Christianity v. Buddhism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pope_Noah_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree that karma is a reasonable idea but that doesn’t necessarily mean it is self-evident. At least not in my experience, where I’ve seen fairly unpleasant people do well for themselves, while I see fairly good people never catch a break.
This is where previous karma comes in. My understanding of it was that if you had good things in this life and relative peace then that meant that I had cultivated goodness in a previous life and it is now coming to fruition. I basically view one’s “personal” karma as being a storehouse. Once you have exhausted the supply of “good” then the bad comes. Conversely, once the bad is exhausted, then good comes.

Peace…

MW
 
Karma is reasonable. It’s similar to reap/sow. Do bad things and you see that bad things come. Do good things and you’ll see that good things come your way.

Reincarnation is not self-evident till one becomes enlightened (reaches state of nirvana). Then one’s past lives become evident to them.

Nirvana is a terribly misunderstood term. It really is a “state of mind” rather than a geographical place somewhere. It is the extinguishing of the three poisons of greed, hatred and ignorance. A person knows when they reach this state because these three poisons are nowhere to be found. It is provable to the practitioner.

Peace…

MW
I know this is an old thread but just as I looked up the topic of Buddhism in the CAF search engine so might others… That is why I am posting this response.

I don’t know Mystic if in Pure Land Buddhism there is the belief in the concept of reincarnation since I have studied mainly old school Theravadan Buddhism… But reincarnation does not form a part of the teachings of the Buddha. For there to be a belief in reincarnation one must believe that there is an immortal soul that reincarnates. And this is something that forms a central part of Hinduism.

In Buddhism is it the concept of “rebirth” (in Pali language “punabbhava”) that is taught…meaning that there is no soul that reincarnates. One is simply reborn or I should say one’s consciousness is reborn in a different state due to the process of Dependant Arising. There are others that say it is mental energy or the mind that is reborn…but there are many variables like past and present good/bad karma one accumulates or exhausts due to the good merit one has done in ones past lives/present life.

Anyway I just wanted to clear this up. 🙂
 
In Buddhism is it the concept of “rebirth” (in Pali language “punabbhava”) that is taught…meaning that there is no soul that reincarnates.
Could you define what “soul” is?
One is simply reborn or I should say one’s consciousness is reborn in a different state due to the process of Dependant Arising.
“Who” or “what” is this “one” that you speak of, who is “reborn” or has a “consciousness”?🙂
 


It is also worth mentioning that enlightenment is not what you probably think it is:People long for big thrills. Peak experiences. Some people come to Zen expecting that Enlightenment will be the Ultimate Peak Experience. The Mother of All Peak Experiences. But real enlightenment is the most ordinary of the ordinary. Once I had an amazing vision. I saw myself transported through time and space. Millions, no, billions, trillions, Godzillions of years passed. Not figuratively, but literally. Whizzed by. I found myself at the very rim of time and space, a vast giant being composed of the living minds and bodies of every thing that ever was. It was an incredibly moving experience. Exhilarating. I was high for weeks. Finally I told Nishijima Sensei about it . He said it was nonsense. Just my imagination. I can’t tell you how that made me feel. Imagination? This was as real an experience as any I’ve ever had. I just about cried. Later on that day I was eating a tangerine. I noticed how incredibly lovely a thing it was. So delicate. So amazingly orange. So very tasty. So I told Nishijima about that. That experience, he said, was enlightenment.

Source: Zen is Boring

rossum
:rolleyes:
Rossum,
May I ask you this? How is it that you do not tire of this fascination with “feelings” or “experiences”? Do you really think that that is what life is about? Trying to capture some “feeling” or “revelation”? Does it not ever occur to you as slightly narcisistic?

Peace.
 
:rolleyes:
Rossum,
May I ask you this? How is it that you do not tire of this fascination with “feelings” or “experiences”?
Rossum’s post critiques that very fascination with “feelings” and “experiences”.🙂 Enlightenment is chopping wood, carrying water.
 
