SPLIT: Catholicism vs. other world religions

[Sarpedon]

To quote Nostra Aetate:The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.
We all live in the same world, and all religions have looked at that world and drawn certain lessons from it. “You shall not kill” and others. Using the correct techniques will work whether or not the theory behind the techniques is correct or not. The theory behind Netwon’s gravity (action at a distance) was wrong, yet Newton’s gravity worked well enough within the they known limits of accuracy. Not killing works whether you are not killing because Christ said not to, Krishna said not to or the Buddha said not to. Not killing works because it is consistent with the way the world works.

So why follow Buddhism at all? Why are we having this discussion?

Buddhist doctrines are not really that “obvious” and it is not that clear that they “work”. Sure, I can accept that not killing is consistent with the way the world works. What about desire being “undesirable” (if such a position is logically possible)? It is not that clear that Buddhist view on desire is evidenced by “the way the world works”. In fact, many would find the opposite intuitively superior, for most of us have an innate sense that it is good to desire righteous and holy things and to use that desire for the greater good.

Meditation works. By meditation I could in principle remember my previous lives (Visuddhimagga, chapter 13, para 22). Others have done this and confirmed it. By meditation I can reach nirvana, others have done this and confirmed it. Those who have reached nirvana have confirmed that it is desire, hatred and delusion which drive our ongoing rebirths, and that stopping desire, hatred and delusion stops the round of rebirths.

I cannot accept nirvana as proof, because it takes a lifetime to attain, by which point I have committed by fate to Buddhism. This is like saying that the evidence for Catholicism will come after death.

Remembering past lives could function as a proof, although there is a great potential for it being mistaken as a result of psychologic factors. Also, what extent of Buddhist dogma would this support? Merely knowing that we have had past lives would only validate reincarnation, not Buddhism. There would be other explanations to reincarnation, such as , I believe, Hinduism. We would need to seek further proof.

Is there anything besides this technique to support the claim that Buddhism accurately describes the way the world “works”?

You have a strange idea of love. Some people are angry. In any situation they tend to react with anger, it does not really matter who they are with or who they are talking to, they are just angry. Some people are loving. In any situation they tend to react with love, it does not really matter who they are with or who they are talking to, they are just loving. Saint Francis is a very good example. Bodhisattvas are the same, they are not reacting differently to different people, they react to everyone in the same way, with love.

You said that:
“The perfect gift is given with no idea of a giver, no idea of a recipient and no idea of a gift.”

To that, I said:
"That’s like saying that two computers intiating a file transfer is love. "

The reason I said that is that computers have no idea that they are giving a packet, that the recipient is real or that the packet is real. Thus, it seems to me like a computer would be capable of love under your definition.

There is also a great deal of similarity in the morality of the two religions, and what there is of meditation in Christianity (the Jesus Prayer for example, or the Rosary) is compatible with the early stages of Buddhist meditation.

Christian meditation has entirely different aims than Buddhist meditation. Christian meditation is directed toward God, while Buddhist meditation is directed toward the self, so that the individual may reach nirvana. This is a key difference between Christianity and Buddhism- Christianity is entirely focused on those apart from yourself, while Buddhism is focused on perfecting yourself.

From the Buddhist point of view, both Jesus and Francis of Assisi were probably Bodhisattvas. I do not see either of them as fading away into practical nothingness.

From our perspecive. If they have reached Nirvana, what are they doing now? Anything?

It is our natural state.

What caused us to leave our natural state?

I can keep on making endless questions of this sort because Buddhism doesn’t off much in the way of explanation for why its doctines are true, it simply affirms them.

You seem to be misunderstanding the Buddhist view of the world. The world is not what it appears to be, but neither is it nothingness. It is in the middle between the two. A mirage is not what it appears to be - there is no real water. A mirage is not nothingness - nothingness does not look like water, while a mirage does. A mirage is deceptive but it is not nothingness. The world is deceptive, but it is not nothingness. Enlightenment is seeing the world as it really is, not as its deceptive surface appearance and not as nothingness.

