Codependant origination and emptiness

[rossum]

That is where Catholicism differs both from Protestantism and Buddhism. It teaches from an objective and infallible and ultimate source of truth … God.

A great many Protestants also claim to teach from an objective and infallible and ultimate source of truth … God. Many Jews also claim to teach from an objective and infallible and ultimate source of truth … God. Many Moslems also claim to teach from an objective and infallible and ultimate source of truth … Allah.

There are a great many people making such claims. How am I, as an outsider, to decide which of the many variants of the Abrahamic religions is actually correct in its claims?

Of course some Hindus also claim to teach from an objective and infallible and ultimate source of truth … Krishna.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You have examined every single truth among all the truths that exist everywhere and have determined which of them is ultimate? My, what a hard worker you are! Now all you have to do is to determine the ultimate language in which this truth is to be expressed, and to write the ultimate dictionary for the ultimate language in which the ultimate truth will be expressed. I wish you well in your work.

Apparently you have exhausted yourself finding only one ultimate truth among all the possible ultimate truths?

And if you look at the bottom of that page you will see, “APA citation. Aiken, C.F. (1908).” Knowledge of Buddhism in the West has advanced greatly since 1908. There were no reliable translations of the major Mahayana sutras until the 1950; before that time the details of the terminology were not well understood. That article is very outdated, just as a description of the Catholic Church from 1908, pre-Vatican II, would also be outdated.

**It’s just your opinion that nobody in the West could have understood anything about Buddhism until 1950. Not a very convincing opinion either. **

We agree. I have never denied that there are large differences in the underlying philosophy. Similarities lie more in the basic moral rules.

Indian influence, both Hindu and Buddhist, was present in Alexandria and Egypt. Given that Egypt was one of the sources of Christian monasticism, it is not surprising that some elements of commonality exist: begging, tonsures, beads, specific clothing, vows, communal living etc.

What is lost in nirvana is the illusion of self identity, that you thought existed but actually didn’t. Can you lose the water you see in a mirage?

Can you look in a mirror and not see yourself?

No return to the maker – nirvana is not a maker – and no oblivion. All that is destroyed is illusions. When the illusions are destroyed all is clear.

Self consciousness is a fact. it is not an illusion. Do you think it is an illusion that when you sit at your your desk and type these posts you are really not real?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

A great many Protestants also claim to teach from an objective and infallible and ultimate source of truth … God.

rossum

Not really. They repudiate the doctrine of papal infallibility. And since these hundreds of Protestant sects all disagree with each other, how can they all be infallible? Can God infallibly inspire a hundred contradictory doctrines?

 

[billcu1]

I have no problem with truth. It is the qualifier “ultimate” which has the problem. How do you know that the qualifier is correctly applied?

Language is a convention between groups of people. One group decided that “elf” would mean a mythical humanoid, that group is called English speakers. A different group decided that “elf” would mean the number 11, that group is called German speakers. There is nothing intrinsic in the phoneme “elf” to attach it to one meaning or the other. The assignment of meaning to phoneme is arbitrary. It is merely a convention. A Russian speaker would use the phoneme Одиннадцать to represent 11.

A mirage is not nothing. A mirage appears to be water, but it is not what it appears to be. Nothing does not appear to be water. Buddhism sees the world as a mirage. It is not nothing, but it is not what it appears to be either. Enlightenment allows you to see through the mirage.

There is no total extinction. All that is extinguished are illusions, mirages and our mistaken ideas. You cannot extinguish what never really existed in the first place. What is extinguished is your error in thinking that the illusion actually was real. Can you extinguish the water in a mirage? No, all you can do is to realise that it was never really water in the first place, just an illusion of water.

rossum

Sounds like he may be hinting at a suggestion of Nihilism we are told over and over that buddhism isn’t suggesting.

 

[billcu1]

If you have no problem with truth, why do you have a problem with ultimate truth?

How do you know the qualifier “ultimate” is incorrectly applied?

After all, haven’t you correctly applied it when you say the only ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth?

The Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on Buddhism is here.

newadvent.org/cathen/03028b.htm

I think tonyrey is working from the traditional Catholic perspective on Buddhism. If you want to correct that perspective, you might do so by pointing out the errors in this article, if there are any.

What you have said in previous posts about the gods, that they are hardly significant in Buddhism, is said also in this article. So this is a huge difference between Christianity and Buddhism.

But the extent to which there are parallels between the two is also significant. For example, when the Buddhist monk is encouraged to live in poverty, renounce marriage, and live by alms, he might also be talking about the Dominicans and Franciscans of the 13th century, who pretty much did likewise. Being detached from worldly riches and pleasures is certainly not exclusively Buddhist. But the main difference is that in Christianity the soul does not get its self identity lost in the pursuit of Nirvana.

