SPLIT: Catholicism vs. other world religions

[CatsAndDogs]

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

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

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

You mistake “person-ness” with “ego”, which is not a confusion that Catholics make.

Ego is the “aggregate” of all the “attachments” which cling TO our created-by-God person (which “person-ness” describes).

Actually, it’s more accurate to say that our concupiscent person (evil desiring person) clings to our ego, because it doesn’t realize that clinging to evil (the attachments) drags them to hell (meaning ETERNAL attachment to those evils which distance us from our most-good [God]).

What is a buddhist when he makes choices while “enlightened”?

That “what” is what we call our “person”. We, just like you, think it a very bad thing to have that “what” sent into oblivion.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

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

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

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

My point was not that not revealing everything one knows is bad, but that to be ABLE to choose to do so makes one a PERSON, and not a “de-person-ed enlightened-one”.

That which makes human choices (supernatural choices) is a person. (Natural choices are indeed made by creatures.)

The buddhist “claim” that it’s possible to make “impersonal choices” simply highlights the buddhist misunderstanding of what “person” means.

Now, if the buddhist means “egoistical choices contrary to promoting the dignity of the person are not good”, THAT I could most likely agree with.

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

Compassion is a personal motive. How can it be otherwise?

Compassion is not an ego-driven motive, though, which I think agrees with your use of the phrase “personal motive”.

 

[rossum]

You mistake “person-ness” with “ego”, which is not a confusion that Catholics make.

My apologies. We were talking at cross-purposes. What is lost at enlightenment is the ego. The person - a mind in a material body - continues to exist. That person is now egoless. The Buddha continued to be a person up to his death. After his death he can no longer be a person since he no longer has a material body.

What is a buddhist when he makes choices while “enlightened”?

An egoless person. An enlightened person. Choices are made for unselfish, not selfish reasons because the enlightened person realises that what he used to think was his self actually is no such thing.

rossum

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
You mistake “person-ness” with “ego”, which is not a confusion that Catholics make.

My apologies. We were talking at cross-purposes. What is lost at enlightenment is the ego. The person - a mind in a material body - continues to exist. That person is now egoless. The Buddha continued to be a person up to his death. After his death he can no longer be a person since he no longer has a material body.

I rather thought that most of our “issues” are basically definitional. While still consider buddhism to be only an extremely elaborated understanding of natural law, which has been “slightly cross pollinated” by “Abrahamism”/Judaism/Christianity over the eons, that’s not necessarily a bad thing!

Natural law NEEDS to be “elaborated” to some extent to make it more clear, but without Christianity (and it’s precursors) it has no “governor” (as a steam engine has a “governor”). Buddhism, just like any other elaboration of natural law, will “spin out of control” without this governor (and hyper-elaborate), though it shows it’s wisdom in having had (occasionally) very good “natural law observers” to keep the “spinning” relatively under control.

Quote:
What is a buddhist when he makes choices while “enlightened”?

An egoless person. An enlightened person. Choices are made for unselfish, not selfish reasons because the enlightened person realises that what he used to think was his self actually is no such thing.

This I can agree with! <chuckle, chuckle>

As long as a religion holds that the most valuable thing in the universe (in creation) is “the person”, then eventually that religion will rid itself of all those “deceptions” which propose that “abject oblivion” is the goal that we (persons) are to work toward.

The closer one gets to “enlightenment” by means of observation and application of natural law, the more obvious it becomes that only divine revelation is capable of providing the “base” from which to make that final step into being able to really let-go of concupiscent attachments (sins) and receive the rewards of that letting-go (heaven).

As a side-note, I really REALLY REALLY dislike your signature Rossum. You know as well as I do that it is not true and to state it as a truth is not only a self-contradiction, but silly and (in fact) hurtful to your cause of “enlightenment”.

 

[rossum]

I rather thought that most of our “issues” are basically definitional. While still consider buddhism to be only an extremely elaborated understanding of natural law, which has been “slightly cross pollinated” by “Abrahamism”/Judaism/Christianity over the eons, that’s not necessarily a bad thing!

Buddhism was not invented by the Buddha, it was rediscovered by the Buddha. Buddhism is a description of the way the universe works, and how to act in harmony with the universe.

As a side-note, I really REALLY REALLY dislike your signature Rossum. You know as well as I do that it is not true and to state it as a truth is not only a self-contradiction, but silly and (in fact) hurtful to your cause of “enlightenment”.