Why should we see the world the way it is? So that we don’t suffer? Of course, we can’t desire to see the world the way it is. Why should we desire to escape suffering? Isn’t that defeating the purpose, from your perspective?

I make the mistake of seeking happiness in alcohol. I have a drink and I feel happy for a short time. Afterwards I want to be happy again so I desire another drink. The short-term temporary reward feeds back to increase my desire for a drink.

What if I seek happiness by serving others? Will this cause more desire? How is this different?

 

[notself]

Sarpedon;4098334]Okay, but you can’t expect converts if you give no reason to believe Buddhism over any other religion.

We don’t expect converts. No one converted me. I don’t try to convert others. I will explain Buddhism, but I am not concerned if you do not agree with me. I do not think you will go to hell for rejecting Buddhism.

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".

Could you rephrase this? I don’t understand what you are asking.

How do we test the following teachings?

You test the teachings by actually living a life of morality, concentration (mindfulness) and wisdom. You put the teachings into practice by your thoughts and actions. As you do so, your happiness will increase. I think I provided a link to an article about the brain scans of Buddhist meditators, but if I didn’t here it is.

psyphz.psych.wisc.edu/web/News/Meditation_Alters_Brain_WSJ_11-04.htm

“Failing to reach Nirvana, we can reach lesser heavens and hells”

“We are continually reincarnated until we reach Nirvana”

“It is possible to reach a cessation of all desire”

These are not my quotes so I will let someone else respond.

Is there anything you do not end desire for?

I do not end desire for wholesome thoughts and actions.

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.

The effort is to end both desire and aversion. One seeks to remain in a state of equanimity rather than experience the ups and downs of emotional turmoil. This quote explains it rather well.

“The word “equanimity” is used in the Canon in two basic senses: 1) a neutral feeling in the absence of pleasure and pain, and 2) an attitude of even-mindedness in the face of every sort of experience, regardless of whether pleasure and pain are present or not. The attitude of even-mindedness is what is meant here.” —from Wings to Awakening: Part III

 

[rossum]

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?

We desire to attain nirvana. Once we have attained nirvana then we no longer have that desire because it has been satisfied. We extinguish the desire for nirvana by attaining nirvana.

A Bodhisattva does good without the intervention of desire because that is the only possible thing a Bodhisattva can do. It takes many lifetimes of training to become a Bodhisattva, and after that time doing good has become automatic like a reflex action. There is no desire involved in a reflex action.

rossum

 

[rossum]

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

Buddhism works and is testable. If you want a religion that works and is testable then welcome. If not then we wish you well on the path that you chose to follow. If you change your mind then Buddhism is here for you.

So, by understanding and doing these meditations, I will be able to see the entire truth of Buddhism?

Yes.

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.

This is surely a worthwhile goal in itself.

Not that our “selves” are reincarnating over and over until we extinguish desire and reach nirvana, through certain techniques.

Read chapter 13 of the Visuddhimagga (the Nanamoli translation is the best I have seen) where the techniques for remembering your past lives are explained. These techniques involve meditation - you start by remembering backwards through your current life.

If we fail in this regard, we can still reach lesser heavens and hells before returning to the cycle of rebirth".

Remembering past lives is an optional extra if you wish to pursue it, it is not essential. Rebirth in the heavens, hells, as a human or as an animal etc. is a result of not reaching enlightenment, not whether or not we have remembered past lives.

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

How do we test the following teachings?

“Failing to reach Nirvana, we can reach lesser heavens and hells”

By remembering past lives.

“We are continually reincarnated until we reach Nirvana”

By remembering past lives and by attaining nirvana.

“It is possible to reach a cessation of all desire”

By reaching the cessation of all desire.

Is there anything you do not end desire for?

This side of enlightenment we cannot end all desire, we are still unenlightened. Once we are enlightened, all desire has ended - we just act as we should because there is no other way we can act.

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.

We can act from other motives than desire. We can act because we must do something. We can act because we know that we should do something. We can act because the action is morally right. None of these require desire.

The Buddha did not sit in his room doing nothing after his enlightenment. Neither did/do other enlightened Buddhists. Your characterisation of an enlightened individual does not match the reality of such individuals. The Buddha cannot be said to have had “little effect on the course of the world”.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So why follow Buddhism at all? Why are we having this discussion?

