Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
It is also a fact that your God is not the creator of “all that is”. He describes Himself as “I AM” (Exodus 3:14). If He IS then He did not create “all that is” since He did not create Himself. At best He created everything except Himself.
rossum
Click to expand...
Ah but good sir, might I suggest the same definitional limitation afflicting Charlemagne has made its way into your own understanding of Judaeo-Christianity.

Applying some Thomistic-Aristotlean concepts with a dash of Neoplatonism, it would better to say that we view the Lord as the Ground of all Being - Pure Actuality.

Adonai is the Necessary Existent for all other Contigent Things such as yourself and myself to exist.

We lowly things are in our process of Becoming. “he” simply Is.
 
STT said:
Could you please elaborate on this?
Click to expand...
This is the philosophy forum, so I will approach it philosophically. In Buddhism everything changes, there is no permanence to be found anywhere. Change is necessary for salvation/enlightenment. Heaven/nirvana has to change from nirvana-without-rossum to nirvana-with-rossum. If it cannot change then there can be no attainment of nirvna.

Change is difference in time. At one time an object has properties X. If it changes then at a later time it has different properties, Y. An object with different properties has changed. At one time “rossum is eating breakfast”. At a different time “rossum is sleeping”. Rossum has changed because rossum has different properties at different times.

If something has changed, then the old version has disappeared and the new version is now present. The two versions cannot be the same (unless you can eat breakfast while asleep). The old version was impermanent.

Change requires impermanence of the old version. As with Heraclitus’ river, the old river is impermanent because the new river is not the old river; the old river has ceased to exist.

All action requires change. At least change from “I will act” to “I am acting” to “I have acted”. Hence anything that acts must change in time and so is impermanent. It must be impermanent since otherwise it would have opposed properties. It cannot have acted in the past and simultaneously not have acted in the past.

Since all things change, then all things are impermanent. A single thing cannot have opposed properties. If it appears to have opposed properties, then it can always be analysed into components. A chessboard is simultaneously black and not-black. The paradox is resolved by analysing the chessboard into smaller components: black squares and white squares.

One of the differences between Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism is how far they take this analysis.

HTH

rossum
 
ChineseCatholic said:
Ah but good sir, might I suggest the same definitional limitation afflicting Charlemagne has made its way into your own understanding of Judaeo-Christianity.
Click to expand...
Possibly. However, Christians claim that their God exists and that He is not created. Given those two assertions then He did not create Himself.
Applying some Thomistic-Aristotlean concepts with a dash of Neoplatonism, it would better to say that we view the Lord as the Ground of all Being - Pure Actuality.
Click to expand...
To me that is pure reification: taking an internal mental concept and projecting it out into the external world as if it had real existence. We have a mental concept of water in a mirage. When we project that concept out into the material world we make an error.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Possibly. However, Christians claim that their God exists and that He is not created. Given those two assertions then He did not create Himself.

To me that is pure reification: taking an internal mental concept and projecting it out into the external world as if it had real existence. We have a mental concept of water in a mirage. When we project that concept out into the material world we make an error.

rossum
Click to expand...
Ah - but just in the way that Mahayana Buddhism possess a Yogachara and Madhyamka positions, Christianity has the same.

Because the objection you raise, often raised against those partisans of St Thomas, is taken up by the Cappadocian Fathers, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and Maximus the Confessor. Those who follow in this line of thought describe this a “Via Negativa”

That our words and our concepts that we utilize to speak of the One will fail precisely because they are fictive in comparison to the actual reality of God. Our attempts to describe God only apply as far as our human minds can understand his Actions or Energeia. His Essence remains a mystery to us and even the Angels above.

I’m also wary of the charge of reification Rossum, precisely because concepts even within your own tradition are put on trial in such a manner.

As is the case with Stephen Batchelor vs Ven Brahmali .

m.youtube.com/watch?v=MuHi9Zpx7zo

Batchelor representing the Western interpretation of Buddhism vs Brahmali representing the more…I guess traditional statements of Buddhism in the Theravada tradition.

Is reincarnation and karma simply just reifications?

The Wesern Buddhists tell me yes and they are saving True Buddhism from my Asian cousins.

The Eastern Budhists tell me no, that this is verifiable through long periods of meditation, and th Western Buddhists are misapplying the concept.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Are you a Catholic convert from Buddhism or born Catholic?
Click to expand...
Born - but why does that matter?🤷

Before this gets blown out of hand - I’m not here to enter into some long winded internet debate.

