Is it possible for a catholic , to respect Buddhism aswell ?

[JRKH]

How can a person live a “good” life and seek “truth” without knowing God in the first place?

Reverse that question and ask - How can one come to know God if one does not seek truth in the first place?

How does one define “good” and “truth” without God?

Indeed, there can be many different definitions of “good” and “truth”. Some closer to God than others. Yet - as mentioned above…one often begins by seeking that which is good and true before one finds it in God. It is often that seeking that opens the door to grace which leads to God.

God is love! In the same way that it impossible to understand God without loving, it is impossible do understand love without God.

So - Whether one begins with God and works toward Love…or starts with Love and works toward God…goal remains the same - does it not?

How can a religion that does not require God as a central concept teach anything that resembles love, if not by mere accident? It is impossible.

Perhaps it IS by mere accident…Or maybe it is like the Greek’s altar to an unknown god"…that there is a recognition of some deep but as yet unrecognized truth within a belief system.

Just as there are people who claim God - but do not live in agape Love - there are people who live in agape Love yet do not claim God. Which extreme would you say is closer to the Truth?

Read through the Section of the Catechism on “The Church is Catholic”. There is a section that deals with those who have not heard (or understood) the Gospel. It also affirms the importance of a sincere heart that seeks truth.

Peace
James

 

[Godisgreat23]

There is a great article on this subject Budhha did predict the coming of Jesus…

bibleprobe.com/buddhatoldofjesus.htm

 

[robwar]

I work with someone whose husband was raised Catholic which he left and now has become a Buddhist monk (based out of Korea). He was turned off of the Catholic faith by his experiences going to a Catholic School growing up. Sadly, it is easy to point to what is incompatible and different between the two religions but there is a strong appeal to those who have been turned off of the Church and are still looking and seeking. What my co-worker shared with me is that he felt Christianity didn’t hold people responsible for their bad actions (like murder) because it is too easy to get forgiveness from God. I guess that reincarnation idea offered consequences that one reaps in the next life what they have done in the current. I’m not sure if I follow the logic since my understanding is that Buddhism is to alleviate suffering and detachment from self. Being able to dialog in a reasonable way with respect does open the door. I am not very familiar with all the different branches but understanding what appeals to people hopefully will bring them back.

 

[rossum]

Buddhism is incompatible with catholicism. There is no way a catholic can acknowledge any other God that Abraham’s God, for there is no one. There is only one God, expressed in the holy trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Any priest will agree with that, and so will our catechism.

Buddhism acknowledges many gods, including the Abrahamic God. It generally ignores them; they are not important for the Buddhist path.

Besides, I am very curious to know how a buddhist should avoid “evil” and cultivate “good” without a clear definition of those concepts to begin with.

Buddhists do have clear definitions in scripture. The Tripitaka covers the subjects extensively. In summary:

1. Avoid Evil:

• Avoid injury to living things.
• Avoid taking what is not given.
• Avoid sensual misconduct.
• Avoid false and malicious speech.
• Avoid intoxicants.

1. Cultivate Good:

• “Love others as you love yourself.” – Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra 91

ETA: At this level, moral and immoral behaviour, there is not a lot of difference between Buddhism and Christianity.

rossum

 

[rossum]

What my co-worker shared with me is that he felt Christianity didn’t hold people responsible for their bad actions (like murder) because it is too easy to get forgiveness from God.

This is one of the major differences between Buddhism and Christianity. Buddhism has neither the concept of sin, nor the concept of forgiveness of sin. Instead it has actions and consequences. Whatever actions you take you will reap the consequences; there is no way to avoid the consequences so it is important to think carefully before you act. There is no “Get out of Hell Free” card in Buddhism.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

– Dhammapada 1:1-2

rossum

 

[eonporter]

Reverse that question and ask - How can one come to know God if one does not seek truth in the first place?

Indeed, there can be many different definitions of “good” and “truth”. Some closer to God than others. Yet - as mentioned above…one often begins by seeking that which is good and true before one finds it in God. It is often that seeking that opens the door to grace which leads to God.

