Comparing and contrasting Catholicism and Tibetan Buddhism.

[rossum]

This is an extreme view. Absolutism. That all is one.
The Buddhist dogma of “emptiness” holds both the individual and the collective view - interdendence:
I am individual and connected/part to all.

In your proposition the Buddha would not have us go away and ponder upon what he has said. In his attaining Enlightenment we would have all become Enlightened. There being samsara your view is contradicted.

I disagree, nothing is “your own” because the word “your” has no real referent – there is no “you” so you cannot own anything. All there is is the illusion that there is a real you, and that illusion can be dispelled like a mirage.

rossum

 

[usemelord]

Ah, rossum, verrrrrrrrrrry interesting, indeed!!! So, there is no “you.” “You” are an illusion and do not exist. Who, then, dear rossum, wrote the post for “you”? Your alter-ego?? Well, probably not your alter-ego because that would be part of the illusory “you” which does not exist. How magical and mysterious to be able not to exist, yet still be able to reply to this thread as if you were a real, bona fide “you.” Let me see. I do not exist. Yes, I’m beginning to understand. I am a mere illusion. Ooops! I just accidentally cut my finger on a sharp knife. It hurts like the dickens, but I’m trying to convince myself that there is no pain because how could there be any pain if I don’t exist. Alas, it’s not working. My pain receptors are sending me a message that I am a thinking, feeling, sensing human being susceptible to all that goes with being a tangible, walking, talking, living breathing child of God. And, praise be to our God who neither is an illusion, but exists in me and I in Him!!!

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

I disagree, nothing is “your own” because the word “your” has no real referent – there is no “you” so you cannot own anything. All there is is the illusion that there is a real you, and that illusion can be dispelled like a mirage.

rossum

Whereas ‘Ahimsa’ erred into absolutism you have erred into nihilism.
I agree with ‘usemelord’, stub your toe, cut your finger, you soon find the self-cherishing mind.

If ‘you’ do not exist, who generates bodhicitta, the mind of loving-kindness?

In a strange way you seem to be heading for Calvinism, wherein a soul is pre-destined to either heaven or hell. Given no choice, totally dependent upon the Will of the All.

The Tibetan Buddhist dhamma of emptiness is very complex, not easy. Some Lamas refuse to teach it fearing the safety of lay-sangha.

 

[rossum]

Ah, rossum, verrrrrrrrrrry interesting, indeed!!! So, there is no “you.” “You” are an illusion and do not exist.

You were not born because what was born all those years ago could not speak English and could not type on a computer and you can do both those things.

I used the word “mirage”. A mirage looks like water, but it is not water. A mirage is not nothing because nothing does not look like water. A mirage is deceptive, it is not what it appears to be.

Similarly what you think of as “you” is not what you think it is – it is deceptive. It is not nothing but neither is it as it appears. It is a mirage. Can a mirage own anything?

rossum

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Rossum, if you do not exist - who generates the mind of bodhiccitta, the mind of loving-kindness?

If by “there is no you” you mean, there is no inherently existent self then I agree.
The only inherently existent self is God. Am I God? No.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Can I derail slightly to ask a question of those who are more knowledgeable about Buddhism?

I’m not knowledgeable about Buddhism, but I’ve always noticed how the concepts of karma and sin/atonement have simliarities. They almost seem to be addressing different aspects of the same overall mechanism, and to be almost perpendicular to each other rather than diametically opposed. Or I could be wrong, since I know very little about Buddhism. (That isn’t the question, though).

The question I have is about one striking difference I’ve seen between Catholic and Buddhist theology/philosophy, and that difference is in the approach to suffering.

In Catholic theology, suffering can be transformed into a redemptive process. In Buddhist philosophy, I’ve always seen the blanket statement, “to end attachment and thus suffering”.

Is there any point of connection between these perspectives, or are they diametrically opposed?

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Can I derail slightly to ask a question of those who are more knowledgeable about Buddhism?

