Christianity for Buddhists

[Neithan]

And why, when we gather some of the most spiritual people on the planet together, do they seem to all have that same quality of inner peace and tranquility? Why do they all seem to have that same overriding sense of compassion and love? Has only one found the “truth”, and all the others lost in delusion?

Well, given that truth must be one and pure, if these peaceful, tranquil, compassionate individuals hold contradictory worldviews than yes–some of them or wrong. But that does not necessarily mean that they are going to be evil. In Christianity we believe in ‘Natural Law,’ that God has ‘written His law on our hearts’ and that if Man sincerely lives his life according to His own conscience, He can be justified, he can be saved. This is called ‘Baptism of Desire.’ When one sincerely seeks God, He will answer their call. The improvement in Man’s nature when he seeks God is the result of His conformity to God Himself. Man is meant to find God and to image God. Peace, tranquility, love and compassion are consequences of Man’s sincere search for–and experience of–His Creator.
God does not abandon His creatures who are ignorant of His Son. His Holy Spirit is present in every single act of human goodness, every single act of love. Buddha was inspired by the Holy Spirit no doubt, and seems to have been partially enlightened by Him, but He did not possess the fullness of the Truth which was to come with Christ. Ignorance does not equal evil, this is obvious by the vast number of virtuous non-Christians living both now and throughout human history.

Or is the truth not found in “the fruits that once produces”. We can claim that our theology is the most accurate, that our Church is the best, that our religion alone offers salvation until we are blue in the face.
More excellent points. We are to judge by the fruits which a religion produces; however, we have to be careful that we are judging the actual fruit and not just rotten imitations. To point at a Christian who happens to be a murderer, rapist, pedophile etc. and judge his religion thereby is dishonest because his religion condemns his own behaviour. The way to judge fruit is look at who the followers of a religion hold up as admirable role models. The Church considers her fruits to be the vast numbers of canonized saints throughout the centuries since Christ.

But in the end, the evidence lies not in the claims we make, but in the people we become. Not in the way we percieve God, but in how that perception of him changes who we are. Religion is not about concepts that we affirm to be true, rather its about a living, breathing spirituality that helps us to transcend limits that we never thought could be crossed. To become what we never thought we could be.

This is all wonderful sounding… but it doesn’t line up with any defense of relativism. First we have to agree on what sort of person is desireable to become, what man’s destiny is. This necessarily depends on our perceptions of God and the truths which follow from that perception.

 

[Neithan]

Gnosis:

but that there is a general disparity between the way our senses lead us to perceive the world and the way things actually are.

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head of our whole argument here my friend. This is what seperates your worldview from mine, and incidentally also from scientists. I simply accept that my senses show me the world that actually does really exist. What I see is what is. To a Buddhist, it isn’t. That is exactly what I meant above with Ens. This word describes the first leap of faith for any Christian and even anyone (including those who adhere to the modern scientific method) who believes that their senses do not deceive them. ‘It is’ as opposed to ‘it isn’t.’

This does not deny the reality of our existence, but it denies the notion of a soul, or “spirit” as you called it.

Why? I don’t see that this follows. A spirit isn’t necessarily static. It just is. It’s you.

You said that an animal does not have a spirit, and then you assert that to deny the spirit of a human is to deny our existence. If an animal does not have a spirit, then by your own argument, you are denying that that animal actually exists.

Hm… allow me to clarify. To deny your own spirit is simply contrary to experience. It is saying ‘I am not’ which would then mean that you do not exist.
Everything that you observe is filtered by your spirit, by your mind. So if you deny this, then neither you nor anything else exists. I accept that an animal exists because I observe it. Denying an animal a transcendent spirit does not deny it’s existence. But denying my only means of observing or knowing anything would certainly deny my own existence. Spirit is not synonomous with existence–but if you or I deny that ‘self’ is, than we are not, because all we know is immediately present to us in our ‘self’. An animal doesn’t necessarily have a self-reflective mind, but it obviously exists because I see and observe it.

The inaccuracy lies in that we imagine our substances to posess some kind of unique identity that forever separates me from you. But these substances that compose us are very real, it is only our consciosuness that forms the notion of these substances being independent that is the illusion.

Why is this an illusion? This is contrary to my plain experience. This hinges on the above-mentioned differences in our worldviews. I accept my experiences as authentic existence, but you do not.
Also, in a sense, you and I and everything are ‘one’ because we all come from God. But in another very real sense, we are different ‘selves’, which plain experience demonstrates.
Consider the Christian view of God. We see Him as One Nature with Three Persons. We believe that we are in God’s image, therefore His existence reflects the reality of our own existence. In a sense, we are all ‘one nature’ but in another entirely equal and real sense, we are all different ‘persons.’ Unity in diversity. Diversity does not destroy unity.

