Converts/Reverts from Buddhism

[barryschoedel]

I am wondering if there are any readers who self-identified as Buddhist (whether they were formally initiated or not) before converting to Catholicism. Or, if there are any Catholics who ‘dabbled’ in Buddhist meditation that are either still dabbling or have come back to the Church.

My questions would be:

1. How did you come back to the Church?
2. What was it about Buddhism that was/is interesting or appealing?
3. What negative or positive experiences did you have a result of your experiences?

 

[IGCampbell]

I’m actually just starting the RCIA process myself and coming from Buddhism (hopefully my answers count!).

1) How did you come back to the Church?

Oddly enough, Buddhism brought me to Catholicism. Since I can remember, I had a grudge against Catholics for a couple reasons. Had a big ol’ chip on my shoulder against Christians in general, and Catholics in particular. Buddhism helped me eradicate that chip, as it teaches you to acknowledge your feelings and let them pass away without acting upon them, as well as to try and find the root of each feeling, especially if it’s negative, and dig it out.

2) What was it about Buddhism that was/is interesting or appealing?

The lack of theism and the emphasis on personal experience through meditation, and emphasis on reason.

3) What negative or positive experiences did you have a result of your experiences?

I’m not sure I have much to add here, since my journey is so young. On a positive note, I’ve found some of the comparative theology intensely interesting. Many philosophical and theological points between the two religions start out parallel and end up diametrically opposed (take, for example, dependent origination and Aquinas’ first three proofs of God). It’s also been a pleasant surprise to see how much reason is involved in Catholicism, and how many of the great Catholic theologians used reason and not simply scripture or religious teaching.

The only negative I’ve encountered is quite a bit of skepticism from my family.

 

[Lisa44]

I am wondering if there are any readers who self-identified as Buddhist (whether they were formally initiated or not) before converting to Catholicism. Or, if there are any Catholics who ‘dabbled’ in Buddhist meditation that are either still dabbling or have come back to the Church.

My questions would be:

1. How did you come back to the Church?
2. What was it about Buddhism that was/is interesting or appealing?
3. What negative or positive experiences did you have a result of your experiences?

Hi, I was a Buddhist for a few years. I didn’t “come back” to the Church because I wasn’t raised Christian so I didn’t know anything about Christianity.
I was dissatisfied with Buddhism for several reasons. Most importantly they didn’t believe in God and that was counter-intuitive for me. I didn’t like the moral depravity I witnessed. I didn’t like the emphasis on the self, ie: you save yourself. Furthermore, one cannot save oneself from oneself, it makes no sense. I found that the long hours of meditation, or clearing the mind, actually made for a dumber person. Why sit for hours on end with a peaceful, but empty mind? For what purpose? It makes no sense. Buddhists that I met and knew, and I knew a lot, were no more ‘patient’ or ‘wise’ or ‘enlightened’ than other regular people. Clearly in my mind, the experiment was a failed one.

I studied the theistic religions to settle on Christianity.

One can arrive at Christianity through reason alone.

 

[grandfather]

I’m actually just starting the RCIA process myself and coming from Buddhism (hopefully my answers count!).

1) How did you come back to the Church?

Oddly enough, Buddhism brought me to Catholicism. Since I can remember, I had a grudge against Catholics for a couple reasons. Had a big ol’ chip on my shoulder against Christians in general, and Catholics in particular.

.

Just looked at your blog. You are on and interesting journey.

I don’t know a lot about Buddhism. My fundamental understanding which might not be correct is that the Buddha became enlightened and taught that we are all trapped in this existence until we can be rid of karma and be free of all desire.

When people leave one religion to embrace another sometimes they struggle with trying to reconcile the two. While there can be similarities ultimately different religions are not reconcilable. Changing religions therefore demands rejection of one in order to accept the other. That does not mean rejection of anyone. It could mean quite the opposite. A religion could enable one to love others more, even those who are of different religions. It means rejection of the beliefs and practices of a religion.

There is only one reason for anyone to belong to any religion. We accept the teachings or precepts of that religion. We believe them. We try to live by them. We embrace them as objectively true explanations of a spiritual reality we can not see and also of the reality we can see. We live in both at the same time.

Different religions take us to different places by molding how we see life. For one example on your blog you have a piece on abortion. Buddhism led you to one view and Catholicism to the opposite.

The belief that we are born many times until we work out our karma and become enlightened or learn that nothing matters is opposed to the belief that we are born once, die and are judged by God. It is possible only that one of these is true.

Abortion is either the grevously evil sin of murder or it does not matter.

As you progress along your path in your nascent Catholic faith it might help to keep something simple in mind. Humility is the mother of all virtue. No other virtue is possible without humility. Pride is its opposite and it is very insidious. Charity is the crowning virtue, the ultimate and eternal objective and purpose of our existence. God is love.

