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

[babylonsfalling]

Honestly, I get Buddhism and Hinduism mixed up, so I might not be all that much help.

But I get the impression that many of those eastern religions are pretty malleable and don’t generally see God as a person (much less a Trinity of persons). Even more different is that they tend not to place the same level of importance on dividing truth from error and attempt to harmonize things, even if they are mutually contradictory.

So while catholics may (rightly, IMO) see the whole idea as an oxymoron, the far eastern mind doesn’t necessarily think there is such a thing as an oxymoron.

I agree but you’re talking about regular old buddhist or hindu, whereas I was talking about these folk who self identify with oddball, contradictory sounding names…“Jesus Buddhist” Christian Buddhist" etc. My favorite is “Christian-atheist”. That type of stuff is just childish attention seeking nonsense.

 

[I_Thirst]

What is nirvana, it is not a state of happiness? [Now, I dont know much about buddhism, so I am asking these questions out of sincerity.] How is nirvana and heaven incompatible?

What is anatta, sorry to be so dense at times, but I want to understand what is being discussed. Simple definitions will suffice.

Thanks for your patience.

God bless.

In a sense, nirvana is a state of happiness – one that is free from suffering and one that breaks the cycle of birth and rebirth (aka reincarnation). It the ultimate goal for Buddhists, which isn’t quite the same for Catholics. As Catholics we don’t wish to break the cycle of birth and rebirth, for we don’t believe in reincarnation. Nirvana is something done alone; no one helps you – not Buddha, not God, not your neighbor. Catholics do wish to attain happiness, but through Jesus Christ and in going to heaven.

(Just a note, nirvana is a difficult word to define. It has been said that defining it won’t define it. One can experience it, but defining it goes beyond words.)

Anatta is a Buddhist idea that we have no soul and that the self is an illusion. Catholics believe that we have a soul and that each person is unique and unrepeatable.

btw, it’s been many years since I’ve been an active Buddhist. If anyone sees something that needs correcting, please do so. I have no intentions of misrepresenting Buddhism. It is a rich faith tradition with many branches.

 

[I_Thirst]

As far as the Sangha that is alive today, the Catholic Church says that even they may be saved.

Duly noted your comments about early Buddhist communities not having access to Christ, but your comment about the invincibly ignorant may not apply to one who claims to be a Buddhist Catholic in the 21st century.

There is also the dogma of No Salvation Outside The Church. While it is acknowledged that the invincibly ignorant may be saved (the Catechism states so), it isn’t something I’d wish to wager on, especially if I knew about Jesus Christ and His Church.

---

btw, Ahimsa is fantastic forum name!

 

[SteveVH]

If “Christ” = “Truth”, then, yes, the Buddha realized Christ.

If “Dharma” = “Truth”, and “Jesus Christ” = “Truth”, then “Dharma” = “Jesus Christ”.

Since the Buddha lived around 500 BCE, the Sangha at that time would have found it impossible to be baptized by Christians.

As far as the Sangha that is alive today, the Catholic Church says that even they may be saved.

If Truth is One, then Truth is Truth, wherever it is.

Well, as you very well know we are speaking of one who espouses both Christianity and Buddhism. If one believes that Christ is the Truth, the Way and the Life then how can that one not follow him? To speak of Truth in some abstract sense is not Christian. Truth is not a something, it is a someone. Once that truth has been revealed, and if the Sangha are searching for that truth, then they should be lining up to be baptized as I said. Their search is over. So how does one who proclaims to be both Buddhist and Christian continue searching in Buddhism for that which he has already found in Christianity? Do you see my point?

 

[Ahimsa]

There is also the dogma of No Salvation Outside The Church. While it is acknowledged that the invincibly ignorant may be saved (the Catechism states so), it isn’t something I’d wish to wager on, especially if I knew about Jesus Christ and His Church.

A lot of people “know” about Jesus Christ and the Church, but that doesn’t mean that they are “convinced” that the Church is necessary for their salvation.

The terms “invinicible ignorance”, I would suggest, is actually the state of being “invincibly unconvinced”, since few people today are totally “ignorant” of Christianity, but many are indeed “unconvinced” by Christianity’s claims.

And the Catholic Church teaches that those who are unconvinced of Christianity’s claims, may indeed be saved.

 

[Ahimsa]

Well, as you very well know we are speaking of one who espouses both Christianity and Buddhism. If one believes that Christ is the Truth, the Way and the Life then how can that one not follow him?

If one follows Truth, then one is following Christ, correct?

