A
Ahimsa
Guest
Could you give us an example of how someone can make his or her suffering valuable?
- Status
A
Ahimsa
Guest
That statement seems to go agains the teachings of the Church, which recognizes that Protestants are imperfectly part of the Church. Within the Protestant communities, I would suggest, are found large sections of Catholic heritage, and so, in that sense, Catholicism is a “part” of the Protestant tradition.
If the Church were to follow your lead, then the Church would have to say that Protestants are “not Catholic at all”, which is, of course, not the case.
M
Michael19682
Guest
That’s easy Ahimsa. Someone smacks you in the face or humiliates you; you turn the other cheek. He is reminded of the gospel through your action and his faith deepens and he is brought to realization God’s forgiveness—all because you suffered the restraint of not striking back, which appears to be the innate tendency of many, many, people. Martyrs have done this “throughout the ages.”
A
Ahimsa
Guest
OK, thanks. That’s not too different from a Buddhist practicing non-violence, and the attacker being reminded of the four noble truths, having his faith deepened, and being brought back to seeking refuge in the Triple Gem.
Jerry_joseph argued that Buddhists sought to “escape” suffering while Christians sought to “redeem” suffering. I was pointing out that Buddhist practice also “redeems” suffering, that is, the suffering that results from doing good.
M
Michael19682
Guest
My take is that Christians seek to redeem suffering once they are in the throes of it, by as above, uniting it with Christ’s suffering. The Lord’s prayer clearly shows that we too seek to escape it, “…deliver us from evil…”
My difficulty with Buddhist practice and suffering was that at least according to some of the Tibetan teachers, you can’t directly affect the karma of another sentient being. From the Mahayana perspective, if someone is injured by someone else, it’s a liability for the aggressor, and a reminder of consequence for the injured. That’s double jeopardy of a different sort. In Christianity there seems a more clear distinction between good and evil, and secular law in particular flourishes and maintains order in our society according to a common sense understanding of this distinction. In Christian cultures God through the law justifies the victim with righteous vindication of his claim against the aggressor. It is the aggressor who undergoes rehabilitation and correction.
(I believe this is a superiority of Christianity over the Buddhist in terms of secular law matters and guidance of them thereof) Please ignore this comment if it is irrelevant to the discussion.
S
SteveGC
Guest
The Catholic Church necessarily having primacy does not negate the teaching that others are imperfectly a part of Her. Primacy is not meant to imply exclusivity, just pre-eminence, first in all things.
L
Little_One0307
Guest
To All,
Wow. This thread did not seem to do anything for awhile and I come back and there are four pages of nice reading material to go through. There were a lot of interesting thoughts. As always I appreciate you guys posting to this thread, I am learning a lot about Buddhism as well as Catholicism.
I, honestly had to say when I started this thread, that I did not think there was much common ground between the two, but the longer the thread has gone on, the more I am being pleasantly surprised.
Ahisma, Rossum, and Tomcmaj [sry if I misspelled your name, its on another page of the thread and it was not intended], I truly appreciate your time in answering my questions and sharing with us your points of views.
For now, I would like to sum up some things that I have initially gotten an impression of. And if I am wrong please by all means do correct me.
The reason that I am asking, we can find so many things to divide us, I am wishing to find out what is common ground.
To the rest of you guys posting in this thread, thanks for presenting you points of view as well.
And to all, thanks for keeping it a debate-free zone thread.
I really appreciate it.
God bless all.
Wow. This thread did not seem to do anything for awhile and I come back and there are four pages of nice reading material to go through. There were a lot of interesting thoughts. As always I appreciate you guys posting to this thread, I am learning a lot about Buddhism as well as Catholicism.
I, honestly had to say when I started this thread, that I did not think there was much common ground between the two, but the longer the thread has gone on, the more I am being pleasantly surprised.
Ahisma, Rossum, and Tomcmaj [sry if I misspelled your name, its on another page of the thread and it was not intended], I truly appreciate your time in answering my questions and sharing with us your points of views.
For now, I would like to sum up some things that I have initially gotten an impression of. And if I am wrong please by all means do correct me.
- Both Catholicism and Buddhism believe in the good of suffering.
- Both in a ways believe in personal redemption [though different methods]
- Both place an importance on charity.
- Both extol the virtues.
- Both seek to eradicate things that are afflictive to us.
The reason that I am asking, we can find so many things to divide us, I am wishing to find out what is common ground.
To the rest of you guys posting in this thread, thanks for presenting you points of view as well.
And to all, thanks for keeping it a debate-free zone thread.
I really appreciate it.God bless all.
T
Tomcmaj
Guest
Both Catholicism and Buddhism are non-ascetic religions.
The Buddha tried asceticism and rejected it. Jesus celebrated living.
