Converts/Reverts from Buddhism

[Mystic_Warrior]

I have a question. After studying Buddhism in class, I’m attracted to some of its qualities. Now, my question is, as a Catholic, would it be sinful to take some of the philosophy of Buddhism? For those who are experts of both C & B, can Buddhism be taken as a philosophy and pick what is compatible with Catholicism or are they totally different and it is sinful to even think of it at all? I really like Catholicism and don’t consider converting to Buddhism, but I just really like some of its ideas so I was wondering if it would be a sin to read up and learn more about it or adapt philosophical approach towards it.

Hello IC.

You cannot take the philosophy of Buddhism and mix it with Catholicism and come out okay. You can’t pick and choose parts of them and come up with your own cocktail religion. Now, there are similarities in values - such as peace, patience, kindness, compassion, love, etc.

But the foundations of both religions are so different that they cannot be intertwined. I tried following one, both and the other. It just won’t work. Everything we do as Christians is founded upon the person of Jesus Christ, sin, salvation and the Father’s plan.

In Buddhism there is no real concept of “sin” or “sinners”. There are only “wrong actions” and “wrong thoughts”. In Christianity, we have to realize that there’s a divide between us and the Father and Jesus bridges that divide. That concept is not present in Buddhism.

I know a Zen master who has written books on both Buddhism and Christianity - Thich Nhat Hanh. He writes extremely well and convincingly. I respect him a lot. His altar includes a statue of Buddha and Jesus. His community, Plum Village, celebrates Christian holidays.

But, from my experience, I have to say that you really have to choose one or the other. If you don’t, you’ll end up very confused as to really what direction you are heading in. God is a jealous God. He expects devotion and obedience to Him and Him alone.

I hope that helps.

Peace…

MW

 

[rossum]

I have a question. After studying Buddhism in class, I’m attracted to some of its qualities. Now, my question is, as a Catholic, would it be sinful to take some of the philosophy of Buddhism? For those who are experts of both C & B, can Buddhism be taken as a philosophy and pick what is compatible with Catholicism or are they totally different and it is sinful to even think of it at all? I really like Catholicism and don’t consider converting to Buddhism, but I just really like some of its ideas so I was wondering if it would be a sin to read up and learn more about it or adapt philosophical approach towards it.

I doubt if merely reading about Buddhism would constitute a sin.

Buddhist philosophy starts from very different premises - indifference to God, we can attain enlightenment by our own unaided efforts and denial of a human soul. I suspect it is probably not possible to take on board any large part of Buddhist philosophy and still remain Catholic. Some minor ideas may be compatible.

If you want to try parts of Buddhism then you might do better to look more towards the Buddhist attitude and approach to morality as well as some Buddhist meditation techniques. Christianity is relatively lacking in meditation techniques compared to the Indian religions.

To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one’s mind - this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

Dhammapada 14:5
Much of this is already present in Catholicism:

• to avoid all evil: follow the ten commandments, with a bit more emphasis on kindness to all other living things.
• to cultivate good: “love others as you love yourself.”
• to cleanse one’s mind: meditate.

For meditation I can suggest three places to start. Firstly there is Saying the Jesus Prayer which is a purely Christian meditation from the Orthodox tradition. More strictly Indian (it is common to Hindism. Buddhism and Jainism) is Counting Breaths which involves breathing and counting to ten. Not as easy as it sounds! Specifically Buddhist is the meditation on Loving-Kindness, which helps with both points two and three in the list above.

There is a warning to go with all three techniques:Bishop Kallistos Ware has sound advice for those who simply can’t find a suitable guide. “But those who have no personal contact with starets [teacher] may still practice the Prayer without any fear, so long as they do so only for limited periods - initially, for no more than ten or fifteen minutes at a time - and so long as they make no attempt to interfere with the body’s natural rhythms.”
If you have no teacher then do not meditate for much more than about half an hour at a time. Once you have been properly trained then you may meditate for longer.

rossum

 

[Dulcinea]

I have a question. After studying Buddhism in class, I’m attracted to some of its qualities. Now, my question is, as a Catholic, would it be sinful to take some of the philosophy of Buddhism? For those who are experts of both C & B, can Buddhism be taken as a philosophy and pick what is compatible with Catholicism or are they totally different and it is sinful to even think of it at all? I really like Catholicism and don’t consider converting to Buddhism, but I just really like some of its ideas so I was wondering if it would be a sin to read up and learn more about it or adapt philosophical approach towards it.

