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

[SteveVH]

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!

I get it, and by the way I must tell you that I really enjoy and appreciate your posts. You seem to have great insight and knowledge and you express it beautifully.

 

[Polycarp1]

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

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

Buddhism falls into the trap of relativism, simple as that. It is a false religion.

People can live a good life without knowing God. In fact as God’s precepts are written on our hearts by virtue of our being created they have no excuse not to. But living a good life is not enough to get one into heaven unless they don’t know Jesus through no fault of their own. They can also seek truth. Its when people stop seeking that their really in trouble. It is a false religion but Buddists are still children of God and He loves them as much as he loves you and me.

 

[Vouthon]

I get it, and by the way I must tell you that I really enjoy and appreciate your posts. You seem to have great insight and knowledge and you express it beautifully.

Bless you brother and thank you for the kind words :hug3:

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

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

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.

I’m wondering if this means that you have reasoned that a person who is born and raised outside of a deistic religion doesn’t understand love. I know what love is independently of knowing what I (as a Catholic) think God is. While I was brought up Catholic from a very early age, I knew and understood love before I knew God on any conceptual level, and I still can’t say that I understand God through any means beyond an intuitive level. But I understand love. So, by what reasoning can we ask “How can a religion that does not require God as a central concept teach anything that resembles love, if not by mere accident?” And likewise, how can we say “It is impossible.” As Christians, we believe that God is the source of all things, and this includes love. In the same way that a flashlight is a source of light, is it not possible to see by the light of a flashlight without any knowledge of the flashlight? Could we speak of the light without knowledge of the source? Can I drink from a spring and teach others about how to do so without having seen the glacier from which it came? Theory and explanation are one thing. Experience is another thing. Love is an experience. God is expressed in all things. I think it might be rather arrogant of us to suppose that by virtue of our beliefs, we know love better than someone else, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[SteveVH]

I’m wondering if this means that you have reasoned that a person who is born and raised outside of a deistic religion doesn’t understand love. I know what love is independently of knowing what I (as a Catholic) think God is. While I was brought up Catholic from a very early age, I knew and understood love before I knew God on any conceptual level, and I still can’t say that I understand God through any means beyond an intuitive level. But I understand love. So, by what reasoning can we ask “How can a religion that does not require God as a central concept teach anything that resembles love, if not by mere accident?” And likewise, how can we say “It is impossible.” As Christians, we believe that God is the source of all things, and this includes love. In the same way that a flashlight is a source of light, is it not possible to see by the light of a flashlight without any knowledge of the flashlight? Could we speak of the light without knowledge of the source? Can I drink from a spring and teach others about how to do so without having seen the glacier from which it came? Theory and explanation are one thing. Experience is another thing. Love is an experience. God is expressed in all things. I think it might be rather arrogant of us to suppose that by virtue of our beliefs, we know love better than someone else, wouldn’t you agree?

While your post was not directed to me, I certainly agree with you. If God is Love then do not those who know love, know God, at least at some level? This would apply to all humans, regardless of their intellectual awareness of God as we know him. They will be judged according to their response to Love.

 

[rossum]

My understanding is that Buddhism rejects the Hindu concept of Atman and any similar idea of an eternal soul.

Correct. Buddhism rejects any permanent unchanging ‘soul’ or essence.

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.

Humans are analysed into five components, one material and four immaterial. All the different components are impermanent, changing and suffering: the Three Marks. Using the word “soul” (or atman) is a big no-no for historical reasons. That word tends to give the impression of permanence, which is a deep error. By avoiding the word we can help people avoid the error.

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.

[The Buddha said:] There is, monks, an unborn, an unbecome, an unmade, an unconditioned. If there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, no escape would be possible from the born, become, made, conditioned. But precisely because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, escape from the born, become, made, conditioned is possible.

– Udana 8.3

All descriptions of nirvana (and of God) are incorrect. How can words describe what cannot be described? The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon and can never be the moon.

rossum

 

[Vouthon]

While your post was not directed to me, I certainly agree with you. If God is Love then do not those who know love, know God, at least at some level? This would apply to all humans, regardless of their intellectual awareness of God as we know him. They will be judged according to their response to Love.

