SPLIT: Catholicism vs. other world religions

[Lion_of_Narnia]

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

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

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

To again to paraphrase Chesterton, “An open mind, like an open mouth is only good in so far as it can eventually shut on something”–in other words, ones mind can be so open one runs the risk of one’s brains falling out.

You use astronomical analogies, but the ones you cite are not pertinent to the princible of non-contradiction. The fact the moon revolves around the earth and the earth revolves around the sun do not contradict each other. To say the earth revolves around the sun and ALSO the sun revolves around the earth IS a contradiction. Likewise the mutually exclusive (and numerous) contradictory positions of Christianity and Buddhism.

 

[Sarpedon]

No, I expect you to accept Buddhism because it works.
Nor does Buddhism. You can test Buddhism to check that it works as advertised.

How can I test Buddhism?

By following it for 40 years until Nirvana?

Buddhism is one possibility among several. I don’t think I want to devote my whole life to testing it without something to tip the scales in its favor.

I am willing to devote my whole life to Catholicism because I see much evidence to tip the scale in its favor, and I can test it right now through philosophy.

Buddhism has very little in the way of “dogma”, most dogmas are seen as irrelevant. Buddhism has a series of techniques that work; their correctness is shown by the fact that they do work. .

Again, I see no way to tell if it works without devoting my whole life to it and thus throwing in my eternal fate with it.

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

We believe we have significant evidence to support the necessity of God existing without cause and ending the regress there.

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

Buddhism strives toward the destruction of all desire, including good things like joy, happiness, peace, and love. Catholicism strives toward selflessness, so that all of these good things can be realized in their greatest form.

Personally, I’d rather strive for love than euthanasia.

I have already quoted the Cula-Malunkyovada sutta in the thread this one was split from. Speculation on origins is at best useless and at worst a distraction from the work we have to do following the path. What would you think of someone who refused to become a Christian because you could not tell him the name of Seth’s wife? Your question is not relevant:

​

The name of seth’s wife does not impact the rationality of Catholicism. Thus, it is relatively unimportant.

Buddhism seems to say that there is this "obvious’ path we must follow and there is no reason to question its origins or reasonability. If the system of reincarnations was immediately obvious, like gravity, this would be a reasonable position. Of course, it is not so easier to determine supernatural truth, because we cannot observe it. Thus, there are many possible “paths” or ideas that could be true, although only one can be. Thus, we need to use philosophy to find the right one. Buddhism’s rufusal to use philosophy means that we have no way to determine if it is true, other than the assertations of its believers.

[The Buddha said:] ‘The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’

So the doctrines of origins and such are irrelevant, while the doctrines of reincarnations and spiritual euthanasia are relevant. This seems arbitrary

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

What I originally said was “essentially nonexistence”. I know that people can continue to exist after nirvana, but without any desire at all, even for concious existence, this could be considered akin to non existence. If I don’t care about or can’t enjoy or find fulfillment in what I experience, whether I experience it or not is irrelevant.

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

Personally, I don’t find spiritual euthanasia a very happy prospect to look forward to.

Buddhism contains a system in which we try to lose desire. We have something, and try to lose it. Thus, the question obviously arises as to why we have desire in the first place.

Catholicism contains a system in which we try to perfect and fulfill our desire through selflessness. We have something, and try to perfect it. The reason we have it in the first place is because God has given it to us so that we can perfect it.​

 

[Sarpedon]

No, Buddhism has a system without a creator. An everlasting universe, with no need for any creator, is compatible with Buddhism. The origin of the universe is explacitly declared by the Buddha to be irrelevant to the path.

Buddhism does not explain anything. It cannot answer the fundamental question of “why” in any degree. A buddhist cannot answer why the universe exists, why we are here, why we need to lose desire, why spiritual euthanasia is desirable, or why the system of reincarnations is in effect. It offersno way to validate itself, outside of personal experience that takes decades or an entire life to attain. In short, Buddhism cannot explain itself like Catholicism. Thus, it becomes simply one choice among many, with the only support for it coming after the fact. (That’s like saying the evidence for Catholicism will come after death).