Sorry about that. The paradox is intentional, it is a slightly tongue-in-cheek summary of the position of Nagarjuna (who I have mentined on other threads). The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

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

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

rossum

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
I rather thought that most of our “issues” are basically definitional. While still consider buddhism to be only an extremely elaborated understanding of natural law, which has been “slightly cross pollinated” by “Abrahamism”/Judaism/Christianity over the eons, that’s not necessarily a bad thing!

Buddhism was not invented by the Buddha, it was rediscovered by the Buddha. Buddhism is a description of the way the universe works, and how to act in harmony with the universe.

I agree with you!

That’s what I meant by buddhism being only an"extremely elaborated understanding of natural law with revelatory add-ins from the line of Abraham (or Seth’s line, actually)".

Natural law is a description of the way the universe works accessible by human reason without the help of direct divine revelation.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote CatsAndDogs:
As a side-note, I really REALLY REALLY dislike your signature Rossum. You know as well as I do that it is not true and to state it as a truth is not only a self-contradiction, but silly and (in fact) hurtful to your cause of “enlightenment”.

Sorry about that. The paradox is intentional, it is a slightly tongue-in-cheek summary of the position of Nagarjuna (who I have mentined on other threads). The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I think “Thinking on Empty” is quite appropriate for one who thinks that saying that it’s an ultimate truth that there is no ultimate truth isn’t merely a simple contradiction.

It is “profound” only in it’s absurdity. It IS quite humorous though, once you actually see it for what it is!

Of course, an absurdity could certainly be a “negative” kind of pointer toward God, I suppose!

 

[Sarpedon]

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

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

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

rossum

The basics of Buddhism are the same as some of the basics of Catholicism. What in these “basic truths” will indicate to me that Buddhism is true, and not Catholicism? If we are testing basic things that we both believe, I fail to see how I can evaluate the differences between the two religions.

 

[Sarpedon]

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

The difference is that for Catholicism, you can “test” the religion without following, believing, or practicing it. For Buddhism, you can only “test” it by practicing the tenents of the religion. This is a huge difference.

This goes back to my car analogy. Suppose a car drives up to you, and the stranger driving it encourages you to hop in the back. Should you get in the car?

Catholicism can be evaluated from without. Thus, you can examine the evidence and make an informed decision about entering the car while still safely on the sidewalk.

Buddhism can only be evaluated from within. There is no evidence to weigh while on the sidewalk, for the “evidence” is only presented once you are in the back seat. By that point, the evidence may be irrelevant.

 

[rossum]

The basics of Buddhism are the same as some of the basics of Catholicism. What in these “basic truths” will indicate to me that Buddhism is true, and not Catholicism? If we are testing basic things that we both believe, I fail to see how I can evaluate the differences between the two religions.

From the Buddhist perspective there are more similarities between religions than some of the Abrahamic religions allow. If you expect a god to save you, then picking the wrong god is catastrophic. If you expect to save yourself by your own efforts, then it is difficult to pick the wrong you.

Given where most of us are starting from, in the foothills, almost all paths up the mountain are going to look pretty much the same at this point. It is only when we are further along the path that we can more easily tell which paths lead directly to the top, and which take a roundabout route. When you are in a position to determine by meditation whether the Christian concept of a soul or the Buddhist concept of anatman is correct, then you will be in a better position to decide.

Travel further up the mountain, by any suitable path, and check again. Continue checking as you climb. The important thing is that you are climbing the mountain.

rossum

 

[CatsAndDogs]

The difference is that for Catholicism, you can “test” the religion without following, believing, or practicing it. For Buddhism, you can only “test” it by practicing the tenents of the religion. This is a huge difference.

This goes back to my car analogy. Suppose a car drives up to you, and the stranger driving it encourages you to hop in the back. Should you get in the car?

Catholicism can be evaluated from without. Thus, you can examine the evidence and make an informed decision about entering the car while still safely on the sidewalk.

Hmmmm… I think I don’t agree with you here.

One CAN evaluate the Church’s statements as to truth via consideration of it’s axioms, which inform those statements, but the decision to “become Catholic” is still a “leap of faith”.

The problem with buddhism is that it’s amazing complexity, and “koan obscured” axioms, makes it nearly impossible to actually evaluate as to it’s “truths”, and since it denegrates truth itself as a concept, and simply demands “void-like acceptance”, it is very difficult for a THINKING mind, yet very “pleasing” to a “suffering avoidance oriented” mind.

Well, wait a minute. I guess I do agree with you! Silly me.

Buddhism can only be evaluated from within. There is no evidence to weigh while on the sidewalk, for the “evidence” is only presented once you are in the back seat. By that point, the evidence may be irrelevant.