 

[usemelord]

rossum, I have finally figured out your true identity. You can hide no longer. You, my friend, are The Riddler. You speak in riddles in an attempt to confuse and deceive. Only Batman and Robin are capable dealing with you properly.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Very interesting. It seems the areas of real substantial departure in conclusions are there, but not where I had assumed they were. It is interesting to me that Buddhism could even posit the existence of a bodhisattva arising out of a non-theistic void. From what source could loving kindness rise out of nothingness?

But again, my understanding is very shallow. That is just my inital impression.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

It seems the areas of real substantial departure in conclusions are there, but not where I had assumed they were.

 

[rossum]

rossum, I have finally figured out your true identity. You can hide no longer. You, my friend, are The Riddler. You speak in riddles in an attempt to confuse and deceive. Only Batman and Robin are capable dealing with you properly.

Curses! You have found out my secret! Yes, I am faster than a speeding building and I can leap tall bullets with a single bound.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The question I have is about one striking difference I’ve seen between Catholic and Buddhist theology/philosophy, and that difference is in the approach to suffering.

In Catholic theology, suffering can be transformed into a redemptive process. In Buddhist philosophy, I’ve always seen the blanket statement, “to end attachment and thus suffering”.

Is there any point of connection between these perspectives, or are they diametrically opposed?

I do not know much about the Catholic approach. From the Buddhist side suffering can be a useful learning tool. That is the First Noble Truth, the existence of suffering. Since suffering has a cause, the existence of suffering leads to the question of why it exists: why I suffer and why other people suffer. That is the Second Noble Truth, the cause of suffering and so on through the Four Noble Truths.

Suffering can act as a trigger, as it did with the Buddha when he saw the old man, the sick man and the dead man for the first time.

rossum

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Angels Unaware;6527534:

Tibetan Buddhist do not assert the world came out of nothing.

That wasn’t the point. Even though Buddhism believes something has been in existence for eternity, (if I am interpreting your response correctly), that something is not structured with relational aspects, correct?

If that is the case, then how does a relational concept such as lovingkindness emerge out of non-relational existence?

If lovingkindness is claimed to emerge out of non-relational existence, then it is necessarily subordinate to non-relational existence, because it is a product of the former. The beings who are closest in essence to this non-relational existence would NOT have lovingkindness as a quality.

That would lead to the conclusion that the LACK of love is more essential to being than the existene of love, as love cannot exist outside of a relational structure without differentiation.

I do not know much about the Catholic approach. From the Buddhist side suffering can be a useful learning tool. That is the First Noble Truth, the existence of suffering. Since suffering has a cause, the existence of suffering leads to the question of why it exists: why I suffer and why other people suffer. That is the Second Noble Truth, the cause of suffering and so on through the Four Noble Truths.

Suffering can act as a trigger, as it did with the Buddha when he saw the old man, the sick man and the dead man for the first time.

rossum

What is the answer in Buddhism to why it exists? In Catholicism, the purpose of suffering changes depending on the reasons for suffering.

The first reason for suffering is in direct consequence for actions taken that oppose and violate God’s nature. God is good, loving, and eternal, or unchanging. If we take actions that are not in accordance with God’s nature, which is also the source of all life, then we cause destruction and death. So, we suffer because we have chosen destruction and death. Seems to be very similar to some descriptions of karma I have read.

The second reason for suffering is to counterbalance the actions taken that oppose God’s nature. So, rather than simply suffer for choices made, the decision to suffer when no suffering was due to come your way because of what you’ve done in the past is made. Those decisions to suffer when no suffering was due counterbalance others’ decisions to violate God’s nature and incur, like a boom a rang, the effects of their decisions.

In Judaism, the scapegoat was ritualistically made to suffer for the sins of man. Jesus is the archetype of the scapegoat.

The third reason for suffering is to take the same vision that the innocent scapegoat had and benefit from suffering by becoming more compassionate. Suffering increases love, and those who accept it, and don’t resist it, are changed internally to become more like the personifcation of love and life, which we believe is God.