Christians have created a system without an explanation for the origin of God. Did that prevent you becoming a Christian? Buddhism just stops the regress one step earlier.

Catholicism provides compelling philosophic reason to believe that God has no origin. Thus, we do have an explanation for why He has no origin. Buddhism, on the other hand, simply doesn’t deal with the question and stops the regress at an arbitrary point.

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

This is philosophy!

What criteria do you use to deem the bit of philosophy above relevant, while the philosophy or origins is irrelevant?

]

 

[Sarpedon]

There need not be only one truth. There are many truths. The earth revolves around the sun is a truth. The moon revolves around the earth is another. There may be one truth that God is the creator of all things. There may in fact be many ways of expressing and experiencing that fact throughout the cosmos.

There can be many truths, but they cannot contradict each other. For earth cannot both revolve around the sun and be stationary at the same time. If Buddhism says that our goal in life must be to reach spiritual euthansia, while Catholicism says that it is to become selfless and love God, one is wrong. They cannot both be right, unless you deny the law of non-contradiction.

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

Buddhism has similar morals to Catholicism, but that’s about all. Buddhism is an agnostic philosophy/religion that seeks toward spiritual euthanasia, while Catholicism is a theistic religion that seeks toward God.

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

There is value and goodness in other religions, but there is also much that is wrong. Only Catholicism has the fullness of truth, and other religions have mixed degrees of truth and falsehood.

 

[rossum]

I will try to cover both your posts in this one.

Response to post one.

How can I test Buddhism? By following it for 40 years until Nirvana?

You should see results within weeks or months. I know that I did.To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one’s mind - this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

Dhammapada 14:5
If you wish to remain within the Christian tradition then:

• to avoid all evil: follow the Ten Commandments.
• to cultivate good: “Love your neighbour as yourself.”
• to cleanse your mind: try Saying the Jesus Prayer.

Buddhism strives toward the destruction of all desire, including good things like joy, happiness, peace, and love.

You appear to have a mistaken idea of Buddhism. There is joy, happiness, peace and love but we are not attached to them. The problem is not the thing itself, the problem is in our attitude to it - the attachment.Subhuti asked the Buddha, “What do you mean, World-Honored One, when you say that a bodhisattva does not need to build up virtue and happiness?”

“Subhuti, a bodhisattva gives rise to virtue but is not caught in the idea of virtue and happiness. That is why the Tathagata has said that a bodhisattva does not need to build up virtue and happiness.”

Vajrachhedika prajnaparamita sutra (Diamond sutra) 28

The name of seth’s wife does not impact the rationality of Catholicism. Thus, it is relatively unimportant.

The origin of the universe does not impact the rationality of Buddhism, hence it is relatively unimportant. I picked the example of Seth’s wife precisely because it was unimportant.

Buddhism seems to say that there is this "obvious’ path we must follow and there is no reason to question its origins or reasonability.

The path exists because it works. We do not need to know its origins to be able to use it. It is reasonable because it works, it would be unreasonable to follow a path that did not work.

If the system of reincarnations was immediately obvious, like gravity, this would be a reasonable position.

If you wish to remember your previous lives then follow the instructions in Chapter Thirteen of the Visuddhimagga.

Buddhism’s rufusal to use philosophy means that we have no way to determine if it is true, other than the assertations of its believers.

Buddhism uses a great deal of philosophy. It is just that its philosophy is directed towards Buddhist goals (nirvana and the nature of reality) rather than Christian goals (God and origins).

What I originally said was “essentially nonexistence”. I know that people can continue to exist after nirvana, but without any desire at all, even for concious existence, this could be considered akin to non existence.

Why can it be considered so. If I have no desire to go to New York am I somehow closer to non-existence? I do not follow your logic here.

Buddhism contains a system in which we try to lose desire. We have something, and try to lose it. Thus, the question obviously arises as to why we have desire in the first place.

Because we made mistakes in the past, using incorrect methods which increased our desire rather than reduced it.

Catholicism contains a system in which we try to perfect and fulfill our desire through selflessness.

