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

[rossum]

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.

As an example, here is an apophatic description of nirvana from a Buddhist text:There is, monks, an unborn, an unbecome, an unmade, an unconditioned. If there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, no escape would be possible from the born, become, made, conditioned. But precisely because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, escape from the born, become, made, conditioned is possible.

• Udana 8.3

rossum

 

[Little_One0307]

As an example, here is an apophatic description of nirvana from a Buddhist text:There is, monks, an unborn, an unbecome, an unmade, an unconditioned. If there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, no escape would be possible from the born, become, made, conditioned. But precisely because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, escape from the born, become, made, conditioned is possible.

• Udana 8.3

rossum

Rossum,

I am not knowledgeable about Buddhism and so my questions my seem to be quite elementary and sometimes very obvious, but I wish to learn and try to understand.

So can one think of nirvana as the state of non-existence? Do you cease to exist in nirvana or do you have an awareness of your soul?

Thanks for answering these questions if you do.

God bless.

 

[rossum]

So can one think of nirvana as the state of non-existence?

The Buddha attained nirvana when he became enlightened at age 35. He died at age 80. For 45 years the Buddha was living his life on Earth yet at the same time in nirvana. Nirvana is not non-existence.

Do you cease to exist in nirvana or do you have an awareness of your soul?

In nirvana there is no awareness of your soul, because you do not have a soul. What you think of as your soul isn’t; you are mistaken. When you are enlightened you will not make that mistake.

Nirvana is not a heaven, you don’t have to die to get there. You can attain nirvana here and now in the ordinary world of samsara. Enlightenment allows you to see things as they really are, rather than how you would like them to be or what you mistake them for (as with a soul).

rossum

 

[Ahimsa]

Do you cease to exist in nirvana or do you have an awareness of your soul?

In Buddhism, the term “soul” (or, more precisely, “self”) has a very specific meaning(s). It generally means “something that is completely under your control”, “something that is totally yours and, thus, unchanging”. Thus, you should be able to make the “self” do whatever you want it to do, at any time, at any place – it’s completely under your control. It’s who you “really” are.

Instead of saying “There is no self”, Buddhism asks the question, “Can you find the ‘self’, can you find something that is totally under your control, totally and completely ‘yours’ and unchanging?” Is your body totally under your control? Your thoughts? Your feelings? Your memory? And so forth?

If you find that there is nothing that you can point to and say, “That is totally ‘mine’, that is totally under my control, I can make that do whatever I want, at any time I want,” then that is good news, because that means that you don’t need to obsess about any of that stuff, be addicted to any of that stuff, thinking it will bring your happiness; you can enjoy whatever happens, and live in a very intelligent and wholesome manner, changing what can be changed, and accepting what can’t be changed (and, of course, knowing the difference between the two).

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

Wow this is getting more and more complex. So one’s Identity changes during each reincarnation as well?

Buddhists would say that identity changes all the time, not just between death and rebirth. The example I use with my students is a baby picture–are you the same person that you were in that picture? Buddhist philosophy would question the idea that there’s an underlying “real you” that remains unchanged underneath all the superficial changes.There’s continuity, so in practice they do speak of “you” being reborn, just as I am speaking as if the “you” who reads this post is the same “you” that wrote the post to which I’m replying, even though, to some degree, you will be a different person by then (and just as I am a different person than I was when I started this long sentence, or even when I typed the last keystroke).

The classic Buddhist example is the “simile of the chariot” (from a Buddhist text describing a debate between a Buddhist monk and a Greek king). Just as a chariot is not the same as any of its parts, so the human person is not the same as any of our parts, even the consciousness. Everything–including human beings–is an ever-changing collection of parts. Everything is dependent on prior causes (this is why Buddhists typically say that they don’t believe in God in our sense).

So Buddhists don’t believe that you may come back as another animal right, or is that Hinduism?

Yes, “you” may be reborn as an animal (or various other kinds of non-human beings), in the sense that the consciousness existing in the present “you” will continue after death (if you haven’t achieved Nirvana) and will collect a new set of “parts” around itself, forming a new “you,” which may or may not be human depending on the way the consciousness has been shaped by the actions it’s participated in previously (i.e., karma).

The twist to all of this is that in some forms of Mahayana, the interdependence of everything on everything else, referred to as “sunyata” or “emptiness,” is seen as itself the ground for everything, and takes on a life of its own as it were. That’s the concept to which I was referring in a previous post and which I was relating to the “apophatic” side of Christianity–the insistence that God is wholly beyond all forms and thoughts and words, so that God is in the strict sense not a “being” or a “substance.”

There are certainly some problems with identifying Mahayana “emptiness” with our conception of God. All I’ve suggested is that thinking about the relationship between our conception of God and “sunyata” might help us put some of the longstanding problems arising from the use of *Greek *philosophical concepts into perspective.

As you pointed out in your response to my post on the Eucharist, there’s an obvious appeal to Christians in “emptiness” language in the sense that we believe that we should empty ourselves in order to be filled with God’s grace. That’s one of the major ethical/spiritual points of contact between Christianity and Buddhism. But the trickier philosophical/theological question that I’m pushing is how far the concept of “emptiness” applies to God Himself.

Edwin

 

[Ahimsa]

Yes, “you” may be reborn as an animal (or various other kinds of non-human beings), in the sense that the consciousness existing in the present “you” will continue after death…

Or, to be more precise, the series, or stream, of arising consciousness (new moments of consciousness arising, existing, and passing away each millisecond) may associate itself with the body of a non-human animal; in such a case, the moments of consciousness associated with the non-human animal are not the same moments of consciousness associated with the human body from the previous life (because animals have different sense organs, brains, etc.), but there is a continuity of “karma” (or, “intention”) between the life as a human and the current life as a animal.

 

[rossum]

Buddhist philosophy would question the idea that there’s an underlying “real you” that remains unchanged underneath all the superficial changes.

An unchanging self negates the possibility of salvation/enlightenment for the unsaved/unenlightened. If the self cannot change from one state to the other then there is no possibility of salvation/enlightenment. Without such a possibility both Christianity and Buddhism are pointless. Change is fundamental to the purpose of both religions. You cannot be saved/enlightened without changing yourself.

rossum

 

[Contarini]

An unchanging self negates the possibility of salvation/enlightenment for the unsaved/unenlightened. If the self cannot change from one state to the other then there is no possibility of salvation/enlightenment. Without such a possibility both Christianity and Buddhism are pointless. Change is fundamental to the purpose of both religions. You cannot be saved/enlightened without changing yourself.

rossum

Well, this is the basic paradox that exercised the pre-Socratic philosophers. You have just made the Heraclitean point against Parmenides. The response of a follower of Parmenides (which is also a difficulty I have with Buddhism, especially in its Theravada form) would be that if everything changes, it makes no sense to speak of anything changing. If there’s nothing that remains the same through the changes, then you really just have a bunch of different things randomly succeeding each other, and it doesn’t make any sense to speak of change at all, because there’s nothing to change.

The Western philosophical tradition, ever since those early days, has sought ways of speaking of reality that maintain both the “one” and the “many,” both continuity and change. If Buddhism were simply calling for a return to Heraclitus, it wouldn’t have anything to offer us. I don’t think Buddhism is that simplistic, of course.

Edwin

 

[Little_One0307]

The Buddha attained nirvana when he became enlightened at age 35. He died at age 80. For 45 years the Buddha was living his life on Earth yet at the same time in nirvana. