The term "Catholic Buddhist" or "Jesus Buddhist."

[Contarini]

Edwin,

As you can see from this thread I am asking questions when I do not understand. What is the Buddhist understanding of sunyata? What is sunyata and how would it help us to understand the Eucharist better?

I didn’t say it “would.” I said that it *might. *My point is that just as early and medieval Christians drew on Greek philosophy to explain various aspects of Christian belief (and this did shape Christian faith, though some Christians try to deny this and others claim it was a bad thing), so Christians today might profit from thinking about how Asian philosophical categories might help us deal with some of the unfinished business (the business of understanding and articulating the revelation we have received in Jesus Christ is never finished) of Christian philosophy/theology.

Notice all the “mights” there? I’m only asking folks not to rule out the possibility.

“Sunyata” is usually translated as “emptiness.” It’s a concept in Mahayana Buddhism which I don’t understand very well (one reason for my tentative language), but which basically means that nothing exists in and of itself. However, in Mahayana Buddhism the paradoxical claim is often made that “emptiness” is “Buddha nature” and is the underlying reality within everything. In other words, while Aristotelian philosophy thinks primarily in terms of “substance” or “essence” as the ultimate reality, Mahayana Buddhism speaks of “emptiness” as the ultimate reality.

I’m not claiming that this is compatible with Christianity. I’m saying that we might profit from not jumping to the conclusion that it is, when some of our reactions may come from the different cultural and intellectual premises that underlie traditional Western Christian thought.

The “apophatic” tradition within Christianity insists that God is beyond names, beyond thought. Aquinas drew both on this tradition and on the very different Aristotelian tradition (helped by the fact that the Greek philosophical sources he knew often blended Platonism and Aristotelianism, but that’s another issue) to create a philosophy that identified God with “Being” rather than (as in the more strictly NeoPlatonic tradition) “beyond Being.” At the same time, Aquinas emphasizes the difference between us and God by saying that God’s essence is the same as His existence and is absolutely simple, so that all our language and concepts about God are only going to give a fractured picture of the divine Reality which is true in a relative, analogical sense. This is an impressive achievement. But it’s not necessarily the only way to do theology.

With regard to the Eucharist specifically, Aquinas used Aristotelian concepts (while radically modifying them) to explain how the Eucharist could truly be the Body and Blood of Christ even as the appearances of bread and wine were not simply illusions. Again, this is impressive. But not necessarily perfect.

All I’m suggesting is that *maybe *thinking about the Divine Nature in terms of “emptiness,” and thus of the glorified Body of Christ as being entirely one with that emptiness, might (among other things) enable us to navigate the difficult tension between cannibalistic literalism and “bare memorialism.” If union with God consists of no longer clinging to one’s own permanence as an ego–and if in fact (as Philippians 2 suggests) the Incarnation consists precisely in divine self-emptying–then perhaps what happens in the Eucharist is that the “substance” of bread and wine–their existence as that-which-is-not-God–is “emptied out.” And perhaps that “emptying” doesn’t consist of annihilation or absorption, precisely because the divine Nature is itself “emptiness” and thus not in competition with creaturely existence.

I’m not sure I know what I’m saying, frankly. That’s why I keep saying “might.” I would welcome critique from someone (like Paul Griffiths) who really understands both Buddhism and Catholic theology. Perhaps I’m fumbling around something that has promise. Or perhaps I’m just full of it and this is a dead end. But I’m concerned about folks who don’t understand Buddhism much better than I do and aren’t interested in further development of Christian thought dismissing these ideas with, “Move along, folks–nothing to see here.”

Edwin

 

[Publisher]

I didn’t say it “would.” I said that it *might. *My point is that just as early and medieval Christians drew on Greek philosophy to explain various aspects of Christian belief (and this did shape Christian faith, though some Christians try to deny this and others claim it was a bad thing), so Christians today might profit from thinking about how Asian philosophical categories might help us deal with some of the unfinished business (the business of understanding and articulating the revelation we have received in Jesus Christ is never finished) of Christian philosophy/theology.

Notice all the “mights” there? I’m only asking folks not to rule out the possibility.

