I find Buddhism disheartening?

[rossum]

What I find confusing about Buddhism is we learned from Buddha that “Our perception of the world is an illusion”.

But the people Buddha taught this to saw him with their own eyes (visual perception), heard his voice with their ears teaching the Dharma (sound perception), Felt him (touch perception), and used these senses and their “unenlightened” reasoning to come to these truths…so is it really an illusion at all? If the teaching was consistent, than wouldn’t that mean these people “hallucinated” (for lack of a better term) Buddha as well? Seems like a contradiction.

The raw perception is valid, as far as it goes. Our senses are imperfect – you cannot see the polarization light as a bee can. Our senses can be fooled – a mirage appears to be water, but isn’t.

On top of the raw perception our brain builds models. Because those models are based on imperfect perceptions, and we can make mistakes, those models are themselves imperfect. An arachnophobe has an incorrect model of spiders, the fear is part of the internal model, not part of the real external spider.

The major problem is that most people mistake their imperfect models for reality. They project their internal model out onto reality rather than seeing, however imperfectly, reality as it is.

The illusion is that we think our internal models are reality. One of the points of meditation is to distinguish between the raw sense perception and the overlay from our internal models. All too often people do not distinguish between the two and, because the internal model is imperfect, there is a mismatch between what we think is reality and actual reality.

For a Buddhist the classic example of this is an unchanging self/soul/atman. That is an internal model, not a part of reality.

Buddhism aims to reduce suffering, and since this mismatch between model and reality can cause suffering Buddhism tries to eliminate it.

rossum

 

[BlackFriar]

Look I may be very wrong or out of line here

You have been advised a number of times and not just by myself that this is so.

You have been advised to go and learn first hand from Buddhist teachers themselves to relieve you of your self admitted lack of knowledge.

Please do so rather than continue your unreasonable disparaging of Buddhists here on a reputable Catholic forum.

We dont like it when Protestants do that to Catholics, yet here you are repeating the same conduct we do not like.

 

[Curious11]

You have been advised to go and learn first hand from Buddhist teachers

I’ll heed your advice. You won’t hear from me again on this thread.

Forgive me friend

 

[CatholicHere_Hi]

So in short, Buddhism teaches our senses can’t be fully trusted, thus our internal models based on those senses can’t be fully trusted as well, which is what causes the illusion?

You mentioned the concept of the soul being one of these imperfect models. Would you mind elaborating on that?

 

[goodcatholic]

Someone makes some vague/minor criticisms of Buddhism on a Catholic forum and is harassed for posting “disparaging” comments. That doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[Curious11]

Nobody’s perfect. I’ll be damned if I ain’t a sinner

 

[Kei]

I’m not him but in Buddhism, the “soul”/self doesn’t exist in an unchanging way.
Compared to when you were younger, you no doubt have different motivations and dreams and desires, your body changes, your mind changes, etc.
Like how if you step in a river, then wait a moment, and step in the river again, it is different water you are stepping in. This is pretty antithetical to Catholicism in that we believe in a lasting substance. Though I may have different wants, I am still me. The river is still the same river. Etc.
We believe in an eternal and unchanging (in some way) God. In Buddhism, all gods can’t be in such a manner, because it would be directly contradictory to the viewpoint.

That’s my understanding, if incorrect then anyone feel free to correct me.

 

[rossum]

You mentioned the concept of the soul being one of these imperfect models. Would you mind elaborating on that?

We think of ourself as “I”, We were “I” at ten years old, we are “I” in middle age and we will be “I” in old age. The “I” does not change, but we do. We project that unchanging “I” onto something. Obviously not our physical body – that isn’t permanent and it changes – so we invent an unchanging undetectable something to attach our internal “I” to: soul/self/atman/whatever.

However, when you go looking for that soul/self you cannot find it. Various Buddhist meditations analyse the different components of a human being, and none of them are an unchanging permanent soul. All of them change and all of them are impermanent.

rossum

 

[CatholicHere_Hi]

However, when you go looking for that soul/self you cannot find it. Various Buddhist meditations analyse the different components of a human being, and none of them are an unchanging permanent soul. All of them change and all of them are impermanent.

How do they make this discovery? The soul is generally something that can’t be ‘found’.

 

[rossum]

How do they make this discovery?

There are five components to a human being: form, feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness. All of them change and none of them are permanent. See skandhas for more details.

The discovery was made through intense meditation. The Buddha took six years from leaving home to enlightenment.

The soul is generally something that can’t be ‘found’.

Exactly. It can’t be found because it isn’t there. What you think is your soul isn’t. It is like the water in a mirage.

rossum

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Christianity is more about defining clear boundaries and separateness rather than oneness.