Desire can both harm and hurt us. Jesus said on the night before He died, “With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you.” Jesus was not free of desire.

We can have holy desires and evil ones. We can long for love, for holiness, for peace, for freedom from sin, for God. When we desire any thing we move ourselves toward obtaining it and when we have no power to move ourselves we still desire it and ask for help from others and God to carry us toward our desire.

When we pray thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, it is an expression of desire. Forgive us our trespasses expresses another desire. Deliver us from evil expresses a fundamental desire.

Our souls are made for God and they long for Him, to be united to Him. Denying or repressing this longing or trying to deny it chokes our souls. Jesus gives us an analogy. He and His Church are compared to a bride and a bridegroom. They long to be united to one another in a powerful desire or magnetism. So your soul is drawn to your creator.

Everything we might encounter that impedes or prevents the coming together of God and the soul is evil. Everything that facilitates and assists it is good. There is good and evil. This includes religious systems.

Everything that is true is good and all that is false is evil, including religions. Truth causes us to love one another. What happens to others we love is important to us. On our journeys when we find what we believe is true we not only embrace it, but try to share it with others, because much is at stake for them.

God bless you on your journey.

 

[Lisa44]

Hi,

Here is a book you might find interesting.

amazon.com/Unexpected-Way-Converting-Buddhism-Catholicism/dp/0567088308/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199758369&sr=1-1

 

[barryschoedel]

I’m actually just starting the RCIA process myself and coming from Buddhism (hopefully my answers count!).

1) How did you come back to the Church?

Oddly enough, Buddhism brought me to Catholicism. Since I can remember, I had a grudge against Catholics for a couple reasons. Had a big ol’ chip on my shoulder against Christians in general, and Catholics in particular. Buddhism helped me eradicate that chip, as it teaches you to acknowledge your feelings and let them pass away without acting upon them, as well as to try and find the root of each feeling, especially if it’s negative, and dig it out.

2) What was it about Buddhism that was/is interesting or appealing?

The lack of theism and the emphasis on personal experience through meditation, and emphasis on reason.

3) What negative or positive experiences did you have a result of your experiences?

I’m not sure I have much to add here, since my journey is so young. On a positive note, I’ve found some of the comparative theology intensely interesting. Many philosophical and theological points between the two religions start out parallel and end up diametrically opposed (take, for example, dependent origination and Aquinas’ first three proofs of God). It’s also been a pleasant surprise to see how much reason is involved in Catholicism, and how many of the great Catholic theologians used reason and not simply scripture or religious teaching.

The only negative I’ve encountered is quite a bit of skepticism from my family.

Thank you for sharing your response. I think it is very normal to come to Catholicism through a philosophical and spiritual journey. It is interesting because some folks in the Catholic crowd would not think twice if they saw you studying Aristotle, or any of the other pagan Greek philosophers but they be suspicious if you were studying Indian philosophers. This is because we haven’t fully appropriated what is true and good from these philosophies and there is a lot of mistrust. The Council Fathers (Vat. II) tell us that the Church rejects nothing that is good and true from these religions/philosphies.

Is there heresy? Of course, like all pagan philosphies there are theological errors, however we cannot assume that these systems of thought are philosphically bankrupt. Particularly as you mentioned, in Buddhist thought, the cognitive-emotional psychology can be useful.

I came to the Catholic Church through the study of Buddhism. Buddhism openend me up to studying transcendent principles and to an absolute reality (which I later came to know as Father, Son, and Holy Spirt). Also, there is a degree of moral formation that is attractive to people slothing around in secular materialism searching for happiness. Interestingly, I began to learn from a Buddhist teacher about the horrors of abortion. However, obviously, Buddhist thought lacks an ability to seriously confront these issues because the doctrine of karma causes a complacency. For instance, even though abortion is evil, if someone is aborted, it is their karma. If our world is full of abortion, it is our karma. This is obviously problematic. Also, reincarnation devalues the person in this life. If the body is simply a shell, then it has no ultimate value or meaning. A God that loves us would not create us in this predicament.

The basic problems in Buddhist philosophy (these are generizations) are these. (if any one can list others please do)

1. Belief in reincarnation
2. Doctrine of Karma (no mercy or grace)
3. Doctrine of Samsara (creation is basically evil)
4. No recognition of Divine Revelation
5. Dualistic
6. Belief in impersonal absolute reality.

These are major problems philosphically and theologically. I think it is necessary for people to start to debate with Buddhist theolgians more so that they can answer for the views they hold. This would be an excellent way to evangelize. I know I for one would much rather have a god that is merciful and loving than one who can’t love.

 

[barryschoedel]

I’m actually just starting the RCIA process myself and coming from Buddhism (hopefully my answers count!).

1) How did you come back to the Church?

