No Consciousness or Perception in Buddhist Nirvana?

[rossum]

Fr. Serpa can be harsh at times, but he’s right about Catholicism, which is more than I can say about claims in this thread.

Fr. Serpa correctly described the article he quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Buddhism as old. At the bottom of the page, the article is dated 1908.

Any article on Buddhism written in the west that long ago is incorrect. There were no reliable western translations of Theravada texts before the 1930s and no reliable translations of Mahayana texts before the 1950s. Before those dates, the technical terminology used was not sufficiently well understood for reliable translations. Knowing that the translation of “red herring” is “pink fish” does not help to show the real meaning of the words as intended by the original writer.

The article quoted is a good summary of the state of knowledge of Buddhism in the west in 1908. Today it is purely of historical interest and should no longer be relied on.

rossum

 

[Contarini]

1 - Jesus did not talk about reicarnation, did not suggest it nor was He a monk

He was celibate (as far as we know, and according to well-established Christian tradition), but I certainly agree that there’s no evidence that Jesus had anything to do with the institutions of Buddhist monasticism, or with any Eastern religion for that matter.

Some people have read certain things in the Gospels as implying reincarnation. Certainly reincarnation is something that has been traditionally believed in by many Jews, though not in the same manner as in Eastern religions. (I don’t think that the passages in question indicate that Jesus believed in reincarnation–in fact, I’m not sure that they refer to reincarnation at all. But I wouldn’t build an argument on the claim that Jesus didn’t talk about it.)

That being said, it’s clear that reincarnation is at the very least hard to square with the orthodox Christian understanding of the human person and the resurrection of the body.

There is a difference between the Hindu understanding of the eternal Atman transmigrating into various bodies (this, it seems to me, is clearly incompatible with orthodox Christianity) and the Buddhist understanding of rebirth. It is possible to interpret rebirth in terms of a causal chain linking one life to another. In that sense, it’s arguably quite compatible with Christian teaching–with the doctrine of original sin, for instance.

One of the problems discussing whether one can be a Christian and a Buddhist is that the term “Buddhism” is perhaps even broader than the term “Christian.” One can pin things down at the Christian end by specifying “an orthodox Catholic.” But we need to pin things down at the other end too. There are people who identify themselves as Buddhists and do not believe in rebirth in any “literal” sense.

What I think is clear is that one cannot be a committed, faithful, orthodox Christian while submitting oneself with equal commitment to the normative claims of any other community or tradition, whether that community be a nation, a club, a philosophical tradition, or a “religion.” Whether this makes it any harder to be a Christian and a Buddhist than a Christian and an American is not certain to me. On the whole, I see clearer conflicts in the first case than in the second.

If Buddhism is defined by the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, then is that Buddhism incompatible with Christianity? The only serious issue I see pertains to the “right views” step of the Eightfold Path, and specifically to the teaching regarding impermanence. Does the Buddhist teaching on impermanence conflict with the Christian understanding of God and the human person? It certainly seems to. Is this conflict apparent or real? To my mind, this is still an open question.

2 - You can know about something without believing in it or “being one”

Of course. It’s just not evident that the authors of the CE article know enough about Buddhism to support the claims they make.

And Catholics who know Catholicism know that buddhism, along with many other “ways of life” or “world views” are not compatible because many are meant to substitute parts or all of the Faith and not simply enhance it.

First of all, to make this claim you have to know both Buddhism and Catholicism, not just one of them!

And in the second place, you need to substantiate the “substitution” claim. I find this hard to believe, given that Buddhism predates Christianity and was formed without any knowledge of Christianity.

Finally, if you make a claim like “Jesus taught reincarnation” (which no Catholic or christain scholar would even suggest) you’re wrong about Catholicism and are in no position to make athoritative claims about it.

