SPLIT: Catholicism vs. other world religions

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Enlightenment, as buddhists describe it, is a delusion.

I know of some enlightened people and they say otherwise. Have you attained enlightenemnt yourself so you are in a position to contradict them?

One needn’t be correctly placed into an insane asylum to know what “insane” means.

It’s easy to say one is enlightened, and with enough practice it’s easy to convince others who follow the same “train of thought” that one is enlightened, but the “enlightened” never quite measure up to their claims of “buddhistic superpower” which they profess, do they?

But even that is not fair. Saints are saints regardless of their faith, and invariably humble people. But boasters are not saints, and are easy to identify as not “enlightened” if they claim to be “enlightened”.

Buddhists are well aware of the danger of mistaking a delusion for enlightenment:

People long for big thrills. Peak experiences. Some people come to Zen expecting that Enlightenment will be the Ultimate Peak Experience. The Mother of All Peak Experiences. But real enlightenment is the most ordinary of the ordinary. Once I had an amazing vision. I saw myself transported through time and space. Millions, no, billions, trillions, Godzillions of years passed. Not figuratively, but literally. Whizzed by. I found myself at the very rim of time and space, a vast giant being composed of the living minds and bodies of every thing that ever was. It was an incredibly moving experience. Exhilarating. I was high for weeks. Finally I told Nishijima Sensei about it . He said it was nonsense. Just my imagination. I can't tell you how that made me feel. Imagination? This was as real an experience as any I've ever had. I just about cried. Later on that day I was eating a tangerine. I noticed how incredibly lovely a thing it was. So delicate. So amazingly orange. So very tasty. So I told Nishijima about that. That experience, he said, was enlightenment.

Source: Zen is Boring.

But what is the GOAL of this (real) enlightenment (in seeing God in His most ordinary creatures) for the buddhist?

The goal for the Christian is to shed everything but “love of God” from our bag of attachments.

What is the goal for buddhists?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
There is no difference between “ultimate enlightenment”, which is the de-personing of the person, and oblivion, as described by buddhist teaching.

Nobody can become “de-personed” because everybody is already de-personed. You think you have a “self” but you are mistaken, what you think of as your “self” actually isn’t. Enlightenment is the process of realising that you have been mistaken. What you think of as your “self” is a deceptive mirage. Neither is it oblivion since oblivion would not look like a self. A mirage is not nothing because nothing does not look like water, while a mirage does. A mirage is not nothing but neither is it what it appears to be. Similarly your “self” is not nothing but neither is it what it appears to be.

You have misunderstood Buddhism here, you are erring on the side of non-existence (“oblivion”) when Buddhism is the Middle Way between existence and non-existence.

There is no “middle way” between existence and non-existence because there is no non-existence.

This is simply an axiomatic difference between Christianity and buddhism.

The buddhist posits an ultimately mechanistic universe (the “karmic transactional machine”) where “persons” are simply a natural consequence of the complexity (an “emergent phenomenon”) of the universe, and the “real (most desirable)” goal of this “emergent phenom” should be to dissolve (“notice the illusion of it’s being-ness”) back into a pre-emergent-phenom.

This is a very comforting “reality” (“fantasy”) for those desiring “abject egalitarianism” by way of deterministic forcing.

In other words, for those who want a complete “leveling” of “talents/gifts/pain” because “only that is worthy of the label ‘fair’”, having an utterly “fair” machine to “make it so” is quite desirable.

Buddhism is really just another example of materialistic egalitarianism.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
So, show me a behavior, belief or dogma of said faith and I’ll show you why it’s good or bad.

For me one of the most important differences is that the final goal, nirvana, does not require my death to attain it. In Christianity the final goal, heaven, it not attainable this side of death.

So, you ACTUALLY think that you can achieve “nirvana”, as described by buddhists, while in earthly-life?

Are you, perhaps, of a “young age”? I ask this unverifiable question because the young LOVE shortcuts, and buddhism seems to me to be a “gnostic”-like methodology to get to “juvenile heaven” as efficiently as possible.

Actually heaven (and hell), as described by Catholics, is attainable every day in mass while in this earthly-life. But until earthly-death we can “choose non-God” and get stuck with our choice of non-heaven (hell).

 

[Sarpedon]

Is it a good idea to test something out if there is a potential for great harm, and there is nothing provided to assure you that everything will work out fine?

 

[rossum]

Is it a good idea to test something out if there is a potential for great harm, and there is nothing provided to assure you that everything will work out fine?