Ice Cathedral,

I have to tell you that I agree with Mystic Warrior in that you cannot pick and choose whatever aspects of Buddhism/Catholicism you happen to like, and continue as a Catholic and/or become a Buddhist. Having studied Zen Buddhism for many years, I can tell you that Buddhism and Catholicism are essentially different in that Buddhism requires that all phenomena (including the self) are illusory and empty, and only bring pain, and that one of the main objectives of Buddhism is to do away with the notion of self, since this is error and a cause of pain. Indeed Buddhism has been viewed by many as a form of nihilism. Very different from the belief of Catholicism in ultimate Truth, Goodness and God as objective transcendant realities. If you want to understand Buddhism very well, read "What Makes You Not a Buddhist by Dzongsar Jamyan Khyentse, (also recommended by Barry on this website), for a “simplified” analysis of the main truths of Buddhism, although it gets much more complicated than this!

Hope this helps! God Bless You.

 

[IceCathedral]

Hi all,

Thanks for replying. I was thinking similar too when I dived deeper into the comparisons, but wanted to ask those who have some experience with it. You all make perfect sense and I guess I knew the answer all along deep down, but just wanted to ask. Thank you for your insight.

I do feel more content with embracing Catholicism itself. Simplicity is best. Though I must admit, I do admire a lot of the qualities of Buddhism and find some of it neat and was wondering if having a philosophical approach with it would be okay. I was thinking along the lines of picking the concepts that are compatible with Catholicism and rejecting the ones that are not. But now that I thought about it more and more, it doesn’t feel right to even adapt any of the Buddhist ideas, even as a philosophy rather a religion. I just feel that it isn’t true to the whole thing; I either accept all of it or nothing. Same with Catholicism; I either accept all of it or nothing and many have warned against picking and choosing what to believe in Catholicism and I’ve always agreed with them. So I think the same should go with any other religion. Since I’m already Catholic and love it, I won’t be converting to Buddhism. Also, as some of you have pointed it out, I understand how it would confuse me and I should just stick to my true religion with no other philosophy. If you have any other ideas about this, do tell! I would really love to hear it and learn more.

Now I just hope God doesn’t get really upset if I simply admire Buddhism from afar and read about it. Do you think He’ll be upset if I like Buddhism?I don’t want to sin against Him. BTW, the discussion before I entered is very interesting and I enjoyed reading all your thoughts.God bless you all.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

Hi all,

Thanks for replying. I was thinking similar too when I dived deeper into the comparisons, but wanted to ask those who have some experience with it. You all make perfect sense and I guess I knew the answer all along deep down, but just wanted to ask. Thank you for your insight.

I do feel more content with embracing Catholicism itself. Simplicity is best. Though I must admit, I do admire a lot of the qualities of Buddhism and find some of it neat and was wondering if having a philosophical approach with it would be okay. I was thinking along the lines of picking the concepts that are compatible with Catholicism and rejecting the ones that are not. But now that I thought about it more and more, it doesn’t feel right to even adapt any of the Buddhist ideas, even as a philosophy rather a religion. I just feel that it isn’t true to the whole thing; I either accept all of it or nothing. Same with Catholicism; I either accept all of it or nothing and many have warned against picking and choosing what to believe in Catholicism and I’ve always agreed with them. So I think the same should go with any other religion. Since I’m already Catholic and love it, I won’t be converting to Buddhism. Also, as some of you have pointed it out, I understand how it would confuse me and I should just stick to my true religion with no other philosophy. If you have any other ideas about this, do tell! I would really love to hear it and learn more.

Now I just hope God doesn’t get really upset if I simply admire Buddhism from afar and read about it. Do you think He’ll be upset if I like Buddhism?I don’t want to sin against Him. BTW, the discussion before I entered is very interesting and I enjoyed reading all your thoughts.God bless you all.

