Comparing and contrasting Catholicism and Tibetan Buddhism.

[SteveVH]

I went to a mass, did not receive eucharist, expresed interest in becoming Catholic, and got told to call tomorrow… Kind of weird, and put me off.

Can’t blame you, but if you were at Mass (on Sunday) I’m fairly positive that it wouldn’t be the best time to be inquiring. They were probably speaking the truth when they said call tomorrow so that you could meet with the appropriate person. However, I wasn’t there. If they were rude to you then I would try anther parish. The process of becoming Catholic normally takes several years of attending classes and liturgy. Next time ask who is in charge of RCIA.

You have to take in the idea of rebirth - that is, that karma can play out in future lives, and also that past-life karma effects the present.

Well actually, that is a belief that you will have to part with if you want to become Christian. I think this has already been explained in previous posts. We do not believe in future lives, we believe in eternal life. We live once and die once. We have this life to get it right and cannot accomplish that without a Savior who promises us eternal life.

Believing in future lives makes this part much easier to do - in fact, unless you are spiritually advanced, and can see the karma of others, you can commit negative acts of body and speech - but your mind must stay pure. Until then, it is best to abstain.

Again, the notion of future lives has no place in Christianity, nor does karma. May I ask how one keeps his mind clear while commiting “negative acts of body and speech”? You kind of lost me here.

Replies in bold.

Again, the issues, if you can believe it, is Jesus. Jesus for me gives me ideas of passive-ness in one’s spiritual goals - to unite back to God. He might be the way towards it, but just letting Jesus handle it isn’t enough. We should do our best, with Jesus’ help, if that’s the case.

Actually, “just letting Jesus handle it” it a goal of Christiany, one for which we strive and very difficult to accomplish. I don’t mean that we have no part in God’s plan. That was why we were created. We need to cooperate with God in His plan of salvation by living according to His law of love.

 

[Sherab0]

Catholics believe in a personal God who is the Creator of all things, has always existed, has no beginning or end, is all powerful, all knowing, always present, who is loving, merciful, and just. I don’t think you can even consider Catholicism without believing in a personal God first.
** I am not arguing a “personal god” at all. In fact, I have also tried Hinduism before, and they fit karma into the personal god theory quite well. My main question is - everything Buddhism relies on karma and rebirth. Karma even determines where we are reborn, and so on. Who or what created karma? **

-some text omitted-

You might also want to look at Hitler’s Germany, can you imagine if the Germans won? He needed to be stopped, and that could only happen with war unfortunately.
**No one can conquer Russia anyways… **

The keyword here is “cult”, the Catholic Church is the one Jesus Christ founded. It is not a denomination it is the denomination, it’s not a branch, or a sect. Catholicism does not focus on one thing (i.e Baptists focus on baptism, Penecostals on Penecost, and although I don’t consider them Christian, Jehovah’s Witnesses focus on the oneness of God and rejecting the Holy Trinity).
** Understandable.**

I just did…

Yes I can. I totally can. On his Wikipedia page (I know I shouldn’t rely on Wikipedia for accurate facts but it’s just so easy and tempting haha) it says…
“Stair purchased a motel in Walterboro, South Carolina in 1978, and encouraged followers to move to the community, selling all their possessions, taking a vow of poverty, and donating all they own to Overcomer Ministries.”
Is this true? I understand why you’re reluctant, but please do not think Catholicism is like this. It’s absolutely not. Cult leaders are evil manipulators who use their twisted interpretation of the Bible to suit their agenda; this is not true Christianity as Christ intended.
** It’s not even the poverty. You should see what he did to his wife and kids, and how he;'s been in jail, and he says that he’s some kind of prophet, and that he has no money but he can afford huge radio transistors(excuse the wrong term) to “preach” to us all. It’s simply crazy.**

Tradition is not more important than the Bible, but as important. Fundamentalists forget the fact that the Bible did not just randomly appear out of the blue, but that the Catholic Church put it together. Actually, I think a lot of Protestants in general forget that.
** Which is why I am also against protestantism, and that they basically use a “Catholic” bible while they refute the new testament apocrypha, and yet use the bible of a church they supposedly don’t agree with.**

Replies in bold. I think I’ll be here awhile… Anyone interested in seeing my statue of Jesus?

