R
rossum
Guest
Potentially, yes. There is nothing in Catholicism which stands in the way of enlightenment. At worst you spend time on activities which do not advance your enlightenment.
- Status
A
annem
Guest
*
Catholics cannot be Buddhist, which is one problem. Next, there is the problem that Buddhism is wrong. The first tenet - that life is suffering, is simply incorrect.
The problem with life is not suffering. It may be suffering if one thousand people die of famine in the Ukraine, but this is not the central problem of life. On the other hand, that one thousand people were murdered in the Ukraine by the Communists, that those people were sent to the gulag to starve to death, that the Communists forcibly starved to death one thousand Ukrainians simply to make Stalin look good, that the Communists beat, shot to death a multitude, that they buried alive one priest and crucified another (oh yes they certainly did) proves that sorrow is not the problem. ’
Evil is the problem. Buddhism says evil is ‘ignorance’. because all is maya and an illusion. Then of course evil and good are illusions as well, and there is no morality. No nothing. A vast howling wilderness. Shakespeare’s a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing.
That, too, disproves Buddhism.
These are clear proofs Buddhism is wrong and Christianity is true.
Rossum, I find it disturbing to find a Buddhist lurking on a Catholic forum.
D
Dovekin
Guest
Nope.
Characterizing someone’s beliefs is beat left to the believer, in this case Buddhists. I hesitate even to explain what is wrong with this for that reason, but I am not so wise as to shut up.
Buddhism “affirms the existence of gods” mostly to demote them from eternal, powerful beings. For the enlightened person, the gods are not relevant. This can be problematic in practice since not everyone is enlightened.
God might or might not be treated the same way, depending on what you mean by God. God, as the one St Augustine encountered within while he searched outside, would probably be familiar to Buddhists. God as transcendent lawgiver might be treated as above. God is a complicated subject.
And I could be completely wrong about all this, just my impressions.
R
RepetantCatholic
Guest
Well, I’ve studied a little bit of Buddhism for East Asian Humanities class. And like Christianity there are different strands of Buddhism. The one I am most familiar with and I believe the oldest version of Buddhism is Mahayana. In Mahayana there is acceptance of One God and to be a Buddha is not to be God. Other strands of Buddhism believe in different things, but I’m not too clear on their positions. Hinduism, Sikhism are close to Buddhism but there are accounts that a Buddha did not accept either when confronted with both.
So, while the Western World largely finds Buddhism appealing I don’t think the Western World practices Buddhism correctly. In other words, Buddhism is a religion where you really have to be from the region and culture to be allowed inside to the actual practices which aren’t open to Westerners. So, typically the Westerner practicing Buddhism will largely end up practicing New Age practices and not traditional Buddhism.
My brother who knows a lot about Japanese culture from his work experience and frequent travels to Japan told me once in discussion the accepted Martial Art in Japan is Jiu-Jitsu. Whereas Karate is seen more for the ruffian. So, it’s not like the Karate Kid where it’s about teaching values, that’s more of a Western Thing. So, again, to really practice Karate you wouldn’t go to a McDojo in America; you would be out in the streets of Japan with bad characters who are really, brutally fighting each other.
So, while the Western World largely finds Buddhism appealing I don’t think the Western World practices Buddhism correctly. In other words, Buddhism is a religion where you really have to be from the region and culture to be allowed inside to the actual practices which aren’t open to Westerners. So, typically the Westerner practicing Buddhism will largely end up practicing New Age practices and not traditional Buddhism.
My brother who knows a lot about Japanese culture from his work experience and frequent travels to Japan told me once in discussion the accepted Martial Art in Japan is Jiu-Jitsu. Whereas Karate is seen more for the ruffian. So, it’s not like the Karate Kid where it’s about teaching values, that’s more of a Western Thing. So, again, to really practice Karate you wouldn’t go to a McDojo in America; you would be out in the streets of Japan with bad characters who are really, brutally fighting each other.
D
DoubtingKT
Guest
I posit that Buddhism reveals the incomplete truth that Catholicism provides in completion.
I grew up in a Buddhist family too, so I am very interested in this. Along the way as I was contemplating about Buddhist teachings, I realized they have a lot of truths.
As I was exploring other religions, I feel that Catholciism provides the complete truth in extension to some of the truths in Buddhism.
What do you think? (Probably not well read about Buddhism enough to conclude about this claim. So I wanted to gather some insights from people too)
R
rossum
Guest
Then concentrate on the third Noble Truth: the Cessation of Suffering, instead of the first. Suffering exists and it can be avoided by taking the right actions.