Oddly enough, Buddhism brought me to Catholicism. Since I can remember, I had a grudge against Catholics for a couple reasons. Had a big ol’ chip on my shoulder against Christians in general, and Catholics in particular. Buddhism helped me eradicate that chip, as it teaches you to acknowledge your feelings and let them pass away without acting upon them, as well as to try and find the root of each feeling, especially if it’s negative, and dig it out.

2) What was it about Buddhism that was/is interesting or appealing?

The lack of theism and the emphasis on personal experience through meditation, and emphasis on reason.

3) What negative or positive experiences did you have a result of your experiences?

I’m not sure I have much to add here, since my journey is so young. On a positive note, I’ve found some of the comparative theology intensely interesting. Many philosophical and theological points between the two religions start out parallel and end up diametrically opposed (take, for example, dependent origination and Aquinas’ first three proofs of God). It’s also been a pleasant surprise to see how much reason is involved in Catholicism, and how many of the great Catholic theologians used reason and not simply scripture or religious teaching.

The only negative I’ve encountered is quite a bit of skepticism from my family.

Thank you for sharing your response. I think it is very normal to come to Catholicism through a philosophical and spiritual journey. It is interesting because some folks in the Catholic crowd would not think twice if they saw you studying Aristotle, or any of the other pagan Greek philosophers but they be suspicious if you were studying Indian philosophers. This is because we haven’t fully appropriated what is true and good from these philosophies and there is a lot of mistrust. The Council Fathers (Vat. II) tell us that the Church rejects nothing that is good and true from these religions/philosphies.

Is there heresy? Of course, like all pagan philosphies there are theological errors, however we cannot assume that these systems of thought are philosphically bankrupt. Particularly as you mentioned, in Buddhist thought, the cognitive-emotional psychology can be useful.

I came to the Catholic Church through the study of Buddhism. Buddhism openend me up to studying transcendent principles and to an absolute reality (which I later came to know as Father, Son, and Holy Spirt). Also, there is a degree of moral formation that is attractive to people slothing around in secular materialism searching for happiness. Interestingly, I began to learn from a Buddhist teacher about the horrors of abortion. However, obviously, Buddhist thought lacks an ability to seriously confront these issues because the doctrine of karma causes a complacency. For instance, even though abortion is evil, if someone is aborted, it is their karma. If our world is full of abortion, it is our karma. This is obviously problematic. Also, reincarnation devalues the person in this life. If the body is simply a shell, then it has no ultimate value or meaning. A God that loves us would not create us in this predicament.

The basic problems in Buddhist philosophy (these are generalizations) are these. (if any one can list others please do)

1. Belief in reincarnation
2. Doctrine of Karma (no mercy or grace)
3. Doctrine of Samsara (creation is basically evil)
4. No recognition of Divine Revelation
5. Dualistic
6. Belief in impersonal absolute reality.

These are major problems philosphically and theologically. I think it is necessary for people to start to debate with Buddhist practitioners more so that they can answer for the views they hold. This would be an excellent way to evangelize. I know I for one would much rather have a god that is merciful and loving than one who can’t love. I think most westerners like us who turned to Buddhism for answers simply lacked religious education.

 

[IGCampbell]

Interesting stuff!

The basic problems in Buddhist philosophy (these are generalizations) are these. (if any one can list others please do)

1. Belief in reincarnation
2. Doctrine of Karma (no mercy or grace)
3. Doctrine of Samsara (creation is basically evil)
4. No recognition of Divine Revelation
5. Dualistic
6. Belief in impersonal absolute reality.

I would add:

1. Doctrine of Dependent Origination since there needs to be a First Cause, and what we call that First Cause is God, to paraphrase Thomas Aquinas.

 

[barryschoedel]

Interesting stuff!

I would add:

1. Doctrine of Dependent Origination since there needs to be a First Cause, and what we call that First Cause is God, to paraphrase Thomas Aquinas.

Very true. Good addition. Dependent Origination implies that there there was never a beginning and also implies that all appearances are composites. The problem with looking at a person as a composite is that the term ‘person’ is a religious and moral concept that represents an irreducible whole: man, made in the image of God. The doctrine of emptiness and dependent origination are said to be the two truths that, when realized, lead a person to enlightenment because to see these truths is to see reality as it actually is. While emptiness doesn’t mean nothingness (madhyamika - it negotiates a middle path between affirming inherent existence of phenomena and rejecting it as illusion) it does mean that there could not be a soul. What reincarnates then? The aggregates or bundles. What propels the bundles? First, ignorance (in the link of 12 - the last being birth). Thus reality as we know it (what Christianity calls creation and creatures) is simply a manifestation of ignorance, craving, clinging, and so on. Interestingly, the doctrine of emptiness does have some utility spiritually. As a philosophy it allows those who practice/d it, particularly in times before medicine and with death, war and suffering ever present, a way to mediate the suffering, and explain the evil. It also allowed a more extreme form of asceticism to develop, that while based in some false principles, did allow practitioners to develop a certain degree of mastery over their passions. The problem with the doctrines of emptiness and dependent origination in 2008, besides its philosophical, moral and theological problems, it that they create cultural problems as they coincides with modern scientific materialism, which is also reductionistic. While being different ways of reducing and talking about phenomena, there are also dangerous similarities. It could be just a matter of time where quasi-Buddhist scientists or philosophers justified immoral acts because of their inability to comprehend what a person is. For a quasi-Buddhist pop philosopher see Sam Harris, the popular arch-atheist.

