Creation and Buddhism

[billcu1]

I have read in Buddhism that we “drop” into an endless continuum. So I am trying to reconcile my Catholic faith with my Buddhists knowledge and philosophy. Mainly Tibetan. I know Buddhism does not deny nor acknowledge a creator. But I thought Shakyamuni talked about Brahma. Thomism speaks of Aristotle’s first mover ideology. THere can’t be an endless continuum or movers. There must be a start somewhere. Would Shakayamuni refute this? I will continue but I want to know if there are knowledgeable Buddhists here.

 

[TheAtheist]

I have read in Buddhism that we “drop” into an endless continuum. So I am trying to reconcile my Catholic faith with my Buddhists knowledge and philosophy. Mainly Tibetan. I know Buddhism does not deny nor acknowledge a creator. But I thought Shakyamuni talked about Brahma. Thomism speaks of Aristotle’s first mover ideology. THere can’t be an endless continuum or movers. There must be a start somewhere. Would Shakayamuni refute this? I will continue but I want to know if there are knowledgeable Buddhists here.

Rossum occasionally shows up to speak - and he is a kind of modified Western Buddhist.

I can try to field this question only because i have enough friends who are Thomists in thinking and a number of friends/acquaintances who do come out of various Buddhists sects…

And it matters a lot as to what sect you are speaking about, in the same way it would be foolish for someone like myself who stands outside of your religion to conflate say Catholicism and Mormonism.

So when you speak of “Tibetan Buddhism” - may i ask which of the Four Major Schools (and 1 Minor) are you referring to?

Because even the Linguistic terminology between schools is defined differently - so points of “conflict” aren’t really as such when you dig deep enough…and points of “agreement” turn out to have vast differences one you scratch the surface.

From my understanding of things - most of the Buddhist sects would in fact accept the Endless Continuum.

From a Graeco-Roman philosophical perspective - this may seem absurd. From an Indian philosophical perspective - its not.

As to the reason why - that question goes well above my payscale (I may be Indian but i’m a scientist by training and know when i’ve hit the limit of my knowledge).

A friend of mine who actually does a lot of work in Comparative Philosophy pointed out to me that while ancient China, India, and Greece each thought their rules for logical thinking were universal - it turns out when you pair them up against each other, what is considered a fallacy in one culture may not necessarily be so in another…

That may be why the Indian philosophical and religious schools are alright with an endless continuum while you folks aren’t.

 

[billcu1]

Rossum occasionally shows up to speak - and he is a kind of modified Western Buddhist.

I can try to field this question only because i have enough friends who are Thomists in thinking and a number of friends/acquaintances who do come out of various Buddhists sects…

And it matters a lot as to what sect you are speaking about, in the same way it would be foolish for someone like myself who stands outside of your religion to conflate say Catholicism and Mormonism.

So when you speak of “Tibetan Buddhism” - may i ask which of the Four Major Schools (and 1 Minor) are you referring to?

Because even the Linguistic terminology between schools is defined differently - so points of “conflict” aren’t really as such when you dig deep enough…and points of “agreement” turn out to have vast differences one you scratch the surface.

From my understanding of things - most of the Buddhist sects would in fact accept the Endless Continuum.

From a Graeco-Roman philosophical perspective - this may seem absurd. From an Indian philosophical perspective - its not.

As to the reason why - that question goes well above my payscale (I may be Indian but i’m a scientist by training and know when i’ve hit the limit of my knowledge).

A friend of mine who actually does a lot of work in Comparative Philosophy pointed out to me that while ancient China, India, and Greece each thought their rules for logical thinking were universal - it turns out when you pair them up against each other, what is considered a fallacy in one culture may not necessarily be so in another…

That may be why the Indian philosophical and religious schools are alright with an endless continuum while you folks aren’t.

Well Hinduism is something I’m into too So let me have it Anyway Karma Kagyu definatly with the Karmapa. Yes Rossum is very knowledgeable. To me creator or not doesn’t really matter. I guess we might know one day. When we are Buddhas. But the Kagyupas believe in 104 Buddhas in the cycle. Shakyamuni being the 4th and Maitreya to come next. But the endless continuum yes doesn’t sounds like Aristolean thought. Which is where Thomism comes from. But Aristotle’s philosophy also makes sense.
Now the question is with Brahma and Brahmaloka being a higher pureland. And trinity being in the "Godhead". Krishna if you will. :) the buddhists talk like there are other trinities. And when these purelands cease to exist someone is mistake into thinking the creator before him left him. Is this sounding familiar? IDK is it's Theravadin or maybe Hindu :shrug:

 

[Polycarp1]

Why would you want to reconcile Catholicism with Buddhism? Sounds like an impossible task from the outset.