Christianity, like Buddhism, emphasizes return to the Maker of all, but in positive joy, not in negative oblivion, as tonyrey pointed out…

The Catholic encyclopedia is not exactly where I would want to go to to learn about Buddhism. You’re going to get a wrong viewpoint. Intentionally or not. Unfortunately the priests don’t seem to want to stick with the sacraments. They want to tell you all about everything. One I know of on this site accused someone I talk too’s Girlfriend of being a Satanist. Whatever that is or he meant. She’s 16 and like heavy metal music. He was very out of line there IMO. Such things almost drive one to apostasy. There’s no point in that. But in the past they were went to for medical advice too when medicine was Satan’s work.

Christianity teaches much…Be afraid very afraid. I’ve never known Buddhism to teach negative oblivion or any type of oblivion. Nirvanna is certainly not oblivion. It’s kinda more like a return. Saying Buddhism is oblivion is either misunderstanding, deception, or antagonism.

 

[billcu1]

A great many Protestants also claim to teach from an objective and infallible and ultimate source of truth … God. Many Jews also claim to teach from an objective and infallible and ultimate source of truth … God. Many Moslems also claim to teach from an objective and infallible and ultimate source of truth … Allah.

There are a great many people making such claims. How am I, as an outsider, to decide which of the many variants of the Abrahamic religions is actually correct in its claims?

Of course some Hindus also claim to teach from an objective and infallible and ultimate source of truth … Krishna.

rossum

The supreme personality of Godhead more like Christianity there.

 

[billcu1]

You have evaded all my points and failed to answer my question.

In your opinion what precisely does “ultimate truth” mean?

I will give a pretty obvious answer to this question. Though I don’t feel the need. It will either be misunderstood or lead to needless antagonism. Jesus said “He who has an ear” not those who fail or stumble in the work.

If the only ultimate truth is there is no ultimate truth then there would be no definition of ultimate truth. Gematria says love, truth, heaven, and hell all equal the number 22. “He speaks through numbers, letter , and communication…” We are taught. If you don’t know where to find this my answer to you will depend on your answer to me. Consider the number 22 and the words mentioned. All these things are the same thing.

 

[billcu1]

Not really. They repudiate the doctrine of papal infallibility. And since these hundreds of Protestant sects all disagree with each other, how can they all be infallible? Can God infallibly inspire a hundred contradictory doctrines?

Seemingly different and contradictory doctrines use what works. And you will find what seems contradictory works the same. It’s all “knowledge” anyway and none of it will last or be eternal. But then I can’t walk this walk for you. The elders won’t and I won’t.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Seemingly different and contradictory doctrines use what works. And you will find what seems contradictory works the same. It’s all “knowledge” anyway and none of it will last or be eternal. But then I can’t walk this walk for you. The elders won’t and I won’t.

Oh, so now truth is whatever works?

Works how? Satisfies? Sounds rather delusional to me.

Are you saying that “Seemingly different and contradictory doctrines” are not really different and contradictory doctrines?

With your kind of logic I’ll have to retreat from the field! I can’t walk this walk for you. The elders won’t, and I won’t.

 

[billcu1]

Oh, so now truth is whatever works?

Works how? Satisfies? Sounds rather delusional to me.

Are you saying that “Seemingly different and contradictory doctrines” are not really different and contradictory doctrines?

With your kind of logic I’ll have to retreat from the field! I can’t walk this walk for you. The elders won’t, and I won’t.

You can’t retreat from the field my friend. You’re already on the way. We’re just at different places. With different understandings. One day you’ll know what I mean. Yes sometimes things seem contradictory at first when they are explained to you you see terms, like the western logic and eastern logic seems difficult and things might be approached from a different point of view. But they’re still true. Westerners easily get confused with Asian logic when used to Platonic and Aristole’s views. You seem to be doing more than some. Read your signature. That says alot.

 

[billcu1]

You can’t retreat from the field my friend. You’re already on the way. We’re just at different places. With different understandings. One day you’ll know what I mean. Yes sometimes things seem contradictory at first when they are explained to you you see terms, like the western logic and eastern logic seems difficult and things might be approached from a different point of view. But they’re still true. Westerners easily get confused with Asian logic when used to Platonic and Aristole’s views. You seem to be doing more than some. Read your signature. That says alot.

Buddhists say Aristotle’s substance is emptiness, which really isn’t empty. You call this God. Does it matter? Do you follow Thomism? Go right ahead. All these “philosophies” will pass away anyway.

 

[Grym]

What is lost in nirvana is the illusion of self identity, that you thought existed but actually didn’t. Can you lose the water you see in a mirage?

Can you look in a mirror and not see yourself?

No return to the maker – nirvana is not a maker – and no oblivion. All that is destroyed is illusions. When the illusions are destroyed all is clear.

