"Men of the Infinite" - Is this Buddhism? What is the Catholic "critique" of it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Windfish
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Windfish

Guest
I received a message responding to one of my comments on YouTube, and I clicked on the sender’s name to view his YouTube page. On the page, I found these three videos:

What is the infinite? (1/3)

What is the infinite? (2/3)

What is the infinite? (3/3)

I may be mistaken, but I think the videos are a discussion of Buddhist beliefs and philosophy. The first video, in particular, contains some choice words for religious and atheists alike.

Most of it went way over my head, so it is difficult for me to respond to it. The videos mainly discuss how the categories that we use to sort out and interpret reality are all arbitrary, that there are really no divisions or separations and all of existence is unity, is “the infinite.” The goal of a person in life is to transcend these abstractions.

The videos do not discuss how this pursuit effects our practical lives or its implications on our notions of morality and truth.

Since eastern philosophy seems to be a popular escape for disillusioned religious, can anyone on this forum offer a Catholic “critique” of the videos? I’d be interested in reading it. Do any Buddhists or former Buddhists have anything to say?
 
I don’t have enough time to watch these videos before I go into work tonight, but given my brief stint as a Buddhist in High School and a lot of time spent doing transcendental meditation during that time, I have a feeling that whatever these videos are talking about are rooted in Eastern philosophy and ideas concerning the nature of the world. This is not necessarily Buddhist, as most Eastern philosophies have similar ideas concerning impermanence and transcendence. I will definitely look at it and give a critique tomorrow.
 
Windfish said:
I received a message responding to one of my comments on YouTube, and I clicked on the sender’s name to view his YouTube page. On the page, I found these three videos:

What is the infinite? (1/3)

What is the infinite? (2/3)

What is the infinite? (3/3)

I may be mistaken, but I think the videos are a discussion of Buddhist beliefs and philosophy. The first video, in particular, contains some choice words for religious and atheists alike.

Most of it went way over my head, so it is difficult for me to respond to it. The videos mainly discuss how the categories that we use to sort out and interpret reality are all arbitrary, that there are really no divisions or separations and all of existence is unity, is “the infinite.” The goal of a person in life is to transcend these abstractions.

The videos do not discuss how this pursuit effects our practical lives or its implications on our notions of morality and truth.

Since eastern philosophy seems to be a popular escape for disillusioned religious, can anyone on this forum offer a Catholic “critique” of the videos? I’d be interested in reading it. Do any Buddhists or former Buddhists have anything to say?
Click to expand...
Yes, there are really no divisions.
Yes, there really are divisions.
A Buddhist would be comfortable with either statement.
 
So I finished watching those videos and have this to say:

His core philosophy rests on a logical fallacy:
  1. That dualism (read: religion) promotes and protects the ego; and
  2. That non-dualistic thinking (read: his religion) suppresses the ego and allows one to find truth within oneself.
The former could be discussed in-depth, but has major anecdotal proofs against it–ie, submission of the will (ego) to God’s will. Believing and trusting in Divine Providence. His accusation that faith makes one like sheep is an age-old argument presented quite beautifully by Nietzsche and has been used by everyone peddling their anti-religious rhetoric. It’s a gross oversimplification of the suppression of the ego. Unfortunately for the case of “Menoftheinfinite,” he fails to realize where his argument is coming from and that Nietzsche originally called for people to inflate the ego. The sheep argument makes no sense unless you are wanting to cultivate the Overman to subdue the Underman.

The second part of his argument is contradictory. Finding truth within oneself separates the world as dualistically as before, because it says what is within is true, what is without is false. This empowers the self, the ego, to a state of unnatural pride and you have cultivated an Overman, but have not really suppressed the ego. You have instead removed the exterior check (God, morals, etc.) and made everything you do “good” and “justified” because the entire world has become morally relative.