You are asking questions. We are answering them. Cease to answer question and we will cease to answer them. I follow Buddhism because it works.

What about desire being “undesirable” (if such a position is logically possible)?

The Second Noble Truth of Buddhism says:“And this, monks is the noble truth of the origination of suffering: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.”

Samyutta Nikaya 56:11
Desire for sensual pleasure, desire for existence and desire for non-existence are all “undesirable” because they cause further “becoming”, that is further rebirths and hence further old age, further illness and further death.

I cannot accept nirvana as proof, because it takes a lifetime to attain, by which point I have committed by fate to Buddhism.

It took the Buddha six years from leaving home to enlightenment. That is not a lifetime.

Remembering past lives could function as a proof, although there is a great potential for it being mistaken as a result of psychologic factors. Also, what extent of Buddhist dogma would this support? Merely knowing that we have had past lives would only validate reincarnation, not Buddhism. There would be other explanations to reincarnation, such as , I believe, Hinduism. We would need to seek further proof.

As I said, Buddhism is a description of the world. Hindu meditators have also remembered their past lives using very similar techniques and have independently verified that part of Buddhism. The differences between Hinduism and Buddhism rest mainly in the treatment of “self”: Buddhism sees the “self” as illusory - anatman wile Hinduism (loosely) sees the self as God - atman.

Is there anything besides this technique to support the claim that Buddhism accurately describes the way the world “works”?

I was just talking about one technique to show one point. You will need different techniques to show different points.

You said that:
“The perfect gift is given with no idea of a giver, no idea of a recipient and no idea of a gift.”

To that, I said:
"That’s like saying that two computers intiating a file transfer is love. "

The reason I said that is that computers have no idea that they are giving a packet, that the recipient is real or that the packet is real. Thus, it seems to me like a computer would be capable of love under your definition.

Computers are not (yet) living beings and cannot (yet) attain enlightenment.

Christian meditation has entirely different aims than Buddhist meditation. Christian meditation is directed toward God, while Buddhist meditation is directed toward the self, so that the individual may reach nirvana. This is a key difference between Christianity and Buddhism- Christianity is entirely focused on those apart from yourself, while Buddhism is focused on perfecting yourself.

Buddhist meditation is focused on ridding yourself of the mistaken idea that you have a “self”. It helps you to see that what you think of as your “self” actually is no such thing. Buddhist meditation sets out to destroy the incorrect notion of a self. Once we have eliminated the incorrect idea of a self, then behaving in a “selfless” way becomes automatic. Hence what I said about the perfect gift. There is no idea of a “self” in the giver, there is no idea of a “self” in the recipient and there is no idea of a “self” in the gift.

From our perspecive. If they have reached Nirvana, what are they doing now? Anything?

A Bodhisattva is someone who has almost reached nirvana, and can either proceed to nirvana (as did the Buddha) or can postpone nirvana and so remain in the world helping others. I cannot say certainly what either is doing now, they may be reborn somewhere and helping others or they may have attained nirvana.

What caused us to leave our natural state?

Ignorance and desire.

I can keep on making endless questions of this sort because Buddhism doesn’t off much in the way of explanation for why its doctines are true, it simply affirms them.

It offers them to you to try out. You cannot learn how to swim just by asking questions or reading books. Eventually you have to get into the water and swim. Buddhism is something you do, not something you believe.

Why should we see the world the way it is? So that we don’t suffer?

Yes. The suffering comes from the disconnect between the way we want to world to be and the way the world actually is. Reality has a way of breaking dreams and that causes us suffering.

What if I seek happiness by serving others? Will this cause more desire? How is this different?

It is a wholesome desire, and so will tend to move you in the right direction. When you are further along the path you can drop the desire to help others and just help others without the element of desire. The Buddha told the parable of the raft. A raft is useful for crossing a river, but it is stupid to then carry the raft on our backs after we have crossed and are continuing our journey on land. Wholesome desires can help us to get so far, but we need to leave them behind to complete the journey. From where most of us are starting from we will find wholesome desires useful.