You can test the basics of Buddhism while remaining within Christianity. The Dhammapada says:To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one’s mind - this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

Dhammapada 14:5
The first two can be found in Christian belief, the third is present but not as strongly as in Buddhism.

• avoid all evil: follow the Ten Commandments.
• cultivate good: “love others as you love yourself.”
• cleanse one’s mind: try saying the Jesus Prayer.

rossum

 

[notself]

Is it a good idea to test something out if there is a potential for great harm, and there is nothing provided to assure you that everything will work out fine?

Are you talking about Catholicism or Buddhism? Catholics have faith in the teachings of the Church. Buddhist have faith in the dhamma. Neither can prove the other right or wrong.

Just as Catholics in their beliefs are not testing something out, Buddhists in their beliefs are confident that they are on the right track.

As a Buddhist I feel concern that Catholics are caught up in the delusion that someone else or something else can save them. As a Catholic you feel concern that Buddhists are endangering their eternal life. There really is no meeting ground except mutual respect for the sincerity of the other’s beliefs.

 

[rossum]

So, where (or “in what state”) is (the) Buddha now?

The Buddha is in parinirvana.

What is the goal for buddhists?

The end of suffering for all living beings, including yourself.[The Buddha said:] "And what is declared by me? ‘This is suffering,’ is declared by me. ‘This is the origination of suffering,’ is declared by me. ‘This is the cessation of suffering,’ is declared by me. ‘This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of suffering,’ is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That’s why they are declared by me.

Cula Malunkyovada sutta M.N. 63

So, you ACTUALLY think that you can achieve “nirvana”, as described by buddhists, while in earthly-life?

I know that I have a chance to do so because others have done it and are still doing it. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35, he died age 80. He and many of his senior disciples attained nirvana before they died. Buddhists have been attaining nirvana ever since.

Are you, perhaps, of a “young age”?

I was born in 1952.

rossum

 

[notself]

I was born in 1952.

rossum

What a baby. I was born in 1946.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
So, where (or “in what state”) is (the) Buddha now?

The Buddha is in parinirvana.

OK, that’s “helpful”. What is parinirvana?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
What is the goal for buddhists?

The end of suffering for all living beings, including yourself.

[The Buddha said:] "And what is declared by me? 'This is suffering,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of suffering,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of suffering,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of suffering,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me.

Lot’s of things “declared by ME”, apparently. And why declared by your “me”? Because you are your “God”. This is the absolute opposite of Christianity, where God is God. Accept no substitutes.

The goal, as I’ve said, of buddhism is a grasping for oblivion. Not the freeing of one’s person-ness from attachment to anything not “of God”, but of the obliteration and dissolution of one’s person-ness itself. What does one “awaken to” if one’s person-ness is extinguished? What is it that awakens?

Cula Malunkyovada sutta M.N. 63

Buddhism’s mask which looks like “benevolent oblivion” (wondrous relief) and hides the truth of it’s being the very object goal of evil itself is very “comforting” to those suffering from suffering who don’t know what suffering is for. “Divine and wondrous relief” of suffering would naturally be attractive to those who haven’t been informed that suffering is a gift for offering to God, and not for “running away from as a curse”.

But, running away from suffering DOES sound like a good idea to the uninformed. Suffering should not be promoted, which we can all agree with, but it should not be run away from, as that is not it’s purpose.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
So, you ACTUALLY think that you can achieve “nirvana”, as described by buddhists, while in earthly-life?

I know that I have a chance to do so because others have done it and are still doing it. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35, he died age 80. He and many of his senior disciples attained nirvana before they died. Buddhists have been attaining nirvana ever since.

If you say so! Who am I to argue that?

Though, I’d LOVE to see you while you’re in your nirvanic state in real life. To compare that to the reality of heaven would be truly fascinating.

What I’m “getting at” is that while I do believe that some “enlightened” buddhists are very good at self control and displaying selfless compassion, their “state” is hardy comparable with the beatific vision.

But then, we can’t “prove” to you that the beatific vision actually exists, can we, so we’re back to simply commenting on the ramifications of the others belief system within the context of our known realities, aren’t we?

Quote:
Are you, perhaps, of a “young age”?

I was born in 1952.

To me, you’re “oh so young”, my lad (or lass)! In spirit and blessed naivete, at least. As I’m dead set against trying to convince others to “convert” to my beliefs, my basic view on the matter of “interfaith dialogue” is to suggest that everyone (you, me and all others) follow their chosen faith as deeply and intensely as possible, as that will always reveal the superiority of the Church by the contrast of the anxiety produced by one’s non-Catholic faith.

Dive deep, and DO achieve that nirvana you seek, and you’ll discover the gap between it and the edge of the “God shaped hole” within us all.