• You are essentially denying evolution here, which takes us into another realm of debate…*

Well, considering I don’t deny the reality of my own senses… I’m not sure who’s more in conflict with evolution!

 

[Neithan]

Evolution holds that human beings have developed from animals, and that we are as much a part of the natural world as anything else. You are making an essential distinction between animals and humans based on a theological conception, not an observable reality or fact.

A couple things: I do not have a problem accepting that the human body developed from animals; and yes I am accepting a theological assertion that the human spirit is unique, directly created by God at the moment of human conception. I flatly disagree that this is not an observable reality or fact, and frankly find it ironic that one who does not accept the fact of observable reality is trying to hold it up as an authority. That’s just plain self-contradiction!*

It does not suggest that human beings have a perpeptual self, whilst animals do not.

You’re conclusion is entirely personal and in no way represents the objective views of ‘science’. Science ignores any metaphysical or theological explanations so we really shouldn’t be involving it in this discussion. Also, as I alluded to above, how can you resort to scientific evidence when you don’t even trust the reliability of your own senses??

Catholic dogma accepts that the human spirit is uniquely suited to the human body (it is the form of the body)–so any neurological superiority of our physical brains with respect to animals are a *result *of the fact that we have spirits. Our bodies are specially created in order to house our unique spiritual souls! We have complex brains because we have a self-consciousness and free will, not vice-versa.
Likewise, animal souls (which do not have self-consciousness nor free-will) are suited for their respective bodies.
Catholics who accept it, see Evolution as an effect, not a cause. God fashioned all sorts of plants/animals according to the souls that would inhabit them. Only the human body is capable of housing a spiritual soul.

If our body is essential to our perpetual identiy, than how can the atoms that form our body have, at one point, been the atoms that formed other human beings?

Again I invite you to consider the Christian God–3 in 1, unity in diversity–to get a feel for how we see the cosmos as both one and yet many.
Furthermore, Catholic philosophy separates substance from appearance, the latter being dependent on the former, and the former existing only–except in miraculous cases–where the latter inhere. These refer to **sensual **rather than **physical **concepts. Physical matter cannot cease to exist, but the sensual substance of an object can. For example, the desk I am sitting at now exists, and the physical atoms are organized in such a way as to create the appearance which signifies the substance of this particular desk. Now, if I completely burn my desk down to ashes–the physical *matter *of the desk still exists, the atoms have simply reorganised themselves. But the sensual *substance *of the desk is gone. The appearance is completely different and so it can be said that my desk no longer exists. The atoms have reorganised themselves into a different substance, namely ashes.

When a human body decomposes, the substance of that human body is changed in accord with the changed appearance. The atoms that were once a human body are now something else, such as dirt. So, the substance of human bodies which have fully decayed no longer exists. Thus, even if the atoms which formed one human body ten thousand years ago are now found scattered all over the galaxy–the *substance *of that dead ten thousand year old body is not in the atoms themselves, it has ceased to exist along with that body.
The Resurrection is the reanimation of the substances of the human bodies which they once formed. This does not necessarily use the same physical atoms.

Contrast this with reincarnation. Reincarnation could, theoretically, use the same physical atoms. Say someone was born ten thousand years ago (and died) and is born again today. It just so happens that all the *very same *atoms in that baby born ten thousand years ago happen to be in this baby born today–yet… they do not look the same. This is an example of the same physical matter but different substance.
These would be two completely different persons’ bodies in Christian theology, despite the fact that they happen to use exactly the same physical matter. At the resurrection, each will have the same substance, but the matter will be different.
Again, substance is based on appearance, not the actual physical atoms.

• While it is true that the way* in which our bodies are composed may be unique, what composes them is not unique to us. [emphasis mine]

Couldn’t have said it better myself

 

[AquinasXVI]

Gnosis:

I really think you should consider reading The Everlasting Man by GK Chesterton and the Theology of the Body by JPII. I don’t suggest these lightly, please pick up these books, not only will you enjoy them but will also give you a fresh angle on Catholicism. It will surprise you.

As far as Evolution…let us not forget that it is a theory at the end of the day. And there’s not sufficient evidence if any that is conclusive. Darwin was more of a superstitionist than a scientist…along with his deluded cousin Dalton who decided that they can validate each other’s findings. And the world bought it lock stock and barrel.

You guys are having a good go at this.

in XT.

 

[Gnosis]

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head of our whole argument here my friend. This is what seperates your worldview from mine, and incidentally also from scientists.

Again, I think you are letting pre-concievied notions of eastern spirituality to obstruct your understanding of what I am saying. I think you have this idea that I am saying that the world is some kind of illusion or dream and therefore, our senses are rendered meaningless. Whilel there are some schools of thought that belive the world we see is an illusion, that is, by no means, what I am attempting to convey.