That is precisely what the old Catholic encyclopedia teaches as well (its from 1910-1913):

“…But does the proposition that outside the Church there is no salvation involve the doctrine so often attributed to Catholicism, that the Catholic Church, in virtue of the principle, “condemns and must condemn all non-Catholics”? This is by no means the case. The foolish unchristian maxim that those who are outside the Church must for that very reason be eternally lost is no legitimate conclusion from Catholic dogma. The infliction of eternal damnation pertains not to the Church, but to God, Who alone can scrutinize the conscience. The task of the Church is confined exclusively to the formulating of the principle, which expresses a condition of salvation imposed by God Himself, and does not extend to the examination of the persons, who may or may not satisfy this condition. Care for one’s own salvation is the personal concern of the individual. And in this matter the Church shows the greatest possible consideration for the good faith and the innocence of the erring person…She places the efficient cause of the eternal salvation of all men objectively in the merits of the Redeemer, and subjectively in justification through baptism or through good faith enlivened by the perfect love of God, both of which may be found outside the Catholic Church…The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven…The gentle breathing of grace is not confined within the walls of the Catholic Church, but reaches the hearts of many who stand afar, working in them the marvel of justification and thus ensuring the eternal salvation of numberless men who either, like upright Jews and pagans, do not know the true Church, or, like so many Protestants educated in gross prejudice, cannot appreciate her true nature. To all such, the Church does not close the gate of Heaven, although she insists that there are essential means of grace which are not within the reach of non-Catholics. In his allocution “Singulari quadam” of 9 December, 1854, which emphasized the dogma of the Church as necessary for salvation, Pius IX uttered the consoling principle: “Sed tamen pro certo…” (But it is likewise certain that those who are ignorant of the true religion, if their ignorance is invincible, are not, in this matter, guilty of any fault in the sight of God). (Denzinger n. 1647)
. . . As early as 1713 Clement XI condemned in his dogmatic Bull “Unigenitus” the proposition of the Jensenist Quesnel: . . . no grace is given outside the Church. . . just as Alexander VIII has already condemned in 1690 the Jansenistic proposition of Arnauld: . . . (Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ). . . Catholics who are conversant with the teachings of their Church know how to draw the proper conclusions. . .”

- The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910)
Vol. 14, TOLERATION, J. Pohle

 

[Vouthon]

All descriptions of nirvana (and of God) are incorrect. How can words describe what cannot be described? The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon and can never be the moon.

rossum

“Truth has nothing to do with words. Truth can be likened to the bright moon in the sky. Words, in this case, can be likened to a finger.** The finger can point to the moon’s location. However, the finger is not the moon**. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger, right?” - Huineng

This saying of Huineng is one of my favourites

You are spot on when you say that all descriptions of nibbana or God are incorrect, for as Ruusbroec notes:

“…And we learn this truth from His sight:
That all we taste, in comparison with that which remains out of our reach,
Is no more than a single drop of water compared with the whole sea…
We hunger for God’s Infinity, which we cannot devour,
And we aspire to His Eternity, which we cannot attain…
In this storm of love, our activity is above reason and is in no wise…”

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

. In Catholicism this is known as apophatic theology. An example:

“…By an undivided and absolute abandonment of yourself and everything, shedding all and freed from all, you will be uplifted to the ray of the divine shadow which is above everything that is…Here, renouncing all that the mind may conceive, wrapped entirely in the intangible and the invisible, he belongs completely to what is beyond everything. Here, being neither oneself nor some-one else, one is supremely united by a completely unknowing inactivity of all knowledge, and knows beyond the mind by knowing nothing…It has neither shape nor form, quality, quantity, or weight. It is not in any place and can neither be seen nor be touched. It is neither perceived nor is it perceptible. It suffers neither disorder nor disturbance and is overwhelmed by no earthly passion. It is not powerless and subject to the disturbances caused by sense perception. It endures no deprivation of light. It passes through no change, decay, division, loss, no ebb and flow, nothing of which the senses may be aware. None of all this can either be identified with it nor attributed to it.Again, as we climb higher we say this. It is not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. Nor is it speech per se, understanding per se. It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding. It is not number or order, greatness or smallness, equality or inequality, similarity or dissimilarity. It is not immovable, moving, or at rest. It has no power, it is not power, nor is it light. It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding since it is neither knowledge nor truth. It is not kingship. It is not wisdom. It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness. Nor is it a spirit, in the sense in which we understand that term. It is not sonship or fatherhood and it is nothing known to us or to any other being. It falls neither within the predicate of nonbeing nor of being. Existing beings do not know it as it actually is and it does not know them as they are. There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it. Darkness and light, error and truth—it is none of these. It is beyond assertion and denial. We make assertions and denials of what is next to it, but never of it, for it is both beyond every assertion, being the perfect and unique cause of all things, and, by virtue of its preeminently simple and absolute nature, free of every limitation, beyond every limitation; it is also beyond every denial…”

***- Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (5th-6th century Catholic mystic) ***

Even the Buddha at times, nonetheless, seems to stoop to our human level of intellect by using images. Bakmoon quoted this too me in another thread:

The Unconditioned
The destruction of lust, hate, delusion
The Uninclined
The taintless
The truth
The other shore
The subtle
The very difficult to see
The unaging
The stable
The undisintegrating
The unmanifest
The unproliferated
The peaceful
The deathless
The sublime
The auspicious
The secure
The destruction of craving
The wonderful
The amazing
The unailing
The unailing state
The unafflicted
Dispassion
Purity
Freedom
Non attachment
The island
The shelter
The asylum
The refuge
The destination and the path leading to the destination

In the above, in a rare example, the Buddha employs cataphatic imagery.

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

The Catholic mystics and theologians are always careful to clarify that such images are for our benefit and not in anyway a grasping of the true reality of the Infinite:

St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - c. 215)

We, as would appear, do not cease in such matters to understand the Scriptures carnally; and starting from our own affections, interpret the will of the impassible Deity similarly to our perturbations; and as we are capable of hearing; so, supposing the same to be the case with the Omnipotent, err impiously. For the Divine Being cannot be declared as it exists: but as we who are fettered in the flesh were able to listen, so the prophets spake to us; the Lord savingly accommodating Himself to the weakness of men.

Origen (c. 185 - c. 254)

“…When we read either in the Old Testament or in the New of the anger of God, we do not take such expressions literally, but seek in them a spiritual meaning, that we may think of God as He deserves to be thought of…But as, in what follows, Celsus, not understanding that the language of Scripture regarding God is adapted to an anthropopathic point of view… It is, as it were, assuming the manners of a man in order to secure the advantage of men that the Scripture makes use of such expressions; for it would not have been suitable to the condition of the multitude, that what God had to say to them should be spoken by Him in a manner more befitting the majesty of His own person. And yet he who is anxious to attain a true understanding of holy Scripture, will discover the spiritual truths which are spoken by it to those who are called “spiritual,” by comparing the meaning of what is addressed to those of weaker mind with what is announced to such as are of acuter understanding, both meanings being frequently found in the same passage by him who is capable of comprehending it…”

While cataphatic imagery has its place, apophatic theology is held to be superior in the Catholic Church.

The phrase “other shore” that the Buddha uses, also reminds me of something another Catholic mystic, Jacapone da Todi once said:

“…It [the mind] is within and sees no exit;
It no longer knows how to think of itself
Or to speak of the wondrous change.
It ventures forth
Onto a sea without a shore
And gazes on Beauty without colour or hue…”

***- Blessed Jacopone da Todi (1230 - 1306), Catholic mystic & Franciscan poet ***

 

[Vouthon]

Humans are analysed into five components, one material and four immaterial. All the different components are impermanent, changing and suffering: the Three Marks. Using the word “soul” (or atman) is a big no-no for historical reasons. That word tends to give the impression of permanence, which is a deep error. By avoiding the word we can help people avoid the error.

Yes, thank you for that The Five Aggregates (have I spelt that properly? ) The point I was making was that if soul is simply defined as immaterial component that remain after the death of the physical body, something immaterial (even if changeable) then it wouldn’t be out of step with Buddhist teaching?

The Buddha rejected the Hindu Atman but in a different sense, and from a different standpoint, so do Christians. We do not believe in an eternal or naturally divine soul that is the same as the Absolute and resides in all things. We believe in a changeable soul. Different from Buddhism, yes however I think that there might be some common ground there on what we don’t believe in.

In Catholicism only God is eternal. The soul is immortal but changeable. There will always be a spiritual consciousness if you will separate from the body after death, however it continually changes until it rests in the Eternal and through grace becomes the Eternal (by grace and not by nature).

