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

[rossum]

Very basic question here. What is a Bodhisattva, is it a Teacher of some sort?

With reincarnation we all have many lives. The Buddha had earlier lives before he was born for the last time. A Bodhisattva is someone who is in one of their last lives, shortly before they attain full enlightenment as a Buddha. They are close to enlightenment, but have not quite got there yet.

Some Bodhisattvas deliberately delay their own enlightenment out of compassion, so they may remain in the world and assist others to attain their own enlightenment. A Bodhisattva can be seen as a very powerful and beneficent spiritual being, but one who is still active in the material world as a Buddha is not.

Mahayana Buddhism emphasises Bodhisattvas more than Theravada Buddhism.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Who is judge?

I was asked how Buddhists see the Christian God. It is the individual Buddhists who are judging, since it it their attitude I was asked about. Each Buddhist will make up their own mind.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Is it Buddhist teaching then … that God the Father has chosen the wrong path?

What consequences will God the Father face according to Buddhist teaching?

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

• Dhammapada 1:1
  He will suffer as a result of His actions.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So Buddhists deny the Trinity.

Buddhists are not particularly interested in the attributes of the various gods. We don’t particularly affirm or deny them. The gods are not relevant to the task of a Buddhist to attain enlightenment.

The gods can seek their own enlightenment, while we will seek ours.

rossum

 

[Ahimsa]

Buddha never claimed to be God.

True, because the Buddha never spoke English. Now, if you want to claim that the Buddha never realized the highest level of existence that there is to realize, then we could have an interesting conversation (or not).

 

[1voice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1voice
The Bible states that sin is the default condition that separates all of mankind from God the Father. It speaks of repentance from sin and specifically requesting forgiveness from God … followed by submission to Jesus’ discipleship … as the only way to avoid eternity in hell.
The Bible further states that it was imperative that Jesus suffer and die as he did in order to defeat satan and create a way of escape from certain damnation for all of humanity.

Given that … How is it that most Buddhists consider Jesus to be an advanced Bodhisattva… when these ,Jesus foundational teachings, contradict Buddhist core beliefs.

God the Father is not seen as a Bodhisattva - he kills far too many people. He is one of those who will suffer the consequences of his actions.

Jesus is seen as separate from the Father and is judged on His own actions. Jesus didn’t kill anybody and preached much that is good Buddhism. Since He is a Bodhisattva, and not a Buddha, complete doctrinal correctness is not expected of Him.

rossum

You say that Buddhists believe that some of Jesus teaching is correct and some is not.

How does a Buddhist determine doctrinal correctness?

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic, while your arguments are intriguing, realize that the OP intended this thread to NOT include debate about Buddhism, but rather merely information gathering and sharing (see the original post). I don’t think Ahimsa is proseltyzing at all here, but simply answering questions posed by the OP. I’m sure there would be some opportunity to debate in another thread.

I am not debating. I am responding as to my understanding of the information presented.

A debate would be my formulating numerous oppositional questions.

I am allowed to have an opinion of what I am reading am I not?

 

[rossum]

How does a Buddhist determine doctrinal correctness?

Buddhism is not so much an orthodoxy as an orthopraxy. It is less interested in doctrine than in actions. How you act is important; your beliefs are only important in so far as they affect your actions.

An over emphasis on doctrinal correctness can lead to aberrations such as the Inquisition and the torture and execution of people for Thought Crime.

rossum

 

[SteveGC]

I am not debating. I am responding as to my understanding of the information presented.

A debate would be my formulating numerous oppositional questions.

I am allowed to have an opinion of what I am reading am I not?

Indeed, you are allowed your opinions, and share them. It’s a public forum, after all. I had simply seen a couple of earlier instances in the thread where the OP was trying to steer the dialogue away from challenging the beliefs of another, to maintain the stated objective of information sharing.

Thought I’d save you some time in case your posts were seen as off-topic. But I can see your point, that perhaps you are also just looking for clarity of belief from those that identify themselves as the thread title indicates.

Carry on.

 

[SteveGC]

Buddhism is not so much an orthodoxy as an orthopraxy. It is less interested in doctrine than in actions. How you act is important; your beliefs are only important in so far as they affect your actions.

An over emphasis on doctrinal correctness can lead to aberrations such as the Inquisition and the torture and execution of people for Thought Crime.

rossum

I would think that, to a significant degree, orthopraxy would have to presuppose some notion and existence of orthodoxy…otherwise, how does one know if one is “praxying” properly?

 

[CopticChristian]

Buddhism is not so much an orthodoxy as an orthopraxy. It is less interested in doctrine than in actions. How you act is important; your beliefs are only important in so far as they affect your actions.

An over emphasis on doctrinal correctness can lead to aberrations such as the Inquisition and the torture and execution of people for Thought Crime.

rossum

This is an opinion and a comment not a debate. I believe right actions are appropriate and relate to Natural law, circumcised of the heart. I see abberration, inquisition, torture and thought crime as a generalization and a judgement.

 

[rossum]

I would think that, to a significant degree, orthopraxy would have to presuppose some notion and existence of orthodoxy…otherwise, how does one know if one is “praxying” properly?

By results. “By their fruits…” is a short summary of the Kalama sutta. Buddhism has a pragmatic attitude to religious practice, which accounts for the huge variety of religious practices possible within Buddhism. It may also account of the adoption of some of those practices by members of other religions. Buddhists have been using them for centuries, and found them to be effective. It is not surprising that members of other religions also find them effective.

rossum

 

[CopticChristian]

I would think that, to a significant degree, orthopraxy would have to presuppose some notion and existence of orthodoxy…otherwise, how does one know if one is “praxying” properly?