This is not Buddhist, and it is definitely not Catholic. It sounds like the Western New Age misappropriation and misunderstanding of Eastern philosophy and applying it to Western ego-centrism. It doesn’t work and is dangerous to boot. Dostoevsky wrote a wonderful novel showing how this mindset does not work. It’s called Crime and Punishment and I suggest anyone interested in this kind of philosophy read it. It was originally written to counter Nietzschean tendencies in the youth of his day, but considering that Nietzsche’s rejection of classical religion is at the core of New Age philosophy’s mechanics, it is equally applicable to them as well.
 
IHeartAquinas said:
So I finished watching those videos and have this to say:

His core philosophy rests on a logical fallacy:
  1. That dualism (read: religion) promotes and protects the ego; and
  2. That non-dualistic thinking (read: his religion) suppresses the ego and allows one to find truth within oneself.
The former could be discussed in-depth, but has major anecdotal proofs against it–ie, submission of the will (ego) to God’s will. Believing and trusting in Divine Providence. His accusation that faith makes one like sheep is an age-old argument presented quite beautifully by Nietzsche and has been used by everyone peddling their anti-religious rhetoric. It’s a gross oversimplification of the suppression of the ego. Unfortunately for the case of “Menoftheinfinite,” he fails to realize where his argument is coming from and that Nietzsche originally called for people to inflate the ego. The sheep argument makes no sense unless you are wanting to cultivate the Overman to subdue the Underman.

The second part of his argument is contradictory. Finding truth within oneself separates the world as dualistically as before, because it says what is within is true, what is without is false. This empowers the self, the ego, to a state of unnatural pride and you have cultivated an Overman, but have not really suppressed the ego. You have instead removed the exterior check (God, morals, etc.) and made everything you do “good” and “justified” because the entire world has become morally relative.

This is not Buddhist, and it is definitely not Catholic. It sounds like the Western New Age misappropriation and misunderstanding of Eastern philosophy and applying it to Western ego-centrism. It doesn’t work and is dangerous to boot. Dostoevsky wrote a wonderful novel showing how this mindset does not work. It’s called Crime and Punishment and I suggest anyone interested in this kind of philosophy read it. It was originally written to counter Nietzschean tendencies in the youth of his day, but considering that Nietzsche’s rejection of classical religion is at the core of New Age philosophy’s mechanics, it is equally applicable to them as well.
Click to expand...
This is excellent. 👍

Maybe you can help me to understand some concepts in more depth:
  1. What is dualism? To what extent is Catholicism dualistic?
  2. Is suppression of the ego a goal in Catholicism? I had always understood that God has made each of us unique, and it is one of our goals to use those gifts and qualities in an authentic way for the glory of God. So, in a sense, the self has an elevated place in Christianity.
  3. How is it dangerous?
 
I think this philosophy is a symptom of “thinking to much” about nothing.
 
Dualism in the context of these videos is “good” versus “evil.” In the more usual sense as pertains to religion, dualism is used in reference to there being two gods and only two gods. Gnostics were dualists (they believed in the “evil” god that created the world and the “good” god that sent Jesus to save us, aka: OT god is evil, NT god is good). These videos present a worldview based on these premises as being THE worldview of the world. Unfortunately, few people see everything in so black and white terms. We have spectra, and we think of things as being “good” and being “evil,” but we also think of things as being better, best, and worse, and worst. Proper dualism relies on a very black and white definition. Unfortunately, it doesn’t hold up if you simply think a little bit about how you view the world. There are many qualifiers for everything, and very little can be explained with a simple duality.

Catholicism could be considered “dualistic” in that Catholicism teaches that there is something that is all good (we call it Grace) and something that is all evil (we call it lack of Grace). For reference, Heaven is the perfect state of grace, Hell is the complete lack of grace. Guess what? The world, where we have such a “dualistic” worldview, is that muddy middle ground where grace is present but not perfect. Funny that. Additionally, Catholicism teaches that the Church has the fullness of truth and all others are deficient to an extent, or completely deficient. This could also be classified as dualistic, but again, it has a nice little spectrum.

Catholicism does not teach in any way that suppression of the ego should be our goal. Certain vocations may take on much more of this than others, such as monastic life, but in all vocations, surrendering our wills to God’s is of paramount importance. This may sound like I’m contradicting myself. Let me explain.