 

[Ahimsa]

This is an extreme view. Absolutism. That all is one.
The Buddhist dogma of “emptiness” holds both the individual and the collective view - interdendence:
I am individual and connected/part to all.

In your proposition the Buddha would not have us go away and ponder upon what he has said. In his attaining Enlightenment we would have all become Enlightened. There being samsara your view is contradicted.

I never denied the existence of samsara.

And every Buddhist knows that mere pondering of statements is mere ‘talking school enlightenment’, and not the real thing.

 

[Ahimsa]

Can I derail slightly to ask a question of those who are more knowledgeable about Buddhism?

I’m not knowledgeable about Buddhism, but I’ve always noticed how the concepts of karma and sin/atonement have simliarities. They almost seem to be addressing different aspects of the same overall mechanism, and to be almost perpendicular to each other rather than diametically opposed. Or I could be wrong, since I know very little about Buddhism. (That isn’t the question, though).

The question I have is about one striking difference I’ve seen between Catholic and Buddhist theology/philosophy, and that difference is in the approach to suffering.

In Catholic theology, suffering can be transformed into a redemptive process. In Buddhist philosophy, I’ve always seen the blanket statement, “to end attachment and thus suffering”.

Is there any point of connection between these perspectives, or are they diametrically opposed?

The statement “to end attachment and thus suffering” is actually more like the Catholic approach than you might think, because the statement has to be expanded upon and un-packed. “To end attachment and thus suffering”, if read on its own, can be very easily misunderstood.

First of all, Catholic theology and Buddhist soteriology are speaking of slightly different things when they speak of “suffering”.

I may be mistaken, but when Catholics speak of suffering being able to be transformed into a redemptive process, they seem to mean that things like physical pain, frustration of personal desires, and the struggle of fasting, prayer, and other self-disciplines, can be aids to spiritual growth, by offering them all up to God. Thus, “suffering” is good, as part of the redemptive process.

In Buddhism, the word “suffering” is usually the translation of “duhkha”, as in the first noble truth, the truth of duhkha: Life, as it is lived by most beings, is a life in which duhkha is present. But duhkhah doesn’t simply mean “(physical or emotional) suffering”. It has a more deeper and profound meaning of “dis-satisfaction”, “un-ease”, “the feeling that things are not quite how they are supposed to be”. Thus, duhkha is caused by “trishna”, or the craving for satisfaction in things that lack the capacity to satisfy us. Thus, “suffering”, or “duhkha”, is something we create by our physical and mental actions. It is neither “good” nor “bad” – but, if we choose, we can end duhkha, by penetrating craving, understanding craving, and freely relinquishing craving.

How does one end craving, in Buddhism? You adopt the noble eightfold path, a path which goes against our tendencies of being selfish and distracted and unloving. Whenever we go against our these tendencies, tendencies that we are deeply (but not irreversibly) bound to; whenever we go against selfishness, distraction, and unlove, we will “suffer”, that is, we will face the need to struggle, to resist temptation, to frustrate our selfish desires. All of that produces a type of “suffering”, or “duhkha”, but that suffering is the product of the actions that will ultimately “end” suffering.

So, in the end, both Catholicism and Buddhism agree that whenever we go against our tendencies, that action will produce suffering. But that suffering will lead to the ultimate end of suffering, not the production of more suffering.

 

[rossum]

What is the answer in Buddhism to why it exists?

Suffering exists becaue its cause exists. A lot of things in Buddhism are related to cause and effect. The Four Noble Truths can be summarised as:

1. *] Suffering exists.
   *] Suffering is caused by desire.
   *] When desire ceases then suffering will cease.
   *] The path to the cessation of desire.
   

   In Catholicism, the purpose of suffering changes depending on the reasons for suffering.

   I have noticed that Christians often try to attribute a purpose to existence. That is not the Buddhist way. I may set my own purpose but there is no overall purpose external to myself.
   
   rossum

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

KEVIN WILCOX;6527682:

That wasn’t the point. Even though Buddhism believes something has been in existence for eternity, (if I am interpreting your response correctly), that something is not structured with relational aspects, correct?