 

[billcu1]

Why would you want to reconcile Catholicism with Buddhism? Sounds like an impossible task from the outset.

Jesus said, “He appears to those who seek him”. Do the work of the Christ.

 

[TheAtheist]

Well Hinduism is something I’m into too So let me have it Anyway Karma Kagyu definatly with the Karmapa. Yes Rossum is very knowledgeable. To me creator or not doesn’t really matter. I guess we might know one day. When we are Buddhas. But the Kagyupas believe in 104 Buddhas in the cycle. Shakyamuni being the 4th and Maitreya to come next. But the endless continuum yes doesn’t sounds like Aristolean thought. Which is where Thomism comes from. But Aristotle’s philosophy also makes sense.

Now the question is with Brahma and Brahmaloka being a higher pureland. And trinity being in the "Godhead". Krishna if you will. :) the buddhists talk like there are other trinities. And when these purelands cease to exist someone is mistake into thinking the creator before him left him. Is this sounding familiar? IDK is it's Theravadin or maybe Hindu :shrug:

If i might borrow an English expression, let’s “dial it back a notch.”

You are obviously very excited and interested about a lot of different ideas, but let’s try and direct the inquiry toward your original question.

So I thought about it for a bit - and decided I need some intellectual backup (slow day in the lab as it is).

After conferencing a bit, i think the best way to express this would be in the following manner:

1.) The Cosmological argument for the existence of a Creator rests on the idea that an Infinite Regress is impossible. Hence, why Jews, Christians, Muslims, heck NeoPlatonists, Daoists, and Hindus as well - can deploy the argument in favor of their respective God(s).

All the groups mentioned above use a “Ground of All Being” argument that implies all contingent beings are dependent on an uncaused or first cause.

2.) But one of Buddhism(s) core tenets, Pratītyasamutpāda, or Dependent Origination which actually embraces the Infinite Regress.

Because all things are taken to be “empty” (which is often misinterpreted to be some form of annhilationism by Westerners) of Inherent Existence, that dependent appearances can casually arise without any beginning of all beginnings.

 

[billcu1]

If i might borrow an English expression, let’s “dial it back a notch.”

You are obviously very excited and interested about a lot of different ideas, but let’s try and direct the inquiry toward your original question.

So I thought about it for a bit - and decided I need some intellectual backup (slow day in the lab as it is).

After conferencing a bit, i think the best way to express this would be in the following manner:

1.) The Cosmological argument for the existence of a Creator rests on the idea that an Infinite Regress is impossible. Hence, why Jews, Christians, Muslims, heck NeoPlatonists, Daoists, and Hindus as well - can deploy the argument in favor of their respective God(s).

All the groups mentioned above use a “Ground of All Being” argument that implies all contingent beings are dependent on an uncaused or first cause.

2.) But one of Buddhism(s) core tenets, Pratītyasamutpāda, or Dependent Origination which actually embraces the Infinite Regress.

Because all things are taken to be “empty” (which is often misinterpreted to be some form of annhilationism by Westerners) of Inherent Existence, that dependent appearances can casually arise without any beginning of all beginnings.

Right that’s “empty of inherent existence”. Kagyu teaches that everything is some form of mind. Isn’t that interdependent origination.

 

[TheAtheist]

Right that’s “empty of inherent existence”. Kagyu teaches that everything is some form of mind. Isn’t that interdependent origination.

It sounds like you are saying that the Kagyu doctrines you have encountered pull from the Yogachara or “Impression-Only” philosophical school of Mahayana Buddhism.

If that is the case, this is a very very very very very long conversation/debate/dialogue/watching two monks go at it (that was me once upon a time).

My suggestion would be to first reflect upon what is Pratītyasamutpāda? I mean yes people throw around the term “dependent origination” around a lot, but much like “hypostatic union” is for Orthodox Christianity - its a highly technical term.

