R
- Status
J
jelpmac
Guest
Yep, for the most part, as long as you’re sentient, it’s super. Even if you’re poor as a church mouse, totally disabled but can still enjoy a child’s laugh, a beam of sunshine, it beats being dead at least to us living. Now after you die, it’s supposed to get better according to most religious philosophies. No rush here, I think I can wait to find out.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
rossum
**For a Buddhist, the Christian heaven would be an eternity of suffering because those you love are suffering in hell. **
I doubt it. The Christian heaven is not for suffering. That is not what we teach. The Buddhist is welcome to his opinion, so long as he doesn’t impose it on those in the Christian heaven.
**For a Buddhist, the Christian heaven would be an eternity of suffering because those you love are suffering in hell. **
I doubt it. The Christian heaven is not for suffering. That is not what we teach. The Buddhist is welcome to his opinion, so long as he doesn’t impose it on those in the Christian heaven.
T
tonyrey
Guest
- Do you regard yourself as an enemy?
- How do you reconcile love with detachment?
- Should we ever die for our enemies?
J
jelpmac
Guest
Different Buddhist sects have different beliefs. I’m unfamiliar with Rossum’s ideas but in Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism, in the beginning,in Boddhisatva, we made our choices and in a succession of lifetimes reach the final destination. There is no need to bemoan the fate of loved ones. They chose their ending and what is, is. It can no more be changed than that of the Christian in God’s eye. God knows the final result, Christians know if they will attain it or not based on their acceptance of God’s Law.
R
rossum
Guest
So when Jesus said, “Love your neighbour”, what He really meant was , “Love your neighbour in heaven but not your neighbour in hell”?rossum
**For a Buddhist, the Christian heaven would be an eternity of suffering because those you love are suffering in hell. **
I doubt it. The Christian heaven is not for suffering. That is not what we teach. The Buddhist is welcome to his opinion, so long as he doesn’t impose it on those in the Christian heaven.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
I am not sure what you mean by this question.
A Zen story:
Tanzan and Ekido were once travelling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was falling. As they came around a bend, they met a lovely girl in a silk kimono and sash, unable to cross at an intersection.
“Come on, girl,” said Tanzan at once. Lifting her in his arms, he carried her over the mud.
Ekido did not speak until that night when they reached a lodging temple. Then he could no longer restrain himself. “We monks don’t go near females,” he told Tanzan, “especially not young and lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you do that?”
“I left the girl there,” said Tanzan. “Are you still carrying her?”
When you love, you love. Afterwards (and there is always an afterwards) you put it down and leave it there. You do not become attached to it. Love is not the problem; attachment to love is the problem.
Yes, if necessary. Remember that death in Buddhism is not an ending; for most people death is the cause of birth.
rossum
O
OxygenMan
Guest
There are sects of Buddhism which teach that death is indeed annihilation.
T
TemplarKnight1
Guest
Life is not a gift, it is an imposition.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Buddhism Catholic Encyclopedia entry (last three paragraphs)
"Another basic defect in primitive Buddhism is its failure to recognize man’s dependence on a supreme God. By ignoring God and by making salvation rest solely on personal effort, Buddha substituted for the Brahmin religion a cold and colorless system of philosophy. It is entirely lacking in those powerful motives to right conduct, particularly the motive of love, that spring from the consecration of religious men and women to the dependence on a personal all-loving God. Hence it is that Buddhist morality is in the last analysis a selfish utilitarianism. There is no sense of duty, as in the religion of Christ, prompted by reverence for a supreme Lawgiver, by love for a merciful Father, by personal allegiance to a Redeemer. Karma, the basis of Buddhist morality, is like any other law of nature, the observance of which is prompted by prudential considerations. Not infrequently one meets the assertion that Buddha surpassed Jesus in holding out to struggling humanity an end utterly unselfish. This is a mistake. Not to speak of the popular Swarga, or heaven, with its positive, even sensual delights the fact that Nirvana is a negative ideal of bliss does not make it the less an object of interested desire. Far from being an unselfish end, Nirvana is based wholly on the motive of self-love. It thus stands on a much lower level than the Christian ideal, which, being primarily and essentially a union of friendship with God in heaven, appeals to motives of disinterested as well as interested love.