There’s nothing wrong with learning about other religions. God is not anti-knowledge. He doesn’t mind you learning about things. It’s just that learning and following are two different things. Sounds like you have your heart in the right place

Peace…

MW

 

[Fran65]

How did you come back to the Church?
Two and a half years ago, I was walking past a Church that had daily Mass and felt a tremendous desire to return. The next day I went to Mass… and here I am, a practicing and faithful Catholic. I was a convert from the church of england at 18, stayed with the Church until I went to university at 26, left having had problems with some of the teachings and having taken courses that involved buddhism. I spent 14 years on a spiritual journey that invovled buddhism, paganism (wicca) and anglicanism before I made it home. Thanks be to God that I did!!

What was it about Buddhism that was/is interesting or appealing?
I was looking for a way to deal with the anxiety and depression that I suffer from as a result of a serious and life threatening heart condition. Meditation also claims to stabilise cardiac function. It was also new, had enormous amounts of knowledge and new techniques to learn. I love learning new things. Finally there was the appeal of the slightly ‘exotic’ and it is seen as cool.

What negative or positive experiences did you have a result of your experiences?
Meditation is a useful technique as long as its used purely as a method of relaxation and not as a way of ‘opening up the mind’. I still use the concentration on the breath technique, in conjunction with prayer when I need to.
The atheism, focus on self and teachings about suffering were incredibly destructive for me. I found myself more depressed as a result and experienced the world as a place full of meaningless and intractable suffering.

Good luck on your journey.

 

[Dulcinea]

Hi all,

Thanks for replying. I was thinking similar too when I dived deeper into the comparisons, but wanted to ask those who have some experience with it. You all make perfect sense and I guess I knew the answer all along deep down, but just wanted to ask. Thank you for your insight.

I do feel more content with embracing Catholicism itself. Simplicity is best. Though I must admit, I do admire a lot of the qualities of Buddhism and find some of it neat and was wondering if having a philosophical approach with it would be okay. I was thinking along the lines of picking the concepts that are compatible with Catholicism and rejecting the ones that are not. But now that I thought about it more and more, it doesn’t feel right to even adapt any of the Buddhist ideas, even as a philosophy rather a religion. I just feel that it isn’t true to the whole thing; I either accept all of it or nothing. Same with Catholicism; I either accept all of it or nothing and many have warned against picking and choosing what to believe in Catholicism and I’ve always agreed with them. So I think the same should go with any other religion. Since I’m already Catholic and love it, I won’t be converting to Buddhism. Also, as some of you have pointed it out, I understand how it would confuse me and I should just stick to my true religion with no other philosophy. If you have any other ideas about this, do tell! I would really love to hear it and learn more.

Now I just hope God doesn’t get really upset if I simply admire Buddhism from afar and read about it. Do you think He’ll be upset if I like Buddhism?I don’t want to sin against Him. BTW, the discussion before I entered is very interesting and I enjoyed reading all your thoughts.God bless you all.

Hi Ice Cathedral,

Thanks for letting everyone know what your decision was. I hope I was somewhat helpful in what I told you. I also wanted you to note what Fran65 at the end of this thread had to say about why she found Buddhism so negative! Believe me, you do not want to go there. . thank God every day that you are a Catholic! P.S. This is hard-earned wisdom.

P.P.S. As St. Francis de Sales says in his Introduction to the Devout Life Part III, Ch. 29 “It is an act of charity to cry out against the wolf when he is among the sheep.” Another great author to read for the sheer beauty of his writing about Catholicism, and considered a 20th-century Doctor of the Church is: Dietrich von Hildebrand, esp. *Trojan Horse in the City of God. (I took the above quote from this book)

God Bless You, Ice Cathedral

 

[Ahimsa]

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

Well, I would disagree strongly with that claim.

(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).

I would also disagree that Hinduism isn’t monotheistic. There are many different kinds of equally “mono” monotheisms

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?

I don’t take the idea of living with God eternally, with a “body” and “mind”, too literally. I suspect such a life with God makes the notion of “body” and “mind” infinitely inadequate. In any case, how are you defining “soul” here? Do you mean “mind”? If so, then we all know that both body and mind are 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?