It’s just that when I see people of different faiths attempting to have discussions it inevitably falls into this weird morass of trying to get the other guy to accept philosophical definitions that neither have applicability or meaning in the other tradition.

It’s better to try and understand where the other guy is starting from and just figure out how belief is constructed. The rest is just …debaters vanity imho.

I see this a lot on our side of the fence - some dude reads the Summa Theologica and tries to engage with (fill in religion).

If I could mandate it somehow I’d make every Catholic who ever wanted to discuss Buddhism on a philosophical level to read Vasubhandus Abhidharmakosa.

It not only summarizes the Theravada position but sets the parameters of debate for all the Mahayana schools.

Unless your of this new Secularist Buddhist western wave - in which case what stays or goes or what’s valid or invalid is quite negotiable
 
ChineseCatholic said:
It’s just that when I see people of different faiths attempting to have discussions it inevitably falls into this weird morass of trying to get the other guy to accept philosophical definitions that neither have applicability or meaning in the other tradition.
Click to expand...
And that works both ways. When Buddhists are here talking about their gods they need to remember that their definition of gods is more like our definition of angels. And I’m not even sure about that; but I know their definition of gods as those who can be safely ignored (which is how rossum has described them on several occasions) is so far from our definition that I think we should all just shrug our shoulders and walk away because there doesn’t seem to be any common ground whatever.
 
ChineseCatholic said:
Ah but good sir, might I suggest the same definitional limitation afflicting Charlemagne has made its way into your own understanding of Judaeo-Christianity.

Applying some Thomistic-Aristotlean concepts with a dash of Neoplatonism, it would better to say that we view the Lord as the Ground of all Being - Pure Actuality.

Adonai is the Necessary Existent for all other Contigent Things such as yourself and myself to exist.

We lowly things are in our process of Becoming. “he” simply Is.
Click to expand...
Yes. “I am who am” He is reality itself. Ultimately simple.
 
rossum said:
It probably was, just as the Bible writers thought of the Earth as flat, immovable and covered with a solid dome, as in the standard ANE cosmology followed by many peoples in that area.

rossum
Click to expand...
No, they knew it to be spherical. Immovable? A whole different thread.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
And that works both ways. When Buddhists are here talking about their gods they need to remember that their definition of gods is more like our definition of angels. And I’m not even sure about that; but I know their definition of gods as those who can be safely ignored (which is how rossum has described them on several occasions) is so far from our definition that I think we should all just shrug our shoulders and walk away because there doesn’t seem to be any common ground whatever.
Click to expand...
They aren’t really. Angels don’t die - the gods of Buddhism will meet their end or achieve Nirvana. Assuming we are even talking about a Buddhism that believes in gods.

Google Stephen Batchelor and as a counterpoint from a Tibetan Buddhiat convert Google B Alan Wallace with Batchelor.

The only place a reasonable discussion can occur would be on Ethics (I believe the Dalai Lama actually wrote a book on that topic) and Epistemology - and that’s usually a debate between modern Western philosophy and Buddhism.

Discussions of Metaphysics would be Demonstrative - this isn’t useless though because it would clear up a lot of misunderstandings had by Christian and Buddhist alike.

Other than that it’s all just empty internet air :p.

For the enterprising Thomistic scholar

abhidharmakosa.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/kosa-study-materials.pdf
 
ChineseCatholic said:
They aren’t really. Angels don’t die - the gods of Buddhism will meet their end or achieve Nirvana. Assuming we are even talking about a Buddhism that believes in gods.

Google Stephen Batchelor and as a counterpoint from a Tibetan Buddhiat convert Google B Alan Wallace with Batchelor.

The only place a reasonable discussion can occur would be on Ethics (I believe the Dalai Lama actually wrote a book on that topic) and Epistemology - and that’s usually a debate between modern Western philosophy and Buddhism.

Discussions of Metaphysics would be Demonstrative - this isn’t useless though because it would clear up a lot of misunderstandings had by Christian and Buddhist alike.

Other than that it’s all just empty internet air :p.

For the enterprising Thomistic scholar

abhidharmakosa.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/kosa-study-materials.pdf
Click to expand...
Who is the supreme god?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
If they meet meet their end, they don’t even qualify as angels in our theology, never mind gods.
Click to expand...
Bear in mine Charlemagne , that “meeting their end” is said in light of the metaphysical reincarnation mechanic. The Gods suffer from it just as much as humans, animals, anti-Gods (like another group of Gods that are rather nasty), and spirits of the dead.

It’s all one big carnival ride until you experience that moment of awakening, it’s the only way the Budddhiiaa say for a person to escape the “burning house” that is reality.