I’ve seen it alternatively translated as “Interdependent Co-Arising” - which is to mean that the phenomena we experience in life/lifetimes is brought about by conditions which were generated not by 1 cause but by multiple causes.

In this respect, phenomena can be considered to be empty of inherent existence because it is generated by a number of multiple causes and has no unchangeable existence on its own. the “Emptiness” is usually described by the term Sunyata.

Yogachara or Mind-Only or Impression-Only philosophy is an explication on exactly how phenomena are inherently empty. Some Yogachara interpretations make the Store House consciousness (which looks similar to the Neoplatonic Idea of the Divine Mind), as the basic substrate of reality.

This is rejected by Madhyamaka theorists - which has resulted in a lot of debate akin to say the argument about theology between Catholic Thomists and Orthodox Palamites.

 

[Jomann]

Buddhism have a lot of different approaches. Some may be compatible with Catholicism. Buddhism have a concept called Buddha Nature and it can be viewed as non impermanent entity.

All in all, Catholicism is about the salvation of the soul and Buddhism is about the ability to not suffer.

One can find a lot of methods in the two faiths. I like to read about Buddhism and recognise some key catholic views in it with a different language.

But it’s just an intellectual exercise. The Catholic faith has anything needed to reach its goal.

 

[billcu1]

Buddhism have a lot of different approaches. Some may be compatible with Catholicism. Buddhism have a concept called Buddha Nature and it can be viewed as non impermanent entity.

All in all, Catholicism is about the salvation of the soul and Buddhism is about the ability to not suffer.

One can find a lot of methods in the two faiths. I like to read about Buddhism and recognise some key catholic views in it with a different language.

But it’s just an intellectual exercise. The Catholic faith has anything needed to reach its goal.

I think salvation is not to suffer. All suffering is self induced. You could be in the hell realms and some buddhas are by choice, and not suffer. I think you are talking about boddhichitta. I have heard too of inherent existence.

 

[TheAtheist]

I think salvation is not to suffer.

That can be a somewhat problematic statement given that you are a Catholic.

Some (not all), of your fellow Catholics have argued that Buddhism is essentially a philosophy for those who wish to hide from the reality of suffering.

That to suffer is in fact a Christ-like activity and therefore Virtuous.

ie: Christians are called to suffer like their savior.

You may have an out however on this one - there was a rather interesting Eastern Orthodox member of CAF who having digested the Buddhist viewpoint completely was able to explicate why that interpretation was a little off.

But for the life of me I can’t remember his name.

It does seem, at least to me, that the Orthodox Christians tend to have a much better grasp of just what they are dealing with when encountering Buddhism than the rest of the Christian world - perhaps because of their heavy emphasis on psychological and mystical experiences puts them in the same “ballpark” if you will as Buddhism.

 

[Jack_Common]

To me creator or not doesn’t really matter. I guess we might know one day. When we are Buddhas.

What do you mean creator or not doesn’t really matter? The first article of the creed is: I believe in God the Father Almighty, CREATOR of heaven and earth. If you don’t believe this you do not have the faith, you are not a Christian.

 

[Jack_Common]

Also, there is an “endless continuum” in Christian eschatology, in that, once all souls have been given their place in heaven or in hell at the final judgement, they will persist in that state endlessly.
The other question is whether there is an endless cycle of death and rebirth, where the soul goes to the underworld to reborn again in another body, again and again until it reaches some kind of enlightenment that keeps it from being reborn again (this is called metempsychosis, transmigration of souls, or reincarnation). The answer to this is: no, this is absolutely not reconcilable with Catholic teaching. Your soul was created by God the moment your body was formed; your soul will only ever belong to that body; your soul will be rejoined to your own body at the final judgement, you will not go through an endless cycle of death and rebirth, your body will rise again* only once* at the final judgement, and will go either to heaven or hell for eternity, depending on the state of your soul. The Church fathers knew of this doctrine (of reincarnation) and they condemned it.* No Christian has ever accepted the idea, it has been implicitly condemned because the Church has defined that the soul goes either to hell, purgatory, or heaven until it rises again in the body once on the final day.

• catholic.com/tracts/reincarnation

I think salvation is not to suffer. All suffering is self induced.