It should be remembered that Christianity utilizes a different philosophy and language from Buddhism, one that is not Indian but Greek. Thus “essence” is a non-biblical but Greek term that the Early Church Fathers used. In Platonic and Aristotelian theology things have essences even if the things in question are changeable. That should always be borne in mind, linguistic differences that can make it seem like we are miles apart when it might be a significant but smaller distance if we were speaking the same tongue. In Christianity you really see this in the East-West schism. Same faith but radically different languages used to express it which strained relations.

As examples:

“…The soul, is a living essence, simple, incorporeal, invisible in its proper nature to bodily eyes, immortal, reasoning and intelligent, formless, making use of an organized body, and being the source of its powers of life, and growth, and sensation, and generation, mind being but its purest part and not in any wise alien to it; (for as the eye is to the body, so is the mind to the soul); further it enjoys freedom and volition and energy, and is mutable, that is, it is given to change, because it is created. All these qualities according to nature it has received of the grace of the Creator, of which grace it has received both its being and this particular kind of nature…”

- Saint John of Damascus (c. 645 – 749), Church Father and Doctor of the Church

And on our rejection of an “eternal soul” like the Hindu Atman:

“…Those thinkers must rank below the Platonists, as we have said. And so must those who blush to assert that God is material but would suppose him to be of the same nature as the mind of man. They are not worried by the excessive mutability of the human soul, a changeability which it would be blasphemous to ascribe to the divine nature. They retort, ‘It is the body that changes the nature of the soul; in itself the soul is unchanging’. They might as well say, ‘It is an external material object which wounds the flesh: in itself the flesh is invulnerable’. Nothing at all can change the immutable; what can be changed by an external object is susceptible of change, and cannot properly be called immutable…If they maintain that the soul is co-eternal with God, how can it experience a change to unhappiness, to a condition from which it has been exempt for all eternity?..They would not have babbled like this if they had believed in the truth, that the nature of God is unchangeable and completely incorruptible, and that nothing can do it harm; and if they had held, according to sound Christian teaching, that the soul, which could change for the worse through free choice, and could be corrupted by sin, is not a part of God, nor of the same nature as God, but is created by him…[The philosophers on the other hand] realized that nothing changeable can be the Supreme God; and therefore in their search for the Supreme God, they raised their eyes above all mutable souls…”

- Saint Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.), The City of God, Church Father and Doctor of the Church

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

While your post was not directed to me, I certainly agree with you. If God is Love then do not those who know love, know God, at least at some level? This would apply to all humans, regardless of their intellectual awareness of God as we know him. They will be judged according to their response to Love.

Hi Steve: It wasn’t directed at anyone in particular - all are welcome. I agree with you for the most part, except I tend to think more that we will live in accordance with how we respond to love rather than be judged by it. I don’t care much about judgement - that’s above my pay grade. My job is to live.

 

[flameburns623]

The path of Catholic mysticism finds affinities not only with the mysricism of many Far Eastern religions but also with mystical disciplines closer to home.

Unfortunately–those affinities, and the language employed to encapsulate those affinities often borders on syncretism and outright denial of revealed Christian truth. One needs a wise Christian mentor to keep from stumbling over the edge of that precipice.

On a practical note, many contemporary Catholics who explore the places where Christian mysticism intersects with the mysticism of other traditions are “progressive” Catholics, whose fidelity to many of the external distinctives of a truly Catholic lifeway is tenuous or wanting outright.

Again this doesn’t imply that one CANNOTexplore Eastern mysticism and how it’s practice compares/contrasts experientially with Catholic mysticism, but it underscores the problem with doing so either as a solitary or in a community not soundly rooted in genuine faithfulness.

Hope this helps.

 

[rossum]

The path of Catholic mysticism finds affinities not only with the mysricism of many Far Eastern religions but also with mystical disciplines closer to home.

The closest I have seen to some Buddhist meditations within Christianity is Saying the Jesus Prayer, which comes IIRC from the Russian Orthodox tradition.

If you do decide to try this, please be aware of Bishop Ware’s warning:

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 [a guide] 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.”

rossum

 

[Vouthon]

Dear Rossum,

I would not say that the Jesus Prayer tradition is the only parallel within Christian mysticism to Buddhist meditation. It is close, yes but there are broader similarities. I think that the roots go back further.

A form of both mantra meditation and imageless prayer (without concepts) has been present in Christianity from the time of the third century AD Desert Fathers and this is the basis of mysticism both in the East and West. This pre-dates the Jesus Prayer tradition. They would take a word, sentence or phrase from the Bible and repeat it over and over again.