While studying as a Buddhist years ago, I had to tackle what suppression of the ego really means. Believe me, most writers on the topic have about as much insight into it as you have now and I did starting out. It’s really an impossible subject until you begin to think of yourself as less than yourself. You must suppress any idea of the self as an individual, and the ego will follow. If Buddhists describe their heaven as an empty space, the state of a suppressed ego is very similar. Intellectual and spiritual deadness tend to set in after a while.

On the other hand, surrendering your will to God’s means that you take your talents and you take the gifts He has given you and you use them to the best of your ability. He gave them to you for a reason. But, you accept God’s law, given to us through the Bible and the Church, as absolute and you do not abrogate it. This is what sin is–putting your will above God’s. These two concept sound similar at first, but which do you think is more rewarding?

The videos are dangerous because not only does it talk about suppressing the ego, it encourages one to create a personal microcosm, which is contradictory to the suppressed ego. It makes every moral decision relative, which means any moral decision you make is correct. You deem it moral to save a drowning woman, it is correct. You deem it moral to rape her afterward as your reward, it, too, is correct. Moral relativism is incredibly dangerous, and most New Age movements have moral relativism at their core. Everything else stems from it and it is encouraged on all levels of study and practice.

The reason I say this is not Buddhist is that Buddhist adhere to a very strict moral code. They teach suppression of the ego because they view the ego as intrinsically tied to pride, and pride is the source of bondage in the Buddhist theology. Therefore, they avoid moral relativism and do not violate their code or inflate the ego. In general, their moral code is “harm nothing and nobody at any time in any place.” Very nice moral code, too. But the core of the videos is about enhancing the ego without a moral check. This is why it’s not Buddhist. This is also why it’s dangerous.
 
IHeartAquinas said:
If Buddhists describe their heaven as an empty space, the state of a suppressed ego is very similar. Intellectual and spiritual deadness tend to set in after a while.
Click to expand...
Of course, the Buddhists heavens are described as very blissful places to be. The “emptiness” refers to the fact that the Buddhist heavens exist due to causes-and-conditions; not to a mental/spiritual deadness.
 
Sounds like menoftheinfinite spent too much time with LSD. As IHeartAquinas stated, this is just New Age thought letting the ego rage unchecked by morality. I spent some time in this frame of mind and I was very narcissistic during that period. Unfortunately, because it allows one to “feel good” all the time, it can be very difficult to get out of the loop.
 
Ahimsa said:
Of course, the Buddhists heavens are described as very blissful places to be. The “emptiness” refers to the fact that the Buddhist heavens exist due to causes-and-conditions; not to a mental/spiritual deadness.
Click to expand...
What I mean by “deadness” is that Buddhism differs from Taoism in that Taoism, though quite passive, relies on an active state of being within the Tao to maintain the balance. Everyone is active, everyone is turning the wheel. Buddhism requires incredible passivity. Meditation in Buddhism is the preferred state because the ego is completely wiped away and the mind is fixed on nothing. If one translates this into your day to day life, it engenders an inner deadness. The only way to avoid this is not to live meditatively, and only live in your preferred state while meditating. Considering most Buddhist do not meditate more than an hour or two a day, that’s the rest of the day that their preferred state is not being translated into action. It was this inherent contradiction that eventually led me out of Buddhism and to rediscover the Church where one does not have to attain a perfect state of grace before death, and that it is understood that working towards grace takes some effort and is a life-long journey.
Wooly Wolf:
Sounds like menoftheinfinite spent too much time with LSD. As IHeartAquinas stated, this is just New Age thought letting the ego rage unchecked by morality. I spent some time in this frame of mind and I was very narcissistic during that period. Unfortunately, because it allows one to “feel good” all the time, it can be very difficult to get out of the loop.
Click to expand...
Narcissism indeed! Between Buddhism and a return to the Church, I joined the Oprah Cult and felt amazing all the time. But there is always something lacking, which is why being in that frame of mind engenders constant desire for more. Greed and gluttony set in very easily. Covetousness even more so. And it’s a VERY hard loop to get out of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top