“Sunyata” is usually translated as “emptiness.” It’s a concept in Mahayana Buddhism which I don’t understand very well (one reason for my tentative language), but which basically means that nothing exists in and of itself. However, in Mahayana Buddhism the paradoxical claim is often made that “emptiness” is “Buddha nature” and is the underlying reality within everything. In other words, while Aristotelian philosophy thinks primarily in terms of “substance” or “essence” as the ultimate reality, Mahayana Buddhism speaks of “emptiness” as the ultimate reality.

I’m not claiming that this is compatible with Christianity. I’m saying that we might profit from not jumping to the conclusion that it is, when some of our reactions may come from the different cultural and intellectual premises that underlie traditional Western Christian thought.

The “apophatic” tradition within Christianity insists that God is beyond names, beyond thought. Aquinas drew both on this tradition and on the very different Aristotelian tradition (helped by the fact that the Greek philosophical sources he knew often blended Platonism and Aristotelianism, but that’s another issue) to create a philosophy that identified God with “Being” rather than (as in the more strictly NeoPlatonic tradition) “beyond Being.” At the same time, Aquinas emphasizes the difference between us and God by saying that God’s essence is the same as His existence and is absolutely simple, so that all our language and concepts about God are only going to give a fractured picture of the divine Reality which is true in a relative, analogical sense. This is an impressive achievement. But it’s not necessarily the only way to do theology.

With regard to the Eucharist specifically, Aquinas used Aristotelian concepts (while radically modifying them) to explain how the Eucharist could truly be the Body and Blood of Christ even as the appearances of bread and wine were not simply illusions. Again, this is impressive. But not necessarily perfect.

All I’m suggesting is that *maybe *thinking about the Divine Nature in terms of “emptiness,” and thus of the glorified Body of Christ as being entirely one with that emptiness, might (among other things) enable us to navigate the difficult tension between cannibalistic literalism and “bare memorialism.” If union with God consists of no longer clinging to one’s own permanence as an ego–and if in fact (as Philippians 2 suggests) the Incarnation consists precisely in divine self-emptying–then perhaps what happens in the Eucharist is that the “substance” of bread and wine–their existence as that-which-is-not-God–is “emptied out.” And perhaps that “emptying” doesn’t consist of annihilation or absorption, precisely because the divine Nature is itself “emptiness” and thus not in competition with creaturely existence.

I’m not sure I know what I’m saying, frankly. That’s why I keep saying “might.” I would welcome critique from someone (like Paul Griffiths) who really understands both Buddhism and Catholic theology. Perhaps I’m fumbling around something that has promise. Or perhaps I’m just full of it and this is a dead end. But I’m concerned about folks who don’t understand Buddhism much better than I do and aren’t interested in further development of Christian thought dismissing these ideas with, “Move along, folks–nothing to see here.”

Edwin

In reading your post friend Edwin…I was thinking of some of the Gnostic concepts of “Depth” and “Silence” in relation to the “Flullness/Pleroma” which all things eminate from…perhaps Eastern thought isn’t too far afield in assisting us in gaining new concepts and understandings concerning the “unveiling/revelation” of God in Jesus of Nazareth…such concepts seem to have been difficult in the formative years of Christianity as each “school” vied for dominance of expression.

 

[I_Thirst]

Speaking of the apophatic tradition, Fr Philip Neri Powell has an excellent Novena via Negativa in his Treasures Holy and Mystical. I own it and have loaned it to a friend. She said that she understood more about it once she had done the novena – that it helped her understand other things she had read about it.

Another great read in that tradition is The Cloud Of Unknowing, which is available for free online (and also for purchase). Your public library may have it.

Perhaps it is beneficial to read Catholic expressions of the apophatic tradition before (or while) one explores certain Buddhistic concepts as sunyatta?

 

[SonCatcher]

True, but why are you so uncomfortable with the idea that models of life can also be found among Buddhists?

Edwin,

It is not the respect for non Christians that I find dangerous but the fallacy that the “good” things admired in non-Christian philosophies cannot also be found within Christian circles. The benefit is to be wholly integrated into Christ.

Explain this one a bit.