So - Whether one begins with God and works toward Love…or starts with Love and works toward God…goal remains the same - does it not?

Perhaps it IS by mere accident…Or maybe it is like the Greek’s altar to an unknown god"…that there is a recognition of some deep but as yet unrecognized truth within a belief system.

Just as there are people who claim God - but do not live in agape Love - there are people who live in agape Love yet do not claim God. Which extreme would you say is closer to the Truth?

Read through the Section of the Catechism on “The Church is Catholic”. There is a section that deals with those who have not heard (or understood) the Gospel. It also affirms the importance of a sincere heart that seeks truth.

Peace
James

I understand that there are people who never heard of God and must be driven to Him somehow, but that is not the case with the OP.

He already knows catholicism, and from this point on the answer is short like this: stay away from buddhism.

 

[Vouthon]

This is one of the major differences between Buddhism and Christianity.

Dear Rossum

Does it not depend, nonetheless, on how one defines the word sin? The Bible does teach, “you reap what you sow” (St. Paul) or as Jesus put it, “the measure you give is the measure you get”, so there very much is still the idea that every action has a consequence, whether negative or positive, although we do not hold to a belief in rebirth or transmigration. However we do not believe that God sends anyone to the state of heaven or hell. Rather heaven and hell are within us as capabilities, we choose what state we are going to end up in through the actions and conditions of our life, how we live it. Hell arises from these actions and conditions, as does Heaven.

God is one ceasing, eternal act. He exists beyond time in an Eternal Now without beginning or after. Therefore, when we say that God “forgives”, I would not imagine it in the sense of a person pardoning another for a wrong. It is more the case that his grace, which is given freely to all beings from eternity, is allowed to come into the heart of the person who turns from the transitory self and rests in the embrace of the threefold Deity by their own repentance. In Greek the word for “repentance” is metanoia and it literally means “to change one’s mind”. The way that many mystics describe it is that God is like unto the sun and his light of grace is common to all people, just like the rays from the sun shine on every tree, however not every tree has roots watered enough to benefit from the unceasing, perpetually shining sunlight. In the same manner not everyone is receptive to God’s saving light. If we change our mind and turn from ourselves to Him, then we receive “forgiveness” which is really just that receptivity to an already freely given gift of grace, rather than being “pardoned” which is judicial and anthropomorphic.

If understand “sin” in a legal sense as some form of transgression against the will of God or another higher power, then yes it would not be in any way akin to Buddhism. However if sin is defined thus:

"…Truth: Everything looks back to its primal origin.

Disciple: Ah, Lord, where does sin come from, or evil, hell, purgatory, the devil, or the like?

Answer: Because a rational creature is supposed to withdraw from itself and return to the One and yet remains turned outward, looking with unjustified possessiveness at its own self - this is where the devil and evil come from…Now, what is it that leads a person astray and robs him of happiness? It is exclusively this last self . Because of it a person turns outward, away from God and toward himself, when he should be re-turning inward, and he fashions for himself his own self. He thoughtlessly makes himself a ‘self’ of his own. In his ignorance he appropriates to this ‘self’ what is God’s. This is the direction he takes, and he eventually sinks into sinfulness…A root of all sin and a clouding of all truth is transitory love…What is it that drives a person to seek evil ways? It is the search for satiety…What is the spiritual practice of a completely detached person? Losing self.

After this the disciple [Henry] turned again in all seriousness to eternal Truth and asked for the power to discern from outward appearance persons who were truly detached. He asked thus: ‘Eternal Truth, how do such persons act in their relationships with various things?’

**Answer: **They withdraw from themselves and all things withdraw along with them.

Question: How do they conduct themselves with respect to time?

Answer: They exist in an ever-present Now, free of selfish intentions…

Question: What is their conduct toward their fellow human beings?