We are, as science would agree, limited and finite beings. Our perception of the world is not absolute. We can not discren everything simply by touch, taste, vision ect. An example I used before was that of a lightbulb. When you look at a light it looks as though the light is one fixated, unmoving source. However, we know that the light is indeed flashing so quickly that it only appears this way. Thus, the fixation of the light is an ** illusion **.

Its not that our senses are invalid…its that if we rely on them without relfection, if we simply take everything just as we see it, feel it, smell, hear it we are often mislead. For we are, by nature, prejudiced. We** percieve things in relation to the self**, so our perceptions are partial and can not be trusted fully within themselves. There is no conflict with science in this sense. Buddhism holds that we percieve the existence of a permanent self because change is so thorough and consistent that we feel as though there is something about us at the core that is not changing. You said spirits are not neccessarliy static, but change neccessitates “death”, for if something is in a constant state of change, it will be, at some point, unrecognizible from a state that it was in the past.

For example, the desk I am sitting at now exists, and the physical atoms are organized in such a way as to create the appearance which signifies the substance of this particular desk. Now, if I completely burn my desk down to ashes–the physical matter of the desk still exists, the atoms have simply reorganised themselves. But the sensual substance of the desk is gone.

This is essentially flawed. There is no “substance” of the desk, the identity of the desk exists soley in your relation to it, or in its relation to other things. You see the desk, and its identity is based soley on how it can serve you, or what purpose it will serve other objects. Its identity is completely dependent upon other objects, so that there is no inherent identity, or substance. The ashes are only a change or transformation. We can not say that the ashes and the desk are two seperate things, or have two seperate substances.

An example would be you as a child and as an adult. Can we say that you actually changed in substance when you became an adult? Though the change was much more subtle than a desk to ashes, there was no accellerant to speed the change. Can we say that you as a child were in fact of a different substance than you as an adult? No, your substance has not changed, but your identity has, an identity which we ourselves have brought forward. An “identity” is simply the labelling of a continuous process, pointing out a certain stage where the change occurs at a slower rate.

I wrote this earlier: “We may say that a tree begins and ends. But what is a tree besides the label we have given to a natural process? When does the tree “begin”? As the potential within another tree that will produce a seed? As the seed? As a sprout in the earth? As a sapling? When does it end? When it decomposes, returning to the soil where it will be used to sustain the life of another plant? My point is, what we have labeled as a tree is not a distinct and separate entity from everything else. We have pointed out a specific stage of a process, and emphasized it, conceptualized it. A tree is composed of so many things, that when we really break it down, it is a product, a synthesis.”

So death is infact, another change. It is a change insofar as that our consciousness is extinguished, so that we may no longer be able to have perception, but there is no ultimate change in substance.

 

[Neithan]

Gnosis:

Its not that our senses are invalid…its that if we rely on them without relfection, if we simply take everything just as we see it, feel it, smell, hear it we are often mislead. For we are, by nature, prejudiced. We** percieve things in relation to the self**, so our perceptions are partial and can not be trusted fully within themselves. There is no conflict with science in this sense.

But this is exactly where I do see conflict. Science relies solely on the senses, and therefore cannot seriously doubt them. Sure observations are checked, double checked, and triple checked to prove their general reliability, but according to empirical science *all of our knowledge *is obtained through our senses. Any idea of objective illusions must be ignored for progress to be made by induction.

Buddhism holds that we percieve the existence of a permanent self because change is so thorough and consistent that we feel as though there is something about us at the core that is not changing. You said spirits are not neccessarliy static, but change neccessitates “death”, for if something is in a constant state of change, it will be, at some point, unrecognizible from a state that it was in the past.

But shouldn’t we acknowledge the sense that we feel our identity to be somewhat permanent as real? Why write this off as a mere illusion? I have memories, and whether those memories actually correspond to the past or not is irrelevant and, in my humble opinion, destructive. Especially if others corroborate, and share my memories. If we can’t trust our sense of ‘self’ as an objective reality then we can’t trust anything which it perceives as objective reality. How are we to differentiate between sane and insane? There must be some truth to our existence, and accepting the core ‘self’ is necessary to accept any authentic experience from outside of it.

This is essentially flawed. There is no “substance” of the desk, the identity of the desk exists soley in your relation to it, or in its relation to other things. You see the desk, and its identity is based soley on how it can serve you, or what purpose it will serve other objects. Its identity is completely dependent upon other objects, so that there is no inherent identity, or substance. The ashes are only a change or transformation. We can not say that the ashes and the desk are two seperate things, or have two seperate substances.