Incensing is clearly an act of dulia, not latria. I’ll grant that one can raise questions about the propriety of showing dulia toward non-Christian persons or symbols, though in my opinion we should raise those questions about dulia toward the flag and other national symbols long before we raise them about dulia toward Buddha. But I can’t see that merely showing dulia toward someone you believe to be holy who lived before the time of Jesus and outside the Old Covenant (even if the practice is unorthodox) makes one fundamentally a Buddhist.

Much less do I see how participation in Buddhist meditation rites does so.

Edwin

I am quite aware of the distinction. Since you have already discussed the issue, there is no need for me to explain beyond this:

It seems to me much more inappropriate for a Christian to show dulia for persons or symbols of another religion than for national symbols. Indeed, we are commanded scripturally to show due respect to the government but similar respect for figures of other religions is contraindicated.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

It is not the respect for non Christians that I find dangerous but the fallacy that the “good” things admired in non-Christian philosophies cannot also be found within Christian circles.

Well, it’s not clear that all of them can. That’s a pretty big claim to make. And even if they can, that hardly seems relevant. Perhaps St. Francis possessed all the virtues that we celebrate in St. Anthony of Padua, but that’s no reason not to venerate both.
We venerate saints because they are worthy of veneration through the grace of God that is manifest in their lives, not because each saint gives us something we can’t get elsewhere. Given the uniqueness of human beings, especially human beings who have allowed God to transform them into the likeness of Christ, it seems quite likely that each of the saints does give us something we can’t get elsewhere. But that isn’t really why we venerate them. And of course, as Protestants are quick to point out, none of the saints give us anything that we can’t get from Jesus Himself. So I find your argument lacking.

The benefit is to be wholly integrated into Christ.

Indeed. But Christ and Christian circles are not the same; and “are found” and “is to be integrated” are not the same either.

I am quite aware of the distinction. Since you have already discussed the issue, there is no need for me to explain beyond this:

It seems to me much more inappropriate for a Christian to show dulia for persons or symbols of another religion than for national symbols. Indeed, we are commanded scripturally to show due respect to the government but similar respect for figures of other religions is contraindicated.

No, we are not commanded to “show respect for the government” in the sense I’m discussing. The only way to show respect for the Roman government ritually in the NT era would inevitably involve worshiping pagan gods. So the distinction you’re making makes no sense. The “respect” commanded in the NT is to obey the legitimate laws and not engage in armed rebellion. It has nothing to do with saluting symbols of the empire, which Jews and early Christians both routinely refused to do even at the cost of death.

The concept of “other religions” is not found in the Bible. What is found is the concept of “other gods”–beings whose worship competes with the worship of God.

I agree that one can argue that this precludes dulia to any being or idea not explicitly subject to the lordship of Jesus. But that would include the American state.

On the other hand, if it is possible to show dulia to beings or ideas that are not explicitly Christian (as all who salute the American flag admit), then one has to distinguish among such beings or symbols based on their level of agreement with Christian principles and their tendency to point us toward or away from Jesus.

I think it is fairly clear that American nationalism is far more directly in conflict with the claims of Jesus than are the teachings of Buddha.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Speaking of the apophatic tradition, Fr Philip Neri Powell has an excellent Novena via Negativa in his Treasures Holy and Mystical. I own it and have loaned it to a friend. She said that she understood more about it once she had done the novena – that it helped her understand other things she had read about it.

Another great read in that tradition is The Cloud Of Unknowing, which is available for free online (and also for purchase). Your public library may have it.

Perhaps it is beneficial to read Catholic expressions of the apophatic tradition before (or while) one explores certain Buddhistic concepts as sunyatta?

Absolutely. It is indeed sad that so many folks of Christian heritage are unaware of the riches of Christianity. However, what I object to is the defensive “why are you studying Buddhism when you can get this in Christianity.” People find truth and goodness where they happen to encounter it. It’s not helpful to tell them “but you really should have found it in this other place first.”