The Church teaches that salvation is deliverance from sin, suffering, death. Heaven is not simply a state of non-suffering, but of ecstatic love of God in the beatific vision (direct vision of God’s essence, seeing God “face to face”), in communion with the saints and the angels.
Not all suffering is self-induced. Sometimes God sends us suffering for the sake of our spiritual betterment or that of others. All sin ultimately comes from the self, although there are sources of temptation external to us: in the world, and from the demons.

 

[billcu1]

Also, there is an “endless continuum” in Christian eschatology, in that, once all souls have been given their place in heaven or in hell at the final judgement, they will persist in that state endlessly.
The other question is whether there is an endless cycle of death and rebirth, where the soul goes to the underworld to reborn again in another body, again and again until it reaches some kind of enlightenment that keeps it from being reborn again (this is called metempsychosis, transmigration of souls, or reincarnation). The answer to this is: no, this is absolutely not reconcilable with Catholic teaching. Your soul was created by God the moment your body was formed; your soul will only ever belong to that body; your soul will be rejoined to your own body at the final judgement, you will not go through an endless cycle of death and rebirth, your body will rise again* only once* at the final judgement, and will go either to heaven or hell for eternity, depending on the state of your soul. The Church fathers knew of this doctrine (of reincarnation) and they condemned it.* No Christian has ever accepted the idea, it has been implicitly condemned because the Church has defined that the soul goes either to hell, purgatory, or heaven until it rises again in the body once on the final day.

• catholic.com/tracts/reincarnation

The Church teaches that salvation is deliverance from sin, suffering, death. Heaven is not simply a state of non-suffering, but of ecstatic love of God in the beatific vision (direct vision of God’s essence, seeing God “face to face”), in communion with the saints and the angels.
Not all suffering is self-induced. Sometimes God sends us suffering for the sake of our spiritual betterment or that of others. All sin ultimately comes from the self, although there are sources of temptation external to us: in the world, and from the demons.

Heaven is a state of much less suffering than here. You can have hell on earth. Suffering has nothing to do with where you are. Wherever you are you take you with you. There is a ONE God. That’s where the primary life comes from. You’re going to get way over your head. Continue the work of the Christ you speak of, “He who seeks will find.” Don’t stop. He would not want that. When you have it all, then you know you’ve learned little.

 

[billcu1]

It sounds like you are saying that the Kagyu doctrines you have encountered pull from the Yogachara or “Impression-Only” philosophical school of Mahayana Buddhism.

If that is the case, this is a very very very very very long conversation/debate/dialogue/watching two monks go at it (that was me once upon a time).

My suggestion would be to first reflect upon what is Pratītyasamutpāda? I mean yes people throw around the term “dependent origination” around a lot, but much like “hypostatic union” is for Orthodox Christianity - its a highly technical term.

I’ve seen it alternatively translated as “Interdependent Co-Arising” - which is to mean that the phenomena we experience in life/lifetimes is brought about by conditions which were generated not by 1 cause but by multiple causes.

In this respect, phenomena can be considered to be empty of inherent existence because it is generated by a number of multiple causes and has no unchangeable existence on its own. the “Emptiness” is usually described by the term Sunyata.

Yogachara or Mind-Only or Impression-Only philosophy is an explication on exactly how phenomena are inherently empty. Some Yogachara interpretations make the Store House consciousness (which looks similar to the Neoplatonic Idea of the Divine Mind), as the basic substrate of reality.

This is rejected by Madhyamaka theorists - which has resulted in a lot of debate akin to say the argument about theology between Catholic Thomists and Orthodox Palamites.

There is one from which we draw our life. This ONEness there is would be God. Jesus as an emmanation of Maitraya or avatar I can say about the Church. “This is Maitreya’s activity.”

 

[twf]

That can be a somewhat problematic statement given that you are a Catholic.

Some (not all), of your fellow Catholics have argued that Buddhism is essentially a philosophy for those who wish to hide from the reality of suffering.

That to suffer is in fact a Christ-like activity and therefore Virtuous.

ie: Christians are called to suffer like their savior.

You may have an out however on this one - there was a rather interesting Eastern Orthodox member of CAF who having digested the Buddhist viewpoint completely was able to explicate why that interpretation was a little off.

But for the life of me I can’t remember his name.

It does seem, at least to me, that the Orthodox Christians tend to have a much better grasp of just what they are dealing with when encountering Buddhism than the rest of the Christian world - perhaps because of their heavy emphasis on psychological and mystical experiences puts them in the same “ballpark” if you will as Buddhism.