 

[rossum]

OK, that’s “helpful”. What is parinirvana?

Parinirvana is the state of someone who dies after becoming enlightened. All descriptions of such a state are false.

Lot’s of things “declared by ME”, apparently. And why declared by your “me”?

Look back at my post. That section started with ‘[The Buddha said:]’ followed by some text from Buddhist scripture. In that text the word ‘me’ refers to the speaker, that is to the Buddha. Those were the words of the Buddha quoted from the Cula Malunkyovada sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya of the Sutta Pitaka of the Pali Canon.

rossum

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
OK, that’s “helpful”. What is parinirvana?

Parinirvana is the state of someone who dies after becoming enlightened. All descriptions of such a state are false.

So, there are only “false” descriptions of the state of “parinirvana”?

You mean, NO partial description is in any way “true”? Why is that?

Quote:
Lot’s of things “declared by ME”, apparently. And why declared by your “me”?

Look back at my post. That section started with ‘[The Buddha said:]’ followed by some text from Buddhist scripture. In that text the word ‘me’ refers to the speaker, that is to the Buddha. Those were the words of the Buddha quoted from the Cula Malunkyovada sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya of the Sutta Pitaka of the Pali Canon.

Yeah. So?

Isn’t an (aka “any”) “enlightened one” the (at least functional) equivalent of “THE Buddha”?

Wouldn’t any “enlightened being”, such as yourself after your “enlightenment”, be able to say precisely what “THE Buddha” said?

Is “THE Buddha” a somehow “special case” of “enlightened being”?

 

[rossum]

So, there are only “false” descriptions of the state of “parinirvana”?

You mean, NO partial description is in any way “true”? Why is that?

All descriptions are false because all descriptions are expressed in a human language. Since all human languages are contingent and not ultimate, any description expressed in a human language must ipso facto be contingent and not ultimate. In order to understand parinirvana you need to attain enlightenment and then die.

Isn’t an (aka “any”) “enlightened one” the (at least functional) equivalent of “THE Buddha”?

To some extent. A Buddha is fully enlightened. An arhat is enlightened enough to avoid suffering and rebirth. All teaching Buddhas are functionally equivalent.

Wouldn’t any “enlightened being”, such as yourself after your “enlightenment”, be able to say precisely what “THE Buddha” said?

Only if I follow the Mahayana path and become a fully enlightened Buddha myself. If I follow the Theravada path then I become an arhat; I will then have a much better understanding of many things, but not as many as a Buddha:Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, “What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?”

“The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous.”

"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven’t I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.

Simsapa sutta S.N. 56:31

Is “THE Buddha” a somehow “special case” of “enlightened being”?

A teaching Buddha is the highest of three grades: arhat, private Buddha and teaching Buddha.

rossum

 

[notself]

To some extent. A Buddha is fully enlightened. An arhat is enlightened enough to avoid suffering and rebirth. All teaching Buddhas are functionally equivalent.

Only if I follow the Mahayana path and become a fully enlightened Buddha myself.

A teaching Buddha is the highest of three grades: arhat, private Buddha and teaching Buddha.

rossum

A small correction from a Theravada Buddhist.

The Buddha, the Samma-sambuddha, is fully awakened by his without the benefit of previous teachings. The Buddha was of course also a great teacher.

There are Pacceka Buddhas who are fully awakened without the benefit of previous teachings. The Pacceka Buddha, aka Silent Buddha, does not teach.

Then there is an arahant. The arahant is fully enlightened through the teachings of the Buddha.

So there are three categories; two of which reach enlightenment without the benefit of previous teachings and the last which reaches enlightenment by following the teachings of the Samma-sambuddha.

Theravada refers to Gotama as the Buddha and those who become enlightened through his teachings as arahants. Arahants and Mahayana buddhas are equivalent.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
So, there are only “false” descriptions of the state of “parinirvana”?

You mean, NO partial description is in any way “true”? Why is that?

All descriptions are false because all descriptions are expressed in a human language. Since all human languages are contingent and not ultimate, any description expressed in a human language must ipso facto be contingent and not ultimate.

My question was whether a PARTIAL description (of parinirvana) is in any way true?

Since the “beatific vision”, which is what “parinirvana” is a distant shadow of, is certainly NOT FULLY describable but is partially describable, I’m just curious why it is that “parinirvana” is not also partially describable.

In order to understand parinirvana you need to attain enlightenment and then die.

So then, your claim that “full enlightenment” is possible while in earthly-life is not true!