R
rossum
Guest
The Abrahamic religions rely on an external power, God, to do the work, you are able to assist, but God does the heavy lifting of providing salvation. My problem with that is that the existence of God is debatable and there are many different versions of the Abrahamic God to pick from. What if you pick the wrong version?
In Buddhism I rely on myself to do the work. I am a lot more certain of my own existence than I am of the various gods (or various versions of God) that humanity has come up with. At least by relying on myself for my enlightenment I am sure that what I am relying on exists. There is too much uncertainty around gods for me to be comfortable picking just one of them.
For example, what if the Jews are right, and Jesus was not the Messiah?
Last edited:
D
DoubtingKT
Guest
@Rossum, firstly, I am extremely grateful for this conversation with you! I am very excited and hopeful that our conversations will deepen our unique and personal faith!
These are the same exact questions that I ask myself every moment, even though I am very convinced that I am a Catholic (unbaptised). As I post these questions here, hopefully you will see my train of thoughts.
These are the same exact questions that I ask myself every moment, even though I am very convinced that I am a Catholic (unbaptised). As I post these questions here, hopefully you will see my train of thoughts.
- What kind of a proof will convince me of the existence of God? What do I think is the nature of God versus man?
- If I as man, can fully prove, comprehend, and define God, is whatever that I know of, God or not God? Because if I can define and prove God fully, am I as powerful as God?
- If I cannot fully comprehend God, is it therefore consistent with my nature as man, limited in my capacity? Rather than the fact that whatever I cannot prove, is less likely true?
- If I cannot fully prove God, how do I know of God?
- Look into the history of mankind, has anyone ever claim to be God?
- I heard that Jesus Christ claimed to be God and man. But, how do I prove that a man is God and not just a crazy, maniac lunatic?
- If someone is God, He must be capable of things that man cannot do?
- What is Jesus capable of? Many miracles, but most critically, Jesus Christ resurrected from the death!
- This led me to read up more about Resurrection of the Jesus Christ! I invite you to research into it too. Can we prove the Resurrection completely? If we can, is it still Godly or humanly? (Same logic as Question 3)
- If not, how do I know the Resurrection is true? Truths are consistent.
- Read everything that Jesus Christ said, did, passed down to His people. Are they all internally consistent?
- Are whatever within His teachings consistent with other areas of knowledge (e.g. history, science, language, etc)?
- Are His teachings personally relevant to my life?
- Are the answers to all these questions consistent with one another? Do they answer my questions of (origin of life, morality of life, purpose of life, and destiny of life) consistently?
- I posit that Catholicism is the most consistent answer to all the questions!
In Catholicism, my understanding of salvation is:
- God is exclusive in salvation, but extremely LOVINGLY inclusive in including everyone who freely chooses God in their best capacity. So, trust me, if you are freely choosing God in your BEST capacity now and at EVERY MOMENT OF LIFE, He will know and you will know! This applies to all.
- Once I am a Catholic, I am not definitely saved. It is not just about claiming to believe. It is a lifelong journey of living life to my best capacity for God, cooperating with God, and entrusting that He will complete the rest in His time. We are all working towards sanctifying ourselves to become holy like God. (This relates very nicely to you mentioning “In Buddhism, I rely on myself to do the work.”)
- Heaven will feel like Hell for those who choose not be there.
Last edited:
D
DoubtingKT
Guest
@rossum
Lastly, I strongly feel that:
I sense the grace of God in you actually, even though you may not be aware of it.
I posit that every single human is created in the identity of God, so intrinsically, we are all sacred and Godly, to the extent that Jesus Christ, who is God and man, died for us! So, your discernment for enlightenment, interpreted by me, is a gift from God to orientate your life to God (by living as true to your identity)?
What do you think?
Lastly, I strongly feel that:
I sense the grace of God in you actually, even though you may not be aware of it.
It seems like you are relying on yourself! But, even if it is your conscience speaking, even if it is using your senses to judge for right and wrong, good and bad? Don’t you ever feel weird, how come you can come to know of all these?
I posit that every single human is created in the identity of God, so intrinsically, we are all sacred and Godly, to the extent that Jesus Christ, who is God and man, died for us! So, your discernment for enlightenment, interpreted by me, is a gift from God to orientate your life to God (by living as true to your identity)?
What do you think?
D
DoubtingKT
Guest
Let me give an example why I feel truth in Buddhism is related to truth in Catholicism.
(Beautifully, Catholic actually means Universal/all-embracing. sidepoint haha)
Jesus Christ taught that man are currently in a state of original sin. This state includes:
- Incomplete knowledge of God
- Suffering
- Death
- Concupiscence: natural inclination towards evil/sin
Jesus Christ taught people the same. He mentioned that there is no point in whatever you pursue in life. What is of this world will return to this world. What is of God will return to God. So nothing here is eternal and transcendent, except if people chooses to uncover their sacred identity as an image of Christ (child of God), and align all of their lives to their unique image in their best capacity? Only then, will people be united and in communion with God in His Kingdom!