Another fatal defect of Buddhism is its false pessimism. A strong and healthy mind revolts against the morbid view that life is not worth living, that every form of conscious existence is an evil. Buddhism stands condemned by the voice of nature the dominant tone of which is hope and joy. It is a protest against nature for possessing the perfection of rational life. The highest ambition of Buddhism is to destroy that perfection by bringing all living beings to the unconscious repose of Nirvana. Buddhism is thus guilty of a capital crime against nature, and in consequence does injustice to the individual. All legitimate desires must be repressed. Innocent recreations are condemned. The cultivation of music is forbidden. Researches in natural science are discountenanced. The development of the mind is limited to the memorizing of Buddhist texts and the study of Buddhist metaphysics, only a minimum of which is of any value. The Buddhist ideal on earth is a state of passive indifference to everything. How different is the teaching of Him who came that men might have life and have it more abundantly. Again Buddhist pessimism is unjust to the family. Marriage is held in contempt and even abhorrence as leading to the procreation of life. In thus branding marriage as a state unworthy of man, Buddhism betrays its inferiority to Christianity, which recommends virginity but at the same time teaches that marriage is a sacred union and a source of sanctification. Buddhist pessimism likewise does injustice to society. It has set the seal of approval on the Brahmin prejudice against manual labor. Since life is not worth living, to labour for the comforts and refinements of civilized life is a delusion. The perfect man is to subsist not by the labour of his hands but on the alms of inferior men. In the religion of Christ, “the carpenter’s son”, a healthier view prevails. The dignity of labour is upheld, and every form of industry is encouraged that tends to promote man’s welfare.
Buddhism has accomplished but little for the uplifting of humanity in comparison with Christianity. One of its most attractive features, which, unfortunately, has become well-nigh obsolete, was its practice of benevolence towards the sick and needy. Between Buddhists and Brahmins there was a commendable rivalry in maintaining dispensaries of food and medicine. But this charity did not, like the Christian form, extend to the prolonged nursing of unfortunates stricken with contagious and incurable diseases, to the protection of foundlings, to the bringing up of orphans, to the rescue of fallen women, to the care of the aged and insane. Asylums and hospitals in this sense are unknown to Buddhism. The consecration of religious men and women to the lifelong service of afflicted humanity is foreign to dreamy Buddhist monasticism. Again, the wonderful efficacy displayed by the religion of Christ in purifying the morals of pagan Europe has no parallel in Buddhist annals. Wherever the religion of Buddha has prevailed, it has proved singularly inefficient to lift society to a high standard of morality. It has not weaned the people of Tibet and Mongolia from the custom of abandoning the aged, nor the Chinese from the practice of infanticide. Outside the establishment of the order of nuns, it has done next to nothing to raise woman from her state of degradation in Oriental lands. It has shown itself utterly helpless to cope with the moral plagues of humanity. The consentient testimony of witnesses above the suspicion of prejudice establishes the fact that at the present day Buddhist monks are everywhere strikingly deficient in that moral earnestness and exemplary conduct which distinguished the early followers of Buddha. In short, Buddhism is all but dead. In its huge organism the faint pulsations of life are still discernible, but its power of activity is gone. The spread of European civilization over the East will inevitably bring about its extinction."