Those who think Christianity is “more about defining clear boundaries” are the ones having a problem these days when the Pope issues things like Amoris Laetitia.

 

[goodcatholic]

I am a Pope Francis fan and would rather leave him out of this thread on Buddhism. Maybe you can make that connection. I don’t know.
I used to like relativism and subjective truths so we could all respect one anothers’ “truths” which happened to be different. Peace at all costs. Don’t make waves. Modernism is allowing further blurring of truths as we allowed same sex marriage to pass. Meanings become whatever we want them to be. An objective truth like “marriage is designed for man and woman” is no longer that definition in secular society. It’s slippery slope I’m afraid.
So yes I prefer clear boundaries. How about you? Do you prefer blurred boundaries and meanings?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I am a Pope Francis fan and would rather leave him out of this thread on Buddhism.

I like him too.
“Modernism” has become a buzzword to mean whatever the person pointing the fingers doesn’t agree with.

I get that many people can’t handle gray areas and that some Protestants who were raised with everybody interpreting the Bible to his own drummer want something more solid and consistent. But I wasn’t raised Protestant and I’ve always been very comfortable with gray areas, so I personally don’t see problems with a lot of things that keep people who like bright-line rules awake at night.

Life is not easy. It is going to have gray areas. We cannot will or wish them away. God is equipped to handle them.

 

[goodcatholic]

I’ll stick to this simple definition.
mod·ern·ism (mŏd′ər-nĭz′əm) n. 1. a. Modern thought, character, or practice. b. Sympathy with or conformity to modern ideas, practices, or standards.

Those Catholics who like modernism want to change the Church rules. (example) married priests, female ordination.
“If it’s new , it must be good. Change for change sake” type thinking.

 

[goodcatholic]

I would’ve agreed with you 12 months ago. I was a “liberal” Catholic too. My advice to you…go deeper, study more. Listen to catholic theologians like Peter Kreeft. Bishop Barron. The more I study Catholicism, the more I realise the importance of objective truths. Otherwise we are building our faith on quicksand.
Some grey areas are unavoidable. I still think that. But we need to minimise them.
I am a cradle Catholic by the way so I’m not coming from sola scriptura fundamentalist thinking. I think we can actually learn something from Protestants, And that is to get to know the Bible better, for one.

 

[Curious11]

Sorry to break the silence I promised to @Blackfriar, but man I LOVE the American English accent! Beautiful to hear in men and sexy as can be in women

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Those Catholics who like modernism want to change the Church rules. (example) married priests, female ordination.

“If it’s new , it must be good. Change for change sake” type thinking.

Well, you’ve just lumped a whole lot of people who may be coming at this from all different viewpoints and perhaps agree only in part with what you said all together in a group and ascribed one motive to them all that they probably don’t all share.

Those who want women priests for example could have all kinds of motives. Some women are concerned about equality, some might not care about equality so much in general but feel that they personally could share their gifts as a priest or deacon, some might think the church like many workplaces would benefit from increasing the diversity of its leaders, and some might be genuinely worried about the shortage of priests. I suspect the “change for change’s sake” is a minimal number of folks.

Making generalizations and calling them by the put-down of “modernism “ is by and large unhelpful. It may make traditionalists feel better and more holy in their position. It may provide a clearer boundary for those who like that. But it also signifies to me a huge unwillingness to listen and a stifling of dialogue and creative solutions. This would be a negative thing in any workplace of mine ever, so it’s hard for me to see such generalizing and stifling as a positive thing for the Church.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I would’ve agreed with you 12 months ago. I was a “liberal” Catholic too

Good grief, now you’ve decided I’m a “liberal” Catholic because I don’t agree with your position and you’ve decided to give me advice on how to get more holy?

Again, this is a classic example of why people don’t even bother trying to discuss stuff. Assumptions, generalizations, labels, unsought advice on how to be a better Catholic which means agreeing with you. SMH.

I’m not all that “liberal” in my mind, but even if I was, it’s not a disease I need to recover from. I’m comfortable with gray areas and you’re not. It’s okay for us to be different. I don’t have to be like you.

 

[Shakuhachi]

It seems to me that Buddhist meditation is good mental hygiene but it is so very impersonal. Whatever entities might be prayed to are ultimately just as unreal as our own sense of self. Yet, there are many schools and forms of it. One can pray to Buddha or a Bodhisattva for help. I love that statue of Guanyin at th Atkins museum in Kansas City. http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln260/Images260/Guanyin1.jpg


But it is all ultimately impersonal.

 

[Theo520]

Christianity has the first two, it can be lacking in the third. For Christians who want to try meditation I usually suggest either counting breaths or Saying the Jesus Prayer. Spend no more than fifteen minutes twice a day on either. Only do more after you have got some training.

rossum

Though not the same, I always equated prayer with meditation.