To say that a person is “simply a bundle” is something that should be said to a person who already has a healthy understanding of themselves as a person. If someone lacks a healthy self-understanding, then they should not be taught that. Be that as it may, the Buddha didn’t go around telling people, “You’re just a bundle of elements”. That sort of thing was said to those who were really ready to give up everything for the sake of the Freedom from Binding that was exemplified in the person of the Buddha. Only such a person can really understand such a statement, in a way that will bring them closer to the Conquest of Death.

This is simply untrue from a Christian perspective. Also, the doctrines of impermanence and reincarnation are mutually fulfilling. If nothing is permanent…

Watch it. Just because no “thing” is permanent doesn’t mean that things can’t last a very, very long time, and seem to be permanent, for all intents and purposes.

…and we are aggregates brought together primary through negative emotions and ignorance then this life and person has no uniqueness and no ultimate value.

Again, the thrust of radical Buddhism is the liberation from the bindings of lust, anger, and delusion. Not everyone (let alone me) is ready for such a radical freedom. From the perspective of the person quite content with everyday life, impermanence and the rest of it, certainly seem a frightening consideration.

The body, if anything, is like a shell being propelled by unconscious forces.

Scary, isn’t it?

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.

This misunderstanding is addressed in the Buddhist Pali texts. If everything were indeed “merit” based, then freedom from binding would be impossible.

There is no room for mercy or forgiveness in karma.

I guess that scratches the bodhisattva vow.

The compassion of the bodhisattvas is merited.

Not really. And even if it were, to be “proud” of that fact, goes against the very teachings of the Buddhas.

In Christianity we don’t merit our salvation, we can’t, our God reaches out and pulls us out of the gutter.

Actually, I would suggest that we “merit” salvation, by the mere fact of being creations of God. God created us, to be one with Him. That’s merit enough.

He comes not for the righteous but for sinners.

OK, but who’s going to save the righteous?

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.

Something, like emotion, can serve a noble purpose, without it being “satisfactory-in-the-way-that-God-is-satisfactory”.

 

[Ahimsa]

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.

Well, many Western Buddhists certainly do this. If by doing so, they find a reason to practice, then good for them.

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.

I agree that the apophatic approach is, in itself, only part of the equation.

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).

It isn’t simply that no man is an island but more accurately that no person possesses a soul.

Hmmm…Define “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.

Yes, each person (mind-body combination) is unique, and also impermanent. Whether impermanence is a bad thing, is another question.

Dependent upon God yes, interdependent, yes, but also with an eternal soul, made in the image of God.

I agree with “eternal soul”, given a correct understanding of “soul”, of course.

 

[barryschoedel]

Well, I would disagree strongly with that claim.

 Simply speaking, God, is still a precise theological term.  Not only is it not a Sanskrit or Pali term, what it represents, because of its place in history and its application to the nature of ultimate reality as revealed through divine revelation, is not only unique from anything in the Buddhist philosophical schools of India but it contradicts and directly opposes them.  First of all, the term God as defined by the tradition it arose out of is seen as the first cause and creator ex nihilo.  This is a delusion from a Buddhist perspective and results from grasping to an eternal, unchanging source of all.  If from your vantage point, you can see reflections of the God of revelation in Buddhism that might be because it, being a world religion and reflecting the relationship between man and the sacred, definitely does partially reflect the beauty of him who we call God, particularly the divine person of the Holy Spirit, which the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council affirmed.  Nevertheless it is inaccurate to say that Buddhists believe in God, while Indian Buddhist philosophers spent centuries debating, and arguing against any notions that approached this in the Indian philosophical system.  I would recommend using their own words to say what the particular Buddhist philosophical schools  believe in and then if that is what you believe in, say it using that precise terminology.  If you do this keeping in mind the theological definition of God from a Christian or even monotheistic (Abramic Faiths)  perspective, you will see that it is not possible to believe both at the same time.  A text I think you would enjoy is *Maps of the Profound:  Jamyang Shayba's Great Exposition on Non-Buddhist and Buddhist Views on the Nature of Ultimate Reality*  While this text was written from the perspective of the Prasangika-Madhyamaka (which you have said you were not as familiar with) its arguments show how important the philosophical distinctions are as to the nature of ultimate reality in Indian philosophy.  This book traditionally was used and still is to train Indo-Tibetan monks to debate people like me who hold erroneous views like a belief in an eternal God (well really it was to debate other Buddhist and non-Buddhist Indian philosophical positions).

