SPLIT: Catholicism vs. other world religions

[rossum]

What a shame that a nice discussion has ended up with the old theist vs a-theist arguments.

I am not strictly atheist, there are tens of thousands of gods in Buddhist scritpures. They are just not of any particular importance - their main function seems to be to applaud in the right places.

I have never known anyone from either side being convinced by the argument of the other.

All too true. Personal experience and personal example seem to be much more effective. Such discussions do allow us to get a better idea of how other people think, which is not always a bad thing.

rossum

 

[notself]

I am not strictly atheist, there are tens of thousands of gods in Buddhist scritpures. They are just not of any particular importance - their main function seems to be to applaud in the right places.

All too true. Personal experience and personal example seem to be much more effective. Such discussions do allow us to get a better idea of how other people think, which is not always a bad thing.

rossum

What a great description. Devas, applauding in the right places is exactly what they do. Of course they also convinced the Buddha to teach.

 

[Kay_Cee]

My apologies. What I type is not always what I mean

No harm done. Apologies accepted.

Firstly, the Buddhist path. The Buddha got to the top and told us about it. Others since the Buddha have also got to the top and have told us about it. There are some people who have got very close to the top and have then come back down to help those of us who are still toiling upwards (these are Bodhisattvas). I have been told the landmarks that I will pass on the path, and I have duly passed some of the earlier landmarks in the order specified. I have reasonable confidence that this path is correct.

Secondly the Christian path. We can see that there is a great deal of overlap between the two paths. Morality and love for our neighbours is common to both. Meditation can be found in both (though it is more difficult to find in the Christian tradition). Much that is written of the Christian path also applies to what I have seen of the Buddhist path: “nada, nada, nada, y en el monte, nada.” Dionysius the Areopagite, Meister Eckhardt and Thomas Merton are also very Buddhist in their approach.

Thirdly, how can there be more than one mountain?

Because you haven’t defined what you mean by the mountain. If you mean a path toward a goal, I would point out that people have different goals (summits) that they are aiming for. Under those circumstances, there would be different mountains, since the paths would lead to different ends.

But how can anybody claim to know where the paths lead, unless he has been at the summit? If my path is heading up the other side of the mountain, how can you tell it isn’t blocked? How can you tell it doesn’t come to a dead end? How can you tell it arrives at the summit? It seems to me one would need a cosmic perspective to be able to say with any certainty where the paths lead. I’ve climbed mountains, and I can tell you getting close to the summit is insufficient. You have to actually be at the summit in order to see the entire mountain. In other words, you need a cosmic perspective to know where any path in someone’s life leads.

No, I believe in the insufficiency of non-eternal human language and finite human minds to understand the eternal and non-finite. The parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant is relevant here:“Once, in this same Savatthi, there was a certain king who said to a certain man, ‘Gather together all the people in Savatthi who have been blind from birth.’”"‘As you say, your majesty,’ the man replied and, rounding up all the people in Savatthi who had been blind from birth, he went to the king and on arrival said, ‘Your majesty, the people in Savatthi who have been blind from birth have been gathered together.’"‘Very well then, show the blind people an elephant.’"‘As you say, your majesty,’ the man replied and he showed the blind people an elephant. To some of the blind people he showed the head of the elephant, saying, ‘This, blind people, is what an elephant is like.’ To some of them he showed an ear of the elephant, saying, ‘This, blind people, is what an elephant is like.’ To some of them he showed a tusk… the trunk… the body… a foot… the hindquarters… the tail… the tuft at the end of the tail, saying, ‘This, blind people, is what an elephant is like.’“Then, having shown the blind people the elephant, the man went to the king and on arrival said, ‘Your majesty, the blind people have seen the elephant. May your majesty do what you think it is now time to do.’“Then the king went to the blind people and on arrival asked them, ‘Blind people, have you seen the elephant?’”‘Yes, your majesty. We have seen the elephant.’”‘Now tell me, blind people, what the elephant is like.’"The blind people who had been shown the head of the elephant replied, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a water jar.’"Those who had been shown the ear of the elephant replied, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a winnowing basket.’"Those who had been shown the tusk of the elephant replied, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like an iron rod.’"Those who had been shown the trunk of the elephant replied, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like the pole of a plow.’"Those who had been shown the body of the elephant replied, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a granary.’"Those who had been shown the foot of the elephant replied, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a post.’"Those who had been shown the hindquarters of the elephant replied, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a mortar.’"Those who had been shown the tail of the elephant replied, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a pestle.’"Those who had been shown the tuft at the end of the tail of the elephant replied, ‘The elephant, your majesty, is just like a broom.’"Saying, ‘The elephant is like this, it’s not like that. The elephant’s not like that, it’s like this,’ they struck one another with their fists. That gratified the king.Udana 6:4We are blind men trying to describe an elephant.