If we are selfless then we can have no desire, it is the self which “owns” the desire. With no self then we can have no desire, there is nothing for the desire to attach to. Selflessness is a very good way to rid ourselves of desire, a selfless person has no attacheents to desire. Buddhism contains a system in which we try to get rid of our attachments through selflessness.

Response to post two.

Buddhism does not explain anything. It cannot answer the fundamental question of “why” in any degree.

Buddhism disagrees with you on what constitutes a “fundamental question”. The existence of the universe is explicitly stated by the Buddha to be irrelevant to the religious path and hence not a fundamental question.

Catholicism provides compelling philosophic reason to believe that God has no origin.

Buddhism provides compelling philosophic reason that God does have an origin, Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika refers.

Buddhism, on the other hand, simply doesn’t deal with the question

Incorrect, we just have a different answer.“Impermanent are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

“Sorrowful are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

Dhammapada 20:5-7
God is impermanent, God is suffering, God is soulless.

rossum

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Buddhism and Christianity are very similar in their morality, their ‘theology’ is very different. It seems to me that this difference stems from the different approach of the Abrahamic religions and the Dharmic religions of India (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism). Abrahamic religions are primarily directed externally at an omnipotent creator God; dharmic religions are mainly directed internally at the atman/buddha-nature inside you. These are two very different ways to climb the mountain. Both work:…

I’m not sure what people intend to mean when they say that both Buddhism and Christianity “work.” Is the suggestion that both religions lead to self-improvement or to a “better person” by their practice? If that is the case, then I think I am inclined to agree. It is cerainly demonstratable that both religions offer much in the way of charity and peace of mind to the follower. A “good” christian and a “good” buddhist act and speak very much the same when it comes to social justice and respect, tolerance, etc. And certainly, both Christianity and Buddhism teach (although in different ways) the notion of a “death of self.” (The distinction being that Christianity does not teach a loss of the “person” by such action)

Thus, if we are talking about “working” with respect to what an individual enjoys (or tolerates) in this life, then I guess you could say that both “work.” But the divergence comes from a fundamental distinction between Buddhism and Christianity concerning the existence of a personal and loving God. Christians must believe in such a Creator (who is the source of all creation), and must believe that how we spend eternity depends entirely upon our relationship with that Person.

Buddhism, to my admittedly limited understanding, does not require such a belief. The goal of the path of Buddhism is “enlightenment” which is a destruction of the “self” and an attainment of “nothingness.” To the contrary, christianity envisions a personal enlightenment that comes from the perfection of the person through an ultimate spiritual union with God (i.e. the beatific vision of God). Both of these goals cannot be attained. For one cannot perfect the individual person in God, while at the same time eliminating the “self” into a state of nothingness.

The ancient societies operated their civilizations with the understanding that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and they ran it pretty well with that understanding, which was based upon earthly observations and the perception of successfull results. In a sense one could say that an earth-centered model was “true” for them because it worked well; they could predict tides, and seasons, and the movement of the stars just fine. They had all they needed to live on earth. But we know that they were wrong. Luckily, this error in thinking did not have eternal consequences for the people of ancient times.

As for Merton, his writings are very deep and very profound - but personal too. Many think that he was drawn astray from Christianity at the end of his life, when he became more deeply enamored with Eastern philosophies. I’m not sure if that is the case, or if perhaps his observations had more to do with acknowledging the beauty of faith in others, and the “death to self” that profound Buddhists can manifest and that Christianity also teaches to a self-absorbed western world.

Just my two cents.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I will try to cover both your posts in this one.

Response to post one.

You should see results within weeks or months. I know that I did.To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one’s mind - this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

Dhammapada 14:5
If you wish to remain within the Christian tradition then:

• to avoid all evil: follow the Ten Commandments.
• to cultivate good: “Love your neighbour as yourself.”
• to cleanse your mind: try Saying the Jesus Prayer.