I was on a Buddhist forum, and something interesting caught my attention. Buddhism teaches that there is no need for faith, that the teachings of Buddhism can be proven to be self-evident by simply examining them. I know that this is the complete opposite of Christianity, in which faith fundamental, so my question is, if Buddhism is true and provable, has anyone tried it, and can it truly refute Christianity as the path?
Hi Noah,

This is what I call a hook. This is how they get you in the door and listening to them. Before you know it, you be believing all kinds of things. For instance - samsara, nirvana, reincarnation, enlightenment, …etc…

These things are not provable. But they start you of with examining your thoughts and your mind. The rest of it is purely based on belief.

I am not saying this to be mean spirited, ok. Please understand this is my experience but I feel that Buddhists are among the most “delusional” religious people I’ve known. Delusional in the sense that they have the idea that they are so rational and so scientific. Yet, hidden beneath that veneer is a whole cosmos of blind faiths.

I don’t think meditation works. Increased awareness is not what you think it is. Sometimes it is actually increased ignorance maskerading as awareness.

That is what Rossums quote hints at. What we think is “enlightenment” is not enlightenment at all. Its a fool’s paradise.
 
Rossum’s post critiques that very fascination with “feelings” and “experiences”.🙂 Enlightenment is chopping wood, carrying water.
Yes that is correct. However, the meditator who is sitting in zazen or vipashana meditation for hours is trying to achieve a state of awareness, (even by ‘not trying’). That is what I meant by narcisistic.
 
Yes that is correct. However, the meditator who is sitting in zazen or vipashana meditation for hours is trying to achieve a state of awareness, (even by ‘not trying’). That is what I meant by narcisistic.
So I suppose the awareness of compassion, wisdom, virtue, patience, etc., is narcissistic?🙂
 
Lisa44

IMHO: You have got it right . Sounds like you spent a bit of time checking it out.

I also have been over the rainbow and found nothing their but very thin air 😃
 
Could you define what “soul” is? “Who” or “what” is this “one” that you speak of, who is “reborn” or has a “consciousness”?🙂
You want me to define what the “soul” is then take your pick…

According to Buddhist thought it is “a permanent unchanging entity, created by a God or emanating from a Paramatma (Divine Essence).” This is a quote from the writings of a famous Sri Lankan Buddhist monk named Narada.

As to the what the soul is for Catholic’s…According to the Catechism of the Catholic church it is 364 “that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man”… 366 "The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God."

I adhere to the Catholic definition of what a soul is being that I am a practicing Catholic.

When it comes to your other question on who/what is the “one” or the “one” reborn… I already answered that in my post by saying it is one’s consciousness that is reborn. That is why I said “or I should say ones consiousness is reborn” to clarify what I meant so as not to confuse others to thinking that I meant the body or soul is reborn.
 
You want me to define what the “soul” is then take your pick…

According to Buddhist thought it is “a permanent unchanging entity, created by a God or emanating from a Paramatma (Divine Essence).” This is a quote from the writings of a famous Sri Lankan Buddhist monk named Narada.

As to the what the soul is for Catholic’s…According to the Catechism of the Catholic church it is 364 “that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man”… 366 "The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God."

I adhere to the Catholic definition of what a soul is being that I am a practicing Catholic.
Does the soul, as defined by Catholicism, possess the characteristic of being permanent and unchanging?
When it comes to your other question on who/what is the “one” or the “one” reborn… I already answered that in my post by saying it is one’s consciousness that is reborn. That is why I said “or I should say ones consiousness is reborn” to clarify what I meant so as not to confuse others to thinking that I meant the body or soul is reborn.
OK, but you speak of “one’s consciousness”, implying a “one” who owns a “consciousness”. Who is this “one” who possesses this “consciousness”? “Who” is aware of the fact that consciousness is reborn? Are you implying that Buddhism teaches that there is a “one” who owns a “consciousness”?
 