I say it is never presented at all. The effects of those parts of buddhism which do coincide with natural law (and “syncretized” divine revelation) principles are “beneficial”, and the “glow” of THAT is imputed (by simple proximity in time or “magical similarity”) to the nonsense (non-natural-law, non-divinely-inspired) of buddhism.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

From the Buddhist perspective there are more similarities between religions than some of the Abrahamic religions allow. If you expect a god to save you, then picking the wrong god is catastrophic. If you expect to save yourself by your own efforts, then it is difficult to pick the wrong you.

You are absolutely right!

That’s why we DON’T EXPECT God to save us. He either will or won’t according to His criteria. But at least we know what His criteria are. Our problem is in following those criteria.

That’s also why we DON’T EXPECT to save ourselves. We only hope that we can follow the aforesaid criteria.

 

[Sarpedon]

Travel further up the mountain, by any suitable path, and check again. Continue checking as you climb. The important thing is that you are climbing the mountain.

What if the trail leads me somewhere I shouldn’t be?

Sometimes “trial and error” is risky, especially when considering eternity.

 

[Sarpedon]

One CAN evaluate the Church’s statements as to truth via consideration of it’s axioms, which inform those statements, but the decision to “become Catholic” is still a “leap of faith”.

I know you agree with me, but I want to clarify that following Catholicism is indeed a leap of faith, but one that is not blind. We can examine the evidence to help us make an informed decision about Catholicism, from the outside.

The difference with Buddhism is that the “evidence” can only be gained by practicing all or parts of Buddhism. By the time you get the “evidence” you are looking for, you are already deeply involved in the religion, for better or for worse.

 

[notself]

I know you agree with me, but I want to clarify that following Catholicism is indeed a leap of faith, but one that is not blind. We can examine the evidence to help us make an informed decision about Catholicism, from the outside.

The difference with Buddhism is that the “evidence” can only be gained by practicing all or parts of Buddhism. By the time you get the “evidence” you are looking for, you are already deeply involved in the religion, for better or for worse.

The evidence of the Buddhist path does not come all at once at the end of practice. One sees evidence as one practices. This evidence slowly accumulates and verifies one’s practice as one goes along. One reaches enlightenment while still alive.

Catholics have to wait until they are dead for final proof. (sorry about the pun )

I also suggest that Catholics rely on “evidence” as presented by the Church. This evidence is completely dependent upon one’s faith in the power and truth of the Church. To those who do not have faith in the Church, the evidence does not present itself. For example the evidence of the Church is invisible to Jews.

You believe you are correct because you have faith, not evidence, that the Church is correct.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
One CAN evaluate the Church’s statements as to truth via consideration of it’s axioms, which inform those statements, but the decision to “become Catholic” is still a “leap of faith”.

I know you agree with me, but I want to clarify that following Catholicism is indeed a leap of faith, but one that is not blind. We can examine the evidence to help us make an informed decision about Catholicism, from the outside.

I agree. Catholicism has no “secret teachings” and it can be chosen as one’s religion better than any other by “external analysis” based on it’s transparency.

The difference with Buddhism is that the “evidence” can only be gained by practicing all or parts of Buddhism. By the time you get the “evidence” you are looking for, you are already deeply involved in the religion, for better or for worse.

Buddhism to be “informed-ly chosen” is likened to having to fully absorb the entire contents of the Library of Congress (including those “super-secret Masonic” sections in the sub-sub-cavern-basement) before deciding that one would like to study “US History”.

(( Sorry for the “informed-ly” construction, but I was on a roll. ))

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarpedon View Post
I know you agree with me, but I want to clarify that following Catholicism is indeed a leap of faith, but one that is not blind. We can examine the evidence to help us make an informed decision about Catholicism, from the outside.

The difference with Buddhism is that the “evidence” can only be gained by practicing all or parts of Buddhism. By the time you get the “evidence” you are looking for, you are already deeply involved in the religion, for better or for worse.

The evidence of the Buddhist path does not come all at once at the end of practice. One sees evidence as one practices. This evidence slowly accumulates and verifies one’s practice as one goes along. One reaches enlightenment while still alive.

Curiously, this is the same for Catholics, in that God proves Himself as He describes Himself to be via the Church as one becomes more prayerful in Christ.

But the Catholic knows that one never “reaches enlightenment” while alive simply because of the very thing that buddhists claim. While still alive we are tied to our earthly senses and cannot view the “beatific vision” (our “enlightenment”) through that filter.

The buddhist “claims” what they themselves claim they can’t claim, unless their claim is FAR inferior to the Catholic’s claim, which is in fact it is. Buddhist “enlightenment” is a pale (mostly endorphin induced) finger-painting of the beatific vision.