It does require enlightenment and lifelong living to grow in this holy image within all of us!
I am so limited in my capacity to judge the living and the dead! Jesus Christ, who is God, will judge the living and the dead in His time in an ever-loving, ever-merciful and ever-just manner.
What I am called to do in to LOVE GOD and HIS PEOPLE wholeheartedly! (All of His people, including myself and you.)
Between JUSTICE AND LOVE, I will rather choose LOVE, and leave JUSTICE to God to right all the wrongs, and rectify all the falsehoods. But, in LOVE & WISDOM, I will do my best in lead one another closer to God in our unique journey with God, known or unknown.
Whenever I have the opportunity to speak truth of God, I will! If people speak truth of God to me, even if they are not Catholics, I will affirm them. All truths lead to God regardless of whether you and I are speaking and believing in truths or falsehoods.
Jesus Christ will reach us in whatever state of life we are in, and stretch us to reach His Holy state. He does not compromise on His Holyness, but is willing to sacrifice Himself for us to reach His Holy state. So, I will not compromise under duress if I truly feel that something is not in line with what I believe to be true. But, if I am wrong, I hope to be humble enough to claim that I am wrong. And if I don’t know, I hope to be humble enough to claim that I don’t know and learn from people to guide me to Truths.
Whatever guides me to Truth, will inevitably guide me to God, since God is the origin of all truths (in accordance to His nature.)
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Yes I am relying on myself, but I am able to take advice from others. The Kalama sutta is often quoted in this context.
The Kalamas were puzzled because many preachers visited them and each preacher claimed that they were right and the other preachers wrong. So when the Buddha visited them they asked him, “How do we tell which preachers are right and which are wrong?”
This is, in effect, an extended version of “By their fruits shall you know them.”
D
DoubtingKT
Guest
I agree with you! I am not saying that a Buddhist seeking enlightenment cannot seek advice from others or other mediums/materials (even the Kalama sutta is a material that I am learning about from you now)
What I am curious about is: even when you are relying on your own capacity, relying on yourself, this is exactly what everyone does, isn’t it? We are all using our own capacity, and talents to discern what is true.
But, it always cross my mind, where does all these capacity and talents originate from? In discerning good fruits from bad fruits, by what standards do we decide what is good from bad?
I posit from my understanding of Catholicism that, this capacity of reliance on myself to enlightenment is in fact a grace from God (in a form of an identity, as an image of God, that you are aligning to). In the journey of aligning, you become more enlightened.
And, truly, people see your journey towards enlightenment based on your works/fruits/karma. In Catholicism, I feel good works/fruits stem from good faith, stem from a God-given identity as a image of God.
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
This, one of the most important statements from Vatican II, seems pertinent here. Note that this is something Christians share with others…
A
annem
Guest
fter I pointed out that the first noble truth is wrong: Rossum*,Then concentrate on the third Noble Truth: the Cessation of Suffering, instead of the first. Suffering exists and it can be avoided by taking the right actions.
So you admit that the main platform - the plank upon which the entire of Buddhism exists is simply wrong? Because it most certainly is: suffering is not the main problem with life. Evil is. And all Buddhism can say about the problem of evil is to dismiss it as mere ‘ignorance’, nothing more than foam on a wave, and talk about the nonexistence of self, the nonexistence of good and evil.
Not exactly help to people who are being tortured to death, shot, like the 100 million slaughtered by the atheist communists - those poor, poor atheist communists soo sadly sunk in their ignorance as they starved to death and buried alive all those people. They really needed some meditation techniques!
Yet you, astoundingly, suggest someone proceed from the first noble truth even if it is proven wrong. Why? If Buddhism is based on untruth, why proceed? Because there is no truth?
And worse, much much worse, what are the effects of ceasing to care about evil? Is the world better, or worse for everyone ceasing to care? We have 2,500 years of Buddhism ignoring all evils - not that Buddhism will admit that there is such a thing as evil - and doing nothing to help.
For how many centuries did women with bleeding, crippled feet hobble past Buddhist monasteries, with all the monks inside concentrating on not caring? Of course the monks were growing every day in peace and nonthought, and were therefore closer to enlightenment, which is total death.
I argue this is utterly wrong.