Buddhism and Christianity are the ultimate apples and oranges to one another. Buddhism isn’t even considered by many Buddhists to be a religion but more a way of life and a lifestyle, a path toward annihilation of attachment to the notion of a self, the atman. Buddhists seek to accept life the way it is and live free of attachment to ideas, notions of selfhood, and desires. There is no such thing as a soul in Buddhism and actually the idea of being an individual, a soul, a spirit, is the ultimate hindrance toward finding Nirvana. For Buddhists, the very thing that creates havoc and suffering is the idea of self. Buddhism is about eliminating suffering, dukkha. Christianity isn’t about eliminating suffering or misalignment of a false self but rather affirming the self and its origin in God and fullfillment in Christ Jesus. Siddhartha Gautama was agnostic. He claimed that gods can be neither disproven nor proven and that deities and theistic devotion were not necessary for the task of becoming a Buddha.

With Therevada Buddhism, the Buddhist is like the Catholic form of Buddhism if I may make the comparison. Therevada Buddhists support celibate monks and the monks earn merit toward their salvation. It is the more traditional, orthodox Buddhism using tradition, oral sayings, and the written canon to justify teachings. Therevada Buddhists “work out their salvation” through good works, meditation, and study. The only men who can become Buddhas are the monks. The people support the monks and make merit to attain to a higher state in the next life.

In Mahayana Buddhism, it is more focused on ‘grace’ merit given freely to the follower by bodhisattvas, or quasi-Buddhas who are one step away from entering Nirvana but choose to share their merit with the people in this life. So in one way it is more the protestant grace-focused Buddhism, but on the other hand with the storehouse of merit it sounds Catholic with the merit of the saints in the treasury of grace that the Church gives in indulgences.

Christianity is built on faith and moral principles and Buddhism is completely NOT based on faith but on the principles taught by Siddhartha Gautama that he claimed could help the individual shed himself/herself of the false notions of attachment and the ego…

I spent a LOT of time studying Buddhism as a teen before I went to Thailand and China. I actually visited Thai “wats” or temples and watched the monks chanting, praying, meditating, getting their morning meals from the laypeople in merit-making. I visited chedis and stupas, giant Buddhist shrines, etc. I also went to pagodas and saw some amazing Buddhist ceremonies like a funeral for a monk one time. I read a lot about this subject and find it fascinating. I have to teach Buddhism to my sixth graders as part of our world religions curriculum also. It’s definitely a world apart from Christianity.
 
Does the soul, as defined by Catholicism, possess the characteristic of being permanent and unchanging?

OK, but you speak of “one’s consciousness”, implying a “one” who owns a “consciousness”. Who is this “one” who possesses this “consciousness”? “Who” is aware of the fact that consciousness is reborn? Are you implying that Buddhism teaches that there is a “one” who owns a “consciousness”?
There is no “self” according to Buddhism that is reborn but rather skandas, or “baskets” of energies and perception that come together from the individual that are reborn into a new being according to the religion. There is no conscious self to begin with according to Siddhartha, that’s the illusion that gets us suffering in the first place he believed. There is no “one” in this thinking, you’re correct.

It’s like in the movie “Little Buddha,” when the Buddhist monk knocks a ceramic cup of tea on the ground and it spills all over. The tea goes into the cracks of the tile floor, down a drain, some on his robe, under the chair. He likens the individual in reincarnation to this tea. It is energies and perceptions and parts of an original hole spread to different winds to fill into new cracks to become something new. That’s their take on it.
 
Does the soul, as defined by Catholicism, possess the characteristic of being permanent and unchanging?

OK, but you speak of “one’s consciousness”, implying a “one” who owns a “consciousness”. Who is this “one” who possesses this “consciousness”? “Who” is aware of the fact that consciousness is reborn? Are you implying that Buddhism teaches that there is a “one” who owns a “consciousness”?
As defined by Catholicism the “soul” is immortal. And in the same paragraph of the Catechism excerpt I posted earlier in #366 it continues on to say “and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

I’m not implying anything about Buddhism teaching that there is a “ONE”. You are reading too much that is not there into what I write.
 
