SPLIT: Catholicism vs. other world religions

[Sarpedon]

Buddhism is a path. A reason for the existence of things is not required, merely the fact that they exist. We are in a burning building and we need to escape it - discussions as to which architects designed the building can safely be left until after we have escaped. The parable of the man shot with an arrow is relevant here:

Do you expect me to accept the truth of Buddhism without any reason for its truth? Why would I do that? I do not expect you to accept Catholicism because I say it is true (and thus I use arguments).

Western philosophy is not content to simply accept things without evidence or reasons. If we did, there would be no need for philosophy at all, for we would simply accept things without question.

If you think questioning and thinking about dogmas, causes, reasons, etc. is pointless and a hindrince in our eathly task, why are you trying to convice us of the truth of the dogma of Buddhism? What makes your dogma valuable, while ours is to be avoided? I don’t see why your dogma is in the “worthwhile” category and ours is in the “worthless” category.

I would also point out that Christianity creates a system based on God, without any explanation of why God exists.

God has no cause, and thus no “why” can be attributed to Him. He simply is. Of course, we bolster this position with philosophy, while you seem to hold it in disdain. Our situation is different because we try to explain things to the best of our ability, rather than just saying the question is irrelevant.

We do not need to know why, we just need to know that it works. Buddhism is a path, and provided the path goes to the correct destination we can be satisfied with it as a path.

How do we know it works?

Because we failed to reach nirvana in our previous life. Had we succeeded then we would not have been reborn.

No, I am talking about a much more general level. Why is the system of incarnations and nirvana in place at all? Do you expect us to simply believe this one possibility is true without any reason or explanation for its truth?

You have sadly misunderstood the nature of nirvana. Seeing nirvana as nonexistence is a common error, so you are not alone in making it. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35, he died at age 80. For 45 years he was preaching in India and was also in nirvana. Whatever nirvana is, it is most certainly not nonexistence.

True, but the individual no longer desires anything-even concious existence. This is in effect non-existence, because nothing is desired. If our purpose in life is to lose desire, why did we get desire at all at any point? Why would we get something and then have to lose it? Why would that have happened?

You are assuming here that Buddhism says we are created. It does not. Your question might be a problem if Buddhism was an Abrahamic religion but Buddhism does not recognise a creator. The question of origins is not seen as relevant to the Buddhist religious path, as shown by the quote from the Cula-Malunkyovada sutta above.

Exactly. Buddhism simply creates a system without any explanation. For most people, God is a very relevant question, since so much revolves around Him. What criteria do you use to determine what bits of philosophy are relevant and what are not?

To avoid “birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair”.

You forgot joy, happiness, friendship, peace, and love. If we lose all desire, we lose desire for everything, not just the unpleasant things.

Ask a cosmologist, this is not a religious question.

Where things draw their existence from is a philosophic and theologic question (evidenced by thousands of years of thought), although you deem it irrelevant.

---

The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.

This is a contradiction

 

[soma]

If one is a Christian and not interested or open to ideas from Buddhism, why ask questions? What is the purpose? A good Christian would follow his/her path with such concentration all seems to come from Christ. A Christian strong in faith might want to learn from other religions to grow closer to Christ. A weak Christian seems interested in other religions to put them down to make his faith stronger. Removing the clouds does not make the sun. Concentrate on the Lord and all things are good.

 

[Sarpedon]

If one is a Christian and not interested or open to ideas from Buddhism, why ask questions? What is the purpose? A good Christian would follow his/her path with such concentration all seems to come from Christ. A Christian strong in faith might want to learn from other religions to grow closer to Christ. A weak Christian seems interested in other religions to put them down to make his faith stronger. Removing the clouds does not make the sun. Concentrate on the Lord and all things are good.

There can only be one truth. Clearly, since Catholicism and Buddhism teach different things, there must be error somewhere. I believe that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth, and I naturally want to bring other people to that truth. Christ Himself commanded us to evangelize for the truth to the ends of the earth.

The idea you are advancing seems close to relativism, the idea that all religions are equal. This is a heresy condemned by the Church.

 

[Publisher]

A couple of good books I have enjoyed very much is “Living Buddha, Living Christ” and “Going Home” by Thich Nhat Hanh.

It gave me an appreciation for Buddhism as the “Light which enlignens all men” spoke through him as well.