"Another basic defect in primitive Buddhism is its failure to recognize man’s dependence on a supreme God. By ignoring God and by making salvation rest solely on personal effort, Buddha substituted for the Brahmin religion a cold and colorless system of philosophy. It is entirely lacking in those powerful motives to right conduct, particularly the motive of love, that spring from the consecration of religious men and women to the dependence on a personal all-loving God. Hence it is that Buddhist morality is in the last analysis a selfish utilitarianism. There is no sense of duty, as in the religion of Christ, prompted by reverence for a supreme Lawgiver, by love for a merciful Father, by personal allegiance to a Redeemer. Karma, the basis of Buddhist morality, is like any other law of nature, the observance of which is prompted by prudential considerations. Not infrequently one meets the assertion that Buddha surpassed Jesus in holding out to struggling humanity an end utterly unselfish. This is a mistake. Not to speak of the popular Swarga, or heaven, with its positive, even sensual delights the fact that Nirvana is a negative ideal of bliss does not make it the less an object of interested desire. Far from being an unselfish end, Nirvana is based wholly on the motive of self-love. It thus stands on a much lower level than the Christian ideal, which, being primarily and essentially a union of friendship with God in heaven, appeals to motives of disinterested as well as interested love.
Another fatal defect of Buddhism is its false pessimism. A strong and healthy mind revolts against the morbid view that life is not worth living, that every form of conscious existence is an evil. Buddhism stands condemned by the voice of nature the dominant tone of which is hope and joy. It is a protest against nature for possessing the perfection of rational life. The highest ambition of Buddhism is to destroy that perfection by bringing all living beings to the unconscious repose of Nirvana. Buddhism is thus guilty of a capital crime against nature, and in consequence does injustice to the individual. All legitimate desires must be repressed. Innocent recreations are condemned. The cultivation of music is forbidden. Researches in natural science are discountenanced. The development of the mind is limited to the memorizing of Buddhist texts and the study of Buddhist metaphysics, only a minimum of which is of any value. The Buddhist ideal on earth is a state of passive indifference to everything. How different is the teaching of Him who came that men might have life and have it more abundantly. Again Buddhist pessimism is unjust to the family. Marriage is held in contempt and even abhorrence as leading to the procreation of life. In thus branding marriage as a state unworthy of man, Buddhism betrays its inferiority to Christianity, which recommends virginity but at the same time teaches that marriage is a sacred union and a source of sanctification. Buddhist pessimism likewise does injustice to society. It has set the seal of approval on the Brahmin prejudice against manual labor. Since life is not worth living, to labour for the comforts and refinements of civilized life is a delusion. The perfect man is to subsist not by the labour of his hands but on the alms of inferior men. In the religion of Christ, “the carpenter’s son”, a healthier view prevails. The dignity of labour is upheld, and every form of industry is encouraged that tends to promote man’s welfare.
Buddhism has accomplished but little for the uplifting of humanity in comparison with Christianity. One of its most attractive features, which, unfortunately, has become well-nigh obsolete, was its practice of benevolence towards the sick and needy. Between Buddhists and Brahmins there was a commendable rivalry in maintaining dispensaries of food and medicine. But this charity did not, like the Christian form, extend to the prolonged nursing of unfortunates stricken with contagious and incurable diseases, to the protection of foundlings, to the bringing up of orphans, to the rescue of fallen women, to the care of the aged and insane. Asylums and hospitals in this sense are unknown to Buddhism. The consecration of religious men and women to the lifelong service of afflicted humanity is foreign to dreamy Buddhist monasticism. Again, the wonderful efficacy displayed by the religion of Christ in purifying the morals of pagan Europe has no parallel in Buddhist annals. Wherever the religion of Buddha has prevailed, it has proved singularly inefficient to lift society to a high standard of morality. It has not weaned the people of Tibet and Mongolia from the custom of abandoning the aged, nor the Chinese from the practice of infanticide. Outside the establishment of the order of nuns, it has done next to nothing to raise woman from her state of degradation in Oriental lands. It has shown itself utterly helpless to cope with the moral plagues of humanity. The consentient testimony of witnesses above the suspicion of prejudice establishes the fact that at the present day Buddhist monks are everywhere strikingly deficient in that moral earnestness and exemplary conduct which distinguished the early followers of Buddha. In short, Buddhism is all but dead. In its huge organism the faint pulsations of life are still discernible, but its power of activity is gone. The spread of European civilization over the East will inevitably bring about its extinction."