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

It seems to me that all the support for Buddhism boils down to the assertation that it can be tested.

I am not willing to accept Nirvana as proof, because that would be like saying that the proof for Catholicism or Islam or any other religion will come after death. I want something to help me decide which religion to follow while I have the choice, not after the fact.

So far, the only other evidence I have seen is remembering past lives. I would like to see a detailed explanation of how we know the technique is reliable (and not deceptive), and how it validates each point of Buddhist doctrine. Simply observing that past lives exist is not enough, for then Hinduism or nw age religions can account for it.

 

[Sarpedon]

You are asking questions. We are answering them. Cease to answer question and we will cease to answer them. I follow Buddhism because it works.

You responded to my statement in the other thread, so you are on the offensive.

It took the Buddha six years from leaving home to enlightenment. That is not a lifetime.

Fair enough, but still that’s like saying the proof for Catholicism will come after death.

The differences between Hinduism and Buddhism rest mainly in the treatment of “self”: Buddhism sees the “self” as illusory - anatman wile Hinduism (loosely) sees the self as God - atman.

How do you test your proposition?

I was just talking about one technique to show one point. You will need different techniques to show different points.

Such as?

Computers are not (yet) living beings and cannot (yet) attain enlightenment.

And yet, according to your definition, they are capable of love.

Buddhist meditation is focused on ridding yourself of the mistaken idea that you have a “self”. It helps you to see that what you think of as your “self” actually is no such thing. Buddhist meditation sets out to destroy the incorrect notion of a self. Once we have eliminated the incorrect idea of a self, then behaving in a “selfless” way becomes automatic. Hence what I said about the perfect gift.

Still, the focus is inward. You focus on making “yourself” realize their is no self, and thus no more suffering for you.

Contrary to popular belief, the focus of Catholicism is not on securing heaven for yourself. One should desire to be in a state of grace and in the friendship of God for His sake alone, and heaven follows as an effect of that.

Of course, not everyone manages to reach this level of holiness. God will still admit those with imperfect contrition to heaven, although they have not developed their ability to love as deeply as they could have.

There is no idea of a “self” in the giver, there is no idea of a “self” in the recipient and there is no idea of a “self” in the gift.

This situation exists when two computers share an automatic file transfer.

 

[rossum]

It seems to me that all the support for Buddhism boils down to the assertation that it can be tested.

Almost. It is that you can test it. If you do not want to test it then that is up to you. We cannot test it for you, any more than we can learn to swim for you.

I am not willing to accept Nirvana as proof, because that would be like saying that the proof for Catholicism or Islam or any other religion will come after death. I want something to help me decide which religion to follow while I have the choice, not after the fact.

The Buddha attained nirvana within six years, and he had to work out much of the path from scratch. You have the benefit of the advice of all the others who have travelled the path before you. Why not just try it for a year? If you feel that you have made good progress then continue. If you have not made good progress then try something else.

So far, the only other evidence I have seen is remembering past lives. I would like to see a detailed explanation of how we know the technique is reliable (and not deceptive), and how it validates each point of Buddhist doctrine. Simply observing that past lives exist is not enough, for then Hinduism or nw age religions can account for it.

Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, New Age and Judaism all have one or more heavens and hells. By your argument you have to be agnostic between all of them. Pick the one that seems the most congenial and follow it.

rossum

 

[Kay_Cee]

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

So, just to be clear, the best Buddhism can offer is helpful techniques?

 

[Kay_Cee]

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.

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

Is this a debate about Catholicism and other religions or just Buddhism? I havent read the thread in its entirety but it seems to be based on a debate between Buddhism and Catholicism. Ironcially, my first trip to a Buddhist temple consisted of 6 people mostly all converts from Buddhism. Here is a thought provoking tanget did you know that one theory posists Buddha is mentioned in the quran;
*
An opinion that has gained popularity in recent times is that Dhul-Kifl refers to Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism; Kifl being an Arabicised version of Kapilavastu the place where the Buddha was born.*

 

[notself]

Kay Cee;4105001
Forgive me if I’m slow. I’m not all that smart.
It sounds to me like you have faith in the persons who have shown you this path. Is that correct?