About my “calling”… I absolutely LOVE photography. The weird and the strange. I also enjoy logic, religions, and if MATH wasn’t a huge issue for me (I don’t use a calculator… whoops…) I’d probably be a psychologist. In fact, I think I might take a summer course to improve my Maths… but anyways.

For my photography: flickr.com/shivasfire (yes, made in my hindu days)

Erm, sorry for the huge ramble, I’m just thinking here… re-thinking everything, actually.

EDIT: and my favorite photo on earth: farm3.static.flickr.com/2798/4378337146_52b78a544b_o.png

 

[Ahimsa]

Comparing and contrasting catholicism and tibetan buddhism. I’m not sure where to start, so… I’ll just go with what comes to mind.

Karma -
What we do comes back to us. Simple as that. Whether a “being” (God) gives it back, or if it’s a spiritual extension of newton’s laws… It exists in some way.

The New Testament says, “A man reaps what he sows” (Galatians 6:7). This is a Hebrew re-statement of the law of karma-vipaka, “action-and-result”.

Salvation -
We have to work for it. Period.

Agreed, but “work” includes both physical actions and the emotional-intellectual action called “faith-and-trust”.

Killing -
Under any circumstance is wrong. I disagree with the old testament wars and battles. I love every living being, realizing that they have feelings and perceptions of the world just like humans. I am not vegetarian, however.

Many monks are vegetarian for the reason that non-vegetarianism includes un-necessary violence.

Mind -
Buddhism is about working with the mind, and the intent behind actions causes the karma to follow. Outer appearance does not matter.

I would disagree that Buddhism would simply state that “outer appearance does not matter”. Outer appearance is not the final word, but it does matter, but not in an ultimate sense. Part of the reason the Buddha and his monks wore robes was because he did not want non-Buddhists to be put off by the “outer appearance” of naked monks. Some religious groups of the Buddha’s time went around naked (and some of these groups still exist), but the Buddha did not think that that was an appropriate “outer appearance”.

But back to Christianity: Christianity is about working with the mind as well. In Christianity, the mind is called “psyche” or “nous”. An increasingly purified nous is part of the process of Christian practice of meditation, in which you realize that you are not your thoughts.

 

[Sherab0]

The New Testament says, “A man reaps what he sows” (Galatians 6:7). This is a Hebrew re-statement of the law of karma-vipaka, “action-and-result”.

Agreed, but “work” includes both physical actions and the emotional-intellectual action called “faith-and-trust”.

Many monks are vegetarian for the reason that non-vegetarianism includes un-necessary violence.

I would disagree that Buddhism would simply state that “outer appearance does not matter”. Outer appearance is not the final word, but it does matter, but not in an ultimate sense. Part of the reason the Buddha and his monks wore robes was because he did not want non-Buddhists to be put off by the “outer appearance” of naked monks. Some religious groups of the Buddha’s time went around naked (and some of these groups still exist), but the Buddha did not think that that was an appropriate “outer appearance”.

But back to Christianity: Christianity is about working with the mind as well. In Christianity, the mind is called “psyche” or “nous”. An increasingly purified nous is part of the process of Christian practice of meditation, in which you realize that you are not your thoughts.

Did you convert from an eastern faith, Ahimsa?

I think I am going to stick to my tibetan buddhism, afterall. It will require more thought, however.

 

[Ahimsa]

Did you convert from an eastern faith, Ahimsa?

I think I am going to stick to my tibetan buddhism, afterall. It will require more thought, however.

I’m a Baptist Buddhist.

 

[Sherab0]

I’m a Baptist Buddhist.

Very weird, but no big deal, I suppose.

I just don’t like the idea of the Church not allowing me to enjoy certain things, because it would be “breaking rules”. Motivation for me, is key.

 

[Student09]

I have a question about Karma. There seems to be some disagreement in Buddhism over exactly how rebirth/reincarnation works. Usually what you hear is that because of anatta (no-self), there is not a soul carried over into the next life, but certain tendencies, etc, do continue. However, it is difficult to say exactly what that is or how karma applies to it. If a person lives their life doing terrible things to other people and is reborn as a cockroach and stepped on, I guess you could say they got what they deserved - but on the other hand, what justification is there really for saying that the cockroach was the same as the person or that there was enough connection for that karma to really apply?

IMO, it is not even really a kind of blind justice … there is hardly enough connection to make it anything other than random and arbitrary. That may or may not be a problem, I’m just curious as to how you think about it.