As a youth, the idea of embracing any type of Christianity other than Catholicism was right out as far as I was concerned. The families of the friends I had always dressed dourly and ate far too simply. Neither Catholicism nor Buddhism are bacchanalian, but neither religion forces its adherents to wear hair-shirts, either!
R
richard_wang
Guest
As a former Buddhist, I find Catholicism and Buddhism utterly incompatible.
What are the ultimate goals of Buddhism and Catholicism?
What is the purpose of why you do what you do?
A Buddhist does what he does because he wishes to attain the ultimate goal of Nirvana or the utter annihilation of the self.
The word “nirvana” means “blowing out”. So attaining nirvana is like blowing out a candle. And Buddhist don’t mean this to be a metaphor. It literally means blowing out. A extinguishing of everything. Self. Intellect. Awareness. Soul. Everything.
Or as a Buddhist teacher described, “Nirvana like a drop of water into the sea. You become indistinguishable. You no longer exist.”
We as Catholic do what we do because we were created to know, love and serve God, and to be taken up to Heaven to be with God for all eternity.
Thus to be with God for all eternity is our ultimate goal.
But to attain Heaven does not mean that you are subsumed by God.
You are still a distinct entity. Heaven is filled with individual souls, not some amorphous mass. Otherwise we why would we have the Holy Mother or the Saints.
That is why I had to leave Buddhism because I could not accept that in the end there is nothing but a cold dark emptiness.
What are the ultimate goals of Buddhism and Catholicism?
What is the purpose of why you do what you do?
A Buddhist does what he does because he wishes to attain the ultimate goal of Nirvana or the utter annihilation of the self.
The word “nirvana” means “blowing out”. So attaining nirvana is like blowing out a candle. And Buddhist don’t mean this to be a metaphor. It literally means blowing out. A extinguishing of everything. Self. Intellect. Awareness. Soul. Everything.
Or as a Buddhist teacher described, “Nirvana like a drop of water into the sea. You become indistinguishable. You no longer exist.”
We as Catholic do what we do because we were created to know, love and serve God, and to be taken up to Heaven to be with God for all eternity.
Thus to be with God for all eternity is our ultimate goal.
But to attain Heaven does not mean that you are subsumed by God.
You are still a distinct entity. Heaven is filled with individual souls, not some amorphous mass. Otherwise we why would we have the Holy Mother or the Saints.
That is why I had to leave Buddhism because I could not accept that in the end there is nothing but a cold dark emptiness.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
I don’t see how practicing Mahayana Buddhism prevents one from taking part in the American legal system (a system which, I presume, you’re giving as an example of a legal system from a Christian culture).
Plus, I think we’re talking on two different levels here: a more spiritual (e.g., Mahayana) level; and a more legal (American justice) level. Both are appropriate in their own realms.
R
richard_wang
Guest
The belief that St. Josaphat and Siddhattha Gotama (Buddha) being the same person is erroneous.
Even at the earliest, India was not visited by the Apostle Thomas until around 50 AD. Siddhattha Gotama lived between 560 to 430 BC. They could not have been the same person.
Secondly, many in the west are under the mistaken belief that Confucianism is somehow a religion. It is most certainly no. Nor is Confucius somehow a deity.
Confucianism is nothing more that a philosophy of governing and a philosophy of how to conduct your life. Confucius is venerated as a great philosopher and think. He is not worshiped.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
This is a common misunderstanding of Buddhism, the idea the goal of Buddhism is to enter into “nothingness” or to become “nothing”. I think Stephen Colbert repeated this misunderstanding recently on his TV show (whether he was being facetious or not, was a bit unclear).
I’m sure some Buddhists, even some Buddhist teachers, either misunderstand what nirvana is all about, or use language that is very easily misinterpreted by people.
One thing to consider is, how could a religion whose goal is “cold dark emptiness” capture the hearts of millions of people across continents and ages?
Another question to consider: if nirvana is truly “nothingness” (everything totally extinguished, gone, disappeared, dissolved into vacuity), then how is that nirvana different from the nothingness that atheists believe occurs after the death of the physical body?
“Nirvana” refers to a “blowing out”, yes, an “extinction”, yes, of lust and greed, hatred and enmity, ignorance and delusion. The Buddha realized nirvana at age 35, and He spent 45 years teaching the Dharma. If “nirvana” were simply “nothingness”, then the Buddha should have simply disappeared into nothingess at age 35. Instead, He engaged in an energetic effort of showing the path to the Deathless.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I appreciate your authentic voice, in both posts. Indeed, ultimately they are incompatible, which is why one cannot be simultaneously a follower of both. One can be influenced by one tradition, to understand another tradition, if that appeals to any believer and one is not engaging in syncretism (which Catholicism is not), or creating an artificial hybrid. But the systems of each, the suppositions of each, the foundations of each, are ultimately divergent, not convergent. There are some broad parallels, tangentially, in some of the mystical concepts of the separate traditions, but one cannot be overlaid on the other, or combined, or substituted.