In Buddhism, not only is there no beginning, hence no God, but there is also no person.

That is a problem. Post-modern culture tells us the same thing, but interestingly it uses this claim to justify hedonism, which has never been a characteristic in Buddhist philosophy except in very limited occurances related to the abuses of the practices of Indo-Tibetan tantra.

 

[grandfather]

The basic problems in Buddhist philosophy (these are generizations) are these. (if any one can list others please do)

1. Belief in reincarnation
2. Doctrine of Karma (no mercy or grace)
3. Doctrine of Samsara (creation is basically evil)
4. No recognition of Divine Revelation
5. Dualistic
6. Belief in impersonal absolute reality.

These are major problems philosphically and theologically. .

What are the doctrines that are not problematic?

 

[Ahimsa]

I am wondering if there are any readers who self-identified as Buddhist (whether they were formally initiated or not) before converting to Catholicism. Or, if there are any Catholics who ‘dabbled’ in Buddhist meditation that are either still dabbling or have come back to the Church.

My questions would be:

1. How did you come back to the Church?

When I first began to go deeply into Buddhism (as well as Hinduism), I had an intuition that I would return, in about 15 years, to Christianity; not to the Christian tradition of my youth (Baptist), but rather to a Christian tradition that acknowledged the power of meditation and contemplation and even non-dualism. So that meant that I would return to Christianity either as Catholic or Orthodox.

However, for me to really make that jump from Buddhism (and Dharmic traditions in general), I had to fall in love with a Catholic girl. Otherwise, from a purely intellectual standpoint, I would probably have never return to Christianity.

1. What was it about Buddhism that was/is interesting or appealing?

For me, Buddhism was all about (1) cultivating compassion; (2) abandoning negativity; and (3) becoming aware of the mind and body. In addition, there was no Buddhist idea that I disagreed with, in any absolute sense.

1. What negative or positive experiences did you have a result of your experiences?

For me, since I was raised Christian, and actually believed in it when in my youth, Christian symbolism and ideas formed part of my deeper personality. I think that since that was the case, my return to Christianity was inevitable. Only via Christian symbolism could I re-gain access to those deepest parts of myself. So, even though I intellectually agreed with Buddhism, I had to recognize that Christianity held the key to my own path to non-dual realization.

 

[barryschoedel]

What are the doctrines that are not problematic?

What I would consider not being problematic are not necessarily doctrines but instead philosophical presuppositions that operate that are distinct from many modern and postmodern ideas (such as moral relativism, agnosticism, dissolution of gender, nihilism).

I will list some of the philosophical presuppositions of Buddhist thought that are more agreeable:

1. That there is a transcendent moral order.
2. That there is a relationship between happiness and morality.
3. That there is more to reality than the senses can observe.
4. That the meaning of life comes from a transcendent source and is not subjective.
5. That there is acceptable and unacceptable uses of sexual organs (Buddhism rejects use of hand - masturbation, mouth, and anus - thus homosexual acts are considered immoral - there is a normative understanding of the purpose of gender)
6. That sanctification doesn’t come from composite phenomena (created things).
7. That attachment to negative emotions leads to immoral acts.
8. That a person should commit her life to the spiritual and moral life and reject hedonism.

 

[barryschoedel]

For me, Buddhism was all about (1) cultivating compassion; (2) abandoning negativity; and (3) becoming aware of the mind and body. In addition, there was no Buddhist idea that I disagreed with, in any absolute sense.

I am going to apply some constructive criticism to your post, in hopes of engaging your ideas and conclusions in a way that is fruitful in the Lord for both of us. To me the above quote sounds like your were primarily applying particular Buddhist techniques to adjust psychological conditions that you experience. I say this because, while these factors that you list are certainly aspects of the Buddhist tradition, the tradition could not be reduced to this. Even if that is how you personally define it. Buddhism, or Buddhadharma, as you know, is a vast religious and philosophical tradition. Adherents believe in its doctrines and live within its cosmology. Westerners tend to take a super-market mentality toward the eastern traditions. We think we can pick and choose from the tradition and define the tradition from outside the tradition. Many westerners identify Buddhism with a psychological state achieved by concentrating the mind and breathing intentionally or just acting passively in a certain way. A recent book, written by Tibetan Buddhist teacher, Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse, called “What Makes You Not Buddhist” confronts this tendency of westerners to believe that Buddhism is simply about a psychological state and that it can be removed from its doctrines. Buddhism requires belief, as does Christianity. He lists the four most basic beliefs as a Buddhist (and he speaks from a position of authority as a high ranking ordained clergy member and representative of tens of thousands of Sakya and Nyingma Tibetan Buddhists in India, Tibetan and the west and is thus speaking from tradition).