Suffering is indeed necessary in Catholicism, but it is meant to be temporary. Our Lord, Our Lady and the saints suffered on this earth but now spend eternity in glory.

 

[billcu1]

If i might borrow an English expression, let’s “dial it back a notch.”

You are obviously very excited and interested about a lot of different ideas, but let’s try and direct the inquiry toward your original question.

So I thought about it for a bit - and decided I need some intellectual backup (slow day in the lab as it is).

After conferencing a bit, i think the best way to express this would be in the following manner:

1.) The Cosmological argument for the existence of a Creator rests on the idea that an Infinite Regress is impossible. Hence, why Jews, Christians, Muslims, heck NeoPlatonists, Daoists, and Hindus as well - can deploy the argument in favor of their respective God(s).

All the groups mentioned above use a “Ground of All Being” argument that implies all contingent beings are dependent on an uncaused or first cause.

2.) But one of Buddhism(s) core tenets, Pratītyasamutpāda, or Dependent Origination which actually embraces the Infinite Regress.

Because all things are taken to be “empty” (which is often misinterpreted to be some form of annhilationism by Westerners) of Inherent Existence, that dependent appearances can casually arise without any beginning of all beginnings.

There is similar confusion with the “Void” sometimes it’s called. AFAIK that’s like emptiness. I would unmanifest. Far better than any “heaven” or pure land.

 

[rossum]

I have read in Buddhism that we “drop” into an endless continuum.

It is better to say beginningless:

[The Buddha said:] “From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating and wandering on.”

– Assu sutta, , Samyutta Nikaya 15.3

The end of the process is nirvana, and all descriptions of nirvana are wide of the mark.

But I thought Shakyamuni talked about Brahma.

He did. However, Brahma is just another of the gods. Longer lived and more powerful than other gods, but still caught up in the wheel of birth and rebirth.

The gods can create things, just as humans can create: Leonardo da Vinci created the Mona Lisa, though Leonardo was not a god.

There can’t be an endless continuum or movers. There must be a start somewhere.

Why? Did the Christian God have a start somewhere? The Christian God as described, is a beginningless and endless continuum.

Buddhism does not pay much attention to these questions because they are not part of following the path. If we waste too much time on such questions then we delay our own enlightenment:

[The Buddha said:] “The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.”

– Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63

rossum

 

[rossum]

1.) The Cosmological argument for the existence of a Creator rests on the idea that an Infinite Regress is impossible. Hence, why Jews, Christians, Muslims, heck NeoPlatonists, Daoists, and Hindus as well - can deploy the argument in favor of their respective God(s).

All the groups mentioned above use a “Ground of All Being” argument that implies all contingent beings are dependent on an uncaused or first cause.

All those religions tend to see the world as static, relying on a static, unchanging “Ground of Being”. The change we see in the world is treated as superficial: a veneer of apparent change laid over an unchanging reality.

2.) But one of Buddhism(s) core tenets, Pratītyasamutpāda, or Dependent Origination which actually embraces the Infinite Regress.

Because all things are taken to be “empty” (which is often misinterpreted to be some form of annhilationism by Westerners) of Inherent Existence, that dependent appearances can casually arise without any beginning of all beginnings.

Buddhism sees the world differently. The fundamental basis of reality is change, not stasis. The world is based on change, and the stasis we see in the world is treated as superficial: a veneer of apparent stasis laid over an changing base.

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

The ‘underlying reality’ or ‘ground’ that we think we see is an illusion. It has as much reality as the water in a mirage. One of the purposes of Buddhist meditation is to allow us to realise this.

rossum

 

[rossum]

There is one from which we draw our life. This ONEness there is would be God. Jesus as an emmanation of Maitraya or avatar I can say about the Church. “This is Maitreya’s activity.”

Many (most?) Buddhists see Jesus as a Bodhisattva. Whether or not He is an appearance of the Maitreya is a different question, and much more contentious. He will be a Buddha in some later rebirth, but it is not at all clear that He will be the very next Buddha, the Maitreya Buddha.

In Western Buddhism, claims to be the Maitreya are generally treated with extreme scepticism, much like claims to be the Second Coming of Christ in Christianity.

rossum