The key to understanding this concept is that it is sensual, not **physical. **It is entirely perceived. I perceive a desk, therefore there is a desk. This is its ‘substance’. Its physical matter are the basic atoms which comprise it (which is itself actually another constructed concept). The substance is attached to the appearance, or accident of an object. Matter is simply the continuous existence of ‘something’ which we break down into tiny individual ‘somethings’ called ‘atoms’. All these are costructed concepts.
Accidents do indeed exist solely in your own relation to it and to other things, but they signify the presence of the substance of the object! Again, entirely sensual concepts but crucial to our existence as sensual beings. We do not look at a tree and see a bunch of protons, neutrons and electrons; we see a tree. Sure its identity is dependent on relation to other objects but this doesn’t destroy the fact that it has an identity. The concept of identity itself is defined through comparisons. To say that ashes and the desk do not have two separate substances is saying that you do not see a difference between the two, which is simply contrary to experience.

 

[Neithan]

An example would be you as a child and as an adult. Can we say that you actually changed in substance when you became an adult? Though the change was much more subtle than a desk to ashes, there was no accellerant to speed the change. Can we say that you as a child were in fact of a different substance than you as an adult? No, your substance has not changed, but your identity has, an identity which we ourselves have brought forward. An “identity” is simply the labelling of a continuous process, pointing out a certain stage where the change occurs at a slower rate.

Hmm, this is a difficult concept and we are approaching it from completely antithetical positions.
I would say exactly the opposite: my* sensual substance **has *changed, but *not ****my identity. ***Absolutely I have changed in substance from child to adult. The substance of my body actually changes every day, constantly, because I do not look exactly the same in any given moment. The accidents (appearances) change with time and therefore so does the substance, which is signified by the accidents. The point is that my substance is still recognizable, therefore my identity remains intact. There is *something *in my substance which remains constant. Identity is based on the spirit, which is the form of the body and thusly reflected, it is an inherent and permanent quality. We can observe this plainly. Compare the portrait of an elderly man with one of him at a much younger age. He looks different, no doubt. His substance has largely changed, but it is not a wholly different substance. You must admit that similarities exist: this points to the permanence of identity.
The spirit itself develops, it does not remain exactly the same, but its identity is always the same, because you do not change your sense of ‘self’. You are always the same spirit. Like the light from a lightbulb: the light itself is always changing but not the identity of the source. Even a person who loses all their memories is the same spirit. This is a philosophical/theological concept and there really is no way to ‘prove’ this, it is simply a way of understanding, and in my personal opinion, a practical one. Sophistry is destructive.

As for your analogy about the tree, again we say that the substance of the tree changes with its appearance. The physical matter can actually remain the same, but if the appearance changes then so does the substance. Identity, however, must be given meaning based on the substance: there is some constant in the substance which does not change. Identitiy is just that quality of a substance which is constant. As you recognize, this is wholly conceptualized by us, a *sensual *‘product.’ But to say that a tree has no identity is contrary to practical experience. How do you identify that oak tree you planted outside of Grandma’s house 10 years ago? The very existence of the idea of that tree in your mind proves that it has some kind of identity.

I’m not denying that the whole concept of ‘self’ and ‘substance’ and ‘identity’ are constructed products of our minds, but then again, isn’t everything? Certainly you can always pick apart, ‘deconstruct’ the accepted worldview through skeptical sophistry, but what purpose does this serve accept to raise unanswerable questions? Skepticism is the suicide of thought. Once you begin to question even your own thoughts insanity will soon follow!

There really are only two basic ways of understanding the world, ultimately: Oriental and Occidental. You seem to be firmly situated in the former, whereas I am confirmed in the latter. I think the fundamental difference is the idea of God. In the occidental worldview, God is the ‘omnimax’ idea of the human mind: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. He is the source of everything, but he is a separate being from everything else that exists. This idea takes away the necessity to question all our experience as a product of our own mind or even solely as an illusory reality in the mind of God. We take for granted that God is not a deceiver, and what we perceive is really what is.
So if I perceive that John Smith is John Smith yesterday, today and tomorrow, then he has an identity and that identity is attached to the words ‘John Smith’. If I perceive that my desk is different when it is burnt to ashes then I can accept that it is really and truly somehow changed, I give this change the name of ‘substance’. This is essentially the philosophy of ‘common sense’. Sophistry is totally unnecessary and serves no practical purpose accept to confuse.

 

[Ahimsa]

Neithan:

So if I perceive that John Smith is John Smith yesterday, today and tomorrow, then he has an identity and that identity is attached to the words ‘John Smith’. If I perceive that my desk is different when it is burnt to ashes then I can accept that it is really and truly somehow changed, I give this change the name of ‘substance’. This is essentially the philosophy of ‘common sense’. Sophistry is totally unnecessary and serves no practical purpose accept to confuse.

So, it seems that “John Smith” is actually a label you place upon a set of changing conditions that nonetheless have something in common (DNA, for one).

 

[Neithan]

Sure