I don’t think the analogy holds.

First of all, you claim not to be blind, since you claim to know where the paths lead. One would have to be able to see the paths in order to do that.

Secondly, if you’re truly blind and experience only a part of the elephant, how do you know I’m also touching an elephant? Since you can’t see me and what I’m touching, how would you know I’m touching the same animal and not touching a different animal next to the elephant? (Please note: I’m not asking if there’s a different animal. I’m asking, since you’re blind, *exactly how you know *it’s not a different animal.)

The story is told from the point of view of one who has a cosmic perspective and therefore already knows what the blind men are touching, not from the perspective of someone who’s truly blind and doesn’t know what he’s touching. So, again, this is a claim of a cosmic perspective, which is not being blind at all.

Possibly, but we can never know for sure if there are or not because we have no absolutely reliable way of telling whether a truth is absolute or not. What absolutely verified way is there to determine whether or not a statement is an absolute truth? Even the fact that a statement is made in a human language probably disqualifies it because all human languages are contingent, not absolute.

rossum

So, is it absolutely true that “we can never know for sure if there are or not because we have no absolutely reliable way of telling whether a truth is absolute or not”? In other words, is it absolutely true we have no reliable way of telling if a truth is absolute or not?

If so, there must be at least one absolute truth.

If not, why did you tell me that?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Kay Cee,

This is the trouble with analogies; they never clearly define reality but only act as a spark to get one thinking. So let’s drop analogies and go with what the Buddha taught. I am Theravada so I am giving the Theravada POV. I hope I don’t confuse you because some of what I will say and quote will use different terms than Rossum. I respect Rossum’s knowledge of Buddhism in general and Mahayana Buddhism in particular.

I will be quoting from two sources: What the Buddha Taught by Wapola Rahula and the Pali Canon which contains the oldest forms of the teachings of the Buddha that are available today.

First of all, in my opinion, there is an absolute in Buddhism. This absolute is represented by the Four Noble Truths. Here is my understanding. Please be aware that there are volumes written about each of these truths.

1. Dukkha - this is normally translated as suffering, but it means much more. It means tension, unsatisfactory, impermanent. This is not to say that there is no happiness but even the happiest times end.
2. There is a cause or origin of Dukkha. This is tanha which is translated as thirst or craving. It is the thirst for things to stay the same or for things to be different than they are.
3. There is a cessation of Dukkha. It is possible to end the “unsatisfactoriness” of life and experience the liberation from tanha, the extinction of thirst.
4. There is a path to the cessation of Dukkha called the Noble Eightfold Path. Here is a quote from What the Buddha Taught.

These are the absolutes of Buddhism as I see them. As for knowing whether I am on the right path, I know by my experience. I hope this answers your questions.

Thank you for all of this. It’s good to know Buddhism does believe in some absolutes.

 

[notself]

But how can anybody claim to know where the paths lead, unless he has been at the summit?

In other words, is it absolutely true we have no reliable way of telling if a truth is absolute or not?

Kay Cee,

I would be very interested in hearing your answers to these questions.

I suggest that the answer to the first question would be a map.

The answer to the second question would be by following the map and checking its accuracy along the way.

Metta
notself

 

[Kay_Cee]

Kay Cee,

I would be very interested in hearing your answers to these questions.

I suggest that the answer to the first question would be a map.