On the imageless side of things, Abba Evagrius (345-399 AD) tells us:

1. “Stand guard over your spirit, keeping it free of concepts at the time of prayer so that it may remain in its own deep calm. Thus he who has compassion on the ignorant will come to visit even such an insignificant person as yourself. That is when you will receive the most glorious gift of prayer.”

1. “Do not by any means strive to fashion some image or visualize some form at the time of prayer.”

1. “Happy is the spirit that attains to complete unconsciousness of all sensible experience at the time of prayer.”

1. “When you give yourself to prayer, rise above every other joy—then you will find true prayer.”

1. “Let me repeat this saying of mine which I have expressed on other occasions: Happy is the spirit that attains to perfect formlessness at the time of prayer.”

1. “Happy is the spirit that becomes free of all matter and is stripped of all at the time of prayer.”

I think that Buddhists could probably relate to these early forms of Christian prayer. Although all Christian prayer is directed towards God, there is nothing explicitly theistic in how these early Christians actually prayed. It was simply non-conceptual.

The Theravada Buddhist community of Vancouver said on one of their websites:

“…The Desert Fathers were the first Christian monks and they lived in the period of the third to the sixth centuries A.D. They practiced a form of prayer which could be described as meditation. In Buddhist terms, this ancient Christian meditation practice included both mantra meditation and non conceptual meditation…One of the most articulate of the Desert Fathers was the theologian Evagrius Ponticus. He died in the Egyptian desert about 400 A.D. His deep psychological insight reveals a very deep parallel to the Buddhist samadhi experience. Evagrius championed pure prayer, seeing it as the “laying aside of all thoughts.”…Buddhist insight meditation is non theistic, not meditating upon a god, but being open to whatever arises out of space, emptiness. It is free of any concept. This is what Evagrius and the desert fathers were doing. They were not holding to the concept of Jesus or a god in this form of prayer…This is the pearl of great price. This is the cause for celebration for those who want to determine what is the deepest most important common ground that unites Christians and Buddhists together. This is it. Deeper than morality, is non conceptual meditation…”

The Desert monks belong to both East and West. Our monastic orders in the West stem from St. John Cassians Conferences, painstaking descriptions of his actual experiences with living monks who taught him these forms of prayer and which he took to the West.

I also think that the Cloud of Unknowing in the later 14th century Western side of Catholic mysticism, teaches a contemplative technique that is somewhat similar to samatha

The Cloud of Unknowing, advises the aspirant to concentrate on a single syllable:

**Choose whichever one [word] you prefer, or if you like, chose another that suits your tastes, provided that it is of one syllable. And clasp this word tightly in your heart so that it never leaves it no matter what may happen. This word shall be your shield and your spear whether you ride in peace or in war. With this word you shall beat upon the cloud and the darkness, which are above you. With this word you shall strike down thoughts of every kind and drive them beneath the cloud of forgetting. **

This focus on an object reminds me of samatha.

 

[dominic_aquinas]

I understand how converts from Buddhism will probably be drawn to Catholic mysticism. But, Catholic mysticism is very different. For one thing the great mystics of the Church like St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila are insistent that sanctity/morality is an absolute pre-requisite for mysticism. That means really getting the basics down first: frequent mass and confession, rosary, learning all the prayers, fasting. Give yourself some time to grow into these practices. Study the catechism. Learn about your faults and strive persistently to correct them. It’s really, really hard at first but it gets easier as you grow in love for the faith. And I think at this early stage that is what to shoot for: a deep love for the faith and a love for God and His Church. Cultivate humility and love. This then leads to Catholic mysticism. Later, I suggest reading St. Teresa of Avila’s Interior Castle to get an overview of the stages along the path from a true spiritual genius.

The big difference between Catholic mysticism and the false mysticism of Buddhism is that Buddhism’s mysticism is not oriented toward anything. It is literally oriented toward nothingness. But, the Catholic mystic is oriented toward embracing Divine Love. Read St. Teresa and St. John of the Cross to get to the highest mountain but start with the basics to build up your strength for the climb. They are olympic athletes and we are seriously out-of-shape by comparison.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Buddhism does not acknowledge the existence of God.

Without God there is no truth.

Where there is no truth, there is nothing worth living for.

In short: Respect the buddhists, for they also deserve salvation. Don’t respect buddhism, for it is a clearly false religion.