You appear to have a mistaken idea of Buddhism. There is joy, happiness, peace and love but we are not attached to them. The problem is not the thing itself, the problem is in our attitude to it - the attachment.Subhuti asked the Buddha, “What do you mean, World-Honored One, when you say that a bodhisattva does not need to build up virtue and happiness?”

“Subhuti, a bodhisattva gives rise to virtue but is not caught in the idea of virtue and happiness. That is why the Tathagata has said that a bodhisattva does not need to build up virtue and happiness.”

Vajrachhedika prajnaparamita sutra (Diamond sutra) 28

The origin of the universe does not impact the rationality of Buddhism, hence it is relatively unimportant. I picked the example of Seth’s wife precisely because it was unimportant.

The path exists because it works. We do not need to know its origins to be able to use it. It is reasonable because it works, it would be unreasonable to follow a path that did not work.

If you wish to remember your previous lives then follow the instructions in Chapter Thirteen of the Visuddhimagga.

Buddhism uses a great deal of philosophy. It is just that its philosophy is directed towards Buddhist goals (nirvana and the nature of reality) rather than Christian goals (God and origins).

Why can it be considered so. If I have no desire to go to New York am I somehow closer to non-existence? I do not follow your logic here.

Because we made mistakes in the past, using incorrect methods which increased our desire rather than reduced it.

If we are selfless then we can have no desire, it is the self which “owns” the desire. With no self then we can have no desire, there is nothing for the desire to attach to. Selflessness is a very good way to rid ourselves of desire, a selfless person has no attacheents to desire. Buddhism contains a system in which we try to get rid of our attachments through selflessness.

Response to post two.

Buddhism disagrees with you on what constitutes a “fundamental question”. The existence of the universe is explicitly stated by the Buddha to be irrelevant to the religious path and hence not a fundamental question.

Buddhism provides compelling philosophic reason that God does have an origin, Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika refers.

Incorrect, we just have a different answer.“Impermanent are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

“Sorrowful are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

Dhammapada 20:5-7
God is impermanent, God is suffering, God is soulless.

rossum

God is neither compound, nor is God a created thing. God is ininitely simple and non-divisible; nor does God have an origin, because God has no creator. Your answer misunderstands the nature of an infinite being.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Kay_Cee]

I’ve read through part of this thread, and I’m confused, probably because I’m not very smart. Perhaps someone can help.

Is Buddhism saying I should have no desires?

Please note this is a yes/no question, so a simple yes or no will suffice for an answer.

 

[Publisher]

I’ve read through part of this thread, and I’m confused, probably because I’m not very smart. Perhaps someone can help.

Is Buddhism saying I should have no desires?

Please note this is a yes/no question, so a simple yes or no will suffice for an answer.

I probably am not the best one to answer, but as I understand it, we are not to be “bound” by our desires. We should not be “attached” to them to the exclusion of Spirit. I don’t know if there is a “yes” or “no” answer to fully explain it.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I probably am not the best one to answer, but as I understand it, we are not to be “bound” by our desires. We should not be “attached” to them to the exclusion of Spirit. I don’t know if there is a “yes” or “no” answer to fully explain it.

So we should desire unattachment to desires?

Forgive me, I’m still confused.

 

[ralphinal]

So we should desire unattachment to desires?

Forgive me, I’m still confused.

You aren’t the only one.

THe form of Buddhism that I have the most experience with is a very esoteric one, but it seems to be that it holds that any desire for anything is inherently a cause of disorder. This disorder causes suffering and pain. We must not desire anything, and that would include not desiring.

Rossum, what exactly is Nirvana?

 

[Publisher]

So we should desire unattachment to desires?

Forgive me, I’m still confused.

Yes. We should not be attached to the things of this world which are transitiory, but seek at-one-ment with the things which are Eternal. We are seeking to get our “Western” mind around “Eastern” concepts and sometimes the concepts don’t “match”…it is a different mind set used to seek to understand the Light…at least in my own limited and finite and often wrong thought process.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Yes. We should not be attached to the things of this world which are transitiory, but seek at-one-ment with the things which are Eternal. We are seeking to get our “Western” mind around “Eastern” concepts and sometimes the concepts don’t “match”…it is a different mind set used to seek to understand the Light…at least in my own limited and finite and often wrong thought process.