I for one have not made that claim. At most, it’s possible (not certain) that Jesus referred casually to contemporary Jewish beliefs in a form of reincarnation without explicitly defending the concept. But in the case of John the Baptist, the Gospel of John at least seems to reject the possibility of actual reincarnation, and similarly in the story of the man born blind Jesus says that he wasn’t suffering for something that he did (the argument is that since he was born that way, this must be a tacit reference to sins committed in a previous life–but even if so, Jesus does not affirm this belief).

But given that Buddhists actually criticize the Hindu version of reincarnation, I don’t think that’s really the issue. One can interpret Buddhist rebirth in terms of causal chains. But this is because for Buddhists a person (and indeed anything else) is nothing more than a causal chain in the first place. That, it seems to me, is the real issue.

Edwin

Edwin

 

[billcu1]

Jesus said “I have sheep in many folds”. If he did not speak to the church he established about reincarnation it would probably be that he didn’t find it important especially to the people he was talking to. That’s doesn’t mean that it wasn’t taught to others and his Apostles. I don’t know if you dig deep enough into catholicism whether or not it could be found or not. Just because someone doesn’t mention something doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. As brilliant a scholar Jesus was and had all the answers compared to laity of his day, means to me I find it difficult to say he had no knowledge of buddhism. And there is evidence that he studied under some buddhist teachers.

 

[Contarini]

Jesus said “I have sheep in many folds”. If he did not speak to the church he established about reincarnation it would probably be that he didn’t find it important especially to the people he was talking to. That’s doesn’t mean that it wasn’t taught to others and his Apostles. I don’t know if you dig deep enough into catholicism whether or not it could be found or not. Just because someone doesn’t mention something doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

But the much more serious question is how you can reconcile reincarnation with orthodox Christian teaching regarding the unity of body and soul and the resurrection of the body.

A person, in Catholicism, is not just a soul but a body as well. Both body and soul will rise again. How is this compatible with reincarnation? To paraphrase the Sadducees’ question to Jesus, which body will the soul have on the day of resurrection?

As brilliant a scholar Jesus was and had all the answers compared to laity of his day, means to me I find it difficult to say he had no knowledge of buddhism

The question of the human Jesus’ omniscience is a difficult one. Aquinas distinguishes various levels of knowledge. I would be inclined toward a more “kenotic” view, but I know there’s a debate about whether this position is orthodox. Purely as a human being, Jesus would not have known anything about Buddhism. And purely as a human being, Jesus does not seem to have been particularly scholarly. That is one of the marvellous and scandalous things about the Incarnation!

. And there is evidence that he studied under some buddhist teachers.

What evidence?

Edwin

 

[billcu1]

But the much more serious question is how you can reconcile reincarnation with orthodox Christian teaching regarding the unity of body and soul and the resurrection of the body.

A person, in Catholicism, is not just a soul but a body as well. Both body and soul will rise again. How is this compatible with reincarnation? To paraphrase the Sadducees’ question to Jesus, which body will the soul have on the day of resurrection?

The question of the human Jesus’ omniscience is a difficult one. Aquinas distinguishes various levels of knowledge. I would be inclined toward a more “kenotic” view, but I know there’s a debate about whether this position is orthodox. Purely as a human being, Jesus would not have known anything about Buddhism. And purely as a human being, Jesus does not seem to have been particularly scholarly. That is one of the marvellous and scandalous things about the Incarnation!

What evidence?

Edwin

Some evidence was found by the Knights Templar. I don’t think the church would want to talk about this. But Judaism has always taught reincarnation but it’s complicated and some need a simpler way. All do not understand Thomism. And any philosophy is only as good as its’ postulates.

 

[Vouthon]

Some evidence was found by the Knights Templar. I don’t think the church would want to talk about this. But Judaism has always taught reincarnation but it’s complicated and some need a simpler way. All do not understand Thomism. And any philosophy is only as good as its’ postulates.

In all fairness, reincarnation is not a belief that fits into a Catholic theological framework. It would undermine our concept of the human person being uniquely willed by God with a spiritual soul created for a specific body at conception. That body is then to rise again from the dead in a “glorified” state and share in the divine life of the Most Holy Trinity for eternity.