The answer to the second question would be by following the map and checking its accuracy along the way.

Metta
notself

What questions? I see no questions in your response.

Besides, I don’t claim to have answers. My claim is that I’m hear to seek truth.

 

[notself]

What questions? I see no questions in your response.

Besides, I don’t claim to have answers. My claim is that I’m hear to seek truth.

This quote from your post was in my response. They are questions from you. I am repeating them again.

Originally Posted by Kay Cee
But how can anybody claim to know where the paths lead, unless he has been at the summit?

In other words, is it absolutely true we have no reliable way of telling if a truth is absolute or not?

 

[rossum]

But how can anybody claim to know where the paths lead, unless he has been at the summit?

The Buddha has been to the summit. Every enlightened person since then has been to the summit. As notself has said, those who have been to the summit left us maps.

First of all, you claim not to be blind, since you claim to know where the paths lead. One would have to be able to see the paths in order to do that.

I am still blind, but I have what I believe to be a reliable map. All that is marked on the map as far as I have travelled has been right so I am reasonably sure that the map is accurate and worth following.

The story is told from the point of view of one who has a cosmic perspective

Indeed, it comes from a Buddhist scripture, the Udana, and was spoken by the Buddha. The elephant is reality, so if there is only one reality then there can only be one elephant. The story was told by the Buddha in response to arguments among members of various non-Buddhist religious groups.

So, is it absolutely true that “we can never know for sure if there are or not because we have no absolutely reliable way of telling whether a truth is absolute or not”? In other words, is it absolutely true we have no reliable way of telling if a truth is absolute or not?

My claim is not absolute, all I claim is that in a practical sense, here and now, we do not have a means to determine absolute truth. I cannot speak for either the past or the future. Here and now there is no way to tell, so here and now I cannot separate absolute truth from contingent truth.

If so, there must be at least one absolute truth.

Not so, hence there does not have to be at least one absolute truth.

If not, why did you tell me that?

I did not, my apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. We cannot have absolute certainty this side of enlightenment. Since we are not yet enlightened we have to live with an element of uncertainty.

rossum

 

[Kay_Cee]

The Buddha has been to the summit. Every enlightened person since then has been to the summit. As notself has said, those who have been to the summit left us maps.

So your faith is in Buddha?

I am still blind, but I have what I believe to be a reliable map. All that is marked on the map as far as I have travelled has been right so I am reasonably sure that the map is accurate and worth following.

So your faith is in Buddha?

Indeed, it comes from a Buddhist scripture, the Udana, and was spoken by the Buddha. The elephant is reality, so if there is only one reality then there can only be one elephant. The story was told by the Buddha in response to arguments among members of various non-Buddhist religious groups.

But, see, only now do you define terms. And, once again, your faith is in Buddha?

My claim is not absolute, all I claim is that in a practical sense, here and now, we do not have a means to determine absolute truth. I cannot speak for either the past or the future. Here and now there is no way to tell, so here and now I cannot separate absolute truth from contingent truth.

But if there’s no way to tell, why are you claiming that “here and now, we do not have a means to determine absolute truth”? How can you tell if there’s no way to tell?

Not so, hence there does not have to be at least one absolute truth.

I did not, my apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. We cannot have absolute certainty this side of enlightenment. Since we are not yet enlightened we have to live with an element of uncertainty.

rossum

So you’re certain “We cannot have absolute certainty this side of enlightenment”?

Forgive me, but these claims seem contradictory.

 

[Kay_Cee]

This quote from your post was in my response. They are questions from you. I am repeating them again.

I don’t claim to have answers, which is why I ask questions.

Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths? If the answer is no, doesn’t that mean it’s false that there are no absolute truths? And therefore, doesn’t that mean there are absolute truths?

But if the answer is yes, doesn’t that mean it’s absolutely true that there are no absolute truths? But then wouldn’t there be at least one absolute truth–the statement that there are no absolute truths? So then how could one say there are no absolute truths?

I ask questions because I don’t see a way out of that dilemma.

 

[notself]

I don’t claim to have answers, which is why I ask questions.

Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths? If the answer is no, doesn’t that mean it’s false that there are no absolute truths? And therefore, doesn’t that mean there are absolute truths?

But if the answer is yes, doesn’t that mean it’s absolutely true that there are no absolute truths? But then wouldn’t there be at least one absolute truth–the statement that there are no absolute truths? So then how could one say there are no absolute truths?

I ask questions because I don’t see a way out of that dilemma.

Kay Cee, you raise interesting points but the answers are unimportant if they are not based on experience but only on speculation.

One can declare an answer that God is the absolute or the dhamma (dharma) is the absolute but without the experience of the absolute there can be no certainty. Christians talk about their faith. Buddhists talk about their practice and under specific circumstances about their attainments.

If you don’t mind, I will answer some of the questions you have asked rossum. I will tell you about my experience. When I read my first book about Buddhism (What the Buddha Taught) it made so much sense to me that I decided to read further. I would not call this first step faith but rather curiosity. As I read further and started to meditate, I began to see small changes in my life; less stress, less anger, more awareness of my thinking patterns. I would not call these steps faith but rather analysis.

As time went by, I became more mindful, followed the precepts more closely, developed more compassion for myself and others. I was developing what I would call not faith but rather confidence in the path. It was then several years after I began that I took Refuge. I would not call this step faith but rather commitment.

There is much in the teaching that I don’t completely understand in the sense of realization, deep knowledge and insight, but I have confidence that with effort these concepts will become clearer. Right now I think they are possibly true or provisionally true but I do not have blind faith in their truth.

Although I may not understand all of the teaching or for that matter have read all the teachings (the canon is over 70 volumes not including the commentaries), there is no requirement that I have faith in those I don’t understand. I don’t have faith in the teachings, I have confidence in my ability to understand and realize the truth of the teachings.

The canon is not revealed scripture although it is sometime referred to as sacred in the sense of being an object of respect. It is not even considered to be the actual words of the Buddha. A lot can change over 2500 years. The canon is considered to be as close as possible to the Buddha’s teachings and is very internally consistent in language and message.

By the way, rossum, I am referring to the Nikayas of Theravada and the Agamas of Mahayana. There may be inconsistencies between the teachings of the later Mahayana Sages and the oldest works (Nikayas and Agamas).

If through analysis and practice, I came to the realization that a section of the teaching was not true, then I would ignore that section completely.

Kay Cee,
I hope I haven’t made your eyes glaze over with this long post. I am feeling chatty this morning.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Kay Cee, you raise interesting points but the answers are unimportant if they are not based on experience but only on speculation.

One can declare an answer that God is the absolute or the dhamma (dharma) is the absolute but without the experience of the absolute there can be no certainty. Christians talk about their faith. Buddhists talk about their practice and under specific circumstances about their attainments.

If you don’t mind, I will answer some of the questions you have asked rossum. I will tell you about my experience. When I read my first book about Buddhism (What the Buddha Taught) it made so much sense to me that I decided to read further. I would not call this first step faith but rather curiosity. As I read further and started to meditate, I began to see small changes in my life; less stress, less anger, more awareness of my thinking patterns. I would not call these steps faith but rather analysis.

As time went by, I became more mindful, followed the precepts more closely, developed more compassion for myself and others. I was developing what I would call not faith but rather confidence in the path. It was then several years after I began that I took Refuge. I would not call this step faith but rather commitment.

There is much in the teaching that I don’t completely understand in the sense of realization, deep knowledge and insight, but I have confidence that with effort these concepts will become clearer. Right now I think they are possibly true or provisionally true but I do not have blind faith in their truth.

Although I may not understand all of the teaching or for that matter have read all the teachings (the canon is over 70 volumes not including the commentaries), there is no requirement that I have faith in those I don’t understand. I don’t have faith in the teachings, I have confidence in my ability to understand and realize the truth of the teachings.

The canon is not revealed scripture although it is sometime referred to as sacred in the sense of being an object of respect. It is not even considered to be the actual words of the Buddha. A lot can change over 2500 years. The canon is considered to be as close as possible to the Buddha’s teachings and is very internally consistent in language and message.