1. That all things are impermanent and there is no essential substance that is permanent (such as a soul or God)
2. All emotions bring pain and suffering and no emotion is purely pleasurable (ie all emotions are reflections of attachment - this is in contrast to the Christian tradition which believes that God endowed us with all that we have -emotions, body, mind, for his purposes, and thus it is good, even though we struggle with the burden of sin which makes our understanding of ‘goods’ disordered)
3. That all phenomena are illusory and empty. (this is in contrast the the Christian anthropological ideas of person as in irreducible whole made in the image of God)
4. That enlightenment is a release from delusion or ignorance (in contrast to the Christian idea of salvation being liberation from evil coming from God - one says that liberation comes from the self, ridding the self of ignorance, the other says it comes from God).

For me, since I was raised Christian, and actually believed in it when in my youth, Christian symbolism and ideas formed part of my deeper personality. Only via Christian symbolism could I re-gain access to those deepest parts of myself.

Christianity cannot be reduced to simply another set of symbols. Actually, symbolically, religious traditions are very similar, doctrinally, they are very different. The idea that you can apply these symbols to your deeper personality sounds very Jungian. Again, it seems like you are appropriating the tradition simply for its benefit to your psyche. This is an example of utilitarianism, that a religion can only be justified in its utility as a symbolic structure, but that beyond that it isn’t actually true.

So, even though I intellectually agreed with Buddhism, I had to recognize that Christianity held the key to my own path to non-dual realization.

Definitely, particularly in Christian monastic traditions there is an emphasis on union with God, even in this life, but this is not the same as the non-dual realization of Dzogchen or other Indian traditions. What makes it distinct? It is a question of what the object is that one is in union with. If the object of non-dual realization is an impersonal absolute reality it is an objectively and qualitatively different union than if the object of union (who is also a subject) is a loving, merciful God, who freely willed us into being, and created us to live in his providence. In the realization of a Christian, the other (God) is always objectively and qualitatively beyond the subject. There is always distinction between creator (object) and created (subject), because of the virtue of humility this is emphasized. Thus, union with God, in the Christian tradition, is always a place where man’s place as creature is illuminated and thus his dependence upon his loving God is experienced and realized. My last point is that non-dual union should not necessarily be our goal, because that is a delusion. Our God didn’t come only for the spiritually elite, those capable of meditating upon him for hours, but instead he came for sinners, those willing to repent and be honest about their need for his mercy. He gives very simple instructions for us to follow in his way, and if we have moments of deep insight or union with him in this life that is a grace but also not necessary for our sanctification and salvation. It is the devil that makes us think we can achieve this through self-aggrandizement or states of spiritual power.

 

[Ahimsa]

I am going to apply some constructive criticism to your post, in hopes of engaging your ideas and conclusions in a way that is fruitful in the Lord for both of us.

Sounds good.

To me the above quote sounds like your were primarily applying particular Buddhist techniques to adjust psychological conditions that you experience. I say this because, while these factors that you list are certainly aspects of the Buddhist tradition, the tradition could not be reduced to this.

You are correct. I would add that the three points that I mentioned would be supported by the philosophical positions found within Buddhism

Even if that is how you personally define it. Buddhism, or Buddhadharma, as you know, is a vast religious and philosophical tradition. Adherents believe in its doctrines and live within its cosmology. Westerners tend to take a super-market mentality toward the eastern traditions. We think we can pick and choose from the tradition and define the tradition from outside the tradition. Many westerners identify Buddhism with a psychological state achieved by concentrating the mind and breathing intentionally or just acting passively in a certain way. A recent book, written by Tibetan Buddhist teacher, Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse, called “What Makes You Not Buddhist” confronts this tendency of westerners to believe that Buddhism is simply about a psychological state and that it can be removed from its doctrines. Buddhism requires belief, as does Christianity. He lists the four most basic beliefs as a Buddhist (and he speaks from a position of authority as a high ranking ordained clergy member and representative of tens of thousands of Sakya and Nyingma Tibetan Buddhists in India, Tibetan and the west and is thus speaking from tradition).

1. That all things are impermanent and there is no essential substance that is permanent (such as a soul or God)

Here’s where things get tricky. There’s a lot to be said about the question of “God” within Buddhism, but let me address one point about impermanence, the first mark of existence. Buddhism argues that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent. However, the unconditioned also exists. The unconditioned is not impermanent. So, Buddhism does have room for That Which is Permanent. In fact, if there were no such “thing” (and we really can’t call it a “thing”), then realization of Nirvana would be impossible.

