Refuting Buddhism

[jimmy]

With the caveat that the former is a lot easier if you have the latter down pat.

Knowing that Jesus has two natures doesn’t make it easier for me to accept the Christian way of life and live it. I would agree with you if the heterodoxy you are concerned with is an extreme form of sola fidei, or a form of humanism that scorns all monasticism or asceticism. In both cases the heterodox condemns practice or an aspect of it.

 

[manualman]

Knowing that Jesus has two natures doesn’t make it easier for me to accept the Christian way of life and live it. I would agree with you if the heterodoxy you are concerned with is an extreme form of sola fidei, or a form of humanism that scorns all monasticism or asceticism. In both cases the heterodox condemns practice or an aspect of it.

Point conceded. But surely it helps to understand that humanity is good, yet fallen via sin and in need of a Savior. So many false philosophies have done so much harm either by declaring humanity innately good (and concluding that evil comes from various scapegoat exceptions) or that we are totally depraved until / unless we “join the club” (club being the gnostic flavor of the month). Just that one point of doctrine would do the world SO much good if everybody comprehended it.

 

[tskrobacz]

The Aztec, Maya and Zapotec cultures all believed in human sacrifice as valuable to their life’s journey and they were very sincere about it. They had to appease the gods and if they did not they believed they may not eat next year. Would you charitably tolerate these beliefs because they are valuable to their Life’s journey?

No one is questioning the sincerity of anyone. What can be questioned, however, is the truth of their beliefs. We are free to question and they are free to answer.

The OP asked about refuting…not questioning. I have no problem with him/her trying to better understand other belief systems…in fact, I encourage it. Refuting is an entirely different matter and should not be encouraged.

 

[openmind77]

You could begin with the fact that the Buddha was an atheist who rejected the notion of a god. It makes the fact that he is worshiped as one kind of, well, ironic… I think that would count as irony.

I don’t believe it is correct to say that Buddha was an atheist. His position was that we should not talk about that which we do not know or understand. So he never talked much about God, just about how we should live this life.

 

[jimmy]

I don’t believe it is correct to say that Buddha was an atheist. His position was that we should not talk about that which we do not know or understand. So he never talked about God, just about how we should live this life.

He was agnostic on the question of God.

 

[openmind77]

I don’t believe that Buddha is worshipped by Buddhists. But there are many things in Buddhism that contradict Christianity. We could start with the view that creation is the source of all evil and suffering in the world. This contradicts the word of God who said that “it is good.” Then we could move on to our eternal destiny which in Buddhism means that you will become part of the “all”; basically a drop of water in the ocean. You will loose your individuality. Quite the opposite in Christianity where we will be reunited with our bodies at the resurrection and remain who we are.

The Buddha did say that life on earth was full of suffering, that any happiness was temporary and would eventually end in suffering. But he did not equate suffering with evil.

So you should remove the word evil in your statement above about Buddhism. In fact there is no all powerful evil person like Satan in Buddhism (though there are many demons like for instance Mara).

 

[SteveVH]

The Buddha did say that life on earth was full of suffering, that any happiness was temporary and would eventually end in suffering. But he did not equate suffering with evil.

So you should remove the word evil in your statement above about Buddhism. In fact there is no all powerful evil person like Satan in Buddhism (though there are many demons like for instance Mara).

Pardon my error, but it will have to remain for all to see because I cannot go back and change it at this point.

 

[rossum]

So you should remove the word evil in your statement above about Buddhism. In fact there is no all powerful evil person like Satan in Buddhism (though there are many demons like for instance Mara).

Correct. Buddhism does not really have the same concept of evil as Christianity. It is better to think in terms of unwise actions. All demons, such as Mara, will attain nirvana eventually.

rossum

 

[openmind77]

I was thinking on Buddhism and was wondering if it was refutable. Some parts of it are so hard for me to wrap my head around, I can’t think of how to refute it. Has anyone seen anything refuting it?

If you did want to ‘refute’ Buddhism or at least point out the difference between the two faiths, I would think the main one was that there is not much, if any, emphasis on a personal relationship with God in Buddhism. For many people, not having such a personal relationship with God can be a impediment in their spiritual development. Christianity does offer the possibility of such a deep personal relationship (with Jesus).

 

[SteveVH]

Correct. Buddhism does not really have the same concept of evil as Christianity. It is better to think in terms of unwise actions. All demons, such as Mara, will attain nirvana eventually.

rossum

Which is another big difference between Buddhism and Christianity. It is really difficult for me to believe that anyone could deny that evil is present in the world.