**Answer: **They enjoy the companionship of people, but without being swayed by them. They love them without attachment, and show them sympathy without anxious concern – all in true freedom…. "

- Blessed Henry Suso (1295-1366), German Catholic mystic, The Little Book of Truth

Then does what you say still hold strictly true? Is the gap in understanding our nature really so huge?

The above mystic defines “sin” as a turning outward into the senses through an inordinate possessiveness of one’s own “self” rather than turning within to God who is beyond the senses. This stems from “ignorance”, the formation of an illusionary self independent of God. Sin could therefore be described as the inordinate attachment to the “transitory”, love for or attachment to impermanent things including our own self-created “self” which is not who we truly are in God. Rather the fifth self is a fleeting combination of our thoughts, feelings, self-identifying labels and habits. Our “true self”, if one is to speak thus, is the image of God which can only be discovered through grace.

Therefore St. Gregory Palamas (14th century) notes:

“…Our heart is, therefore, the shrine of the intelligence and the chief intellectual organ of the body. When, therefore,** we strive to scrutinise and to amend our intelligence through rigorous watchfulness, how could we do this if we did not collect our intellect, outwardly dispersed through the senses, and bring it back within ourselves - back to the heart itself, the shrine of the thoughts?..A great teacher has said that after the Fall our inner being naturally adapts itself to outward forms**…”

Sin arises from inordinate attachment to outward forms, to impermanent created things including our own self.

If sin is defined thusis it really entirely different so as there to be no common ground at all?

 

[tomarin]

I am a newly converted catholic . I do not follow Buddhism because it rejects the existence of God . But I do embrace some of the things Buddha taught like making the best out of your life and such . Is it possible for a catholic to embrace some of the wisdom and teachings of Buddha , without abandoning his catholic faith ?

Thomas Merton seemed to think so. That is, I believe he admired greatly aspects of Far Eastern religions. Of course no one is advocating out and out syncretism.

 

[rossum]

Does it not depend, nonetheless, on how one defines the word sin? The Bible does teach, “you reap what you sow” (St. Paul) or as Jesus put it, “the measure you give is the measure you get”, so there very much is still the idea that every action has a consequence, whether negative or positive, although we do not hold to a belief in rebirth or transmigration.

That is not how Christianity comes across to me, as a non-Christian, today:

• Give a million dollars to charity. Result: an eternity in heaven or an eternity in hell, depending.
• Give one dollar to charity. Result: an eternity in heaven or an eternity in hell, depending.
• Steal one dollar. Result: an eternity in heaven or an eternity in hell, depending.
• Kill one million people. Result: an eternity in heaven or an eternity in hell, depending.

Here, “depending” may mean what God has predestined, praying hard enough, faith alone, confession and true contrition, or whatever means of salvation/damnation is proposed by whatever Christian denomination.

I might also cite the bicycle joke by Emo Philips here:

When I was a kid, I used to pray to God every night for a new bike, but I never got one. Then I realised, the Lord doesn’t work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. And you know what? He did.

For some people Christianity appears to provides ways to avoid the consequences of their actions. That is a dangerous delusion, and can only lead to suffering.

rossum

 

[eonporter]

Buddhism acknowledges many gods, including the Abrahamic God. It generally ignores them; they are not important for the Buddhist path.

Exactly my point.

A religion that acknowledge many gods does not acknowledge God at all, for there is only one true God, according to our beliefs. So there you go: buddhism and catholicism are incompatible at the most basic understanding of the reality, the reality that there is only one God, without which nothing makes sense at all, including any moral system created by man.

Buddhists do have clear definitions in scripture. The Tripitaka covers the subjects extensively. In summary:

1. Avoid Evil:

• Avoid injury to living things.
• Avoid taking what is not given.
• Avoid sensual misconduct.
• Avoid false and malicious speech.
• Avoid intoxicants.

Interesting set of rules.

Some of them even remind me of our catholic commandments, with one “little” difference: our commandments are universal and given by the one true God, whereas your religion doesn’t even acknowledge the necessity of a creator in the first place.