Which is it? Is “full enlightenment” possible while earthly-alive, or not?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Isn’t an (aka “any”) “enlightened one” the (at least functional) equivalent of “THE Buddha”?

To some extent. A Buddha is fully enlightened. An arhat is enlightened enough to avoid suffering and rebirth. All teaching Buddhas are functionally equivalent.

So, there is a spectrum of “enlightenments”. I understand that one becomes “more and more enlightened” through personal effort, but is there actually a “final stage” of “enlightenment” which is the equivalent of THE Buddha?

In other words, is THE Buddha not fully “enlightened” because not all of creation is yet “enlightended”?

Quote:
Wouldn’t any “enlightened being”, such as yourself after your “enlightenment”, be able to say precisely what “THE Buddha” said?

Only if I follow the Mahayana path and become a fully enlightened Buddha myself. If I follow the Theravada path then I become an arhat;…

So, your “person” gets to choose whether to become “fully enlightened” or choose to help others to become “more enlightened”?

How is having that choice not dependent on you retaining your “person-ness”? I thought the goal was to “de-person” your person?

I will then have a much better understanding of many things, but not as many as a Buddha:

And why haven’t I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.

Simsapa sutta S.N. 56:31

So, THE Buddha, the MOST “enlightened”, has PERSONALLY chosen not to fully reveal things that cold be revealed?

It sounds to me as though THE Buddha, the FULLY AND COMPLETELY “enlightened”, still retains some “person-ness” to me.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Is “THE Buddha” a somehow “special case” of “enlightened being”?

A teaching Buddha is the highest of three grades: arhat, private Buddha and teaching Buddha.

I’m not talking about “A” buddha. I’m talking about “THE Buddha”.

Is “THE Buddha” a somehow “special case” of an “enlightened being”? (I added the “an” in there to be more clear.)

 

[rossum]

My question was whether a PARTIAL description (of parinirvana) is in any way true?

A partial description must fall short of a full description. Hence any partial description must fall short of the whole truth. All partial descriptions are false.

So then, your claim that “full enlightenment” is possible while in earthly-life is not true!

No, you are confusing full enlightenment, which was attained by the Buddha at age 35, with parinirvana which was obtained by the Buddha at age 80. The two are different.

Which is it? Is “full enlightenment” possible while earthly-alive, or not?

Yes. The Buddha did it.

rossum

 

[rossum]

In other words, is THE Buddha not fully “enlightened” because not all of creation is yet “enlightended”?

The word “creation” is not strictly correct in a Buddhist context. Full enlightenment does not depend on the enlightenment of others.

So, your “person” gets to choose whether to become “fully enlightened” or choose to help others to become “more enlightened”?

How is having that choice not dependent on you retaining your “person-ness”? I thought the goal was to “de-person” your person?

Your ideas do not make sense here. We can make a choice without involving our “person-ness” in it. The Buddha stated that he made this choice not for any personal reasons but in order not to distract his monks with irrelevant detail. His choice merely shows his skill as a teacher.

So, THE Buddha, the MOST “enlightened”, has PERSONALLY chosen not to fully reveal things that cold be revealed?

It sounds to me as though THE Buddha, the FULLY AND COMPLETELY “enlightened”, still retains some “person-ness” to me.

Your omniscient God has also chosen not to reveal the great bulk of what He knows. If he had done so then the Bible would be huge and filled with immense amounts of irrelevant detail. It would be impossible to find the information required for salvation among the weather reports from Jupiter. By limiting the information in the Bible God makes it easier to see what is important (Love your neighbour) without having to wade through irrelevancies.

The Buddha did the same. He taught what was useful; spending time teaching useless information would have shown a lack of compassion for his listeners. His choice was directed by compassion, not by personal motives.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I’m not talking about “A” buddha. I’m talking about “THE Buddha”.

Is “THE Buddha” a somehow “special case” of an “enlightened being”? (I added the “an” in there to be more clear.)

Buddha is a title. The historical Buddha was a man named Shakya Gautama Siddhartha. There have been other Buddhas in the past and there will be more Buddhas in the future. The next Buddha (Maitreya) will appear after the Buddhist religion has declined and disappeared and will refound the religion.

All these are fully enlightened teaching Buddhas. They find the path to enlightenment for themselves and refound the Buddhist religion to help other follow that path.

The next grade down is the Private Buddha. These appear during the time that the Buddhist religion is not present. They find the path to enlightenment for themselves but do not teach others.

Arhats attain enlightenment by following the Buddhist religion.

There is a lot of good information about Buddhism available on the web. Start at buddhanet.net/. These sorts of questions can be answered there.

rossum