My opinion, my belief is that actions are determined by the intellect and will and the intellect and will derive intention to act based on formed knowledge and understanding. There is no ability to dissociate orthopraxy from orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is not tangible and is a belief based on a mulititude of factors. Orthopraxy cannot exist without some form of orthodoxy. The challenge is then what is that orthodoxy and how is it defined.

Show me your works and I will show you your faith.

 

[tskrobacz]

By results. “By their fruits…” is a short summary of the Kalama sutta. Buddhism has a pragmatic attitude to religious practice, which accounts for the huge variety of religious practices possible within Buddhism. It may also account of the adoption of some of those practices by members of other religions. Buddhists have been using them for centuries, and found them to be effective. It is not surprising that members of other religions also find them effective.

rossum

Indeed, the Buddhist teachings are extremely helpful to many Christians. What many Christians fail to recognize is that Christ, the Word, existed from all times (John 1) - I have long thought that the enlightenment of the Buddha some 500 years before Jesus was in fact a precursor to the arrival of Jesus…a time when consciousness in humans had developed sufficiently to be able to take on understanding of the deep wisdom of Jesus and the indwelling Christ. From the Christian perspective it can be seen that the Word was already at work, in an evolutionary context, well before the arrival of Jesus.

 

[I_Thirst]

An over emphasis on doctrinal correctness can lead to aberrations such as the Inquisition and the torture and execution of people for Thought Crime.

It is a shame that you resort to such anti-Catholic slander. I pray that you will seek some balance in your general historical perspective and perhaps, at the very least, read even-keeled investigations into the Inquistion.

---

This had been an interesting conversation, but I think I’ll avoid it from here on out. It’s been a while since I’ve thought about some of the topics brought up and it’s been wonderful hearing the depth of knowledge so many have graciously offered up.

Best of luck in your search, Little One!

 

[1voice]

Buddhism is not so much an orthodoxy as an orthopraxy. It is less interested in doctrine than in actions. How you act is important; your beliefs are only important in so far as they affect your actions.

An over emphasis on doctrinal correctness can lead to aberrations such as the Inquisition and the torture and execution of people for Thought Crime.

rossum

Buddhism is not so much an orthodoxy as an orthopraxy. It is less interested in doctrine than in actions. How you act is important; your beliefs are only important in so far as they affect your actions.

An over emphasis on doctrinal correctness can lead to aberrations such as the Inquisition and the torture and execution of people for Thought Crime.
rossum

I understand.
Q:
You mentioned that Jesus (many Buddhists believe) is a Bodhisattva, and not a Buddha,(and therefore) complete doctrinal correctness is not expected of Him.
Within the parameters of Buddhist thinking … How do Buddhists determine what is correct about Jesus … and what is not. Specific examples would be helpful … for a left-brain thinker like me…

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Buddhists are not particularly interested in the attributes of the various gods. We don’t particularly affirm or deny them. The gods are not relevant to the task of a Buddhist to attain enlightenment.

The gods can seek their own enlightenment, while we will seek ours.

rossum

Well stated–which is why one cannot claim Buddhism and Christianity are similar unless one does some sort of theological imperialism, forcing Buddhist definitions onto Christian ones–as GK Chesterton wrote, “Christianity and Buddhism are similar–especially Buddhism”

 

[Little_One0307]

Coptic, while your arguments are intriguing, realize that the OP intended this thread to NOT include debate about Buddhism, but rather merely information gathering and sharing (see the original post). I don’t think Ahimsa is proseltyzing at all here, but simply answering questions posed by the OP. I’m sure there would be some opportunity to debate in another thread.

SteveGC,

Thanks for posting this. I just got back and found this thread going on.

Coptic,

I thank you for providing your posts which do align themselves with Catholicism, but my orginal intent was to learn more about Buddhism but to do so in a non-debating setting. I wanted to understand more about some of the other beliefs.

Ahisma,

Thanks for continually to answer my questions. I have appreciated the good will that you would choose to do so.

 

[Little_One0307]

With reincarnation we all have many lives. The Buddha had earlier lives before he was born for the last time. A Bodhisattva is someone who is in one of their last lives, shortly before they attain full enlightenment as a Buddha. They are close to enlightenment, but have not quite got there yet.

Some Bodhisattvas deliberately delay their own enlightenment out of compassion, so they may remain in the world and assist others to attain their own enlightenment. A Bodhisattva can be seen as a very powerful and beneficent spiritual being, but one who is still active in the material world as a Buddha is not.

Mahayana Buddhism emphasises Bodhisattvas more than Theravada Buddhism.

rossum

Rossum,

Okay this makes sense. So did Jesus attain status as a Buddha? I have not heard what Buddhism says about this. So has Buddha’s past lives been documented about, that would make for some interesting reading.

So when you say that the Buddha is not active in the material world, is it because he is beyond caring about others, or errr, why would he not be active. I would think [and know that this comes from a very limited understanding of Buddhism] that the Buddha would want everyone else to get enlightened and would he not want to help others reach this state as well. *

Thanks again for answering my questions and helping me to understand.*

 

[Ahimsa]

rossum:

Originally Posted by rossum

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Buddhists are not particularly interested in the attributes of the various gods. We don’t particularly affirm or deny them. The gods are not relevant to the task of a Buddhist to attain enlightenment.

The gods can seek their own enlightenment, while we will seek ours.

rossum
Well stated–which is why one cannot claim Buddhism and Christianity are similar unless one does some sort of theological imperialism, forcing Buddhist definitions onto Christian ones–as GK Chesterton wrote, “Christianity and Buddhism are similar–especially Buddhism”

Actually, the Buddha’s rejection of the powers of the gods to liberate, is very similar to Christ’s rejection of the relevance of the “powers of this world”.