So, that’s why all I can say it that: interesting set of man-made relative rules. Too bad that as such they are just as flawed and incomplete as the man who created them.

1. Cultivate Good:

• “Love others as you love yourself.” – Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra 91

Good one, except that our understand of love was given by the Son of God himself, which died in the cross to show the extent to which this rule should be applied.

ETA: At this level, moral and immoral behaviour, there is not a lot of difference between Buddhism and Christianity.

Not by a chance.

What does Dalai Lama teach about abortion? "He said, “I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance”. That’s plain immoral for us.

Same sex marriage, drugs liberalization, relativism, consumerism, feminism, communism, all stances in which the catholic teachings contradict buddhism partially or completely.

Buddhism doen’t even have a central authority to decide on moral matters. In practical terms everything is up to the individual, to the point that two different buddhists may behave differently in the same situation and at the same be justified within their belief system. It is a decentralized, godless, relativistic moral that simply doesn’t resemble anything of the beautiful catholic teachings, at all.

Sorry, either you are a buddhist or a catholic. There is no such thing as drinking from two different doctrines, specially because in buddhism there isn’t even a consensus about what the official doctrine really is.

 

[Vouthon]

That is not how Christianity comes across to me, as a non-Christian, today:

Christianity is often not lived as it should be, as with all religions. That is the weakness of human nature

• Give a million dollars to charity. Result: an eternity in heaven or an eternity in hell, depending.
• Give one dollar to charity. Result: an eternity in heaven or an eternity in hell, depending.
• Steal one dollar. Result: an eternity in heaven or an eternity in hell, depending.
• Kill one million people. Result: an eternity in heaven or an eternity in hell, depending.

Actually, being “saved” is a state of grace. It depends not so much on our actions but rather on the state of mind, intention and loving-kindness with which we do our good deeds. That is why Jesus explained that the widow offered only a single coin while rich people offered many coins, yet she gave more than them because her heart was pure whereas their’s wasn’t. “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God”, said Jesus. That is one of the core teachings of Catholic mysticism. The heart does not refer to the physical organ. The word for ‘heart’ in biblical Greek is kardia and it signifies, as in the Bible, the centre of the human person in its totality. This must be pure and if it is then it will manifest itself in loving acts towards all people. Acts are the proof of a “saved” state of mind, so to speak. They naturally flow from it, rather than are done to warrant some kind of divine reward, which would actually be a “sin”.

I might also cite the bicycle joke by Emo Philips here:

When I was a kid, I used to pray to God every night for a new bike, but I never got one. Then I realised, the Lord doesn’t work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. And you know what? He did.

LOL

For some people Christianity appears to provides ways to avoid the consequences of their actions. That is a dangerous delusion, and can only lead to suffering.

 

[Vouthon]

What does Dalai Lama teach about abortion?

His Holiness the Dalai Lama, despite being in many ways a truly wonderful man, is not the supreme arbiter of Buddhism as a religion nor its ultimate or defining authority. Tibetan Buddhism (or Vajrayana) is only one branch of the much larger Buddhist family tree of denominations and Therevada, not to mention most forms of Mahayana, pre-date it.

There wasn’t even the office of Dalai Lama within the Vajarayanic tradition until the late medieval era.

 

[Pleroma]

Buddhism has 100 peaceful and wrathful deities and hence it is highly incompatible with the Catholic religion, please either be a Catholic or a Buddhist, please don’t mix both of them as many of the secular Buddhists do. They really don’t understand Buddhism in the first place.

Hundred peaceful and wrathful deities

 

[Vouthon]

Buddhism has 100 peaceful and wrathful deities and hence it is highly incompatible with the Catholic religion, please either be a Catholic or a Buddhist, please don’t mix both of them as many of the secular Buddhists do. They really don’t understand Buddhism in the first place.

Hundred peaceful and wrathful deities

Dear Pleroma,

Naturally one cannot “mix” Catholicism and Buddhism. They are separate religions. That is syncretism and would serve only to insult the integrity of the two faiths. Catholic doctrine would regard that as a form of heresy or erring religious indifferentism so you need not fear that any of us would do such a thing.

However one can and should dialogue to find commonalities, which from the Catholic perspective would arise in other religions both from man’s earnest striving for truth and through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit planting “seeds of the Word”.

And certainly we should have deep respect for Buddhism as a religion, philosophy and way of life.

Warmest,

Vouthon

 

[rossum]

Interesting set of rules.

Some of them even remind me of our catholic commandments, with one “little” difference: our commandments are universal and given by the one true God, whereas your religion doesn’t even acknowledge the necessity of a creator in the first place.

There cannot be a creator in Buddhism. The universe is defined as “all that exists” and it is eternal. If a God claims to have created something that is eternal, then He is asserting an impossibility. If your Creator exists then He is part of the universe – “all that exists” – and not separate from it. The material universe is not eternal; the universe – including both immaterial and material parts – is.

Buddhism is not Christianity. You cannot assume that what is true for one is also true for the other.

So, that’s why all I can say it that: interesting set of man-made relative rules.

They are not man-made. The Buddha did not make them, he discovered them. Newton did not make gravity, he discovered the rules that governed it. The same with the Buddha, he discovered the moral rules, he did not make them.

What does Dalai Lama teach about abortion? "He said, “I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance”. That’s plain immoral for us.

The Christian and Buddhist analyses of what is, and what is not, a human differ. Primarily, Buddhism rejects the notion of a soul. We differ about the point at which a growing embryo becomes human. In this Buddhism is closer to the early Church than to the modern Church.

Same sex marriage, drugs liberalization, relativism, consumerism, feminism, communism, all stances in which the catholic teachings contradict buddhism partially or completely

It is possible to find Christians in favour of all those, as well as Christians who are against. It is possible to find Buddhists who are in favour of all those, as well as Buddhists who are against. Both religions encompass a very wide range of views. I will agree that the range of views within Catholicism is narrower, but not all Catholics think the same. Witness the different attitudes of Rome and some US nuns to feminism.

Buddhism doen’t even have a central authority to decide on moral matters.

Nor does Christianity. You would do well to read the Kalama sutta on the nature of moral authority in Buddhism.

Catholicism does have a central authority and so does the dGelug-pa sect of Tibetan Buddhism. Different groups within the two religions have different authorities; there is no single central authority in either religion.

rossum

 

[Vouthon]

Primarily, Buddhism rejects the notion of a soul.

Dear Rossum,

My understanding is that Buddhism rejects the Hindu concept of Atman and any similar idea of an eternal soul. Since the Buddha taught that all reality is “empty phenomena” in a continual state of change, since everything is conditioned (apart from Nibbana) this is natural. However I am led to believe that if soul is defined not as an eternal, imperishable substance but rather more as an incorporeal component in living things that continues after death, then Buddhism does not reject the soul.

 

[meltzerboy]

I am a newly converted catholic . I do not follow Buddhism because it rejects the existence of God . But I do embrace some of the things Buddha taught like making the best out of your life and such . Is it possible for a catholic to embrace some of the wisdom and teachings of Buddha , without abandoning his catholic faith ?

I don’t see why it should not be possible. Be careful not to embrace those aspects of Buddhism that are contrary to Catholic teaching, which, as a newly-converted Catholic, you should study well. However, I believe one can and should respect ALL religions even if they disagree with one’s own.

 

[Vouthon]

There cannot be a creator in Buddhism. The universe is defined as “all that exists” and it is eternal. If a God claims to have created something that is eternal, then He is asserting an impossibility. If your Creator exists then He is part of the universe – “all that exists” – and not separate from it. The material universe is not eternal; the universe – including both immaterial and material parts – is.

But God does not exist He is not a “thing” but literally “no-thing”. Some theists probably believe in a God they have thought up in their own head, one who corresponds to their personal needs, a comfort and a crutch to lean upon. That God, the God of “reward and punishment”, the God of nationalisms and narrow belief systems, he certainly doesn’t exist. I would be more than happy to let that God die and write the obituary for him.