 

[rossum]

Do you expect me to accept the truth of Buddhism without any reason for its truth? Why would I do that? I do not expect you to accept Catholicism because I say it is true (and thus I use arguments).

No, I expect you to accept Buddhism because it works.

Western philosophy is not content to simply accept things without evidence or reasons.

Nor does Buddhism. You can test Buddhism to check that it works as advertised.

What makes your dogma valuable, while ours is to be avoided?

Buddhism has very little in the way of “dogma”, most dogmas are seen as irrelevant. Buddhism has a series of techniques that work; their correctness is shown by the fact that they do work. The classic source for this is the Kalama sutta.:[The Buddha said:] “Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

Source: Kalama sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 3.65

God has no cause, and thus no “why” can be attributed to Him. He simply is.

As you were saying above: “Western philosophy is not content to simply accept things without evidence or reasons.”

How do we know it [Buddhism] works?

Because we have tried it and it delivers what it promises. See the Kalama sutta above: "when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good …’ " (Emphasis added) See Buddhists ‘really are happier’ and meditation may increase empathy for examples of how Buddhism actually works. Buddhism is not something you believe, it is something you do. You cannot learn to swim unless you actually get into the water and do it.

No, I am talking about a much more general level.

I have already quoted the Cula-Malunkyovada sutta in the thread this one was split from. Speculation on origins is at best useless and at worst a distraction from the work we have to do following the path. What would you think of someone who refused to become a Christian because you could not tell him the name of Seth’s wife? Your question is not relevant:[The Buddha said:] ‘The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’

Source: Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63

True, but the individual no longer desires anything-even concious existence. This is in effect non-existence, because nothing is desired.

Why? If I desire to go to New York, then I travel to New York. Once I have arrived at New York, I no longer have the desire to go there. My desire has gone. Does that mean that I no longer exist? I gave the example of the Buddha who attained the desireless nirvana and yet continued alive for a further 45 years. Was that non-existence? Every enlightened Buddhist since then has continued to exist for some time after their attainment of nirvana. That is not non-existence by any reasonable definition.

If our purpose in life is to lose desire, why did we get desire at all at any point? Why would we get something and then have to lose it? Why would that have happened?

Our purpose in life is to reach happiness. Many of us make mistakes in the search and go for short term goals that decrease our long term happiness. The three fundamental mistakes are to look for the permanent in that which is impermanent, to look for happiness in that which is suffering and to look for a soul in that which is soulless. Buddhism provides methods to recognise and avoid these three mistakes.

Exactly. Buddhism simply creates a system without any explanation.

No, Buddhism has a system without a creator. An everlasting universe, with no need for any creator, is compatible with Buddhism. The origin of the universe is explacitly declared by the Buddha to be irrelevant to the path. Christians have created a system without an explanation for the origin of God. Did that prevent you becoming a Christian? Buddhism just stops the regress one step earlier.

What criteria do you use to determine what bits of philosophy are relevant and what are not?

If it tends towards peace, happiness and the attainment of nirvana then it is relevant. If it is neutral then it is irrelevant. If it tends to greed, hatred and delusion then it is bad and definitely to be avoided.

rossum

 

[rossum]

This is a contradiction

You are not the first person to notice my sig. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

 

[ralphinal]

If computer science is true, does that make chemistry false? They each clearly teach different things. There must be error somewhere. However, I think the error is in the false dichotomy.

This would be an excellent statement if the two fields were answering the same questions.

No two religions can both be True. No two philosophical understandings of life can both be true if they are not the same.

 

[soma]

A closed mind sees one road to the top of the mountain. An open mind will see more than one way. Protestants say Catholics are not Christian, but that does not make Protestants right. If Protestants say such a thing then they don’t know the Truth. Their truth is with a small t. Buddhism and Catholicism can both be following the Truth. The followers putting down the other way are following the small t-truth. If they feel the other is wrong then they should keep their eye on their Truth and follow it. Looking and criticizing other truths does not put down the other way only the truth they are not following.

 

[ralphinal]

Two different philosophies (and religions) can be compatible if they ask and answer totally different questions. It’s only when they give different answers to the same questions that incompatibilities arise.

From that point of veiw, yes. However, when the question is what is our eternal fate and how do we get to our final destination, there can be only one correct answer.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

From that point of veiw, yes. However, when the question is what is our eternal fate and how do we get to our final destination, there can be only one correct answer.