Self consciousness is a fact. it is not an illusion. Do you think it is an illusion that when you sit at your your desk and type these posts you are really not real?

I think you are not understanding the word Illusion properly. Illusion means something that is not what it seems.
It does not mean as you interpret something that is not there.

So in the mirror you will se an illusion. The illusion of your self.

The alternative to illusion is seeing things as they really are. I.e. that does not mean you will not se a face in the mirror either.



/Victor

 

[Grym]

The Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on Buddhism is here.

newadvent.org/cathen/03028b.htm

I think tonyrey is working from the traditional Catholic perspective on Buddhism. If you want to correct that perspective, you might do so by pointing out the errors in this article, if there are any.

This atricle is totally impossible to verify since there are no references at all. But I would risk going out on a limb and say that all passages that describes importat things in the Dhamma are balloney.

Just look at the beginning.

The religious, monastic system, founded c. 500 B.C. on the basis of pantheistic Brahminism. The speculations of the Vedanta school of religious thought, in the eighth and following centuries, B.C., gave rise to several rival schemes of salvation. These movements started with the same* morbid view that conscious life is a burden and not worth the living, and that true happiness is to be had only in a state like dreamless sleep free from all desires, free from conscious action**. They took for granted the Upanishad doctrine of the endless chain of births, but they differed from pantheistic Brahminism both in their attitude towards the Vedas and in their plan for securing freedom from rebirth and from conscious existence. In their absolute rejection of Vedic rites, they stamped themselves as heresies. Of these the one destined to win greatest renown was Buddhism.*

As you can see they have no understanding whatsoever of Nibbana and the Dhamma has not at all taken the Upanishad doctrine of rebirths for granted.

So they have clearly missed the mark on what buddhism is already from the start.

/Victor

 

[Grym]

Not really. They repudiate the doctrine of papal infallibility. And since these hundreds of Protestant sects all disagree with each other, how can they all be infallible? Can God infallibly inspire a hundred contradictory doctrines?

To that I would answer:

Since there are different Christian sect including catholisism and protestantism and then Islam, and the jewish faith that all disagree with each other how could they all be infallible? Can God infallibaly inspire a hundred contradictory doctrines?

So you guys flesh it out amongst yourselfs and get back to us when all of you have agreed on what is correct.

Thanks.
Victor

 

[rossum]

Can you look in a mirror and not see yourself?

You can only see yourself as you were a few microseconds ago. That is not the you that you are now. The you of the past is different to the you of the present. It is impossible to see yourself as you are now.

One of the Three Marks in Buddhism is impermanence/change. Everything changes, and that perspective permeates Buddhism.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Sounds like he may be hinting at a suggestion of Nihilism we are told over and over that buddhism isn’t suggesting.

In that case, my apologies for not expressing myself more clearly. Nihilism is a great error. The problem is not that things do not exist, they do. It is that they do not exist as we think that they exist. How many times are we disappointed when our imagined version of something turns out to differ from the real thing? It is the imagined version, inside our heads, that is the illusion and that does not exist. The real external thing does exist.

The basic problem is the mismatch between the ideas in our heads and the external reality. It is important to be aware of the difference between the two.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Seemingly different and contradictory doctrines use what works. And you will find what seems contradictory works the same. It’s all “knowledge” anyway and none of it will last or be eternal. But then I can’t walk this walk for you. The elders won’t and I won’t.

I sometimes use the idea of paths up a mountain. The path up the east face is very different to the path up the west face: “You turn right at the three pine trees,” “No, no. You are wrong, you should turn left at the green boulder by the stream.”

Both paths lead to the summit, but by different routes. “Nada, nada, nada, y en el monte, nada.”

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Since there are different Christian sect including catholisism and protestantism and then Islam, and the jewish faith that all disagree with each other how could they all be infallible? Can God infallibaly inspire a hundred contradictory doctrines?

So you guys flesh it out amongst yourselfs and get back to us when all of you have agreed on what is correct.

Catholics do not claim that any religion but the Catholic faith is infallible. We don’t have to get together with other faiths to claim infallibility, and we do not teach a hundred contradictory doctrines.

Protestants do not even claim the same infallibility that Catholic claim. Collectively they obviously can’t because they all teach a hundred contradictory doctrines.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This atricle is totally impossible to verify since there are no references at all. But I would risk going out on a limb and say that all passages that describes importat things in the Dhamma are balloney.

What obliges me to accept you as an authority over the Catholic Encyclopedia?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You can only see yourself as you were a few microseconds ago. That is not the you that you are now. The you of the past is different to the you of the present. It is impossible to see yourself as you are now.

We must never deny the presence of change in our lives. But it is our lives that are changing, not some delusion that we even exist!