To speak of Truth in some abstract sense is not Christian. Truth is not a something, it is a someone.

I would say that Truth is both a Someone and a Something, and, ultimately, beyond both Someone and Something. This would also be consistent with the Church’s definition of God, as being a Person, and beyond a Person (“ineffable”, e.g.).

Once that truth has been revealed, and if the Sangha are searching for that truth, then they should be lining up to be baptized as I said.

What you’re implying is that, those people who are not Christian, or not wanting to be Christian, are not really searching for Truth, and thus are not honestly wanting to be saved; and, so, those people will definitely not be saved.

The Catholic Church teaches that those who honestly search for Truth, even if they do not want to join the Church, may be saved.

So how does one who proclaims to be both Buddhist and Christian continue searching in Buddhism for that which he has already found in Christianity? Do you see my point?

Those who call themselves Christian and Buddhist might have various reasons for doing so. Some see Jesus as a Buddha, or a Bodhisattva. Others might find Buddhist meditation to make them into stronger Christians. Others might have been raised by a Buddhist mother and a Christian father. The possibilities are numerous.

 

[Contarini]

My response is that if they understand the lives of the Saints they can find the model of the life they wish to live in them and can therefore be wholly Christian. Contemplative prayer and pacifism in the model of the Carmelites and Franciscans are excellent examples.

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

Of course, if by adopting Buddhist action they mean to incense statues of the Buddha and/or ancestors and participate in Buddhist meditation rites, they will need to be more honest with their profession (perhaps “Buddhist with a respect for the teachings of Jesus”).

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

 

[Contarini]

They believe in different things. Some may simply be orthodox Christians who practice Buddhist meditation techniques. Near the middle, are those who have been initiated both as Christians (via baptism) and as Buddhists (via taking refuge). At the other extreme, are orthodox Buddhists who are inspired by Christian teachings. And there are all sorts of people in between those two extremes.

What they all have in common is that they all get inspiration (to one degree or another) from both Christianity and Buddhism, or from Christ and Buddha.

I’d be very interested in hearing more about where you fall on this spectrum. If you don’t feel comfortable sharing this publicly, feel free to PM me.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If Buddhists say that one has no soul and Catholics say that one has an immortal soul, which one is correct?

Not so fast. We need to determine whether the Buddhist “atta” is the same thing as the Christian “soul.” A case can be made that the Buddhist view developed in opposition to the Hindu understanding, which was much closer to that of the ancient Platonists (an eternal, inherently indestructible entity which is in some sense identical to the Ultimate Reality), which was rejected by early Christians in favor of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

Quite possibly Buddhist philosophy can give Christians some tools to reflect further on how our understanding of the soul relates to the Platonic one with which we were in such intense conversation in our early centuries.

Paul Griffiths, the scholar for whom I have most respect in these areas (since he’s both a Catholic theologian and an expert on Buddhism), has made some gestures in this direction.

Nirvana in the sense that most Buddhists understand it and Heaven in the sense that Catholics understand it are largely incompatible with each other

Certainly a lot of popular ideas on both sides are incompatible with each other. But a lot of the popular ideas about heaven have little to do with the heart of orthodox Christianity. And since Buddhists insist that Nirvana is indescribable, it’s a bit hard to argue that it’s incompatible with anything (except with an existence characterized by selfish craving and the suffering that results from that craving, of course).

It would be a strange Catholic to deny the Eucharist

Indeed. But what if the Buddhist understanding of *sunyatta *helped us understand the Eucharist better? What if it turned out to work better than Aristotle?

Most of the attempts to syncretize Christianity and Buddhism are silly or heretical or both. So there are strong a posteriori reasons to be cautious at best. However, I question whether there’s an a priori reason to declare dogmatically that the two traditions are fundamentally incompatible, and I remain interested in the specific ways that different people try to incorporate elements of one tradition into the other.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If Buddhists say that one has no soul and Catholics say that one has an immortal soul, which one is correct?

Not so fast. We need to determine whether the Buddhist “atta” is the same thing as the Christian “soul.” A case can be made that the Buddhist view developed in opposition to the Hindu understanding, which was much closer to that of the ancient Platonists (an eternal, inherently indestructible entity which is in some sense identical to the Ultimate Reality), which was rejected by early Christians in favor of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

Quite possibly Buddhist philosophy can give Christians some tools to reflect further on how our understanding of the soul relates to the Platonic one with which we were in such intense conversation in our early centuries.

