!
Actually, I wasn’t trying to go too far in my analogy into the existence and purpose of the candle and its relation to the flame
I was trying to focus on the concept of the flame only and draw the correlation between a person performing the action of extinguishing the flame of the candle and the person who seeks to extinguish the craving and attachment from their minds and bodies to attain enlightenment.
One practices good conduct, mental development and understanding to put an end to suffering. Suffering = the cycle of birth and death which we are all caught up in. This involves both physical and mental purification. One purifies body and mind to achieve this end goal of nirvana. Desire, ill-will and ignorance are the causes of suffering. They must be purified and extinguished in our lives. Once these are extinguished in our present existence - we are free from the cycle of birth and death.
So, if we wanted to expand the analogy of the candle and flame, I would do it this way:
The flame of the candle is suffering (the effect of the candle being lit), the extinguishing of flame = “nirvana”
The candle is desire, ill-will and ignorance - the causes of suffering which continues the cycle of birth and death.
The act of extinguishing is the culmination of “us” (which is our physical and mental existence) walking the eight-fold path which leads to the end of both the cause and effect of suffering.
In the Buddhist philosophy, words and concepts you used such as “created for one purpose” and “forever” do not mean anything. They are not real concepts. There are causes and effects and nothing lasts “forever”.
Peace…
Carry on.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Hi Stellina,
I think converts of whatever faith tend to go to excess, for various reasons. I think the prime reason is that “newbies” haven’t realized how much self-sacrifice their new religion – if really practiced – calls for, and they haven’t realized that, to use a Christian phrase, all fall short of the glory of God. Thus, newbies often are in “attack-mode”, ready to do battle against all of the “inferior” or “unworthy” – that is, those of other religions. They think that such an attitude is part of what it means to be a new Buddhist (or new Catholic, Muslim, etc.).
Western converts to Buddhism often suffer from the newbie disease to a significant degree. A large part of the reason is the complexity of much of Buddhist philosophy, which – to the Buddhist new-comer – might make it seem as if one could become a Buddha simply by critiquing and de-constructing other people’s un-inspected beliefs and assumptions – thus, the assault against especially Christian ideas of God, sin, resurrection, hell, and faith. Since many of these newbies themselves come out of Jewish or Christian backgrounds – and not uncommonly with a hostile attitude towards their familial traditions – they may go out of their way to antagonize practitioners of the Abrahamic faiths.
I would suggest being patient with the new Buddhist. They know not what they do – nor do they know what they ought to be doing instead.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
this states I think the essential difference between Catholic and Buddhist view of existence. The Catholic view is that the cycle of birth and death we are all caught up in is part of God’s eternal plan, that suffering entered the world through sin, and that it is conquered not by any act of ours, but by Jesus Christ, son of God, 2nd person of the Holy Trinity, who became man, suffered, died for our sins, and rose again, ascended into heaven to prepare a place for us. For us, suffering we face on earth is a means to unite ourselves with Christ, and the goal of life is not to end suffering, but union with Christ on the Cross through suffering. Physical, mental and spiritual purification are indeed the pathways to this union, this contemplation of Christ, as described by the great classical spiritual writers, the 3 stages of the spiritual life-purification, enlightenment, and union. The end is not nirvanah, elimination of suffering, but union, being one with Christ on the Cross on earth, so that we may be one with Him triumphant, resurrected, glorified in heaven.
- Status