There are many areas of agreement between Catholicism and Buddhism. I myself have had some of my most fruitful interfaith dialogues with Buddhists and I have learned very much, nonetheless one must recognize that on certain matters we must agree to disagree while respecting our differences.

Catholicism is incompatible with belief in reincarnation, as far as I can tell.

The Buddhist analysis of the mind is, nonetheless, unparalleled by any other tradition. It is a gift to humanity. One does not need to believe in reincarnation to appreciate the beauty and truth of the Noble Eightfold Path, the Three (or four) marks of existence or the Four Noble Truths. I think that each set of these are, in many respects, compatible with Catholic spirituality.

Nirvana, likewise, is an unconditioned state beyond the definitions of time and place where suffering and craving is no more. To be beyond grasping and attachment to the transitory, empty phenomena of existence in the Catholic context, is to have experienced union with God in this life and in the one after with Him in eternity. God is the unconditioned in Catholicism. Perfect union with God through the sight of the Beatific Vision in heaven is thus similar, in some respects, to the Buddhist Nirvana (even though Buddhists would not recognize that state as being personal, or a relationship, since they are not theists). Nirvana is beyond intellection and conceptual awareness. True knowledge of it only comes through direct experience of this “state”.

A Buddhist who has reached enlightenment can see reality as it really is. His eyes are “opened”; he is awakened.

Compare this with the words of Blessed Henry Suso, one of our mystics, when he describes his experience of infused contemplation:

“…Your questions arise from human thinking, and I respond from a knowledge that is far beyond all human comprehension. You must give up human understanding if you want to reach the goal, because the truth is known by not knowing…This is the highest goal and the ‘where’ beyond boundaries. In this the spirituality of all spirits ends. Here to lose oneself forever is eternal happiness…Here in this region beyond thought the human spirit actively soars…In this wild mountain region of the ‘where’ beyond God there is an abyss full of play and feeling for all pure spirits…It is hidden for everything that is not God, except for those with whom he wants to share Himself…In a detached person nothing merely temporal is born in possesiveness. His eyes are opened. He becomes fully aware and, receiving his blessed existence and life, is one with Him; for all things are here one in the One…No one can explain this to another just with words. One knows it by experiencing it…”

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

The above strikes me as very similar to a Buddhist description of Nirvana.

And yet, it is a fully orthodox description of a mystical experience by an approved mystic of the Catholic Church who has been beatified.

 

[Emese]

Some evidence was found by the Knights Templar. I don’t think the church would want to talk about this. But Judaism has always taught reincarnation but it’s complicated and some need a simpler way. All do not understand Thomism. And any philosophy is only as good as its’ postulates.

I’ve read something similar that reincarnation was a common belief amongst jews at the time of Jesus. They believed for example that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah, which Jesus seemed to confirm too. (Matthew 17 : 10-13) The reason Jesus didn’t teach more about reincarnation may have been that he didn’t need to as people at the time were already familiar with its principals. Or it could be that scriptures that would reveal more on the subject were simply lost or just weren’t selected to put into the Bible.
On the other hand Jesus never actually spoke up against reincarnation either, even though he had numerous opportunities to do so (e.g. John the Baptist or when healing the blind man). On these occasions he never actually told his disciples to abandon the idea of reincarnation.

 

[Emese]

1 - Jesus did not talk about reicarnation, did not suggest it nor was He a monk

2 - You can know about something without believing in it or “being one”

And Catholics who know Catholicism know that buddhism, along with many other “ways of life” or “world views” are not compatible because many are meant to substitute parts or all of the Faith and not simply enhance it.

Finally, if you make a claim like “Jesus taught reincarnation” (which no Catholic or christain scholar would even suggest) you’re wrong about Catholicism and are in no position to make athoritative claims about it.