The true reality of God is unknowable and unconditioned, neither This nor That, neither here nor there, except that we are made in its Image and that Christ is its incarnation in the material universe. Christ is God made man.

“…In order to attain perfect union, we must free ourselves of God…The common belief about God, that He is a great Taskmaster, whose function is to reward or punish, is cast out by perfect love; and in this sense the spiritual man does divest himself of God as conceived of by most people. The intellectual where is the essential unnameable nothingness. So we must call it, because we can discover no mode of being, under which to conceive it…A man may in this life reach the point at which he understands himself to be one with that which is the nothing of all the things that one can conceive, imagine or express in words. By common agreement men call this Nothing “God” and it is in itself a most essential Something. And here a person knows himself to be one with this Nothing, and this Nothing knows itself without the activity of knowing. But this is mysteriously hidden further within…”

***- Blessed Henry Suso (c. 1296-1366), German Catholic mystic & Dominican priest ***

"…God never did exist
Nor ever will, yet aye
He was ere worlds began, and
When they’re gone he’ll stay.
God is a pure Nothing,
He stands not in time or place
And cannot be touched
God is an utter Nothingness,
Beyond the touch of Time and Place:
The more you grasp after Him,
The more he flees your embrace

The vengeful God
of wrath and punishment
is a mere fairytale.
It simply is the Me
that makes me fail.

God stands far above the anger,
rage and indignation
ascribed to Him by primitive imagination…"

***- Angelus Silesius (1624 – 1677), German Catholic mystic ***

Ruusbroec described God thus:

"…Contemplation is a knowing that is unconditioned,
For ever dwelling above the Reason.
Never can it sink down into the Reason,
And above it can the Reason never climb.
The shining forth of That which is Unconditioned is as a fair mirror.
Wherein shines the Eternal Light of God.
It has no attributes,
And here all the works of Reason fail.
It is not God, But it is the Light whereby we see Him.
Those who walk in the Divine Light of it
Discover in themselves the Unwalled.
That which Unconditioned,
Is above the Reason, not without it:
It beholds all things without amazement.
Amazement is far beneath it:
The contemplative life is without amazement.
That which is Unconditioned, it knows not what;
For it is above all, and is neither This nor That.

And its seeing is Unconditioned,
Being without manner,
And it is neither thus nor thus,
Neither here nor there;
For that which is Unconditioned hath enveloped all,
And the vision is made high and wide.
It knows not itself where That is which it sees;
and it cannot come thereto, for its seeing is in no wise,
and passes on, beyond, for ever, and without return.
That which it apprehends it cannot realise in full,
Nor wholly attain, for its apprehension is wayless,
and without manner,
And therefore it is apprehended of God in a higher way than it can apprehend Him
Behold! such a following of the Way that is Wayless,
Is intermediary between contemplation
In images and similitudes of the intellect,
And unveiled contemplation
Beyond all images in the Light of God…"

- Blessed Jan Van Ruusbroec (1293 – 1381), Flemish Catholic mystic

 

[SteveVH]

The true reality of God is unknowable and unconditioned, neither This nor That, neither here nor there, except that we are made in its Image and that Christ is** its** incarnation in the material universe. Christ is God made man.

Whil I am in full agreement with your statement, should not the word “it” be changed to “God”? He is not a thing, as you say, rather he is God.

 

[Vouthon]

Whil I am in full agreement with your statement, should not the word “it” be changed to “God”? He is not a thing, as you say, rather he is God.

Quite right!

Yes brother, that is simply my tired brain and fallibility to express the majesty of God Plus I’m tired out after a busy day travelling on trains.

I think I used “it” because I was trying think of a word to use that signified apophatic theology which says what God “isn’t”, and wanted therefore to avoid “He” which is more personal and cataphatic. But you are correct.

Thanks!