So you admit that the main platform - the plank upon which the entire of Buddhism exists is simply wrong? Because it most certainly is: suffering is not the main problem with life. Evil is. And all Buddhism can say about the problem of evil is to dismiss it as mere ‘ignorance’, nothing more than foam on a wave, and talk about the nonexistence of self, the nonexistence of good and evil.
Not exactly help to people who are being tortured to death, shot, like the 100 million slaughtered by the atheist communists - those poor, poor atheist communists soo sadly sunk in their ignorance as they starved to death and buried alive all those people. They really needed some meditation techniques!
Yet you, astoundingly, suggest someone proceed from the first noble truth even if it is proven wrong. Why? If Buddhism is based on untruth, why proceed? Because there is no truth?
And worse, much much worse, what are the effects of ceasing to care about evil? Is the world better, or worse for everyone ceasing to care? We have 2,500 years of Buddhism ignoring all evils - not that Buddhism will admit that there is such a thing as evil - and doing nothing to help.
For how many centuries did women with bleeding, crippled feet hobble past Buddhist monasteries, with all the monks inside concentrating on not caring? Of course the monks were growing every day in peace and nonthought, and were therefore closer to enlightenment, which is total death.
I argue this is utterly wrong.
A
annem
Guest
Since you risk eternal punishment by refusing to turn to God, this is a spectacularly bad idea. The single worst idea in the world. You reject everything good, goodness itself, love itself, for the cold embrace of nothingness. And you most, most certainly risk hell.
I truly wish I believed I could convince you that the Jews were wrong. It is actually easy enough to do if facts alone could do it. My relatives, who would describe themselves as Intellectuals and atheists, have convinced me that being deep in sexual sin gives them such darkened souls that logic has nothing whatsoever to do with their beliefs. Sexual sins and self worship come first, way, way before truth.
I also have three Buddhist atheists in my family. (Yes, again, sexual sin and self worship, in two of the cases.). I pointed out to my sister the problem with the first noble truth, which she refused to believe, because of course “suffering did not mean just suffering”. So, since I was simply sick with worry about her, I went to the excruciating, boring, unbelievably time consuming trouble of proving that yes, the first noble truth did mean just suffering. I read and could show her every single document over all the early centiroes/
So I proved it. “There is no real truth” was her idea of an answer. So she got to stay in the cool kids club, doing mindfulness, attending the Thich Nhat Hanh retreats, blah blah. A triumph for her that I am ill with worry will cost her every single thing that is of value.
Rossum, I find it disturbing to find a Buddhist lurking on a Catholic forum.
A
annem
Guest
*
Why do you sound so exactly like a person trying to feed questions to a Buddhist as to convince people to become Buuddhist?
Why do you spoon feed a few stray mentions that suggest we should be ‘open’ the Buddhism? It seems to me you are a Buddhist and you are trying to get Catholics on this forum to agree with Buddhism. Come on, admit it. You are a Buddhist.
our discernment for enlightenment, interpreted by me, is a gift from God to orientate your life to God (by living as true to your identity)?
No Catholic could come to such a conclusion. Not when it could cost him his soul. Enlightenment has to do with Buddhism, the constant reincarnation of souls and is 1) without logic 2) completely, utterly at odds with the Catholic faith
Let me give an example why I feel truth in Buddhism is related to truth in Catholicis
There is truth in the world, and the truth is God and the Catholic church. That light shines throughout the world, and of course can be found in a few stray parts of Buddhism. But Buddhism is not truth.
And I think it is wicked to come on a Catholic forum and try to convince people to become Buddhists.
R
Randolph
Guest
Yeah… Something fishy going on here… It seems Buddhists are on a Catholic forum trying to spread their religion parading in proclaiming similarities/commonalities with Catholicism.
In Catholicism, we are to attach ourselves to Christ. While Buddhism teaches attachment itself is the source of human sufferings. How can attaching ourselves to Christ be a cause of our sufferings??? This is blasphemy and profane.
The fullness of truth is in Catholicism. There is absolutely no reason to go off track risking losing one’s soul.
Last edited:
A
annem
Guest
Could not agree more. Thank you from all Forum readers!
N
Neithan
Guest
I admire your zeal and agree with most of what you say, but Buddhists and other non-Catholic religious practitioners are welcome here: CA is a ministry of apologetics; and while it’s beside the point, @rossum isn’t lurking anyway, he’s actively posting and engaging with us. A non-Catholic or non-Christian may challenge some aspect of a person’s faith here, but that’s an opportunity for them to strengthen their faith, and there is always the possibility that the person who lacks faith will find it, God willing.
Last edited:
T
tomarin
Guest
It wouldn’t be much of a non-catholic subforum, would it, if non-catholics weren’t allowed to post on it … (oh, the humanity).
Last edited:
- Status