Indeed. When one “map” gets one across the seas and the other “map” gets you dissolved into the ocean, those are radically different solutions.

BTW, it was my understanding that Gautama Buddha did not enter Nirvana at age 34, but rather he achieved Enlightenment at that time–he entered Nirvana at age 80, supposedly from eating some tainted pork…

 

[rossum]

Indeed. When one “map” gets one across the seas and the other “map” gets you dissolved into the ocean, those are radically different solutions.

I prefer the analogy of the mountain. One map shows a path up the north face; the other map shows the path up the south face. The two maps only need to coincide at one point at the top of the mountain. “Nada, nada, nada, y en el monte, nada.”

BTW, it was my understanding that Gautama Buddha did not enter Nirvana at age 34, but rather he achieved Enlightenment at that time–he entered Nirvana at age 80, supposedly from eating some tainted pork…

Enlightenment is nirvana. At death the body dies and the person is not reborn. That is sometimes called parinirvana.

rossum

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

I prefer the analogy of the mountain. One map shows a path up the north face; the other map shows the path up the south face. The two maps only need to coincide at one point at the top of the mountain.
rossum

But these two analogies are mutually contradictory. Like wise, so are Heaven and Nirvana.

We seek eternal life. Buddhism, at its heart, is spiritual euthanasia. Your map up the mountain leads to a precipice, not the peak.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

*“Christianity and Buddhism are very much alike–especially Buddhism.” *Gilbert Keith Chesterton

 

[AlexiaMusing]

There can only be one truth. Clearly, since Catholicism and Buddhism teach different things, there must be error somewhere. I believe that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth, and I naturally want to bring other people to that truth. Christ Himself commanded us to evangelize for the truth to the ends of the earth.

The idea you are advancing seems close to relativism, the idea that all religions are equal. This is a heresy condemned by the Church.

I struggled with your opening post to find a question. You seem to be responding to someone else.

There need not be only one truth. There are many truths. The earth revolves around the sun is a truth. The moon revolves around the earth is another. There may be one truth that God is the creator of all things. There may in fact be many ways of expressing and experiencing that fact throughout the cosmos. There is much in agreement between Buddhism and Christianity, as there are in many faith traditions. What is taught is very similar, how it is taught may be quite different, as is how it is experienced.

If you place your faith in a tradition that condemns all others, then of course you cannot see the value and goodness in another. Your mind is closed from the start it would seem.

 

[AlexiaMusing]

A couple of good books I have enjoyed very much is “Living Buddha, Living Christ” and “Going Home” by Thich Nhat Hanh.

It gave me an appreciation for Buddhism as the “Light which enlignens all men” spoke through him as well.

I have the first, though not the second. I am reminded of Gandhi who said, he very much liked Christ but didn’t like Christians so much. A very telling statement I always have thought.

 

[rossum]

Your map up the mountain leads to a precipice, not the peak.

My congratulations. You have obviously been much closer to the peak that I have.

rossum

 

[rossum]

*“Christianity and Buddhism are very much alike–especially Buddhism.” *Gilbert Keith Chesterton

“Love others as you love yourself” - Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra 91

rossum

 

[rossum]

I struggled with your opening post to find a question. You seem to be responding to someone else.

Sarpedon was replying to a post of mine in this earlier thread from which this current thread was split.

There is much in agreement between Buddhism and Christianity, as there are in many faith traditions. What is taught is very similar, how it is taught may be quite different, as is how it is experienced.

Buddhism and Christianity are very similar in their morality, their ‘theology’ is very different. It seems to me that this difference stems from the different approach of the Abrahamic religions and the Dharmic religions of India (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism). Abrahamic religions are primarily directed externally at an omnipotent creator God; dharmic religions are mainly directed internally at the atman/buddha-nature inside you. These are two very different ways to climb the mountain. Both work:[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything - without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya… everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton

rossum

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

My congratulations. You have obviously been much closer to the peak that I have.

rossum

I see further and more clearly because I on stand on God’s shoulders–not Gautama’s

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

“Love others as you love yourself” - Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra 91

rossum

Which still does nothing to nullify Chesterton’s observation one can only say Christianity and Buddhism are similar if one only looks at it from a Buddhist perspective. Such similarities, aside from outward morality, disapear from a Christian perspective–or indeed, from a neutral, philosophicaly rigorous viewpoint.