1. All emotions bring pain and suffering and no emotion is purely pleasurable (ie all emotions are reflections of attachment - this is in contrast to the Christian tradition which believes that God endowed us with all that we have -emotions, body, mind, for his purposes, and thus it is good, even though we struggle with the burden of sin which makes our understanding of ‘goods’ disordered)

To say that “all emotions bring pain” is to practically invite misunderstanding. I don’t fault this particular Buddhist teacher for saying this, because – if correctly understood – such a statement is true. However, most Americans would understand this statement in such a way that all desire for liberation and bodhisattvic activity is dampened, suppressed, and eliminated.

It is true that everything conditioned (matter and mind, including emotions) are dukkha, that is, unsatisfactory – simply because only That Which is Satisfactory is truly satisfactory. However, Buddhists utilize the unsatisfactory in order to realize the Satisfactory – which is something all the Buddhas have done from time immemorial.

Instead of interpreting Buddhist Sanskrit or Pali as saying “all emotions bring pain”, it is more correct (and many other Buddhist teachers would agree with me) to say that “no emotion can bring total Satisfaction”. In Christian terms, we would have to bring up Apophatic Language: God is “good”, but also beyond “good”. God is “love”, but also “beyond love”. So, in Christian mystical theology, no emotion can truly capture God, and no emotion is truly satisfactory.

1. That all phenomena are illusory and empty. (this is in contrast the the Christian anthropological ideas of person as in irreducible whole made in the image of God)

I think we need to look at the terms here. “Illusory”? To speak of phenomena as “illusion” is not part of the Theravada tradition, which was my focus. And even in Mahayana, it doesn’t mean what many Westerners may think it means, but I’ll leave that to the Mahayanists to address.

As far as empty (“sunya”) or emptiness (“sunyata”) is concerned, emptiness is simply a short way to say “incapable of existing independently, in isolation, apart from everything else”. In that case, yes, all conditioned phenomena are incapable of existing independently, in isolation, apart from everything else. In other words, all conditioned phenomena are related, in some way, to all other conditioned phenomena. No man is an island, in other words.

[cont.]

 

[Ahimsa]

1. That enlightenment is a release from delusion or ignorance (in contrast to the Christian idea of salvation being liberation from evil coming from God - one says that liberation comes from the self, ridding the self of ignorance, the other says it comes from God).

If there is no “self” (that is, no absolute independent entity that can exist in isolation, apart from everything else), then how can that “self” rid it-“self” of ignorance?

If ignorance is dissolved, then it would have to be a result of the cooperation of many different forces and factors in the universe.

Hint: the Buddha did not become enlightened independent of human relationships.

Christianity cannot be reduced to simply another set of symbols. Actually, symbolically, religious traditions are very similar, doctrinally, they are very different. The idea that you can apply these symbols to your deeper personality sounds very Jungian. Again, it seems like you are appropriating the tradition simply for its benefit to your psyche. This is an example of utilitarianism, that a religion can only be justified in its utility as a symbolic structure, but that beyond that it isn’t actually true.

I think you’re misunderestimating (h/t: GWB) the role of the symbol. A symbol is an impermanent phenomenon. Everything but God is a symbol. God gave us symbols, as a way of remembering Him. If I happen to see God more easily in Christian symbols, who am I to deny that?

Definitely, particularly in Christian monastic traditions there is an emphasis on union with God, even in this life, but this is not the same as the non-dual realization of Dzogchen or other Indian traditions. What makes it distinct? It is a question of what the object is that one is in union with. If the object of non-dual realization is an impersonal absolute reality it is an objectively and qualitatively different union than if the object of union (who is also a subject) is a loving, merciful God, who freely willed us into being, and created us to live in his providence. In the realization of a Christian, the other (God) is always objectively and qualitatively beyond the subject. There is always distinction between creator (object) and created (subject), because of the virtue of humility this is emphasized. Thus, union with God, in the Christian tradition, is always a place where man’s place as creature is illuminated and thus his dependence upon his loving God is experienced and realized. My last point is that non-dual union should not necessarily be our goal, because that is a delusion. Our God didn’t come only for the spiritually elite, those capable of meditating upon him for hours, but instead he came for sinners, those willing to repent and be honest about their need for his mercy. He gives very simple instructions for us to follow in his way, and if we have moments of deep insight or union with him in this life that is a grace but also not necessary for our sanctification and salvation. It is the devil that makes us think we can achieve this through self-aggrandizement or states of spiritual power.

I don’t subscribe to the idea that non-dual realization means the elimination of the personal, whether personal in terms of human beings, or in terms of other beings, or in terms of God Himself. “Non-Dual” means “not-two”. It doesn’t mean “only one”. Non-dual realization can exist quite comfortably along with a dual relationship with the divine – as seen in the work of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda. In fact, I would suggest that the devotional relationship to God culminates in non-dualism, and that non-dual realization culminates in the devotional relationship to God.