I spent years studying church history before I began seriously studying world religions. I still know a lot more about Christianity than about all the other religions put together. And that’s probably as it should be. But of course I could spend a hundred lifetimes and not even begin to understand the riches of Christianity. I don’t think that’s a reason to ignore other religions. I think it’s a reason not to prescribe to people just how deep they must be in their own before they start exploring others, although it’s probably a good rule to spend at least as much time studying your own tradition as all the others put together (unless of course you have a specific reason why you need to do otherwise).

Edwin

 

[SteveVH]

What does it mean to find “truth”, or “Truth”? Can one “search” for T/truth? Is T/truth an object, like a gold coin, out there somewhere, and I just have to “find” it? Once I find it, do I just look at it? Or is T/truth something much more subtle, much more intimate? Is T/truth something that we’re all already connected to, or are a part of, and some of us are just more deeply embedded in T/truth than others? Pontius Pilate had Jesus in his immediate presence, but did Pontius “find” T/truth just because of that fact? Some people may be in Church, but for whatever reason, T/truth doesn’t fully reveal itself in that context; and that person may find a greater communication of T/truth (i.e., “Christ”) somewhere else.

When we find Christ we need not look any further. However we can and should spend the rest of our lives contemplating this Truth, gaining an ever increasing understanding. The difference I think might be that as Christians we are then bound to worship this Truth that we have found; to have a relationship with this Truth. Can one have a relationship with Dharma? Please understand that I do not doubt that Buddhism contains truth. I think it has many attractive aspects to it but it misses the mark once Christ revealed himself to the world.

I think the key phrase is “aware of the truth that subsists in the Catholic Church”. I myself am aware of what the Catholic Church teaches. Am I therefore “aware of the truth that subsists in the Catholic Church” to the point that, if I don’t join the Church, I will not be saved?

Only God knows that and I am very happy that I do not make those judgments. However, if you are truly aware of the truth that subsists in the Catholic Church why would you not join the Church? I am speaking of a principle here, not your personal situation. But yes, if one is aware of the teachings of the Catholic Church and rejects those teachings, or does not follow those teachings, then I would say one’s salvation may be in jeopardy. For instance, we are taught that we must keep the Lord’s day holy and that Church has taught that this means, at a minimum, attending Mass on Sunday. If one is aware of this but then chooses to ignore it then they have placed themselves in spiritual jeopardy.

 

[Little_One0307]

They don’t, exactly, if you define reincarnation as a soul being incarnated in many bodies while preserving its identity.

They believe that there’s a continuity between as well as within lives, but that personal identity is ever-changing.

Paul Griffiths distinguishes between reincarnation and metempsychosis (“reincarnation” in the narrower sense I defined above), and argues that in the broad sense of reincarnation (see the first paragraph of the linked article for his definition of this broad sense) the Christian doctrine of the resurrection is just as much a form of reincarnation as Buddhist rebirth is.

Edwin

Edwin,

Wow this is getting more and more complex. So one’s Identity changes during each reincarnation as well? So Buddhists don’t believe that you may come back as another animal right, or is that Hinduism? Sorry for the questions, but thanks so much for answering them.

God bless.

 

[Little_One0307]

Whoops! Sorry about that. I didn’t realize this was a debate-free zone. I’ll take my issues with Publisher elsewhere.

 

[Little_One0307]

I didn’t say it “would.” I said that it *might. *My point is that just as early and medieval Christians drew on Greek philosophy to explain various aspects of Christian belief (and this did shape Christian faith, though some Christians try to deny this and others claim it was a bad thing), so Christians today might profit from thinking about how Asian philosophical categories might help us deal with some of the unfinished business (the business of understanding and articulating the revelation we have received in Jesus Christ is never finished) of Christian philosophy/theology.

Notice all the “mights” there? I’m only asking folks not to rule out the possibility.

“Sunyata” is usually translated as “emptiness.” It’s a concept in Mahayana Buddhism which I don’t understand very well (one reason for my tentative language), but which basically means that nothing exists in and of itself. However, in Mahayana Buddhism the paradoxical claim is often made that “emptiness” is “Buddha nature” and is the underlying reality within everything. In other words, while Aristotelian philosophy thinks primarily in terms of “substance” or “essence” as the ultimate reality, Mahayana Buddhism speaks of “emptiness” as the ultimate reality.