 

[Sherab0]

I have a question about Karma. There seems to be some disagreement in Buddhism over exactly how rebirth/reincarnation works. Usually what you hear is that because of anatta (no-self), there is not a soul carried over into the next life, but certain tendencies, etc, do continue. However, it is difficult to say exactly what that is or how karma applies to it. If a person lives their life doing terrible things to other people and is reborn as a cockroach and stepped on, I guess you could say they got what they deserved - but on the other hand, what justification is there really for saying that the cockroach was the same as the person or that there was enough connection for that karma to really apply?

IMO, it is not even really a kind of blind justice … there is hardly enough connection to make it anything other than random and arbitrary. That may or may not be a problem, I’m just curious as to how you think about it.

Okay. Your portions are in bold, my replies, in normal font.

Usually what you hear is that because of anatta (no-self), there is not a soul carried over into the next life, but certain tendencies, etc, do continue.
No-self does not mean that there is no “self”. Simply that there is no -eternal- self. You exist. But YOU are always changing. You get older. Your ideas change. How you act, changes. The hardest part is to define, what are YOU. Either you admit you are a static being, and permanent - or that you change. Change is movement, and movement ITSELF implies destruction. What is created MOVES towards destruction, and the cycle continues.

The “tendencies” is stored in the alaya - the part of the “essential consciousness” that holds onto karmic patterns of thought. Everyone has a consciousness, and an alaya, and how these manifest can give rise to some notion of an eternal self or soul.

However, it is difficult to say exactly what that is or how karma applies to it.
No, there are ten negative actions, and depending on which factors are most present, will determine the strength that is carried over. Residual effect is one of these - you continue to do what you did in a past life, in some shape.

** If a person lives their life doing terrible things to other people and is reborn as a cockroach and stepped on, I guess you could say they got what they deserved - **
I think killing would warrant birth as a hell being, not a cockroach. Animals are fuled by “ignorance”, hungry ghosts by “desire/lust” and hell beings by “hatred”. Humans are a mix of all three.

but on the other hand, what justification is there really for saying that the cockroach was the same as the person or that there was enough connection for that karma to really apply?

See the post on no-self, above. Now, a murderer could be reborn as a good person. Sure. But eventually, that karma will catch up, maybe even in the same life - such as for his mass amount of killing, after he hits, maybe, 26, until he’s 40 he suffers disease after disease, even though being “good” while he is younger.
and yes, you can purify negative karma, and “good” karma does negate negative karma, or the effects of it - we will only experience it in lesser form.

Thanks for asking.

 

[Ahimsa]

I have a question about Karma. There seems to be some disagreement in Buddhism over exactly how rebirth/reincarnation works. Usually what you hear is that because of anatta (no-self), there is not a soul carried over into the next life, but certain tendencies, etc, do continue. However, it is difficult to say exactly what that is or how karma applies to it. If a person lives their life doing terrible things to other people and is reborn as a cockroach and stepped on, I guess you could say they got what they deserved - but on the other hand, what justification is there really for saying that the cockroach was the same as the person or that there was enough connection for that karma to really apply?

IMO, it is not even really a kind of blind justice … there is hardly enough connection to make it anything other than random and arbitrary. That may or may not be a problem, I’m just curious as to how you think about it.

Not only is there no “soul” carried over into the next life, there’s no “soul” carried over within this life.

And, yet, I still have memories about what happened last night; and I still think that “I” went jogging last week.

The key word is “soul”, which, from my mostly Theravada perspective, simply means “that phenomenon which is permanent and everlasting”. Of course, no such phenomenon exists.

However, regarding phenomena, what does exist is the flow of phenomena, the flow of matter, thoughts, feelings, likes and dislikes, loves and hatreds, that I call “me”, “mine”, and “I”.

To say that there is no “soul” is simply to say that “I” am a flow of matter, energy, thoughts, and feelings.

Of course, “what” is it that makes my awareness of this flow of matter, energy, thoughts, and feelings, possible in the first place? Whatever “that” is, I can’t point to it; it’s not a phenomenon.

 

[Student09]

Not only is there no “soul” carried over into the next life, there’s no “soul” carried over within this life.
.

But you see - there is clearly a lot more similarity between myself today and myself yesterday, or even myself five, ten years ago, than there is between me and a cockroach. Or between me and a cow. (I use animals rather than hungry ghosts or hell beings because we have contact with animals and know what they are like.) Or even between me and another person who does not have my particular memories, my experiences.