Wherever there is truth there God is.
Much more positive and affirming don’t you think?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I understand how converts from Buddhism will probably be drawn to Catholic mysticism. But, Catholic mysticism is very different. For one thing the great mystics of the Church like St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila are insistent that sanctity/morality is an absolute pre-requisite for mysticism. That means really getting the basics down first: frequent mass and confession, rosary, learning all the prayers, fasting. Give yourself some time to grow into these practices. Study the catechism. Learn about your faults and strive persistently to correct them. It’s really, really hard at first but it gets easier as you grow in love for the faith. And I think at this early stage that is what to shoot for: a deep love for the faith and a love for God and His Church. Cultivate humility and love. This then leads to Catholic mysticism. Later, I suggest reading St. Teresa of Avila’s Interior Castle to get an overview of the stages along the path from a true spiritual genius.

The big difference between Catholic mysticism and the false mysticism of Buddhism is that Buddhism’s mysticism is not oriented toward anything. It is literally oriented toward nothingness. But, the Catholic mystic is oriented toward embracing Divine Love. Read St. Teresa and St. John of the Cross to get to the highest mountain but start with the basics to build up your strength for the climb. They are olympic athletes and we are seriously out-of-shape by comparison.

In fact bith Buddhist and Christian spiritualities walk down the same path for quite some distance before they go their different ways. What they share in common is the realisation that we must first let go. While this can be confused with “nothingness” by outsiders it is actually little different from Christian kenosis as found in bith the Gospels and the Philokalia/hesychiasm.

 

[dominic_aquinas]

In fact bith Buddhist and Christian spiritualities walk down the same path for quite some distance before they go their different ways. What they share in common is the realisation that we must first let go. While this can be confused with “nothingness” by outsiders it is actually little different from Christian kenosis as found in bith the Gospels and the Philokalia/hesychiasm.

There’s also another big difference. Catholic mysticism is rooted in the authority of God. Buddhism is based on the experiences of a man. Buddha claimed to have achieved enlightment and then proceeds to show the way to that same experience. Big question: How can the Buddha be absolutely sure that he achieved the ultimate goal? Perhaps there is another level of enlightenment beyond what he achieved. The Buddha cannot know the answer to this since he is but a man. However, the Catholic can be sure of their end goal because it is God. And God, being the Creator of everything, has the authority to tell us what is the ultimate goal. It is Himself. In fact, the end goal took on flesh and dwelt among us. May we deny the flesh so we can journey to Him.

 

[MartinJordan]

This is beyond my pay grade but Ive found some comment on Catholicism and Buddhism by G.K. Chesterton and it goes as follows:

• The more we really appreciate the noble revulsion and renunciation of Buddha,the more we see that intellectually it was the converse and almost the contrary of the salvation of the world by Christ.

The Christian would escape from the world into the universe: the Buddhist wishes to escape from the universe even more than from the world. One would uncreate himself; the other would return to his Creation:to his Creator. Indeed it was so genuinely the converse of the idea of the Cross as the Tree of Life, that there is some excuse for setting up the two things side by side, as if they were of equal significance.

They are in one sense parallel and equal; as a mound and a hollow,as a valley and a hill. There is a sense in which that sublime despair is the only alternative to that divine audacity.

It is even true that the truly spiritual and intellectual man sees it as a sort of dilemma; a very hard and terrible choice. There is little else on earth that can compare with these for completeness. And he who will not climb the mountain of Christ does indeed fall
into the abyss of Buddha.*

Just something I thought interesting to discuss.

MJ

 

[Porknpie]

The theological underpinnings of Buddhism are very different to Catholicism. What may be of use to you is the practical advice from Buddhist sources: how to act.

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

• Dhammapada 14:5

Many Buddhist techniques are easily adaptable to Catholicism – counting breaths for example. Neither counting to ten nor breathing are against any Catholic teaching.

The cleansing and emptying of ones mind is in direct conflict with Christianity where we are to always seek and follow Christ. Our minds should always be occupied and seek knowledge of our God. We should be in a state of state of continuous prayer and communication.

From the Catechism…paragraph #1

I. THE LIFE OF MAN - TO KNOW AND LOVE GOD

1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

And

30 "Let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice."5 Although man can forget God or reject him, He never ceases to call every man to seek him, so as to find life and happiness. But this search for God demands of man every effort of intellect, a sound will, “an upright heart”, as well as the witness of others who teach him to seek God