 

[barryschoedel]

Buddhism argues that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent. However, the unconditioned also exists. The unconditioned is not impermanent. So, Buddhism does have room for That Which is Permanent.

First, thank you for such an engaging response. When I spoke of the object of non-duality, of course I am referring to the unconditioned, absolute reality that the different Buddhist schools recognize but speak about in slightly different terms. There is no God in Buddhism (even if it seems like you can see the God of revelation in Buddhism from your vantage point- because of your very encounter with revelation). Even if we are not speaking of divine revelation even Hinduism doesn’t necessarily approach monotheism (a God that can’t not create, that emanates doesn’t count as a creator in the monotheistic sense - there is still a higher principle with this sort of God). Of course there is an impermanent, absolute, unconditioned reality. That is exactly my point. As Catholics we say, yes, God has these qualities, but that we also, due to divine revelation, know more about him than just this. What he has revealed to us has implications and affects every aspect of our being. My question for you would be, if God created us as a unity of body and soul to live eternally with him, are we really impermanent? Also, in what way, could it be destructive, particularly for people who are struggling with a healthy understanding of person to be told that their person is just simply a bundle anyway and lacks inherent existence? This is simply untrue from a Christian perspective. Also, the doctrines of impermanence and reincarnation are mutually fulfilling. If nothing is permanent and we are aggregates brought together primary through negative emotions and ignorance then this life and person has no uniqueness and no ultimate value. The body, if anything, is like a shell being propelled by unconscious forces. That takes away from God’s intention to create us as we are, unique beings, willed by him in love, to share in his divine communion with others (not as multiple beings over multiple lifetimes - which trivializes the person and this life - but as this person for eternity). Also, then salvation, being dependent upon causes and conditions in Buddhism, is completely merit based. There is no room for mercy or forgiveness in karma. The compassion of the bodhisattvas is merited. In Christianity we don’t merit our salvation, we can’t, our God reaches out and pulls us out of the gutter. He comes not for the righteous but for sinners.

It is true that everything conditioned (matter and mind, including emotions) are dukkha, that is, unsatisfactory – simply because only That Which is Satisfactory is truly satisfactory. However, Buddhists utilize the unsatisfactory in order to realize the Satisfactory – which is something all the Buddhas have done from time immemorial.

This is difficult for me to argue. I don’t believe in Buddhas as such, because I reject reincarnation. Of course emotions are fleeting, but in some sense, from a Christian perspective, they are not necessarily all unsatisfactory. For instance, the emotions related to the conjugal act are essential to the unitive and procreative dimension of marriage. The emotions a father experiences for his children are necessary for commitment and sacrifice. We can say that we don’t expect emotions to liberate us though.

In Christian terms, we would have to bring up Apophatic Language: God is “good”, but also beyond “good”. God is “love”, but also “beyond love”. So, in Christian mystical theology, no emotion can truly capture God, and no emotion is truly satisfactory.

Apophatic language alone, is insufficient for persons who are created. We are the created, not the uncreated. Both apophatic and kataphatic theology are a reflection of our faith seeking understanding. They work together, not mutually independent. Many people, wrongly assume that the Buddhist tradition is entirely apophatic. You and I both know this isn’t true. It is a tradition full of stories, symbols, words, doctrines with meaning (along with colors, sounds, smells, textures, and people!). For most ethnic Buddhists the story of the birth of the Buddha is essential for understanding who he was and is believed as true. Western Buddhists dismiss it as myth. Who is right?

Or, is it important to know Jesus to know God? Does divine revelation even matter? If we were to overemphasize the apophatic we would say no. This is against anything any of the Church Fathers have ever written about ‘Christian mystical theology.’ I would caution against interpreting the Christian tradition merely from its mystical theology. This theology belongs in a much larger tradition of which mystical reflection is an important outpouring of God’s love for us (and evidence of his grace).

As far as empty (“sunya”) or emptiness (“sunyata”) is concerned, emptiness is simply a short way to say “incapable of existing independently, in isolation, apart from everything else”. In that case, yes, all conditioned phenomena are incapable of existing independently, in isolation, apart from everything else. In other words, all conditioned phenomena are related, in some way, to all other conditioned phenomena. No man is an island, in other words.

[cont.]

It isn’t simply that no man is an island but more accurately that no person possesses a soul. Definitely Catholicism affirms that creation is interdependent but it does that without negating (when done well and not influenced by neo-plationism) the inherent, unique existence of each person. Dependent upon God yes, interdependent, yes, but also with an eternal soul, made in the image of God.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

I am wondering if there are any readers who self-identified as Buddhist (whether they were formally initiated or not) before converting to Catholicism. Or, if there are any Catholics who ‘dabbled’ in Buddhist meditation that are either still dabbling or have come back to the Church.