Fr. Serpa can be harsh at times, but he’s right about Catholicism, which is more than I can say about claims in this thread.

Zachary, I agree with Contarini. If you want to compare 2 belief systems you need to know both very well. If you only understand christianity you wouldn’t even know how to compare it with buddhism. We have to rely on our buddhist friends to validate any claim regarding buddhism.

 

[Emese]

In all fairness, reincarnation is not a belief that fits into a Catholic theological framework. It would undermine our concept of the human person being uniquely willed by God with a spiritual soul created for a specific body at conception. That body is then to rise again from the dead in a “glorified” state and share in the divine life of the Most Holy Trinity for eternity.

There are many areas of agreement between Catholicism and Buddhism. I myself have had some of my most fruitful interfaith dialogues with Buddhists and I have learned very much, nonetheless one must recognize that on certain matters we must agree to disagree while respecting our differences.

Catholicism is incompatible with belief in reincarnation, as far as I can tell.

Yes and no. Because when we are talking about the resurrection of a body we don’t like, even the catholic church will say that the resurrected body probably won’t exactly be the same as the body we sometimes have to live with on Earth, because we will all be beautiful, able bodied and perfect in heaven.

 

[Contarini]

Yes and no. Because when we are talking about the resurrection of a body we don’t like, even the catholic church will say that the resurrected body probably won’t exactly be the same as the body we sometimes have to live with on Earth, because we will all be beautiful, able bodied and perfect in heaven.

Right. There will be transformation. But that’s quite different from saying that you inhabit one body after another.

Paul Griffiths, a Catholic theologian who is also an expert on Buddhism, uses the word “transmigration” to describe the view of reincarnation I’m talking about here. He uses “reincarnation” more broadly, in a way that would include the Christian view of the afterlife (we do, after all, believe that we will be re-embodied). He argues that only this broad definition applies to Buddhism.

So as I said, I think that the case isn’t open and shut.

I have in the past toyed with the idea that reincarnation might offer a solution to the problem of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus.” Perhaps people who have not made a definite decision for or against the truth keep coming back until they do. But this idea is hard to fit into the Christian theological tradition, and it seems to be squarely contradicted by Hebrews 9:27. One could argue that this passage is only speaking of those who have heard the Word (after all, Hebrews also says that people who sin willfully after they receive the knowledge of the truth can’t be forgiven, and we don’t take those passages at face value). Prooftexting doctrine is a bad idea. But in this case the prooftext stands in complete harmony with the whole body of Christian tradition, which stresses the uniqueness of this life.

So it seems to me that reincarnation as transmigration is very hard to square with the orthodox Christian tradition (probably impossible), but that a broadly defined Buddhist concept of rebirth as causal connection across lives probably isn’t. Whether that’s an acceptable way to talk about Buddhism is, of course, for Buddhists to decide!

And as I keep saying, the bigger issue is the doctrine of impermanence. I think Christian/Buddhist dialogue needs to focus on this.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Some evidence was found by the Knights Templar.

What evidence? Found how, where, by whom? Preserved how?

I don’t think the church would want to talk about this.

The Church wouldn’t want to talk about evidence that Jesus was really an alien from the planet Krypton, either, but that doesn’t mean that there is any such evidence.

But Judaism has always taught reincarnation

I’m not sure “taught” is the right word. It’s a traditional belief of which fairly little seems to have been made.

but it’s complicated and some need a simpler way.

It seems to me that one of the basic principles of Catholicism is that you don’t teach one thing openly and another thing secretly. That was the basic division between Catholics and gnostics in the second century–the division that created Catholicism, in fact (by which I mean that the term began to be used to separate orthodox Christians from gnostics).

Edwin

 

[billcu1]

What evidence? Found how, where, by whom? Preserved how?

The Church wouldn’t want to talk about evidence that Jesus was really an alien from the planet Krypton, either, but that doesn’t mean that there is any such evidence.