I have confidence in the authors of the books I read and the audio dharma talks that I listen to. I read several translations of the Pali Canon and reflect on the words there. I would be glad to provide links to specific topics if you wish. I am a sole practitioner. I have never met another Buddhist face to face although I have been a moderator on a Buddhist forum. I was not brought to Buddhism by someone knocking on my door or by dropping in at a local temple. I was reading about various religions and philosophies and ran across the book, What the Buddha Taught and bang that was it for me.

I started looking for more about Buddhism on line and found Access to Insight. This is a quote from Ajahn Chah, a highly revered monk explaining the stages of practice.

*First you understand the Dhamma with your thoughts. If you begin to understand it, you will practice it. And if you practice it, you will begin to see it. And when you see it, you are the Dhamma, and you have the joy of the Buddha. *

How is this different to what you do in following your religion? Do you listen to your priest, read the gospels and read books written by respected Catholics? Do you not then reflect upon and analyze what you have heard and read?

I am on a search for truth. I don’t need a flashing sign, but I do need as much certainty as possible. That is why I ask questions, in an attempt to get at the truth. I’m sorry if sometimes the questions seem annoying, and I do appreciate the time and effort you put into your responses.

I enjoy your questions but I am frustrated with myself, with my inability to phrase my answers in a way that is clear to you. So let me ask some questions because I may not understand what you are looking for.

Why are you on a search for the truth? Does the Catholic Church not fulfill this for you? Most of the Catholics on this board have deep faith that if the Church says something then for them it is the truth. Is your faith more skeptical?

What certainty would convince you that a specific path will lead to the truth? Would you have to see a vision or hear a voice or experience some sign? Has this not occurred through your Catholic faith?

Well, it seems to me beliefs are based upon something. They’re not just pulled out of thin air (or at least we would hope they’re not!)

The teachings of Siddhartha Gotama are based on his experience in searching for a way to overcome the suffering of existence. They were based on his intellect and efforts just as the philosophies of all great minds are.

You seem to believe Buddhism is the way to go. I’m trying to figure out what you’re basing that belief upon. You seem to be saying that you’ve had some experience with it, it seems to be working, and based upon that past experience, you are confident about traveling that path in the future. Is that correct?

Yes. Buddhism is the way to go for me. I do not believe that Buddhism is the way for everyone. If you need a belief in a God who acts as a spiritual parent, law giver, and savior then Buddhism is not for you.

I would have to go by dictionary definitions that are common to us all.
I get the feeling you’re upset with me. Why is that so? I’m not making any judgments here. All I am doing is asking questions. My hope is that we’ll both learn something even if we don’t come to an agreement.

I am not upset with you. I enjoy our conversation very much. I am just trying to pin down what you think about your life at the present moment. Are you finding happiness on you present path? Do you feel you are making moral progress? Why are you on your search?

I am seeking the truth, as I said from the beginning. I do believe in faith, but I’m uncertain just what you’re placing your faith in, which is why I’m asking questions. I was hoping to understand more about Buddhism.

I take Refuge in the Buddha in the sense that he actually obtained Nibbana. I take Refuge in the Sangha, that other people following the teachings have also obtained Nibbana. I take Refuge in the Dhamma, the teachings themselves that by following the teachings I will reach the goal. Ultimately I am putting my faith in myself and my ability to follow the path.
When you say you want to know more about Buddhism can you be more specific as to what you want to know?

 

[notself]

Is this a debate about Catholicism and other religions or just Buddhism? I havent read the thread in its entirety but it seems to be based on a debate between Buddhism and Catholicism. Ironcially, my first trip to a Buddhist temple consisted of 6 people mostly all converts from Buddhism. Here is a thought provoking tanget did you know that one theory posists Buddha is mentioned in the quran;
*
An opinion that has gained popularity in recent times is that Dhul-Kifl refers to Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism; Kifl being an Arabicised version of Kapilavastu the place where the Buddha was born.*

Buddhist monks traveled as far as Afghanistan around 250 BCE. Those statues that were blown up by the Taliban predated Islam. Mohamed lived around 200 years after the statues were built.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I have confidence in the authors of the books I read and the audio dharma talks that I listen to. I read several translations of the Pali Canon and reflect on the words there. I would be glad to provide links to specific topics if you wish. I am a sole practitioner. I have never met another Buddhist face to face although I have been a moderator on a Buddhist forum. I was not brought to Buddhism by someone knocking on my door or by dropping in at a local temple. I was reading about various religions and philosophies and ran across the book, What the Buddha Taught and bang that was it for me.