If that is the case, then how does a relational concept such as lovingkindness emerge out of non-relational existence?

If lovingkindness is claimed to emerge out of non-relational existence, then it is necessarily subordinate to non-relational existence, because it is a product of the former. The beings who are closest in essence to this non-relational existence would NOT have lovingkindness as a quality.

That would lead to the conclusion that the LACK of love is more essential to being than the existene of love, as love cannot exist outside of a relational structure without differentiation.

My goodness you do set about with some tongue-twisters!
Buddhism supposes existence from beginningless time - interdependence of being. Things were always in relationship, otherwise how could they be?
Buddhists do not assert anything “emerges out of non-relational existence.”

You may enjoy reading the abidhamma texts. They make my head spin.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

KEVIN WILCOX;6527682:

So, we suffer because we have chosen destruction and death. Seems to be very similar to some descriptions of karma I have read.

Buddhism would suggest we suffer because in our suffering we do not choose destruction and death, we fight against it.

In Judaism, the scapegoat was ritualistically made to suffer for the sins of man. Jesus is the archetype of the scapegoat.

Catholicism suggests we participate in His suffering.

The third reason for suffering is to take the same vision that the innocent scapegoat had and benefit from suffering by becoming more compassionate. Suffering increases love, and those who accept it, and don’t resist it, are changed internally to become more like the personifcation of love and life, which we believe is God.

Personally I don’t believe God is “the personification of love and life.” God is not a creature, He doesn’t become anything: “He Is” (St Bernard of Clairvaux)

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

I never denied the existence of samsara.

And every Buddhist knows that mere pondering of statements is mere ‘talking school enlightenment’, and not the real thing.

If, as you suggest, all is one, then in Ghutama becoming Enlightened all would be Enlightened - Dhuka, dhuka, dhuka. Clearly not the case.

In Tibetan Buddhism when students compete for the geshe title, even if they can intellectually argue every point to a winning conclusion. If a student cannot assimilate it into everyday life, they will not gain the geshe degree.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

So, in the end, both Catholicism and Buddhism agree that whenever we go against our tendencies, that action will produce suffering. But that suffering will lead to the ultimate end of suffering, not the production of more suffering.

This makes sense, and yes, suffering in the Catholic tradition is not intended to be perpetuated indefinitely, it is part of the redemptive process. Catholic theology differs from Protestant theology in finding redemption in the participation in innocent suffering, (or when it is not innocent, joining it to the innocent atonement of Christ). This satisfies my question about whether there is any ultimate point of connection in the approaches to suffering that Buddhism and Catholicism take.

I have noticed that Christians often try to attribute a purpose to existence. That is not the Buddhist way. I may set my own purpose but there is no overall purpose external to myself. rossum

Would you say Buddhism is an existential philosophy?

You may be able to make the argument that purpose is created by the mind, but if there is any reason to seek enlightenment, which is purposeful behavior, then there must be factors external to the individual’s own experience that are fixed, and drive the need to create the purpose of seeking enlightenment.

You could make the argument, from that perspective, that the Universe and its demands that drive survival create the conditions for discontent that then lead human minds to purposefully seek out enlightenment as a psychological tool to reduce their suffering in the universe and there is no need to posit a unified higher consciousness or creator with its own purpose.

If that is the case, then why does Buddhism even address life after death and spiritual laws that affect each person equally? Is the answer because the afterlife is seen as being as mechanistic as the present life, and is simply a place where everything works the way it does here but is invisible to us? But even in that afterlife, there is no guardian? No shepherd? No ultimate parent?

Angels Unaware;6529263:

KEVIN WILCOX;6527682:

Personally I don’t believe God is “the personification of love and life.” God is not a creature, He doesn’t become anything: “He Is” (St Bernard of Clairvaux)

In Catholic theology it is not necessary to be a creature to be personified. God is a Person in Catholic theology and not a creature.