But don’t think of the Gods as haughty creatures either, they approximate our Saints more than Angels. Sakra or Ganapati or the rest of them are fellow travelers on the road to Enlightenment for the Buddhist.

That’s why it’s optional to interact with them from their perspective. Sometimes you need a helping hand, sometimes you can go it alone.

This is of course hilly dependent upon which version of Buddhism you hold.

It’s why I see a Catholics becoming Tibetan Buddhists or vice versa because we “look” like each other in certain ways. Protestants have a lot more in common with someone coming out of Zen or the more “do it yourself” forms of Buddhism.
 
buffalo said:
Who is the supreme god?
Click to expand...
Wrong question to ask them.

It’s like asking a Muslim who died for their sins?

The concept is meaningless in their worldview.

You know I sometimes think it’s better if Christians in general reviewed our history of interacting with Hellenistic philosophical schools like Stoicism or Neoplatonism - because that interaction is closer to what we have with them then say or relationship with Islam or Judaism.

By virtue of coming from a similar sources we have common coinage of terms - ideas that are at the least similar.

I can’t say the same for Buddhism - again depending on which branch we speak of
 
I think the best analogy I can come up with is this…

If Christianity is like NBA basketball
Then Judaism and Islam is like Olympic Basketball

Buddhism is more like badminton.

Still a Sport(Religion), still has Rulea, just doesn’t bear much relation to how we think beyond the basics of being a Sport
 
Does Buddhism teach the eternity of the universe?

If not, how does Buddhism account for the Creation?

It clearly cannot account for the Creation with gods that “can be safely ignored.”
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Does Buddhism teach the eternity of the universe?

If not, how does Buddhism account for the Creation?

It clearly cannot account for the Creation with gods that “can be safely ignored.”
Click to expand...
Eternity like the way Aristotle would define it? No

Eternity like he Stoica would? Much closer…

If your a traditional Buddhist you are waiting around for Maitreya Buddha - last Buddha of the cycle. After him , universe goes pop and restarts again - taking a shape based on the accumulated karma of all beings.

By virtue of being Buddhas, they are completely outside of this process. Everyone still trapped in their delusion gets to go on the Merry Go Round.

Sound confusing , allow me to point out something I learned only by comparing the broad outlines of Western, East Asian, and Indian thought.

Is the concept of an infinite regress abhorrent?

For the Graeco-Roman it is.
For the Indian it isn’t.
For Chinese/East Asia - sorry working on a completely different set of questions.

Infinite Regress makes perfect sense for those who are of a I guess you would call the. “Dharmic” faith like Buddhism, Jainism (both of which are more like philosophical schools) and this thing Westernerss call “Hinduism” (more like a catch all term, imagine if I took Judaism, Islam, Us, Zoroastarians, Yazidis, Sabians, etc and called it all “Semitism”)
 
“The rough, shorthand way of putting it the difference is that the Christian pities men because they are dying, and the Buddhist pities them because they are living. The Christian is sorry for what damages the life of a man, but the Buddhist is sorry for him because he is alive.” G.K. Chesterton
 
Charlemagne_III said:
“The rough, shorthand way of putting it the difference is that the Christian pities men because they are dying, and the Buddhist pities them because they are living. The Christian is sorry for what damages the life of a man, but the Buddhist is sorry for him because he is alive.” G.K. Chesterton
Click to expand...
Hey I like Chesterton as much as the next guy - but he’s kind of off about this.

How to put this…

My hand touches a marble table. It feels cold hard and strong.

Quantum physics tells me my senses are not perceiving the Truth, that there is Voidspace in the table between the atoms. Nothing I can do on a sensory level will change that perception. I am in essence, experiencing reality incorrectly - unable to perceive the truth.

Buddhists don’t pity mankind for being alive Charlemagne, they pity all of us for being completely and totally confused about the actual nature of reality. Our misperceptions puts us into this endless cycle of emotions that we can’t get out of.

A friend of mine once said, “Sounds a lot like the movie the Marix” … To which I answered “Minus the robots and the technology, where do you think the Wachoswkis stole the idea of Reality not being what it Seems”

All religions place a priority on some things. Judaism is a Religion of Laws, so is Islam. Ours is about Love. Buddhism is about Knowledge.
 
ChineseCatholic said:
Hey I like Chesterton as much as the next guy - but he’s kind of off about this.

All religions place a priority on some things. Judaism is a Religion of Laws, so is Islam. Ours is about Love. Buddhism is about Knowledge.
Click to expand...
This is all shorthand of another variety. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top