I started looking for more about Buddhism on line and found Access to Insight. This is a quote from Ajahn Chah, a highly revered monk explaining the stages of practice.

*First you understand the Dhamma with your thoughts. If you begin to understand it, you will practice it. And if you practice it, you will begin to see it. And when you see it, you are the Dhamma, and you have the joy of the Buddha. *

How is this different to what you do in following your religion? Do you listen to your priest, read the gospels and read books written by respected Catholics? Do you not then reflect upon and analyze what you have heard and read?

I enjoy your questions but I am frustrated with myself, with my inability to phrase my answers in a way that is clear to you. So let me ask some questions because I may not understand what you are looking for.

Why are you on a search for the truth? Does the Catholic Church not fulfill this for you? Most of the Catholics on this board have deep faith that if the Church says something then for them it is the truth. Is your faith more skeptical?

I am always open to other points of view, at least to the extent of seeing what they have to say. And shouldn’t all of us be on a search for truth?

But I’m not here in this thread to discuss Catholicism. Sorry, I thought I made that clear from the start. I just had some questions about Buddhism, and I thought this would be a good place to get those questions answered.

What certainty would convince you that a specific path will lead to the truth? Would you have to see a vision or hear a voice or experience some sign? Has this not occurred through your Catholic faith?

The teachings of Siddhartha Gotama are based on his experience in searching for a way to overcome the suffering of existence. They were based on his intellect and efforts just as the philosophies of all great minds are.

Yes. Buddhism is the way to go for me. I do not believe that Buddhism is the way for everyone. If you need a belief in a God who acts as a spiritual parent, law giver, and savior then Buddhism is not for you.

This would make a terrific topic for another thread. Are there different paths for different people? It would seem to suggest a sort of subjectivity. And would it be an absolute truth that there are different paths? If yes, then there is an absolute truth. If no, then there is only one path. But, as I said, this is a topic for another thread.

Regarding the part I bolded . . . the way you have it worded seems to imply that I might need a belief just to satisfy some emotional want, like a kid who thinks he needs to believe in Santa Claus because he’s afraid if he doesn’t, he won’t get any presents. Forgive me if I’m misreading you.

I am not upset with you. I enjoy our conversation very much.

That’s good to know. I’m enjoying our conversation very much as well.

I am just trying to pin down what you think about your life at the present moment. Are you finding happiness on you present path? Do you feel you are making moral progress? Why are you on your search?

Actually, this isn’t about me, just about some questions I had about Buddhism. I’ve been trying to figure out what the beliefs are based upon.

I take Refuge in the Buddha in the sense that he actually obtained Nibbana. I take Refuge in the Sangha, that other people following the teachings have also obtained Nibbana. I take Refuge in the Dhamma, the teachings themselves that by following the teachings I will reach the goal. Ultimately I am putting my faith in myself and my ability to follow the path.
When you say you want to know more about Buddhism can you be more specific as to what you want to know?

My question is about what you place your faith in. From your answer, it seems you place your faith in these individuals you cite, but you also say you place your faith in yourself. So, it’s a mixture of faith in others and faith in yourself? Have I got it right?

 

[notself]

Kay Cee;4105447]I am always open to other points of view, at least to the extent of seeing what they have to say. And shouldn’t all of us be on a search for truth?

But I’m not here in this thread to discuss Catholicism. Sorry, I thought I made that clear from the start. I just had some questions about Buddhism, and I thought this would be a good place to get those questions answered.

I see. Sometimes words get in the way of meaning.