These things are not provable.
Some of them are, and more so than with Christianity.

Nirvana is attained at enlighenment, not at death. The Buddha was enlightened at age 35, he died aged 80. For 35 years he lived in the same world as we do and yet was also in nirvana. You can confirm the existence of nirvana by attaining it before you die.

If you want to confirm reincarnation for yourself then follow the instructions in chapter 13 of the Visuddhimagga for remembering your previous lives.
I don’t think meditation works.
I have tried it and I know that it does work. I do not know if you have tried it or not, but for me it cetainly does work.
That is what Rossums quote hints at. What we think is “enlightenment” is not enlightenment at all. Its a fool’s paradise.
The whole point of the quote was to point out what is false and what is real about internal religious experiences. Eating a tangerine is real. Enlightenment is real. Nirvana is real: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

rossum
 
This is where previous karma comes in. My understanding of it was that if you had good things in this life and relative peace then that meant that I had cultivated goodness in a previous life and it is now coming to fruition. I basically view one’s “personal” karma as being a storehouse. Once you have exhausted the supply of “good” then the bad comes. Conversely, once the bad is exhausted, then good comes.

Peace…

MW
Hi Mystic Warrior,

This is what I mean by Buddhists having “beliefs” that have no basis.

Don’t you think God is a better explanation honestly?
I mean, if there is no god, then who or what is monitoring all those good behaviors, and giving you good or bad in your life? (Not that God can be reduced to a simple equation like karma can…)

Karma makes no sense to me whatsoever. And, it is so vague of a concept that people use to to explain everything. For instance, poor people are born poor because of bad karma. Rich people are rich because of good karma.:rolleyes:
 
So I suppose the awareness of compassion, wisdom, virtue, patience, etc., is narcissistic?🙂
Hi Sedesdomi,
Are you suggesting that people who are not Buddhist or do not meditate, have no awareness of compassion, wisdom, and patience? Or that meditation is somehow related to those qualities?
Lisa44

IMHO: You have got it right . Sounds like you spent a bit of time checking it out.

I also have been over the rainbow and found nothing their but very thin air 😃
Hi Qoheleth, (interesting name)

Yes, I wasted many a year. You and me both 😉
Some of them are, and more so than with Christianity.

Nirvana is attained at enlighenment, not at death. The Buddha was enlightened at age 35, he died aged 80. For 35 years he lived in the same world as we do and yet was also in nirvana. You can confirm the existence of nirvana by attaining it before you die.

If you want to confirm reincarnation for yourself then follow the instructions in chapter 13 of the Visuddhimagga for remembering your previous lives.

I have tried it and I know that it does work. I do not know if you have tried it or not, but for me it cetainly does work.

The whole point of the quote was to point out what is false and what is real about internal religious experiences. Eating a tangerine is real. Enlightenment is real. Nirvana is real: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

rossum
Rossum, hi there,
When do you think you will achieve enlightenment? Do you know any other people who are enlightened?
I did practice meditation for a few years. However, …well, here I am in the Catholic Faith.

Perhaps I misinterpreted the quote then. Eating a tangerine is real. However I disagree that enlightenment is real. Even if I was to posit that it is real, then its still statistically improbable that one would ever reach that state of mind given the rarity of it. So what is a woman to do, neglect her family in order to sit in mediation for 20 years…hoping to achieve a state of mind? Buddhism is anti-family because it demands so much ascetic practice that women end up neglecting their children. Men also neglect their children.

Because of the demands it places on the individual, most poor people who have a life of work end up worshipping the Buddha or other deities. And the practices are left to those in the monasteries. Either way, its paganism or polytheism. Neither is really very good is it?
 