J
jimmy
Guest
Is that really from the Catholic Encyclopedia? That passes for scholarship? I thought the Catholic Encyclopedia was better than that.
R
rossum
Guest
R
rossum
Guest
First, as the CE entry points out at the top, this was written in 1910 (or earlier) and reflects both the attitude to Buddhism prevalent at the time and also the then lack of knowledge of Buddhism in the West. The first good translations of Mahayana scriptures did not start to appear before the 1950s because before then the technical vocabulary used was not sufficiently understood.
Second, the author has obviously not studied the Buddhist Tripitaka. Here is one of the gods describing himself:
“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings.”
– Brahmajala sutta, Digha Nikaya 1
“all-seeing”, “omnipotent”, “creator”, “supreme”, “father to all”. Does that sound familiar?
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
It is, but that article was written in 1910 and reflects the attitudes and knowledge prevalent in the west at that time. The CE has inserted a note at the head of the article:
To complement this article, which was taken from the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent recommends a prayerful reading of “Nostra Aetate” from the Second Vatican Council.
– Source: CE Buddhism
Both attitudes and knowledge have changed since 1910.
rossum
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
rossum
Both attitudes and knowledge have changed since 1910.
That Buddhism is erroneous in the extreme has not changed, for sure!
The reference heading the encyclopedia article has nothing to do with the validity of the article.
Both attitudes and knowledge have changed since 1910.
That Buddhism is erroneous in the extreme has not changed, for sure!
The reference heading the encyclopedia article has nothing to do with the validity of the article.
R
rossum
Guest
To quote from the reference:rossum
Both attitudes and knowledge have changed since 1910.
That Buddhism is erroneous in the extreme has not changed, for sure!
The reference heading the encyclopedia article has nothing to do with the validity of the article.
Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.
– Nostra Aetate.
Is it “erroneous in the extreme” to describe the world as radically insufficient? Is it “erroneous in the extreme” to describe the world as changeable.
You need to read more about Buddhism. Do you know how many of the Ten Commandments you are describing as “erroneous in the extreme”? Do you know how many of Jesus two great commandments you are describing as “erroneous in the extreme”?
You are offering criticism where you lack knowledge. That is not a wise thing to do.
rossum
T
tonyrey
Guest
If you love your enemies as much as yourself you consider them to have the same moral status.
Love is far more than sexual attraction…
Besides, what is the point of life if we should be detached from all our desires? Surely there are good as well as bad desires.
So you wouldn’t die for them if it were an ending?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
rossum
**
Is it “erroneous in the extreme” to describe the world as radically insufficient? Is it “erroneous in the extreme” to describe the world as changeable.**
I will let Chesterton answer you.
“The rough shorthand way of putting the difference is that the Christian pities men 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.”
**
Is it “erroneous in the extreme” to describe the world as radically insufficient? Is it “erroneous in the extreme” to describe the world as changeable.**
I will let Chesterton answer you.
“The rough shorthand way of putting the difference is that the Christian pities men 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.”
R
rossum
Guest
Yes, but that does not mean that I am an enemy to myself.
Agreed.
There are. The Buddhist path starts by getting rid of the bad desires. The good desires are eliminated later. If I desire to attain a certain stage of the path, then I can eliminate that desire by actually attaining that stage. Once I have attained the stage I have no more desire to do so.
You have an “if” in there. Since the only case in which your “if” would be true would be if I was enlightened I cannot answer your question. I am not enlightened, so when I die I will be reborn. Ask me again after I have become enlightened. You may have to wait a few lifetimes I’m afraid.So you wouldn’t die for them if it were an ending?
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Chesterton was not a Buddhist. Being alive is an opportunity to attain enlightenment. What is past cannot be changed. The future can be changed.
rossum
- Status