I would also disagree that Hinduism isn’t monotheistic. There are many different kinds of equally “mono” monotheisms

Again, Ahimsa, I don’t think this is necessarily an accurate statement. Monotheism is a precise theological term. I have given that Hinduism approached monotheism more so than Buddhism did but there is still not what we know to be as monotheism. In monotheism there are creatures. Creatures are things and beings that were created from nothing, ex nihilo, by a creator of which there is no higher principle or power. Monotheism is unique in the history of religions, just as other religious concepts such as paticca-samuppada or arahant is unique. In Christianity we don’t have a god that can’t not create, or a god of which answers to a higher principle, power, or law, we are not emanations (as distinct from creatures) of the divine. We are creatures, willed intentionally, each of us individually by God to know him and spend eternity with him. Again, it might be more accurate to refer to the specific school of Indian philosophy you are referring to, probably Vedanta, and to show both how it is somewhat theistic in parts and also how it is distinct from monotheism.

I don’t take the idea of living with God eternally, with a “body” and “mind”, too literally. I suspect such a life with God makes the notion of “body” and “mind” infinitely inadequate.

Then you are not Catholic. That is okay. You have free will and choose to believe what you choose to believe. Catholics have always believed in the literal resurrection of the person. How this will look and what it entails is a mystery to us but it is central to our faith. We have been, are being, and will be remade in the image of God. Only a God who is a creator could, and would do this. He reconciles our whole person to himself, not just our ‘minds’ or an abstracted version of a person. I understand this is an article of faith and can’t be known through reason.

In any case, how are you defining “soul” here? Do you mean “mind”? If so, then we all know that both body and mind are impermanent.

See above. God decides what is permanent and impermanent. Not us. I leave it up to him. Also, I don’t define soul, it is already defined by the tradition I am a part of.

 

[barryschoedel]

To say that a person is “simply a bundle” is something that should be said to a person who already has a healthy understanding of themselves as a person. If someone lacks a healthy self-understanding, then they should not be taught that. Be that as it may, the Buddha didn’t go around telling people, “You’re just a bundle of elements”. That sort of thing was said to those who were really ready to give up everything for the sake of the Freedom from Binding that was exemplified in the person of the Buddha. Only such a person can really understand such a statement, in a way that will bring them closer to the Conquest of Death.

If it is true, then it should be shared. Again, this understanding of the person is in stark contrast to the Christian understanding of the person as being an irreducible whole, made in the image of God. In many ways it approaches the reductionism of scientific materialism, which says that wholes can be explained in full by their parts.

Watch it. Just because no “thing” is permanent doesn’t mean that things can’t last a very, very long time, and seem to be permanent, for all intents and purposes. Again, the thrust of radical Buddhism is the liberation from the bindings of lust, anger, and delusion. Not everyone (let alone me) is ready for such a radical freedom. From the perspective of the person quite content with everyday life, impermanence and the rest of it, certainly seem a frightening consideration. Scary, isn’t it? This misunderstanding is addressed in the Buddhist Pali texts.

Either God created us to be with him eternally or he didn’t. We either have one person who we will be for eternity or the body is just a shell reincarnating for eons. Certainly, an ascetic and spiritual perspective sees the pleasure of this world as fleeting and is mindful of death, this is part of Catholic spirituality. However the Buddhist doctrine of anicca is a direct contradiction of Catholic belief. If you are seeking liberation from the kleshas you and I both know this takes eons from a Buddhist perspective. Each body you inherit will in some way be a reflection of your karma, whether you come back as a fly, a toad, or maybe in another 500 eons as a person. Thus you are a spirit that it really trapped in matter, you wish to be liberated from creation itself. This is dualism, a heresy the Catholic Church has rejected from its beginnings. The idea that the body is an evil that we need to be liberated from contradicts the biblical worldview (even though many Christians throughout the centuries have been influenced by this in neo-Platonism). The Church has always rejected dualism, reincarnation, and gnosticism. Dualism says creation is bad or and evil we need to be liberated from. Reincarnation says the body itself is nothing more than a shell and not part of the person, thus abstracting a person from reality of the good of his body. Gnosticism says that when we have full knowledge we will be liberated. This means that the dumb, sick and afflicted don’t stand a chance and implies that we can have full knowledge like God. Thus a person deifies himself. This is original sin. Interestingly, these three elements, dualism, gnosticism, and reincarnation are almost always together.