I’m not claiming that this is compatible with Christianity. I’m saying that we might profit from not jumping to the conclusion that it is, when some of our reactions may come from the different cultural and intellectual premises that underlie traditional Western Christian thought.

The “apophatic” tradition within Christianity insists that God is beyond names, beyond thought. Aquinas drew both on this tradition and on the very different Aristotelian tradition (helped by the fact that the Greek philosophical sources he knew often blended Platonism and Aristotelianism, but that’s another issue) to create a philosophy that identified God with “Being” rather than (as in the more strictly NeoPlatonic tradition) “beyond Being.” At the same time, Aquinas emphasizes the difference between us and God by saying that God’s essence is the same as His existence and is absolutely simple, so that all our language and concepts about God are only going to give a fractured picture of the divine Reality which is true in a relative, analogical sense. This is an impressive achievement. But it’s not necessarily the only way to do theology.

With regard to the Eucharist specifically, Aquinas used Aristotelian concepts (while radically modifying them) to explain how the Eucharist could truly be the Body and Blood of Christ even as the appearances of bread and wine were not simply illusions. Again, this is impressive. But not necessarily perfect.

All I’m suggesting is that *maybe *thinking about the Divine Nature in terms of “emptiness,” and thus of the glorified Body of Christ as being entirely one with that emptiness, might (among other things) enable us to navigate the difficult tension between cannibalistic literalism and “bare memorialism.” If union with God consists of no longer clinging to one’s own permanence as an ego–and if in fact (as Philippians 2 suggests) the Incarnation consists precisely in divine self-emptying–then perhaps what happens in the Eucharist is that the “substance” of bread and wine–their existence as that-which-is-not-God–is “emptied out.” And perhaps that “emptying” doesn’t consist of annihilation or absorption, precisely because the divine Nature is itself “emptiness” and thus not in competition with creaturely existence.

I’m not sure I know what I’m saying, frankly. That’s why I keep saying “might.” I would welcome critique from someone (like Paul Griffiths) who really understands both Buddhism and Catholic theology. Perhaps I’m fumbling around something that has promise. Or perhaps I’m just full of it and this is a dead end. But I’m concerned about folks who don’t understand Buddhism much better than I do and aren’t interested in further development of Christian thought dismissing these ideas with, “Move along, folks–nothing to see here.”

Edwin

Edwin,

Ahh thanks for empahazing the word might. I apologize that I read right over it. Now it seems pretty thought provoking on what you had to say.

I like the idea of emptiness, in the fact that we are to be completely empty of ourselves when we take Jesus in the Eucharist. I think there might be something to pursuing this line of thought.

You certainly have given me a lot to chew through today. Thanks.

God bless.

 

[Little_One0307]

Speaking of the apophatic tradition, Fr Philip Neri Powell has an excellent Novena via Negativa in his Treasures Holy and Mystical. I own it and have loaned it to a friend. She said that she understood more about it once she had done the novena – that it helped her understand other things she had read about it.

Another great read in that tradition is The Cloud Of Unknowing, which is available for free online (and also for purchase). Your public library may have it.

Perhaps it is beneficial to read Catholic expressions of the apophatic tradition before (or while) one explores certain Buddhistic concepts as sunyatta?

Hmmm,

I will have to pass these by my Spiritual Director/Confessor to read.

I’m not really sure what is meant by the apophatic tradition. Could you please explain it in simplistic terms?

Thanks.

God bless.

 

[lily20]

I think it means that they are partially denying Jesus as Savior. The ten commandments say, “you shall have no other god except me.” It’s a hip and trendy way to distract one’s heart from the Lord.

“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." I think that means that you have to follow Christ alone.

I guess, there’s buddhist philosophies or works that are inspiring, and they can be similar to Christianity. I think the loophole is that you can follow that instead of obeying God.
It happens.

ok… bye!!
~Lily

 

[I_Thirst]

Hmmm,

I will have to pass these by my Spiritual Director/Confessor to read.

I’m not really sure what is meant by the apophatic tradition. Could you please explain it in simplistic terms?