I’m not sure “taught” is the right word. It’s a traditional belief of which fairly little seems to have been made.

It seems to me that one of the basic principles of Catholicism is that you don’t teach one thing openly and another thing secretly. That was the basic division between Catholics and gnostics in the second century–the division that created Catholicism, in fact (by which I mean that the term began to be used to separate orthodox Christians from gnostics).

Edwin

Jesus said “let not your left hand know what you’re right hand does” But “To he who is worthy of my secrets I will teach” somehow conveniently has been removed from the beginning of the firstly stated verse. One thing secretly for the mature and another openly has always been the way things are done. It’s not so much a secret as your eyes are opened by God intentionally. We all came from the same family at the beginning of this creation. Noah’s family. Yet why has the way been concealed in so many different religions?

 

[rossum]

Right. There will be transformation. But that’s quite different from saying that you inhabit one body after another.

However, you do “inhabit one body after another”. When you were born, your body was a lot different to the way it is now – at the very least you weigh a lot more than you did at birth. Buddhism sees us as getting new bodies all the time because our bodies are constantly changing. It is a different approach to reality. All things change, so the word “same” very rarely applies. Your body is not the same, your memories are not the same, your thoughts are not the same. You are not the same as you were yesterday.

You can never step in the same river twice because it is not the same river and you are not the same you.

And as I keep saying, the bigger issue is the doctrine of impermanence. I think Christian/Buddhist dialogue needs to focus on this.

Yes. It seems to me that impermanence is one of the major differences between the Buddhist approach and the Abrahamic approach. The Abrahamic religions seem to seek the permanence of God. To a Buddhist such a search is pointless, since all is impermanent:

“Impermanent are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:5

rossum

 

[Vouthon]

Yes. It seems to me that impermanence is one of the major differences between the Buddhist approach and the Abrahamic approach. The Abrahamic religions seem to seek the permanence of God. To a Buddhist such a search is pointless, since all is impermanent

True but also untrue with regards to Abrahamic religions. We may seek the “permanency” of God but “under the sun” - that is in this material universe of unceasing change and decay - nothing is permanent, everything is transitory.

Nirvana (the direct corollary of enlightenment), is that not a “state” that is “permanent” because it is “unconditioned”; beyond time and place; above the empty phenomena characteristic of this world?

God is exactly the same for Abrahamics. The essential difference is that God is theistically understood as conscious whereas in Buddhism Nirvana is impersonal in my understanding.

As the Qur’anic ayat goes (one that was so beloved of the Sufis):

“…There is no deity save Him. Everything is bound to perish, save His [eternal] Face…”

- Qur’an (28:88)

 

[rossum]

True but also untrue with regards to Abrahamic religions. We may seek the “permanency” of God but “under the sun” - that is in this material universe of unceasing change and decay - nothing is permanent, everything is transitory.

Indeed. The Abrahamic religions allow an exception to impermanence for God. Buddhists do not.

Nirvana (the direct corollary of enlightenment), is that not a “state” that is “permanent” because it is “unconditioned”; beyond time and place; above the empty phenomena characteristic of this world?

Two points here. First, nirvana has to change in order for enlightenment to be possible. At the very least nirvana has to be able to change from nirvana-without-rossum to nirvana-with-rossum. If it cannot do that then I can never attain nirvana.

My second point is that the separation between nirvana and the world we live in is not as much as you seem to think. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35 and died at age 80. For 45 years he was living as an itinerant preacher on earth while also being in nirvana.

Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from nirvana.
Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from samsara.

Whatever is the end of nirvana, that is the end of samsara.
There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.

– Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 25:19-20

God is exactly the same for Catholics. The essential difference is that God is theistically understood as conscious whereas in Buddhism Nirvana is impersonal in my understanding.

All descriptions of nirvana are in error.

• nirvana is not personal.
• nirvana is not impersonal.
• nirvana is not both personal and impersonal.
• nirvana is not neither personal nor impersonal.

rossum

 

[Vouthon]

Indeed. The Abrahamic religions allow an exception to impermanence for God. Buddhists do not.