 

[barryschoedel]

The definition of a priest, no matter what religion, is someone who offers sacrifce.

Is the concept of priestly sacrifice present in Buddhism?

Grandfather. I had been meaning to respond to this but just had not gotten around to it. this is an excellent questions. While obviously priest is a word that has a Judeo-Christian origin and there is not exact equivalent to it in Buddhism the closest equivalent is the Buddhist word bhikku. The word bhikku is normally used to refer to those who are fully ordained (in the monastic tradition, not so in non-monastic Buddhism), do offer sacrifice for the community. This is done as part of a puja, a ritual of worship that includes making sacrices or offerings. In each region where Buddhism exists the pujas very (who they are offered to and for what purpose) but there is a common theme to all of theme of sacifice, an exchange. The community gives something, and gets something in return from their gods or spirits. The making of offerings to the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, or at places of spiritual power is something that all devout Buddhists do whether lay or ordained. A traditional alter will contain bowls which have sweets, rice, fruits, water, candles and so on each representing something that is being offered. Then of course the lay community also makes offerings in the form of alms to the temple or the monastery. In the Jataka tales the Buddha specifically rejects the practice of sacrificing animals or more specifically goats as being a practice that creates negative karma. Nevertheless, sacrifice, is still symbolically an important component of Buddhist ritual of which Bhikkus normally lead (again, in the Threvada and Mahyana traditions which have retained monasticism - I am not sure about the non-monastic Japenese sects - I do know that in Pure Land, offerings to the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, particularly Amitabha is very meritorious.)

 

[Ahimsa]

Simply speaking, God, is still a precise theological term. Not only is it not a Sanskrit or Pali term, what it represents, because of its place in history and its application to the nature of ultimate reality as revealed through divine revelation, is not only unique from anything in the Buddhist philosophical schools of India but it contradicts and directly opposes them. First of all, the term God as defined by the tradition it arose out of is seen as the first cause and creator ex nihilo.

Not necessarily. Ex nihilo, at best, is not explicit in the Hebrew texts, and probably developed later. If you really want to understand the Germanic term “God”, you would have to understand Germanic metaphysics.

This is a delusion from a Buddhist perspective and results from grasping to an eternal, unchanging source of all. If from your vantage point, you can see reflections of the God of revelation in Buddhism that might be because it, being a world religion and reflecting the relationship between man and the sacred, definitely does partially reflect the beauty of him who we call God, particularly the divine person of the Holy Spirit, which the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council affirmed. Nevertheless it is inaccurate to say that Buddhists believe in God, while Indian Buddhist philosophers spent centuries debating, and arguing against any notions that approached this in the Indian philosophical system.

Perhaps the term “God” would have to be dispensed with, since it is too restrained by non-Indic associations? If, for instance, you argue that Buddhist philosophers denied that any entity could create something out of nothing, and that Christians believe that such an entity does exist, I would then ask: define “nothing”? Have all Christians understood “nothing” in the same way? (And the answer to that would obviously be “no”.)

I would recommend using their own words to say what the particular Buddhist philosophical schools believe in and then if that is what you believe in, say it using that precise terminology. If you do this keeping in mind the theological definition of God from a Christian or even monotheistic (Abramic Faiths) perspective, you will see that it is not possible to believe both at the same time. A text I think you would enjoy is Maps of the Profound: Jamyang Shayba’s Great Exposition on Non-Buddhist and Buddhist Views on the Nature of Ultimate Reality While this text was written from the perspective of the Prasangika-Madhyamaka (which you have said you were not as familiar with) its arguments show how important the philosophical distinctions are as to the nature of ultimate reality in Indian philosophy. This book traditionally was used and still is to train Indo-Tibetan monks to debate people like me who hold erroneous views like a belief in an eternal God (well really it was to debate other Buddhist and non-Buddhist Indian philosophical positions).