Thanks.

God bless.

Good idea about running these past your Spiritual Director.

In a nutshell, apophatic theology tries to describe God by describing what He is not. It sees God as being beyond definition, beyond complete human understanding. One could use this quote from Hamlet as an approach to understanding apophatic theology: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Not a perfect definition, but one that introduces the idea imo.

You may wish to explore this more deeply with your SD.

 

[asd72]

What does it mean to find “truth”, or “Truth”? Can one “search” for T/truth? Is T/truth an object, like a gold coin, out there somewhere, and I just have to “find” it? Once I find it, do I just look at it? Or is T/truth something much more subtle, much more intimate? Is T/truth something that we’re all already connected to, or are a part of, and some of us are just more deeply embedded in T/truth than others? Pontius Pilate had Jesus in his immediate presence, but did Pontius “find” T/truth just because of that fact? Some people may be in Church, but for whatever reason, T/truth doesn’t fully reveal itself in that context; and that person may find a greater communication of T/truth (i.e., “Christ”) somewhere else.

Jesus said he is the way the truth and the life.

The bible also says that man was created in the image of God. I don’t know a lot about Buddhism, but is it not taught that humans may reincarnate into non human creatures?

How do you assimilate reincarnation in general into the Christian belief that we receive a resurrection body? That we are to live once at then comes judgement? Our resurrection body is incorruptible, but surely it is recognizable as the person we were in life. Our soul and body are reunited.

 

[Ahimsa]

When we find Christ we need not look any further. However we can and should spend the rest of our lives contemplating this Truth, gaining an ever increasing understanding. The difference I think might be that as Christians we are then bound to worship this Truth that we have found; to have a relationship with this Truth. Can one have a relationship with Dharma? Please understand that I do not doubt that Buddhism contains truth. I think it has many attractive aspects to it but it misses the mark once Christ revealed himself to the world.

Yes, you can have a relationship with Dharma. In fact, you’re in relationship to Dharma right now, that is, Dharma in the sense of “Truth”. Whether you are living in fuller or lesser sympathy with Dharma, though, is a different question. To live in sympathy with Dharma, is to “worship” Dharma, because “worship” essentially means to “give worth to [something]”. If someone finds Dharma worthy, then that person will live in a way that is in sympathy with Dharma.

Dharma can also mean “the Path of Truth”, the practices and beliefs one engages in, in order to live in sympathy with Dharma as Truth. And then you have the Buddha Himself, who, as the realizer of Dharma, is therefore one with Dharma. Entering into relationship with the Dharma, means entering into relationship with the Buddha, the realizer, and the Sangha, the community.

I agree that when we find Christ, we need not look any further, but the process of theosis implies that Christ can only be lived more and more deeply, not found in His totality, completely, and comprehensively. If God is infinite, how can one ever stop exploring that infinity?

Only God knows that and I am very happy that I do not make those judgments. However, if you are truly aware of the truth that subsists in the Catholic Church why would you not join the Church? I am speaking of a principle here, not your personal situation. But yes, if one is aware of the teachings of the Catholic Church and rejects those teachings, or does not follow those teachings, then I would say one’s salvation may be in jeopardy. For instance, we are taught that we must keep the Lord’s day holy and that Church has taught that this means, at a minimum, attending Mass on Sunday. If one is aware of this but then chooses to ignore it then they have placed themselves in spiritual jeopardy.

Let me clarify: I am aware that the Catholic Church claims to be the place where truth subsists. That does not mean I am unconvinced of the Truthfulness of that claim. I would say that many non-Catholics, certainly in Western countries, could say something similar. And the Catholic Church would put those people in the category of “may be saved”, which, I might add, is also the category the Catholic Church places people who are Catholic. (However, it is true that being Catholic is believed to give you a greater potential to be saved.)

 

[Ahimsa]

How do you assimilate reincarnation in general into the Christian belief that we receive a resurrection body?