If you want to confirm reincarnation for yourself then follow the instructions in chapter 13 of the Visuddhimagga for remembering your previous lives.
Hi, Rossum,

I’ve been reading your posts for quite some time, and I’ve learned a lot from them. I like the way you explain things. But the idea of “no self” and “past lives”is something I just can’t seem to wrap my head around. If there is no self to go from one body to the next, then whose previous lives will we remember? I’ve read different explanations, but none of them seem to have sunk in. I’d really appreciate it if you would explain it.

Xuan
 
When do you think you will achieve enlightenment?
A long time from now. I know that I am far from perfect.
Do you know any other people who are enlightened?
I know of some people who seem to be so. I know of some who have the reputation of being enlightened.

Here is one example, though he is dead now:[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything - without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya… everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton
I did practice meditation for a few years. However, …well, here I am in the Catholic Faith.
Good. Follow whatever works for you.
Perhaps I misinterpreted the quote then. Eating a tangerine is real. However I disagree that enlightenment is real.
It is, and it can be studied. There are various studies made of the states of mind of Buddhist meditators that show different results from non-meditators.
Even if I was to posit that it is real, then its still statistically improbable that one would ever reach that state of mind given the rarity of it. So what is a woman to do, neglect her family in order to sit in mediation for 20 years…hoping to achieve a state of mind?
That is a decision for you to make. The Buddha took six years to reach enlightenment. Bodhidharma spent seven years meditating in his cave. The average seems to be between five and ten years of concentrated effort.
Buddhism is anti-family because it demands so much ascetic practice that women end up neglecting their children. Men also neglect their children.
Not all Buddhists are monks or nuns, any more than all Catholics are celibate monks, nuns or priests.
Because of the demands it places on the individual, most poor people who have a life of work end up worshipping the Buddha or other deities. And the practices are left to those in the monasteries. Either way, its paganism or polytheism. Neither is really very good is it?
I presume you are talking about the difference between self-power and other-power in Buddhism. I have no problem with the other-power sects, such as Pure Land, it is just that their methods are not for me. I did try them briefly. Obviously I disagree with your last sentence; Buddhism has no problem with most non-Buddhist religions (paganism) and no problem with multiple gods (polytheism).

rossum
 
I’ve been reading your posts for quite some time, and I’ve learned a lot from them. I like the way you explain things.
Thank you.
But the idea of “no self” and “past lives”is something I just can’t seem to wrap my head around. If there is no self to go from one body to the next, then whose previous lives will we remember? I’ve read different explanations, but none of them seem to have sunk in. I’d really appreciate it if you would explain it.
You had to pick a difficult one, didn’t you. 🙂

Start with your current life. When you were born you were very different to the way you are now. You could not speak any language, you could not eat anything except milk, you could not walk or operate a computer. The person you were then is not the person you are now. Similarly the person you will be in future will be different from the person you are now. This reflects the absence of a permanent self - you are changing. You are different from that baby, but you are part of the same chain of causation as that baby. You are different from your future self, but you are part of the same chain of causation. If that baby had not existed then you would not exist now; “the child is father to the man”. So you are not the same (no self) but you are causally connected (previous life/current life/future life). In the same way we are causally connected to our previous lives but we are not the same as the person (or animal, god etc.) that we might have been in that former life. The same for our future lives.

We remember our own childhood, and not somebody else’s childhood because of that causal connection through which memory is passed down. I can remember my own childhood and not your childhood because I am causally connected to me as a child and not causally connected to you as a child. In the same way I will only remember previous lives from my causal chain and not from your causal chain. Technically I should not say “my own childhood” but “the childhood of the current life of the causal chain of which my present existence is part”; however it is a lot easier just to say “my own childhood”.

There is a connection between lives, but the connection between my previous life and my current life is different to the connection between my current life and my future life. There is no permanent entity passing along, just a chain of causally connected separate and different entities. Each link in the chain is different.

A film appears to be a single continuously moving image, but in fact it is just a series of connected still images assembled in a given order. A single life can be seen as a continuous shot in the film, with reincarnation as the cut from the previous shot and the cut into the next shot.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top