Again, Ahimsa, I don’t think this is necessarily an accurate statement. Monotheism is a precise theological term. I have given that Hinduism approached monotheism more so than Buddhism did but there is still not what we know to be as monotheism. In monotheism there are creatures. Creatures are things and beings that were created from nothing, ex nihilo, by a creator of which there is no higher principle or power. Monotheism is unique in the history of religions, just as other religious concepts such as paticca-samuppada or arahant is unique. In Christianity we don’t have a god that can’t not create, or a god of which answers to a higher principle, power, or law, we are not emanations (as distinct from creatures) of the divine. We are creatures, willed intentionally, each of us individually by God to know him and spend eternity with him. Again, it might be more accurate to refer to the specific school of Indian philosophy you are referring to, probably Vedanta, and to show both how it is somewhat theistic in parts and also how it is distinct from monotheism.

“Monotheism” is a term I refrain from using, almost as much as “God”, since it in itself says very little, because one has to define what it means to be “one” and what it means to be “theos”.

 

[Ahimsa]

If it is true, then it should be shared.

And, indeed, it is shared. But that won’t change the fact that some people will understand the teaching of the “person-as-bundles” idea properly, and some won’t understand the teaching properly.

Again, this understanding of the person is in stark contrast to the Christian understanding of the person as being an irreducible whole, made in the image of God. In many ways it approaches the reductionism of scientific materialism, which says that wholes can be explained in full by their parts.

Either God created us to be with him eternally or he didn’t. We either have one person who we will be for eternity or the body is just a shell reincarnating for eons. Certainly, an ascetic and spiritual perspective sees the pleasure of this world as fleeting and is mindful of death, this is part of Catholic spirituality. However the Buddhist doctrine of anicca is a direct contradiction of Catholic belief. If you are seeking liberation from the kleshas you and I both know this takes eons from a Buddhist perspective. Each body you inherit will in some way be a reflection of your karma, whether you come back as a fly, a toad, or maybe in another 500 eons as a person. Thus you are a spirit that it really trapped in matter, you wish to be liberated from creation itself. This is dualism, a heresy the Catholic Church has rejected from its beginnings. The idea that the body is an evil that we need to be liberated from contradicts the biblical worldview (even though many Christians throughout the centuries have been influenced by this in neo-Platonism). The Church has always rejected dualism, reincarnation, and gnosticism. Dualism says creation is bad or and evil we need to be liberated from. Reincarnation says the body itself is nothing more than a shell and not part of the person, thus abstracting a person from reality of the good of his body. Gnosticism says that when we have full knowledge we will be liberated. This means that the dumb, sick and afflicted don’t stand a chance and implies that we can have full knowledge like God. Thus a person deifies himself. This is original sin. Interestingly, these three elements, dualism, gnosticism, and reincarnation are almost always together.

Don’t confuse Buddhism with gnosticism, dualism, or matter-is-evilism. For one, “gnosticism” is such a loaded term, it practically begs to be defined even before thinking of invoking it; secondly, dualism has many possible definitions, many of which the Buddha himself refuted; thirdly, matter-as-evilism (or “malmatterism”) can not be found in the Buddhist texts, though I am willing to be corrected on that point.

 

[barryschoedel]

Not necessarily. Ex nihilo, at best, is not explicit in the Hebrew texts, and probably developed later. If you really want to understand the Germanic term “God”, you would have to understand Germanic metaphysics. Perhaps the term “God” would have to be dispensed with, since it is too restrained by non-Indic associations? If, for instance, you argue that Buddhist philosophers denied that any entity could create something out of nothing, and that Christians believe that such an entity does exist, I would then ask: define “nothing”? Have all Christians understood “nothing” in the same way? (And the answer to that would obviously be “no”.) “Monotheism” is a term I refrain from using, almost as much as “God”, since it in itself says very little, because one has to define what it means to be “one” and what it means to be “theos”.