I’m curious whether or not you see karma as a form of justice.

 

[Student09]

I think killing would warrant birth as a hell being, not a cockroach. Animals are fuled by “ignorance”, hungry ghosts by “desire/lust” and hell beings by “hatred”. Humans are a mix of all three.

Yeah, I know - that’s why I didn’t specify that the person was a murderer, just that he was not a good person. Maybe a more apt example would be someone who spent their life lying around in the dirt and was reborn as a cockroach. So he was dirty and ignorant as a person and he is dirty and ignorant as a cockroach, but whatever else he had that made him the person he was - people are complicated, after all and cannot be reduced to one or two qualities - is not present in the cockroach. I guess you could say it might come back in a later life, I’m just not sure what is gained by that?

 

[Sherab0]

Yeah, I know - that’s why I didn’t specify that the person was a murderer, just that he was not a good person. Maybe a more apt example would be someone who spent their life lying around in the dirt and was reborn as a cockroach. So he was dirty and ignorant as a person and he is dirty and ignorant as a cockroach, but whatever else he had that made him the person he was - people are complicated, after all and cannot be reduced to one or two qualities - is not present in the cockroach. I guess you could say it might come back in a later life, I’m just not sure what is gained by that?

Er, the function of karma itself is cause and effect. Once people know about karma, they can do as many positive actions as they can, to mitigate negative karma. Especially if one is buddhist, there is great merit even in VISUALIZING a flower being tossed into the air, to the Buddha. For each moment that flower is in the air - in your mind - you will then have that many lifetimes as a king.

Of course, our motivation, and karma, from “beginningless” time, may also cancel those effects out. and, in a Buddhist perspective, being a King doesn;t really matter anyways.

The meaning is that making an offering to the Buddha is a very positive thing to do.

 

[Ahimsa]

But you see - there is clearly a lot more similarity between myself today and myself yesterday, or even myself five, ten years ago, than there is between me and a cockroach. Or between me and a cow. (I use animals rather than hungry ghosts or hell beings because we have contact with animals and know what they are like.) Or even between me and another person who does not have my particular memories, my experiences.

Yes, the “you” of today is more similar to the “you” of yesterday, because you share the same DNA, have roughly the same memories, friends, parents, etc. This “flow of self” in your current lifetime has a certain set of characteristics, for the most part.

If you are embodied as a cow in a future lifetime, then your thoughts, feelings, memories, etc., will be those of a cow, but the “karmic flow” will also be connected to your past life as a human as well.

Besides, you may have more in common with the roach, or the cow, than you might think, if Mr. Darwin is correct.

I’m curious whether or not you see karma as a form of justice.

I see karma as simply the process of cause-and-effect. If you jump off [a karma] a bridge, you will fall [an effect, a “vipaka”].

 

[Sherab0]

Yes, the “you” of today is more similar to the “you” of yesterday, because you share the same DNA, have roughly the same memories, friends, parents, etc. This “flow of self” in your current lifetime has a certain set of characteristics, for the most part.

If you are embodied as a cow in a future lifetime, then your thoughts, feelings, memories, etc., will be those of a cow, but the “karmic flow” will also be connected to your past life as a human as well.

Besides, you may have more in common with the roach, or the cow, than you might think, if Mr. Darwin is correct.

I see karma as simply the process of cause-and-effect. If you jump off [a karma] a bridge, you will fall [an effect, a “vipaka”].

And of course, then the “effect” can become a “cause” to another effect - the chain of ‘becoming’.

 

[greggy53]

“Karma -
What we do comes back to us. Simple as that. Whether a “being” (God) gives it back, or if it’s a spiritual extension of newton’s laws… It exists in some way.”

I believe that Karma is a great evil.

It has promoted much misery and poverty in the far East. Karma says if you are poor and starving it is because of sin in a past life, and the conclusion is that you should be allowed to suffer as it is just. Karma is an excuse for the rich to allow the poor to starve. (If I am a wealthy person it is because my soul is advanced and good etc). To me Karma is not unlike the Muslim belief that those who live in poverty do so because it is the will of ‘Allah” and therefore to interfere and help them is to violate the will of ”Allah” Karma is the same principle, and the same evil with a different name.