Thank you, Richard, for the clarity of your expression.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
The story of the Buddha was altered as it left India and entered Christian Europe, and the date of the events were shifted from 500 BC to 500 AD, so that Saint Josaphat (the new name of whom was originally the Buddha) could now be described as a Christian.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The story is a Christianized version of one of the legends of Buddha, as even the name Josaphat would seem to show. This is said to be a corruption of the original Joasaph, which is again corrupted from the middle Persian Budasif (Budsaif=Bodhisattva).
L
Little_One0307
Guest
And yet I do know that Catholicism does allow for asceticism, look at the desert fathers. Does Buddhism have ascetics within in too? If so, can you name some examples?
Did Buddha reject asceticism generally, or did he see some good in it? I know that Catholics see some good in asceticism.
God bless.
L
Little_One0307
Guest
Yet if I may ask quite respectfully, surely you noted some similarities?
God bless.
J
jerry_joseph
Guest
Please go through the life’s of
Job in old testament, Holy virgin mary, Appostoles, St Stephen, Father Damien, and there are more persons like this. They put their sufferings together with the christ’s sufferings and got the ultimate aim of this life … Union with God…
You can find how they made their sufferings valuable…
Can you please tell me few names of persons who conquered suffering through your prinicples?..Do you conquered your sufferings in life after following your buddhist principles?
R
rinnie
Guest
Here is where I am having a problem with this, hang with me here for a moment.
Buddhism is Zen, Zen is a way of reaching deep down into yourself to find the truth. We believe as Catholics the GOD is the way the truth and the light.
When we reach to find truth we reach to find Christ, it is the Christ that has entered into us and our hearts where truth is found.
In Buddhism you are not CENTERING CHRIST in your life. In the CHURCH its ALL about Christ, the Eucharist, Eternal life, the Cross. EVERYHING has to do with CHIRST nothing has to do with US. To us everything is Possible only BY CHRIST THRU Him, with HIM, in Him. Buddhism is all about self.
R
rinnie
Guest
And let me express my point. IT all came from Christ no buddha. Christ is who should be the CENTER of all.
Every single Saint taught they IMITATED JESUS CHRIST. They were clear on this. When they prayed they centered on Christ.
I agree yes you can learn by the actions of people. BUT you should imitate CHRIST not buddha. Do you see what I am saying.
You cannot put ANYONE before Christ.
So you cannot say in my mind that you are Jesus Buddhist. You choose one or the other. Who is your GOD Jesus Christ or Jesus Buddhist… See what I am saying?
C
Contarini
Guest
No, Zen is one particular form of Buddhism which originated relatively late. It’s the form that is particularly interesting to many Westerners, whether secular, Christian, and Jewish, because on the whole it’s the least “religious” and thus the easiest to transplant (and also just because it’s intrinsically interesting, with great philosophical depth, considerable accessibility, and a longstanding, profound influence on Asian art and culture).
Sort of, yes. But in Zen, as in all forms of Buddhism, the truth you find is that there is no ultimate “you” there at all–everything is interconnected.
The best comparison of Zen and Christianity I know is by the Zen master Masao Abe, found in Paul Griffiths’ Christianity through Non-Christian Eyes. He sees the fundamental disagreement being over the Christian understanding that God is independent of us. Buddhists think that there cannot possibly be any ultimate reality that is independent of the rest of reality. He also argues that Buddhists have a more profound understanding of the metaphysical underpinnings of good and evil, by denying that good is any more ontologically basic than evil. That one I have a huge problem with–and in fact he admits that in practical terms Christians have an advantage there.
One could make the case that just as Christians often wind up slightly misstating Buddhist principles, even when they are well-intentioned and fairly well-informed, so Abe doesn’t quite get Christian metaphysics. (It probably doesn’t help that he seems to have been primarily drawing on 20th-century “mainline” protestant theologians such as Paul Tillich.) So I wouldn’t conclude necessarily that there’s even as much opposition as Abe says there is. But his talk is a pretty good place to start, I think.
Yes, but there’s also a strong Christian tradition of finding God through attention to one’s own interiority–this is found in Augustine’s *Confessions, *for instance.
Buddhism per se certainly doesn’t do that. But that doesn’t really address the question. The question is whether one can adhere to Buddhism while also centering Christ in one’s life. I’m not sure that one can. The examples of most of those who claim to have done so are not very encouraging. But I think we should deal with specifics and not rush to judgment as if we understood all the implications of attempting to be a “Buddhist Christian” or “Christian Buddhist.”
Edwin
- Status