That is an interesting point because one of my medieval philosophy instructors said something similar: That creatio ex nihilo is uniquely Christian in the way we understand it. I agree, God is a later German term but we don’t really have any other equivalent in translation except for deity. The Latin beginning for the Apostle’s creed is “Credo in Deum,” which we translate as I believe in God or the Nicene “Credo in unum Deum,” We believe in one God. My question is, was it a germanic translation before English? Probably, I don’t really know the specifics. I don’t know that there is another appropriate term though, besides deity. I don’t think the use of the term God is unrelated to the process of translating the theology of Latin Rite Catholicism (even if protest-ant) into German during the early part of the of the European Enlightenment. I do realize the Nicene creed was originally written in Greek (theos is translated into deus) but still, as western Christian’s who operate in the vernacular we only have a few terms for the deity, God, the divine reality and of course Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being the primary terms. What is interesting about both creeds is that they start out saying I believe or we believe in this specific deity, God or deum, and then go on to explain this God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is why we still recite these in the Mass and other times of significance, because they are so loaded theologically and so meaningful to us. They say as much about what we don’t believe as they say about what we do believe. I was like you with the term “monotheism” before I studied it in medeival philosophy in grad school but then I realized, it is a specific term, with a specific historical-cultural context, and has utility theologically. It does denote a particular understanding of the nature of the godhead. Thanks for taking the time to read my wordy responses Ahimsa. I appreciate it.
p.s. I will leave you with your question about how Christians (in my case, a Latin Rite Catholic) understand the ‘nothing’ of creatio ex nihilo. This is good to meditate: the difference between a god who crafts what is already there and one that creates from ‘nothing’. ‘Nothing’ is beyond our comprehension but we know what it is not: ‘something’!

 

[rad]

Last night I was looking at these two wonderful serendipity stories of how Christ called out to two young Buddhists and claimed them for Himself. These are stories which could benefit any young people feeling the same attraction to Tibetan Buddhism -and there seem to be quite a few. Young people need to catch a glimpse of the mystical side of Christianity, as well as the monastic side. Everything that Buddhism has, some forms of Christianity also has.

1.** Through The Eastern Gate - From Tibetan Buddhism to Orthodox Christianity **

By Nilus Stryker
May 2, 2007

Read on the Webb at
strannik.com/watchful_gate/node/5
or
pravmir.com/article_216.html

also:—

1. **Himalayan Ascent to Christ **
   By Monk Adrian

Read on the Web
pravmir.com/article_317.html

 

[barryschoedel]

Last night I was looking at these two wonderful serendipity stories of how Christ called out to two young Buddhists and claimed them for Himself. These are stories which could benefit any young people feeling the same attraction to Tibetan Buddhism -and there seem to be quite a few. Young people need to catch a glimpse of the mystical side of Christianity, as well as the monastic side. Everything that Buddhism has, some forms of Christianity also has.

1.** Through The Eastern Gate - From Tibetan Buddhism to Orthodox Christianity **

By Nilus Stryker
May 2, 2007

Read on the Webb at
strannik.com/watchful_gate/node/5
or
pravmir.com/article_216.html

also:—

1. **Himalayan Ascent to Christ **
   By Monk Adrian

Read on the Web
pravmir.com/article_317.html

Thank you. I will check both of these out. Very interesting.

 

[apprentice]

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

Leaving aside the spelling error – who said that only these 2 possiblities exist?

Might it not be that abortion might be chosen for a multitude of reasons, some of which spring from something that w/could harm the aborter, some of which the mother, all of which the new life, and some of which would harm other persons? Moreover, the effects of the action of abortion might be beneficial in some part, but not wholly, to all or some of the personaities above?
In other words, as with so many of human actions, it is not a simple either/or issue. Many people allow abortions in some extreme instances, and thereby problems arise, and some never do, but problems lie that way also.

It’s this black/white, good/bad attitude that puts a lot of people off catholicism, as it is interpreted this way.

Not trying to be nasty, but it doesn’t seem to take account of the compexity of real life.

 

[barryschoedel]

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

Leaving aside the spelling error – who said that only these 2 possiblities exist?

Might it not be that abortion might be chosen for a multitude of reasons, some of which spring from something that w/could harm the aborter, some of which the mother, all of which the new life, and some of which would harm other persons? Moreover, the effects of the action of abortion might be beneficial in some part, but not wholly, to all or some of the personaities above?
In other words, as with so many of human actions, it is not a simple either/or issue. Many people allow abortions in some extreme instances, and thereby problems arise, and some never do, but problems lie that way also.

It’s this black/white, good/bad attitude that puts a lot of people off catholicism, as it is interpreted this way.

Not trying to be nasty, but it doesn’t seem to take account of the compexity of real life.

If you would like, give a specific test case, and I will respond.