 

[Ahimsa]

“Karma -
What we do comes back to us. Simple as that. Whether a “being” (God) gives it back, or if it’s a spiritual extension of newton’s laws… It exists in some way.”

I believe that Karma is a great evil.

It has promoted much misery and poverty in the far East. Karma says if you are poor and starving it is because of sin in a past life, and the conclusion is that you should be allowed to suffer as it is just. Karma is an excuse for the rich to allow the poor to starve. (If I am a wealthy person it is because my soul is advanced and good etc). To me Karma is not unlike the Muslim belief that those who live in poverty do so because it is the will of ‘Allah” and therefore to interfere and help them is to violate the will of ”Allah” Karma is the same principle, and the same evil with a different name.

Any idea can be perverted.

If the Buddha followed your interpretation of karma (“you should be allowed to suffer”), then the Buddha would not have taught how to end suffering.

If Krishna had followed your interpretation of karma, then he would not have told Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita how to transcend death.

I think we all recognize that religious ideas can be used for nefarious purposes.

As a Hindu saint (Ammachi) once said, “If it is someone else’s karma to suffer, it is your karma to help them.”

 

[Sherab0]

“Karma -
What we do comes back to us. Simple as that. Whether a “being” (God) gives it back, or if it’s a spiritual extension of newton’s laws… It exists in some way.”

I believe that Karma is a great evil.

It has promoted much misery and poverty in the far East. Karma says if you are poor and starving it is because of sin in a past life, and the conclusion is that you should be allowed to suffer as it is just. Karma is an excuse for the rich to allow the poor to starve. (If I am a wealthy person it is because my soul is advanced and good etc). To me Karma is not unlike the Muslim belief that those who live in poverty do so because it is the will of ‘Allah” and therefore to interfere and help them is to violate the will of ”Allah” Karma is the same principle, and the same evil with a different name.

Except you can control the karma that you produce, and, as a result, you can remove the negative karma and become “wealthy” also. It’s not a stuck in stone process (In Buddhism). In Hinduism, karma has caste associations, although supposedly “removed” in the modern day.

 

[greggy53]

Except you can control the karma that you produce, and, as a result, you can remove the negative karma and become “wealthy” also. It’s not a stuck in stone process (In Buddhism). In Hinduism, karma has caste associations, although supposedly “removed” in the modern day.

Negative vs positive Karma? is this not the struggle between good and evil? Which are Equal and opposing forces in the Eastern thought? I don’t know much of the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. How many Gods does the buddhist worship?

 

[Sherab0]

Negative vs positive Karma? is this not the struggle between good and evil? Which are Equal and opposing forces in the Eastern thought? I don’t know much of the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. How many Gods does the buddhist worship?

Yes. Karma is not only negative. Yes, it is a kind of flow. The idea is that we can remove negative karma, and cultivate positive karma, and it is a process we have control over, once we are aware of the concept of “karma”.

Again, in Hinduism, the practice is tog et as much positive karma as you can, and, this in turn, will result in helping you have the luxuries, time, and mental control to merge with God. In other words, you need the right circumstances, karmically, before you can start on the path to God-hood.

In Buddhism, the idea is the same. Except for differences such as we are not merging with God, but rather overcoming rebirth. The idea is that we need to remove the process called “karma” entirely. The fact of the matter is, is that karma is a “samsaric” paradigm - it only applies to beings who ARE reborn. If we overcome rebirth, we cut off karma. Whereas the Hindu can still be reborn as a divinity, a great soul (maha atma) and still progress upwards highly, the Buddhist is not affected by Karma - they CHOOSE to be reborn to help people on their path.

Hinduism has millions of gods, and Buddhism has none. They see gods has the “peak” of Samsara, the goal is to go beyond that state.

Just minor differences really. The Buddha is not a God, but a “teacher”. He can only help us through his teachings, and he points to something greater.

Also, Samsara means “wheel”. As in a wheel of deaths and rebirths. It also means the world we live in/experience.

 

[greggy53]

All very interesting… actually a lot of concepts that are very different from the one Judeo /Christian God. I’m not convinced that Karma is a force at all but just a way of controlling the people like the cast system. So, your Buddha is not worshiped ? I thought Buddha was considered a God that his followers pray to? As a Christian I do not believe in reincarnation. Our faith teaches us that we die but once. We also believe that goodness is stronger than evil.