But is that an “exception”? God is not a “thing” in theological terms. He is beyond human intellection and knowledge, beyond existence.

My thinking had been that the Buddha claimed “sabbe sankhara anicca”: “**all conditioned things are impermanent”.

If what I am referring to is neither “conditioned” nor an existent “thing” then why under this maxim cannot it not have “permanence”?

Once having attained Nirvana can you ever go back to samsara? That is all I am saying, I’m not aware that you can so therefore from that perspective its surely a permanent state. I’m not trying to describe “it” (for want of a better word) in itself merely the fact that once a person has attained it there is no going back.

Two points here. First, nirvana has to change in order for enlightenment to be possible. At the very least nirvana has to be able to change from nirvana-without-rossum to nirvana-with-rossum. If it cannot do that then I can never attain nirvana.

If it is neither a “thing” nor “conditioned” why does it have to change? How can be it be “with” or “without” Rossum if it isn’t anything that can be defined spatially or as a succession in time? If it can change, does that not mean it is conditioned? If it is conditioned then it cannot be the unconditioned because an unconditioned cannot have conditions!

Catholic mysticism gets around this problem with somewhat circular reasoning:

“…Whoever is taken into the Eternal Nothing possesses all in all and has no ‘before or after’. Indeed a person taken within today would not have been there for a shorter period from the point of view of eternity than someone who had been taken within a thousand years ago…Now these people who are taken within, because of their boundless immanent oneness with God, see themselves as always and eternally being [there]…”

***- Blessed Henry Suso (c. 1296-1366), German Catholic mystic & Dominican priest (The Little Book of Truth). p320 ***

My second point is that the separation between nirvana and the world we live in is not as much as you seem to think. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35 and died at age 80. For 45 years he was living as an itinerant preacher on earth while also being in nirvana.

I agree that Nirvana is not to be sought in a life beyond nonetheless:

When Nibbana is realized in this life with the body remaining, it is called sopadisesa nibbana-dhatu. When an arahat attains parinibbana, after the dissolution of his body, without any remainder of physical existence it is called anupadisesa nibbana-dhatu.

In Christianity union with God is achieved in this life too, even though God is timeless, transcendent, unconditioned and not limited by space. After death, we call it “the Beatific Vision”.

All descriptions of nirvana are in error.

• nirvana is not personal.
• nirvana is not impersonal.
• nirvana is not both personal and impersonal.
• nirvana is not neither personal nor impersonal.

I wasn’t suggesting that Nirvana was impersonal. I rather meant that Buddhists tend to use impersonal language to describe the indescribable. As Meister Eckhart put it in the 13th century, “I pray God to make me free of God, for unconditioned Being is above God and all distinctions”. The Christian tradition considers the via negativa to be superior to the via positiva.

We would say the same about God as He is in Himself ie from Dioynsius’ “Mystical Theology” published in the sixth century AD (which is the de facto sourcebook of Catholic mysticism):

"…Nor is it a body, nor has it form or shape, quality, quantity or weight; nor has it any localized, visible or tangible existence; it is not sensible or perceptible; nor is it subject to any disorder or inordination nor influenced by any earthly passion; neither is it rendered impotent through the effects of material causes and events; it needs no light; it suffers no change, corruption, division, privation or flux; none of these things can either be identified with or attributed unto it.

Again, ascending yet higher, we maintain that it is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion reason or understanding; nor can it be expressed or conceived, since it is neither number nor order; nor greatness nor smallness; nor equality nor inequality; nor similarity nor dissimilarity; neither is it standing, nor moving, nor at rest; neither has it power nor is power, nor is light; neither does it live nor is it life; neither is it essence, nor eternity nor time; nor is it subject to intelligible contact; nor is it science nor truth, nor kingship nor wisdom; neither one nor oneness, nor godhead nor goodness; nor is it spirit according to our understanding, nor filiation, nor paternity; nor anything else known to us or to any other beings of the things that are or the things that are not; neither does anything that is know it as it is; nor does it know existing things according to existing knowledge; neither can the reason attain to it, nor name it, nor know it; neither is it darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all…"

esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeII/MysticalTheology.html

That is a description of God.