 

[openmind77]

Which is another big difference between Buddhism and Christianity. It is really difficult for me to believe that anyone could deny that evil is present in the world.

No religion including Buddhism denies the existence of evil.

However neither Buddhism or Hinduism believe in a single completely evil person like Satan.

 

[TheAtheist]

Which is another big difference between Buddhism and Christianity. It is really difficult for me to believe that anyone could deny that evil is present in the world.

Gaah…do I… don’t I… fine let’s just do this.

They are not exactly denying Evil.

They are just not conceiving the Problem in the manner which many of you coming out of the Western intellectual tradition/Abrahamic faith use.

And now here comes my problem, how do I explain all the little nuances when even the “self-evident” assumptions, vocabulary and logical systems between the two viewpoints aren’t the same…

Let’s try it this way.

The fundamental metaphysical difference between all of the Abrahamic Faiths and all of the “Dharmic” faiths coming out of India (and i guess you can lump Taoism/Daoism if i understand it correctly from my Chinese colleagues at work) is this:

------> Reincarnation/Karma

The Belief in that particular “self-evident” assumption (much like the Abrahamic Faiths’ idea of a Law-Giving Creator Deity) shapes what you as Christians might term as their theodicy as well as their ethics.

Its not like they or the Hindus, or the Sikhs, or the Jains don’t find murder abhorrent for instance. But they interpret in the context of their understanding of Atman, Karma, and Samsara (Reincarnation)…not in your Legalistic Framework.

Or to use a very rough metaphor: The Crime is still a Crime - but how its evaluated/rectified…that is what is up for interpretation.

 

[rossum]

Which is another big difference between Buddhism and Christianity. It is really difficult for me to believe that anyone could deny that evil is present in the world.

Of course evil is present, as an adjective. It describes certain actions. Evil is not a noun and should not be reified. You cannot show me a glass full of evil. You can show me an evil action, but you cannot have the evil apart from the action.

Buddhist philosophy does not recognise any form of reification; adjectives must remain adjectives and cannot be separated from their subjects. Reification can lead to mental hindrances because it tends to move away from recognising the universality of change.

rossum

 

[jimmy]

Of course evil is present, as an adjective. It describes certain actions. Evil is not a noun and should not be reified. You cannot show me a glass full of evil. You can show me an evil action, but you cannot have the evil apart from the action.

Buddhist philosophy does not recognise any form of reification; adjectives must remain adjectives and cannot be separated from their subjects. Reification can lead to mental hindrances because it tends to move away from recognising the universality of change.

rossum

Christianity agrees that you can’t reify evil. Satan is only evil as an adjective. Nothing is evil in itself, only the way it acts. Christianity does reify good though. God is the Good, and it is in imitating God that we become good.

 

[SteveVH]

Gaah…do I… don’t I… fine let’s just do this.

They are not exactly denying Evil.

They are just not conceiving the Problem in the manner which many of you coming out of the Western intellectual tradition/Abrahamic faith use.

And now here comes my problem, how do I explain all the little nuances when even the “self-evident” assumptions, vocabulary and logical systems between the two viewpoints aren’t the same…

Let’s try it this way.

The fundamental metaphysical difference between all of the Abrahamic Faiths and all of the “Dharmic” faiths coming out of India (and i guess you can lump Taoism/Daoism if i understand it correctly from my Chinese colleagues at work) is this:

------> Reincarnation/Karma

The Belief in that particular “self-evident” assumption (much like the Abrahamic Faiths’ idea of a Law-Giving Creator Deity) shapes what you as Christians might term as their theodicy as well as their ethics.

Its not like they or the Hindus, or the Sikhs, or the Jains don’t find murder abhorrent for instance. But they interpret in the context of their understanding of Atman, Karma, and Samsara (Reincarnation)…not in your Legalistic Framework.

Or to use a very rough metaphor: The Crime is still a Crime - but how its evaluated/rectified…that is what is up for interpretation.

Thank you. I get it.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Of course evil is present, as an adjective. It describes certain actions. Evil is not a noun and should not be reified. You cannot show me a glass full of evil. You can show me an evil action, but you cannot have the evil apart from the action.

Buddhist philosophy does not recognise any form of reification; adjectives must remain adjectives and cannot be separated from their subjects. Reification can lead to mental hindrances because it tends to move away from recognising the universality of change.

rossum

Evil is a negation, an absence of something. That’s why you can’t see a glass full of evil. But if someone is dying of thirst and their glass is bone-dry, that is an evil for them.