My questions would be:

1. How did you come back to the Church?
2. What was it about Buddhism that was/is interesting or appealing?
3. What negative or positive experiences did you have a result of your experiences?

Like Ahimsa, I grew up Baptist. I began to study the doctrine of hell. Within 6 months I detested my birth religion and began to study Buddhism. I was fascinated by the simplicity of it and the positive effects of both the teachings and the practice. I found a Zen priest, took refuge and received my dharma name, Fa Chan.

I came back to Christianity because of the undeniable mark of God on my soul that seemed to scream out beyond my intellectual denial of Him. In other words, no matter how much I intellectually and logically made arguments against the idea of God, my heart could not bear it. I also had some experiences with the preternatural that got me running back to Jesus

I found the teachings of judging my own actions instead of a being outside of myself was refreshing given my hatred of hell. I found the effects of meditation helpful in reducing my greed, anger and ignorance. The teachings were wise and were free of egotism.

The only negative for me was the lack of fellow Buddhists to share and grow with in my faith. I followed Zen and Pure Land traditions. Pure Land practitioners are few and far between and the lack of social interaction with others was stifling.

The positive aspects I took away from Buddhism is the relative calming and mental focus of meditation practice and the focus on kindness and compassion that I didn’t hear preached much in my old church. It was all about law and hell in my experience there. And the focus on taking care of one’s body and mind led me to weight loss and becoming more presentable. I began to work towards not only releasing myself of my problems, but also to spread peace and kindness to others.

Peace…

MW

 

[barryschoedel]

Like Ahimsa, I grew up Baptist. I began to study the doctrine of hell. Within 6 months I detested my birth religion and began to study Buddhism. I was fascinated by the simplicity of it and the positive effects of both the teachings and the practice. I found a Zen priest, took refuge and received my dharma name, Fa Chan.

I came back to Christianity because of the undeniable mark of God on my soul that seemed to scream out beyond my intellectual denial of Him. In other words, no matter how much I intellectually and logically made arguments against the idea of God, my heart could not bear it. I also had some experiences with the preternatural that got me running back to Jesus

I found the teachings of judging my own actions instead of a being outside of myself was refreshing given my hatred of hell. I found the effects of meditation helpful in reducing my greed, anger and ignorance. The teachings were wise and were free of egotism.

The only negative for me was the lack of fellow Buddhists to share and grow with in my faith. I followed Zen and Pure Land traditions. Pure Land practitioners are few and far between and the lack of social interaction with others was stifling.

The positive aspects I took away from Buddhism is the relative calming and mental focus of meditation practice and the focus on kindness and compassion that I didn’t hear preached much in my old church. It was all about law and hell in my experience there. And the focus on taking care of one’s body and mind led me to weight loss and becoming more presentable. I began to work towards not only releasing myself of my problems, but also to spread peace and kindness to others.

Peace…

MW

Thank you for sharing Mystic Warrior. I have had similar experiences too. When I was first into Buddhism, I thought Pure Land was a corrupt form because it was less monastic, but then as I went along I noticed it was much more similar to Christianity in some ways. It was attractive to me because it focused on the limitations of man to liberate himself through meditative practices.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

Thank you for sharing Mystic Warrior. I have had similar experiences too. When I was first into Buddhism, I thought Pure Land was a corrupt form because it was less monastic, but then as I went along I noticed it was much more similar to Christianity in some ways. It was attractive to me because it focused on the limitations of man to liberate himself through meditative practices.

Oh you are welcome. I started out in Chan Buddhism, but moved exclusively to Pure Land. Initially, it was Traditional Chinese Pure Land, but I then found a home in Jodo Shu and was considering the Jodo Shu priesthood (in which there is no white person on the mainland presently that I know of). I was supposed to go to Hawaii to meet with the bishop there, but I declined. I then left Jodo Shu and was ostracized for leaving the faith of Amida Buddha which I once had. It really hurt me.

In Jodo Shu I found my understanding of Amida Buddha to be filled with so many things I was looking for. But then I came to the realization that if I could believe in Amida Buddha and what he offered mankind, how is that much different than the Christian God I knew and loved at one time? There were many things that have happened along my spiritual journey through Christianity, Buddhism and now back to Christianity. I am grateful for the journey and I’m happy to be back in the grips of God’s grace. He has forgiven me and bestowed much grace upon me. I praise Him today.

Peace…

MW

 

[barryschoedel]

wow, fascinating. I think it would be neat to make a collection of stories of people like you and the others who have responded who have come back to Christianity or ‘discovered’ Christianity after a time of studying Buddhism. I am sorry to hear of the hurt feelings when you left the Jodo Shu sect, I know it is hard because you had probably formed some positive relationships with these folks and made friends.

would you tell me about your current faith practice? how long ago did you began turning back to Christ? recently?