This would make a terrific topic for another thread. Are there different paths for different people? It would seem to suggest a sort of subjectivity. And would it be an absolute truth that there are different paths? If yes, then there is an absolute truth. If no, then there is only one path. But, as I said, this is a topic for another thread.

I do believe there are different paths. Some are more direct than others, but the truly important thing is the effort one expends in following the path.

Regarding the part I bolded . . . the way you have it worded seems to imply that I might need a belief just to satisfy some emotional want, like a kid who thinks he needs to believe in Santa Claus because he’s afraid if he doesn’t, he won’t get any presents. Forgive me if I’m misreading you.

I hope I didn’t sound so condescending. That was not my intent. It is just I have heard again and again on this forum how people need God and need to be saved. I don’t feel this need. Everyone is always talking about God as if He was a parent, a loving father. I don’t feel this need.

That’s good to know. I’m enjoying our conversation very much as well.
Actually, this isn’t about me, just about some questions I had about Buddhism. I’ve been trying to figure out what the beliefs are based upon
My question is about what you place your faith in. From your answer, it seems you place your faith in these individuals you cite, but you also say you place your faith in yourself. So, it’s a mixture of faith in others and faith in yourself? Have I got it right?

In my previous post I explained, briefly, the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. This is what Buddhism is based on. Yes, but ultimately it is up to me to walk the path of my own salvation. No one else can save me. I ran across this lovely list that explains how the path is walked. Unfortunately, I did not note the author although it is a greatly simplified version of Buddhist teaching.

Let him Come Near
Let him Listen Up
Let him Remember what he hears
Let him Think Over what he has Remembered
Let him Evaluate what he has Thought Over
Let him Test the Truth of his Conclusions
Let him Rely on What he has Tested
And Let him Continue on This Way
Until he has attained his Goal.

I would also like to share with you my favorite sutta, the one which has helped me when I was diagnosed with breast cancer and has sustained me throughout my treatments. It is the Metta Sutta and is a core teaching of the Buddha. If one reflected on nothing but this sutta, one would see positive change in their lives. I have changed the pronoun to she,her because I am a woman.

The Metta Sutta —Sn1.8

This is what should be done
By one who is skilled in goodness,
And who knows the path of peace:
Let her be able and upright,
Straightforward and gentle in speech,
Humble and not conceited,
Contented and easily satisfied,
Unburdened with duties and frugal in her ways.
Peaceful and calm and wise and skillful,
Not proud or demanding in nature.
Let her not do the slightest thing
That the wise would later reprove.

Wishing: In gladness and in safety,
May all beings be at ease.
Whatever living beings there may be;
Whether weak or strong, omitting none,
The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,
The seen and the unseen,
Those living near and far away,
Those born and to-be-born —
May all beings be at ease!

Let none deceive another,
Or despise any being in any state.
Let none through anger or ill-will
Wish harm upon another.
Even as a mother protects with her life
Her child, her only child,
So with a boundless heart
Should one cherish all living beings;
Radiating kindness over the entire world:
Spreading upwards to the skies,
And downwards to the depths;
Outwards and unbounded,
Freed from hatred and ill-will.
Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down
Free from drowsiness,
One should sustain this recollection.

This is said to be the sublime abiding.
By not holding to fixed views,
The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision,
Being freed from all sense desires,
Is not born again into this world.

 

[rossum]

So, just to be clear, the best Buddhism can offer is helpful techniques?

We offer you nirvana. We can not offer you certainty this side of nirvana. We can show you the way, we can give you a map, we can point out landmarks. We cannot walk the road for you.

Buddhism is something you do, not something you believe.

rossum

 

[Kay_Cee]

We offer you nirvana. We can not offer you certainty this side of nirvana. We can show you the way, we can give you a map, we can point out landmarks. We cannot walk the road for you.

Buddhism is something you do, not something you believe.

rossum

But don’t you believe Buddhism is something you should do? Don’t you need to at the very least have the belief that it is the right path?

 

[Kay_Cee]

I see. Sometimes words get in the way of meaning.

Let’s hope we’re on the same page now!

I do believe there are different paths. Some are more direct than others, but** the truly important thing is the effort one expends in following the path**.

Is this a belief of Buddhism?