This, incidentally, is why the common Western interpretation of Buddhism as a seeking after nothingness inclines us to think of it as a particularly evil religion. We Christians are on the side of being, of existence. That is how we define God Himself. Buddhists meanwhile are often seen as yearning for non-being, for a strange suicidal Nirvana that would be an even more total and terrible rejection of God than any positive devil-worship.

 

[jimmy]

Evil is a negation, an absence of something. That’s why you can’t see a glass full of evil. But if someone is dying of thirst and their glass is bone-dry, that is an evil for them.

This, incidentally, is why the common Western interpretation of Buddhism as a seeking after nothingness inclines us to think of it as a particularly evil religion. We Christians are on the side of being, of existence. That is how we define God Himself. Buddhists meanwhile are often seen as yearning for non-being, for a strange suicidal Nirvana that would be an even more total and terrible rejection of God than any positive devil-worship.

I think there is often a misunderstanding of the concept of no self that leads people to think of Buddhism in that way. You never cease existing, even if you reach enlightenment and nirvana. There will always be future reincarnations. No self doesn’t mean you cease to exist. It is a rejection of the ego. I think it would be recognizable in a Christian saint as well.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I think there is often a misunderstanding of the concept of no self that leads people to think of Buddhism in that way. You never cease existing, even if you reach enlightenment and nirvana. There will always be future reincarnations. No self doesn’t mean you cease to exist. It is a rejection of the ego. I think it would be recognizable in a Christian saint as well.

Are you saying that in Buddhist thinking a particular enlightened person will continue to exist as a distinct entity and will be reincarnated, just with greater humility? This is very far from my impression of Buddhism, which is that it holds all individual existence to be an illusion and seeks mental state in which one’s individuality is annihilated and one realizes that everything is nothing, or rather that there is no difference between being and non-being, true and false, me and you, etc. A complete suicide of the mind is sought, because the Buddhist has despaired of finding anything but suffering in existence. I might be wrong about this as I have not given the subject extensive study, and in any case there is certainly diversity within Buddhism.

Such a mentality is not to be found in Christian saints. Their humility makes them all the more acutely aware of their individuality, of their littleness before God and of the dignity and needs of other people. They do not seek to flee from suffering by rejecting all existence but rather accept suffering as a cross and maintain hope for real happiness in heaven when in their created individuality they will experience the fullness of Being. We do not generally imagine such an evil as nirvana to befall even those in hell, although C.S. Lewis came close to it in his speculations about the damned.

 

[jimmy]

Are you saying that in Buddhist thinking a particular enlightened person will continue to exist as a distinct entity and will be reincarnated, just with greater humility? This is very far from my impression of Buddhism, which is that it holds all individual existence to be an illusion and seeks mental state in which one’s individuality is annihilated and one realizes that everything is nothing, or rather that there is no difference between being and non-being, true and false, me and you, etc. A complete suicide of the mind. I might be wrong about this as I have not given the subject extensive study, and in any case there is certainly diversity within Buddhism.

Such a mentality is not to be found in Christian saints. Their humility makes them all the more acutely aware of their individuality, of their littleness before God and of the dignity and needs of other people. We do not generally imagine such an evil as nirvana to befall even those in hell, although C.S. Lewis came close to it in his speculations about the damned.

I am not that knowledgable about Buddhism either, but the impression I have gained is that even an enlightened man will eventually be reborn again. Origenists would probably be the closest to this from a Christian perspective. Origen believed in the pre existence of souls, and the fall of these souls from contemplation of the divine. There is a potential for an eternal cycle of fall and return.

I think the concept of ‘no self’ is more a negation of false attachments to this world that cause suffering (i think they would include all attachments). It isn’t about the destruction of the person. Maybe one of the resident Buddhists can clarify for us.

 

[rossum]

Are you saying that in Buddhist thinking a particular enlightened person will continue to exist as a distinct entity and will be reincarnated, just with greater humility? This is very far from my impression of Buddhism, which is that it holds all individual existence to be an illusion and seeks mental state in which one’s individuality is annihilated and one realizes that everything is nothing, or rather that there is no difference between being and non-being, true and false, me and you, etc. A complete suicide of the mind is sought, because the Buddhist has despaired of finding anything but suffering in existence.

What is annihilated in Buddhism is incorrect ideas. We think we have a permanent self or identity. We do not, but we have the mistaken idea that we do. We cannot annihilate the ‘self’, because it does not really exist any more than the ‘water’ in a mirage exists. All we can annihilate is the wrong ideas that we hold.

I might be wrong about this as I have not given the subject extensive study, and in any case there is certainly diversity within Buddhism.

There is indeed a great deal of diversity within Buddhism.

rossum