 

[Contarini]

Jesus said “let not your left hand know what you’re right hand does” But “To he who is worthy of my secrets I will teach” somehow conveniently has been removed from the beginning of the firstly stated verse.

You’re assuming that the Gospel of Thomas preserves the original version. Why do you assume this?

To be honest, you’re making an excellent case for the position that orthodox Christianity and Buddhism are incompatible. If you have to appeal to non-canonical versions of the Gospels as if they are authentic, you are obviously going outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity, i.e., of Catholicism.

It’s very hard for me to get a hearing for my much more cautious suggestion that Buddhism and Christianity may not be incompatible, when most folks who argue for their compatibility turn out to have a thoroughly unorthodox definition of Christianity in the first place.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Jesus said “let not your left hand know what you’re right hand does” But “To he who is worthy of my secrets I will teach” somehow conveniently has been removed from the beginning of the firstly stated verse.

You’re assuming that the Gospel of Thomas preserves the original version. Why do you assume this?

To be honest, you’re making an excellent case for the position that orthodox Christianity and Buddhism are incompatible. If you have to appeal to non-canonical versions of the Gospels as if they are authentic, you are obviously going outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity, i.e., of Catholicism.

It’s very hard for me to get a hearing for my much more cautious suggestion that Buddhism and Christianity may not be incompatible, when most folks who argue for their compatibility turn out to have a thoroughly unorthodox definition of Christianity in the first place.

Edwin

 

[billcu1]

You’re assuming that the Gospel of Thomas preserves the original version. Why do you assume this?

To be honest, you’re making an excellent case for the position that orthodox Christianity and Buddhism are incompatible. If you have to appeal to non-canonical versions of the Gospels as if they are authentic, you are obviously going outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity, i.e., of Catholicism.

It’s very hard for me to get a hearing for my much more cautious suggestion that Buddhism and Christianity may not be incompatible, when most folks who argue for their compatibility turn out to have a thoroughly unorthodox definition of Christianity in the first place.

Edwin

Orthodox anything. Any religion. Is neatly trimmed, packaged, and presented to the people by the powers that be. Look at the New Testament. What does Jesus teach? Parables stories then he expounds to his disciples. And says “It’s not for them to know”. God has a hidden and permissive will. He permits sin. He reveals his hidden will to those he chooses. This is all divine providence. In buddhism, The same thing is done. I’ve seen many people fall for their interpretation based on a sutra or such that without a teacher can’t be reached or understood.

 

[Contarini]

Orthodox anything. Any religion. Is neatly trimmed, packaged, and presented to the people by the powers that be.

Completely untrue. My experience is that the people who exalt secret wisdom and a spiritual elite typically have a very neat, undemanding spirituality, while orthodox Christianity is complex, paradoxical, challenging, and open to mystery.

It doesn’t sound to me as if you’ve given orthodoxy half a chance.

Don’t confuse orthodox Christianity with the neat packaging of “Catholic apologetics.” Apologetics betrays orthodoxy far more often than it upholds it.

Have you read any Chesterton, by any chance? Don’t listen to anything he has to say about Eastern religions–he has no idea what he’s talking about. But on the nature of orthodoxy he can’t be beat (especially in his book of that name).

Look at the New Testament. What does Jesus teach? Parables stories then he expounds to his disciples. And says “It’s not for them to know”.

Right. And Mark makes it clear that the “inner circle” didn’t have a clue what he was on about. The true mystery isn’t one that is understood by a hidden elite and not by the masses. It’s one that no one can truly understand, especially those who think they have special insight.

Edwin