Paul Griffiths, the scholar for whom I have most respect in these areas (since he’s both a Catholic theologian and an expert on Buddhism), has made some gestures in this direction.

Nirvana in the sense that most Buddhists understand it and Heaven in the sense that Catholics understand it are largely incompatible with each other

Certainly a lot of popular ideas on both sides are incompatible with each other. But a lot of the popular ideas about heaven have little to do with the heart of orthodox Christianity. And since Buddhists insist that Nirvana is indescribable, it’s a bit hard to argue that it’s incompatible with anything (except with an existence characterized by selfish craving and the suffering that results from that craving, of course).

It would be a strange Catholic to deny the Eucharist

Indeed. But what if the Buddhist understanding of *sunyata *helped us understand the Eucharist better? What if it turned out to work better than Aristotle?

Most of the attempts to syncretize Christianity and Buddhism are silly or heretical or both. So there are strong a posteriori reasons to be cautious at best. However, I question whether there’s an a priori reason to declare dogmatically that the two traditions are fundamentally incompatible, and I remain interested in the specific ways that different people try to incorporate elements of one tradition into the other.

Edwin

 

[Publisher]

If Buddhists say that one has no soul and Catholics say that one has an immortal soul, which one is correct? Nirvana in the sense that most Buddhists understand it and Heaven in the sense that Catholics understand it are largely incompatible with each other; which is the true destination, Nirvana or Heaven? It would be a strange Catholic to deny the Eucharist, and a Buddhist denying anatta would be an odd Buddhist.

I have some fond memories of reading Thich Nhat Hahn, but I don’t think his books carry the imprimatur or nihil obstat.

As often occurs when speaking of religious beliefs…some people believe it NEEDS TO BE all or nothing propisition…Truth is not bound to any one religious tradition…one can use techniques and concepts from other religious traditions to enhance one’s own understanding of one’s faith…no one is saying that “xyz” in it’s totality MUST be accepted and “abc” rejected totally…I may not accept everything about Buddhism as absolute truth but I still can appreciate some of it’s concepts, traditions and disiplines…it’s not an “all or nothing” propisition…

 

[Little_One0307]

In a sense, nirvana is a state of happiness – one that is free from suffering and one that breaks the cycle of birth and rebirth (aka reincarnation). It the ultimate goal for Buddhists, which isn’t quite the same for Catholics. As Catholics we don’t wish to break the cycle of birth and rebirth, for we don’t believe in reincarnation. Nirvana is something done alone; no one helps you – not Buddha, not God, not your neighbor. Catholics do wish to attain happiness, but through Jesus Christ and in going to heaven.

(Just a note, nirvana is a difficult word to define. It has been said that defining it won’t define it. One can experience it, but defining it goes beyond words.)

Anatta is a Buddhist idea that we have no soul and that the self is an illusion. Catholics believe that we have a soul and that each person is unique and unrepeatable.

btw, it’s been many years since I’ve been an active Buddhist. If anyone sees something that needs correcting, please do so. I have no intentions of misrepresenting Buddhism. It is a rich faith tradition with many branches.

This was a very helpful post. Thanks so much for posting this. I needed to see the teachings of Buddhism alongside the Teachings of the Church.

I had forgotten that the Buddhists believed in Reincarnation.

God bless.

 

[MarysGirls]

As often occurs when speaking of religious beliefs…some people believe it NEEDS TO BE all or nothing propisition…Truth is not bound to any one religious tradition…one can use techniques and concepts from other religious traditions to enhance one’s own understanding of one’s faith…**It is true that Truth is not bound by any religion, however, if one religion belongs to Truth and therefore teaches Truth, then why would any other religion be necessary?**no one is saying that “xyz” in it’s totality MUST be accepted and “abc” rejected totally…I may not accept everything about Buddhism as absolute truth but I still can appreciate some of it’s concepts, traditions and disiplines…it’s not an “all or nothing” propisition…

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. )

 

[Little_One0307]

Indeed. But what if the Buddhist understanding of *sunyata *helped us understand the Eucharist better? What if it turned out to work better than Aristotle?

Most of the attempts to syncretize Christianity and Buddhism are silly or heretical or both. So there are strong a posteriori reasons to be cautious at best. However, I question whether there’s an a priori reason to declare dogmatically that the two traditions are fundamentally incompatible, and I remain interested in the specific ways that different people try to incorporate elements of one tradition into the other.

Edwin

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?

Thanks so much for helping me to learn. God bless.