By the way, rossum, I am referring to the Nikayas of Theravada and the Agamas of Mahayana. There may be inconsistencies between the teachings of the later Mahayana Sages and the oldest works (Nikayas and Agamas).

If through analysis and practice, I came to the realization that a section of the teaching was not true, then I would ignore that section completely.

Kay Cee,
I hope I haven’t made your eyes glaze over with this long post. I am feeling chatty this morning.

Eyes are only partially glazed.

Here’s the problem. I want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I don’t want a “maybe” “sort of” “could be” kind of truth.

You say you’re uncertain these things are true. Then why do you follow them? Why do you follow precepts if you’re not sure they’re true? I want to follow the truth, and nothing but the truth.

I guess what you’re saying is that in my search for truth, you don’t have answers for me. If that is the case, I’ll search elsewhere and thank you for your time.

 

[notself]

Eyes are only partially glazed.

Here’s the problem. I want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I don’t want a “maybe” “sort of” “could be” kind of truth.

You say you’re uncertain these things are true. Then why do you follow them? Why do you follow precepts if you’re not sure they’re true? I want to follow the truth, and nothing but the truth.

I guess what you’re saying is that in my search for truth, you don’t have answers for me. If that is the case, I’ll search elsewhere and thank you for your time.

I am saying that I am uncertain that some things are true because I don’t fully understand them. Just like someone tests and retests the hypothesis before it rises to the level of a Law, so Buddhists test and retest the teachings before their understanding can rise to the level of a realization.

You want something that I don’t believe exists in the manner you want it to. It appears to me that you want a large flashing sign that says “This is the TRUTH.” Then you can just sit under the sign and occasionally look up at it as think. “Yup, this is the truth.”

Now how exactly are you going to find this sign? You have to go looking for it. The way you are going to do that is by deep concentration, effort and analysis. And, guess what? The truth written on the sign is found in your own mind.

You have questions. What answers have you found on your journey?

 

[Kay_Cee]

I am saying that I am uncertain that some things are true because I don’t fully understand them. Just like someone tests and retests the hypothesis before it rises to the level of a Law, so Buddhists test and retest the teachings before their understanding can rise to the level of a realization.

Forgive me, but how do you know their realizations are true? Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be saying you haven’t risen to their level of realization. If that is so, how can you know the Buddhists have risen to a level of realization? Because they tell you so?

You want something that I don’t believe exists in the manner you want it to. It appears to me that you want a large flashing sign that says “This is the TRUTH.” Then you can just sit under the sign and occasionally look up at it as think. “Yup, this is the truth.”

How do you know this is what I want? Did I ever say this?

Now how exactly are you going to find this sign? You have to go looking for it. The way you are going to do that is by deep concentration, effort and analysis. And, guess what? The truth written on the sign is found in your own mind.

How do you know it’s true that “The truth written on the sign is found in your own mind”? If you don’t know for certain it’s true, why should I believe you and live my life accordingly?

You have questions. What answers have you found on your journey?

I’ve found that a lot of people can’t or won’t answer my yes/no questions. Are there absolute truths? There either are or there aren’t. But if someone says there aren’t, then it would have to be absolutely true that there are no absolute truths, which is a contradiction.

 

[rossum]

Here’s the problem. I want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I don’t want a “maybe” “sort of” “could be” kind of truth.

You are asking what it is like to swim, but you are refusing to get into the water. You cannot be certain until you have seen for yourself; otherwise you are just taking someone else’s word for it. If you are taking someone else’s word then the question becomes “Can I trust this person absolutely”, which is just as difficult a question as “Is this the absolute truth”. So asking someone else is not going to be the answer. The only person you can trust absolutely is yourself so you are going to have to find out for yourself. You can never be certain where the road leads unless you follow it to the end. If you want certainty before you leave then you will never leave your house to start on the road.

Buddhism does not offer absolute truth, it offers some helpful techniques that we think will be useful to you in both the short term and the long term. Even if you just try them in the short term then you will see some of the benefits.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Thankyou for an excellent post. Your story is very similar to mine. I too started with “This looks interesting, I will try it”, moving on to “This works, I will stick with it”.

I will tell you about my experience. When I read my first book about Buddhism (What the Buddha Taught) it made so much sense to me that I decided to read further. I would not call this first step faith but rather curiosity. As I read further and started to meditate, I began to see small changes in my life; less stress, less anger, more awareness of my thinking patterns. I would not call these steps faith but rather analysis.

I too came across Walpola Rahula’s book at an early stage. An excellent introduction: What the Buddha Taught.

(the canon is over 70 volumes not including the commentaries),

The Mahayana has over 100 volumes of sutras, plus another 100 for the commentaries. Think yourself lucky.

By the way, rossum, I am referring to the Nikayas of Theravada and the Agamas of Mahayana. There may be inconsistencies between the teachings of the later Mahayana Sages and the oldest works (Nikayas and Agamas).

From a Mahayana perspective I do not see any real differences of substance between the Mahayana and the Shravakayana. There are different emphases but they obviously both approach the same goal. One Zen Master said “All differences are falsely imagined.” The difference between an arhat and a bodhisattva is just another falsely imagined difference.

Thanks again for an excellent post.

rossum

 

[notself]

Forgive me, but how do you know their realizations are true? Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be saying you haven’t risen to their level of realization. If that is so, how can you know the Buddhists have risen to a level of realization? Because they tell you so?

Because by following the path I have had some realizations. I expect to have more. I thought I made this clear in my previous posts.

How do you know this is what I want? Did I ever say this?

 

[notself]

From a Mahayana perspective I do not see any real differences of substance between the Mahayana and the Shravakayana. There are different emphases but they obviously both approach the same goal. One Zen Master said “All differences are falsely imagined.” The difference between an arhat and a bodhisattva is just another falsely imagined difference.

 

[Sarpedon]

In Buddhism there are three catagories of acts and thoughts. They are wholeome, unwholsome and neurtral acts and thoughts.

Desire for Nibbana (Nirvana) is wholesome. Desire for learning, desire for a decent income for ones family, earning ones income by moral means are all wholesome actions.

Greed, lust, vanity, etc. are unwholesome actions and thoughts.

So some desires are good and helpful?

If so, why should we try to extinguish them?

Is it possible to extinguish desire if the attempts to extinguish it result from desire?

Rossum, what is your take on this?

 

[Sarpedon]

This is for you to decide. Buddhism is not for everyone.

Okay, but you can’t expect converts if you give no reason to believe Buddhism over any other religion.

One example of a very effective form of meditation is Metta. In order to have the results of Metta, one needs to understand the teaching behind the meditation. Another form of meditation is Vipassana. One cannot practice Vipassana without knowing the theory. In fact Vipassana is the test of the theory.

Meditation on the breath, Anapanasati, is the simplest form of meditation and can be practiced without a great deal of theory but even this basic form will be more effective if you understand the why of what is happening.

So, by understanding and doing these meditations, I will be able to see the entire truth of Buddhism? Finding that meditation has positive health benefits is not enough. If I find “inner peace” through meditation, then all I have found is that meditation leads to inner peace. Not that our “selves” are reincarnating over and over until we extinguish desire and reach nirvana, through certain techniques. If we fail in this regard, we can still reach lesser heavens and hells before returning to the cycle of rebirth".

Buddhists don’t practice blind faith. Every teaching must be put into practice and tested as to its effectiveness.

False. In the ending the desire (craving) one developes equanimity in the face of both good times and bad. This is the way to peace.

Is there anything you do not end desire for?

Nibbana (Nirvana) is the unconditioned. Nothingness assumes there is something therefore it is conditioned or dependent upon something.

I am talking in the practical sense rather than metaphysical. For practical purposes, something that desires nothing (neither good nor bad) has little effect on anything. If I don’t want to be bad, and I don’t want to be good, and I don’t want to have fun or be miserable, then I will probably do nothing at all. This makes my life irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, just as someone who hides in his room doing nothing has little effect on the course of the world.