I hope I didn’t sound so condescending. That was not my intent. It is just I have heard again and again on this forum how people need God and need to be saved. I don’t feel this need. Everyone is always talking about God as if He was a parent, a loving father. I don’t feel this need.

I suspected you’re weren’t being condescending, but I did want to say something for those who are reading our discussion and might misinterpret things.

In my previous post I explained, briefly, the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. This is what Buddhism is based on. Yes, but ultimately it is up to me to walk the path of my own salvation. No one else can save me. I ran across this lovely list that explains how the path is walked. Unfortunately, I did not note the author although it is a greatly simplified version of Buddhist teaching.

Is the bolded a belief of Buddhism?

I would also like to share with you my favorite sutta, the one which has helped me when I was diagnosed with breast cancer and has sustained me throughout my treatments. It is the Metta Sutta and is a core teaching of the Buddha. If one reflected on nothing but this sutta, one would see positive change in their lives. I have changed the pronoun to she,her because I am a woman.

I didn’t know you’re female, but that gives us something else in common.

And, is the bolded a belief of Buddhism?

BTW, thanks for sharing the sutta.

Could you answer the last question I had in my previous post to you? Here it is again:

My question is about what you place your faith in. From your answer, it seems you place your faith in these individuals you cite, but you also say you place your faith in yourself. So, it’s a mixture of faith in others and faith in yourself? Have I got it right?

Either I have it right or I don’t. So could you answer yes or no? Please feel free to elaborate upon the answer.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I did not say that God did not create anything. I said that God is not bound by time and space, hence past and present and future tense do not apply.

You keep trying to apply the rules of time to an omnipresent God that transcends time. Although God is present before the creation, and present after the creation - he is no less the Creator.

I’m saying that God created the law of cause and effect. It’s His creation. He is not subject to it. God has no cause. Nothing has an effect on God’s nature.

My position is not illogical. I’m starting with the assertion that there is an omnipotent, omniscience and omnipresent God. From these rules, it follows that God is present in every moment of time and at every point in space. Thus, it is illogical to impose upon such a being the limitations of moving (in a finite way) through space and time. That is what you are doing. And that is why we are speaking past each other. You presume that God is a higher being, but not omnipresent.

Your instincts serve you well on this point.

Peace,
-Robert

P.S. - There are lesser beings that may meet the description that you apply to the gods… The scriptures refer to these beings as angels. In many ways, they meet your description of God. Could it be possible that the Buddha, as enlightened as he was, could have mistaken these beings for the one Eternal Being

 

[notself]

Kay Cee;4106045]Let’s hope we’re on the same page now!
Is this a belief of Buddhism?

It is a belief of Buddhism that if one leads a moral life of compassion one will be reborn in a heavenly realm.

I suspected you’re weren’t being condescending, but I did want to say something for those who are reading our discussion and might misinterpret things.

Thank you.

Is the bolded a belief of Buddhism?

Yes, no one can save another. One can help another through compassionate action, but each person is responsible for their own “salvation”.

I didn’t know you’re female, but that gives us something else in common.
And, is the bolded a belief of Buddhism?

Yes it is. Why don’t you try it. Sit quietly for about 15 minutes a day reflecting on this sutta. When you meet people who anger or irritate you wish them Metta. When you are anxious or concerned about something, wish yourself Metta. I think you will see a difference even if it is very subtle. I find it especially helpful with irritating people. I use the following wording when I practice Metta. I say this first for myself, then for family, friends, acquaintances, then for “enemies” or people who irritate me and finally for all beings in the universe. Here it is. And I am thinking of you as I type it.

May you be well and happy,
May you be safe and free from harm,
May you be free from anger and ill will,
May you be at peace,
May your heart be filled with loving kindness.

BTW, thanks for sharing the sutta.

Could you answer the last question I had in my previous post to you? Here it is again:
Either I have it right or I don’t. So could you answer yes or no? Please feel free to elaborate upon the answer.

I previously answered yes and then modified my post and deleted it. Sorry. I am trying to find a sutta that expresses this very concept but its title escapes me right now. When I find it, I will post it.