So, if one desires attachment to things which are eternal, doesn’t that mean that one must first know which things are eternal and which are not?

 

[rossum]

I’m not sure what people intend to mean when they say that both Buddhism and Christianity “work.” Is the suggestion that both religions lead to self-improvement or to a “better person” by their practice?

I intended more than that. The Buddha was asked which other religions were worth following and which were not. He replied that any religion which made a link between what we do here and now and what follows afterwards is worth following; and any religion which denies this connection is not worth following. As far as I am aware almost all varieties of Christianity make this link, so those varieties of Christianity are worth following. Such religions tend towards peace, happiness and nirvana.

Christians must believe in such a Creator (who is the source of all creation), and must believe that how we spend eternity depends entirely upon our relationship with that Person.

With an externally directed religion, the existence of YHWH/God/Allah is obviously an absolute requirement.

Buddhism, to my admittedly limited understanding, does not require such a belief.

Correct. All I need is that I exist (reasonably obvious) and that I have the potential to become enlightened (not quite so obvious, but others have got there before me).

The goal of the path of Buddhism is “enlightenment”

Correct.

which is a destruction of the “self”

Not quite. Buddhism does not destroy any self, it merely points out that what you thought of as your “self” is actually nothing of the sort. We cannot destroy what we never ever had and didn’t really exist in the first place. Can you destroy a unicorn?

and an attainment of “nothingness.”

Nirvana is not nothingness. Read Thoms Merton’s description of his enlightenment in my earlier post, that experience was not “nothingness”:“The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya… everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination.”
The world we see is not what it appears to be, but neither is it nothingness. A mirage is not what it appears to be, but neither is it nothingness. A mirage looks like water; nothingness does not look like water, it looks like nothing.

To the contrary, christianity envisions a personal enlightenment that comes from the perfection of the person through an ultimate spiritual union with God (i.e. the beatific vision of God). Both of these goals cannot be attained. For one cannot perfect the individual person in God, while at the same time eliminating the “self” into a state of nothingness.

I rather suspect that both goals are perfectly compatible, it is just that the different language Buddhists and Christians use to describe the goal give the appearance of two separate goals. The parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant may well apply here. From the Buddhist point of view all descriptions of nirvana fall sadly short. I suspect that the same is true from the Christian point of view of all descriptions of God. Both agree that the goal involves selflessness.

As for Merton, his writings are very deep and very profound - but personal too. Many think that he was drawn astray from Christianity at the end of his life, when he became more deeply enamored with Eastern philosophies. I’m not sure if that is the case, or if perhaps his observations had more to do with acknowledging the beauty of faith in others, and the “death to self” that profound Buddhists can manifest and that Christianity also teaches to a self-absorbed western world.

Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.

…

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.

Nostra Aetate

rossum

 

[rossum]

God is neither compound, nor is God a created thing.

God changes, He does different things at different times. Anything that changes must be compound.

God is ininitely simple and non-divisible;

God must be divisible because He changes. There are parts of God that once did not exist but now do. For example part of God sustains the existence of the computer I am typing this on. In the absence of God this computer could not exist. However this computer did not exist five years ago. If this computer did not exist five years ago then the part of God that now sustains it could not have existed five years ago. Similarly when the computer ceases to exist the part of God that now sustains it must also cease to exist. An unchanging God cannot sustain a changing world. A non-divisible God cannot sustain a changing world. Since the world obviously changes God must change also.

nor does God have an origin, because God has no creator.

Buddhist scripture says differently. God has an origin and He has a destination - nirvana - in common with all other living beings.

Your answer misunderstands the nature of an infinite being.

According to Buddhist scripture God is extremely long lived, but not immortal. He is very powerful but not omnipotent. God is not infinite. I suspect we will not agree on this.

rossum

 

[Publisher]

So, if one desires attachment to things which are eternal, doesn’t that mean that one must first know which things are eternal and which are not?