Catholics have to wait until they are dead for final proof. (sorry about the pun )

I also suggest that Catholics rely on “evidence” as presented by the Church. This evidence is completely dependent upon one’s faith in the power and truth of the Church.

Since we have an absolute authority (God) we are free from having to worry about the buddhist relativistic “dependencies”.

To those who do not have faith in the Church, the evidence does not present itself. For example the evidence of the Church is invisible to Jews.

It’s not invisible to anyone. It’s easily deniable though, and built to be such.

You believe you are correct because you have faith, not evidence, that the Church is correct.

And the buddhist believes in what he believes in because he believes in it, while claiming that one can believe ANYTHING by simply believing in it!

That is rather self-fulfilling, and a claim made only from the (self-admitted) authority of YOURSELF!

ALL matters of religion are ultimately based on a claim from authority, either God’s or one’s own.

A group who claims to have no “God” (or “gods”) is left solely the authority of all their selves as their “authority”.

I choose God as my authority.

 

[rossum]

What if the trail leads me somewhere I shouldn’t be?

Sometimes “trial and error” is risky, especially when considering eternity.

If you take any path you might get to the top of the mountain, expecially if - as you pointed out - in the initial stages all the paths are very similar. If you want complete certainty before you start then you will never start on the path and you are 100% certain not to reach the top.

I said to check regularly. If you do not like where you are going then take a different turning.

rossum

 

[CatsAndDogs]

If you take any path you might get to the top of the mountain, expecially if - as you pointed out - in the initial stages all the paths are very similar. If you want complete certainty before you start then you will never start on the path and you are 100% certain not to reach the top.

I said to check regularly. If you do not like where you are going then take a different turning.

rossum

The Catholic position is that the mountain is structured such that there is a point, rather “far down” on the mountain, which is the only “pass” through which one can reach the summit.

The buddhist (and a relativist) believes that the mountain is a gently rolling hill by which the summit is reachable from ANY path up it’s sides, moderated only by the relative comfort of a chosen path and the “view” from the path chosen.

Jesus is the singular pass and narrow trail to the true summit, and His “uniquity” of being passage starts far far down the climb.

There are also false (subservient) peaks to the “Holy Mountain”, requiring climbing back down the “chosen path(s)” so as to find the one true path.

But, should one find himself at a false peak, and he still wants to reach the true summit, he can take the “purgation path”, which is essentially dragging one’s self along the true path after changing intention/direction (aka “repenting”) pre-earthly death, or being dragged along that path by the power of God post-earthly death.

To sum up: The mountain is a treacherous spiky range. The path is narrow, dangerous and unique. We tread our willed path only for a short time, and afterward either live where we drop or ask for help of the true God to reach what is reachable by all, dependent only on true willing to follow God utterly.

 

[rossum]

The Catholic position is that the mountain is structured such that there is a point, rather “far down” on the mountain, which is the only “pass” through which one can reach the summit.

The Buddhist position is that Catholics have a map of the North face of the mountain. The Buddhists have a map of the South face, which has a different geography.

The buddhist (and a relativist) believes that the mountain is a gently rolling hill by which the summit is reachable from ANY path up it’s sides, moderated only by the relative comfort of a chosen path and the “view” from the path chosen.

Why do you keep on saying that the Buddhist path is easy? I could say that the Christian path is easy because God does all the work. If you commit a moral error, then you can go to God and get your sins forgiven. Buddhists do not have that option. It we make a mistake then we will suffer for it. There is no forgiveness of sins in Buddhism, if you do the crime then you do the time.

Jesus is the singular pass and narrow trail to the true summit, and His “uniquity” of being passage starts far far down the climb.

Yet people who have no knowledge of Jesus can still be saved, or is God’s saving power limited by the abillity of Christian missionaries to travel to America or Australia? The situation is not as simple as you seem to be making it.

To sum up: The mountain is a treacherous spiky range. The path is narrow, dangerous and unique. We tread our willed path only for a short time, and afterward either live where we drop or ask for help of the true God to reach what is reachable by all, dependent only on true willing to follow God utterly.

And how do I tell which is the true God and which are the counterfeits? You tell me one thing, my local Rabbi tells me another. Those nice young men from the LDS church who come to my door tell me yet a third thing. Why should I trust you over them? In Buddhism I rely on myself, and it is not so difficult to find the right me. Finding the right God is a much more difficult question; what if the Jews were right? (Google for “Rowan Atkinson Welcome to Hell” )

rossum