The details of how reincarnation (from either a Buddhist or Hindu perspective) and resurrection might be reconciled is something that may take centuries to become fully understood. But here are a few observations that we can make, concerning the similarity between the two ideas:

1. Hasidic Jews teach both resurrection and reincarnation, and they have their own specific ideas of how the two may be reconciled.
2. Perhaps both resurrection and reincarnation are human attempts to describe a “new life” that manifests after this life; as such, both ideas emphasize certain aspects of this “new life”: resurrection emphasizes the continuity of the new life with this life, whereas reincarnation emphasizes the “newness” of the new life compared to this life.
3. Both resurrection and reincarnation involve “judgement” after death. In resurrection, the judgement occurs once. In reincarnation, it occurs after each death.
4. Reincarnation does not last forever. Eventually, the person realizes that self-centeredness is self-defeating, and the person either surrenders to God (in the Hindu case) or practices the BuddhaDharma (in the Buddhist case), leading to the end of the reincarnation process.
5. The end of the reincarnation process means either eternal communion with God (in Hinduism), or eternal realization of Nirvana (in Buddhism). For many Hindus, eternal communion with God means that one will have a subtle-spiritual body (like the physical body, but made of subtler forms of matter) forever. For some Buddhists, Nirvana includes the development of a rainbow body, a body made of pure light. In both cases, we have examples of bodies, similar in some ways to the Christian idea of resurrected bodies.
6. Since reincarnation does not last forever, ultimately, there is really only one birth (the first lifetime) and really only one death (the last death one experiences before transcending the reincarnation process).
7. Who says that one need be stuck in one particular resurrection body? Why assume that the body in which one is resurrected, will simply stay the same, and not evolve, change, and manifest even greater abilities? And, if the resurrected body does change, does evolve, in very powerful ways, wouldn’t that be a form of “reincarnation”?

Anyway, those are some ideas that might be helpful in thinking about the idea that resurrection and reincarnation may not be as divergent as commonly assumed.

 

[Publisher]

I can see what you’re saying, but if one religion has some Truth and some Falsity, and another religion has some Truth and no Falsity,then you could not claim to belong to both religions because they clash with their Truth and Falsity. Do you see what I’m trying to say? You cannot really be a Catholic Buddhist, i.e. fully Catholic and fully Buddhist. You can be one with respect for some of the teachings of the other, but you cannot be both.

(BTW, I’ve never debated with a Quaker before; nice to meet you. )

Perhaps YOU could not…but that is not to say that one can idenitfy themselves as best identifies their religious experience. Perhaps the adherant is not seeking to find "where they clash with their Truth and Falsity…perhaps they are seeking to find those points on which they agree and see what fresh insights they may gleen from those of other faith communities share in common…perhaps that is what makes the difference between seeking to accentuate the differences and seeking to rejoice in the commonality of faith they DO share.

Maybe the difficulty in understanding the “how” they are different…is to examine and evaluate the “why” they share things in common? One does not have to compromise one’s convictions to seek understanding and mutuality. IMO at least.

 

[MarysGirls]

Perhaps YOU could not…but that is not to say that one can idenitfy themselves as best identifies their religious experience. Perhaps the adherant is not seeking to find "where they clash with their Truth and Falsity…perhaps they are seeking to find those points on which they agree and see what fresh insights they may gleen from those of other faith communities share in common…perhaps that is what makes the difference between seeking to accentuate the differences and seeking to rejoice in the commonality of faith they DO share.

Maybe the difficulty in understanding the “how” they are different…is to examine and evaluate the “why” they share things in common? One does not have to compromise one’s convictions to seek understanding and mutuality. IMO at least.

Little One doesn’t want this to be a debate thread. Can we take this somewheres else?

 

[Publisher]

Little One doesn’t want this to be a debate thread. Can we take this somewheres else?

Sure friend…I have no wish to debate…merely to share opinions and insights…

 

[Little_One0307]

Good idea about running these past your Spiritual Director.

In a nutshell, apophatic theology tries to describe God by describing what He is not. It sees God as being beyond definition, beyond complete human understanding. One could use this quote from Hamlet as an approach to understanding apophatic theology: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Not a perfect definition, but one that introduces the idea imo.

You may wish to explore this more deeply with your SD.

I will be bringing this up with my SD next time I see him.

Thanks for this advice.

God bless.