In Buddhism, as I understand, the transitory things of this world include everything in this world…the Eternal is not defined as “God”, but as a state of Being and our Journey to Oneness with the Eternal…so anything which hampers that Journey, those things which we form attachments with that hamper our Journey is to be shunned.

We seek Enlightenment, to realize the things and desires of this world are tansitory, and understand our Place, to live in awarenss…Mindfulness to our actions. To live in the Moment.

Right actions, right words, right thoughts. One of the tools used is meditation…realizing our “connectedness” as a state of Being, not as something to be clung to so tenaciously we lose sight of Being and our Place in the Moment. To lose our “attachment” to the things of this world…thus ending our incarnations into the material and join with Pure Spirit, which is Nothingness.

 

[Kay_Cee]

In Buddhism, as I understand, the transitory things of this world include everything in this world…the Eternal is not defined as “God”, but as a state of Being and our Journey to Oneness with the Eternal…so anything which hampers that Journey, those things which we form attachments with that hamper our Journey is to be shunned.

We seek Enlightenment, to realize the things and desires of this world are tansitory, and understand our Place, to live in awarenss…Mindfulness to our actions. To live in the Moment.

Right actions, right words, right thoughts. One of the tools used is meditation…realizing our “connectedness” as a state of Being, not as something to be clung to so tenaciously we lose sight of Being and our Place in the Moment. To lose our “attachment” to the things of this world…thus ending our incarnations into the material and join with Pure Spirit, which is Nothingness.

Could you please answer the question? I asked: “So, if one desires attachment to things which are eternal, doesn’t that mean that one must first know which things are eternal and which are not?”

It’s a yes/no question.

 

[Publisher]

Could you please answer the question? I asked: “So, if one desires attachment to things which are eternal, doesn’t that mean that one must first know which things are eternal and which are not?”

It’s a yes/no question.

Actually, it’s not, at least in my opinion…I would say those things which are Eternal have eternal qualities, and those things which are temporal, have temporal qualities…I can’t answer for you…as I understand Buddhism…you must find the answers for yourself…“If any one finds the Buddha, kill him.”

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

A few years ago at some Washington DC function, the Dalai Lama encountered a Catholic Cardinal–in the course of their conversation, the Dalai Lama cheerfully admitted the prime difference between the two men was “you believe in a personal God and I do not”

THAT is a position I can respect and understand–not agree with mind you–but the DL was being consistent the the traditional tenants of Theraveda Buddhism.

In fact, its been said as the dividing line between Christianity and the other world’s religions or philosophies, one could see it by asking the founders one question: “**Are you God?” **(In the personal, exclusive, monotheistic sense)

Confucious would look at you confused and shake his head and dismiss you as mad.

Buddha would say "You are obviously still in the bonds of illusion (maya).

Socrates would laugh.

Mohammed would tear his beard and order you killed.

Jesus, “Before Abraham was, I AM”

 

[rossum]

Could you please answer the question? I asked: “So, if one desires attachment to things which are eternal, doesn’t that mean that one must first know which things are eternal and which are not?”

It’s a yes/no question.

Your question is wrongly put. You asked “if one desires”. That which you think of as your “one” is not what you think it is. Since what you think of as “you” is not really you, it is not possible for “you” to desire anything.

As for the eternal, nothing is eternal and all things change. It is crucial for us that things do change. I have to change from unenlightened-rossum to enlightened-rossum and nirvana has to change from nirvana-without-rossum to nirvana-with-rossum. If you did find the eternal then it cannot react to you or acknowledge you in any way because it cannot change. An eternal unchanging heaven cannot change from heaven-without-Kay Cee to heaven-with-Kay Cee.

You cannot find enlightenment “out there”, you can only ever find it here and now. You cannot be elsewhere that “here”; you cannot be elsewhen that “now”. Nirvana is here and now:There is not the slightest difference between samsara and nirvana.
There is not the slightest difference between nirvana and samsara.

Whatever is the limit of nirvana, that is the limit of samsara.
There is not the even slightest difference between them, or even the subtlest thing.

Nagarjuna Mulamadhyamakakarika 25:19-20

rossum