Ahisma,

Your answers are very informative, thank you so much for taking part in this thread.

And the rest of your posters,

Thanks for keeping this a debate free thread. I like it when we ask questions and get them answered. God bless you all for keeping the original intent of the thread.

God bless.

 

[SteveVH]

What you’re implying is that, those people who are not Christian, or not wanting to be Christian, are not really searching for Truth, and thus are not honestly wanting to be saved; and, so, those people will definitely not be saved.

It has nothing to do with people wanting one thing or another. Again, I am speaking from the viewpoint of a person claiming to be both Christian and Buddhist. I have not brought salvation into the picture yet, although that is the ultimate question, isn’t it?. I’m more interested in the though process of one who would continue searching for truth in the Buddhist tradition when he claims that he has found it in the Christian tradition. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

The Catholic Church teaches that those who honestly search for Truth, even if they do not want to join the Church, may be saved.

That isn’t actually what the Church teaches. If one is aware of the truth that subsists if the Catholic Church and then chooses not to become a part of that Church, he is then rejecting that truth and his salvation. If one is ignorant of the truth found in the Church, through no fault of his own, then yes he may be saved, but the operative word here is “may”.

Those who call themselves Christian and Buddhist might have various reasons for doing so. Some see Jesus as a Buddha, or a Bodhisattva. Others might find Buddhist meditation to make them into stronger Christians. Others might have been raised by a Buddhist mother and a Christian father. The possibilities are numerous.

I will not argue as to the various ways one might find themselves in this situation. But if it is by choice, then I believe that person is confused as to what they really believe. Buddhism does not even speak of God. Its meditation techniques empty the mind, while Christian meditation uses the mind to ponder the word of God. All I am saying is that it seems to me that there are some real conflicts when trying to blend the two into a harmonious belief system.

God bless.

 

[Ahimsa]

It has nothing to do with people wanting one thing or another. Again, I am speaking from the viewpoint of a person claiming to be both Christian and Buddhist. I have not brought salvation into the picture yet, although that is the ultimate question, isn’t it?. I’m more interested in the though process of one who would continue searching for truth in the Buddhist tradition when he claims that he has found it in the Christian tradition. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

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.

That isn’t actually what the Church teaches. If one is aware of the truth that subsists [in] the Catholic Church and then chooses not to become a part of that Church, he is then rejecting that truth and his salvation. If one is ignorant of the truth found in the Church, through no fault of his own, then yes he may be saved, but the operative word here is “may”.

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?

All I am saying is that it seems to me that there are some real conflicts when trying to blend the two into a harmonious belief system.

There may be some real conflicts, but not because of the reasons you mentioned. “God” was not spoken of by the Buddha, because the Buddha did not speak English. But seriously, the Buddha did use various words that described That which is unborn, unchanging, eternal, and (once you get into the Mahayana) the Source of All Things. Many people who speak English would say that that is a pretty good description of “God”.

Regarding meditation, the purpose is not the make one’s mind empty, or blank (though some forms of meditation do that, that is not the purpose of Buddhist meditation as a whole). The purpose of meditation is to see into the very nature of matter, thoughts, feelings, and consciousness.

 

[Ahimsa]

I’d be very interested in hearing more about where you fall on this spectrum. If you don’t feel comfortable sharing this publicly, feel free to PM me.

I’m smack dab in the middle of the spectrum.

 

[Ahimsa]

Ahimsa:

*They believe in different things. Some may simply be orthodox Christians who practice Buddhist meditation techniques. Near the middle, are those who have been initiated both as Christians (via baptism) and as Buddhists (via taking refuge). At the other extreme, are orthodox Buddhists who are inspired by Christian teachings. And there are all sorts of people in between those two extremes.

What they all have in common is that they all get inspiration (to one degree or another) from both Christianity and Buddhism, or from Christ and Buddha.*

I’d be very interested in hearing more about where you fall on this spectrum. If you don’t feel comfortable sharing this publicly, feel free to PM me.

Edwin

I’m right in the middle, having been baptized and having taken refuge, a “Bapto-Buddhist”, if you will.

 

[Contarini]

This was a very helpful post. Thanks so much for posting this. I needed to see the teachings of Buddhism alongside the Teachings of the Church.

I had forgotten that the Buddhists believed in Reincarnation.

God bless.

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

 

[MarysGirls]

And the rest of your posters,

Thanks for keeping this a debate free thread. I like it when we ask questions and get them answered. God bless you all for keeping the original intent of the thread.

God bless.

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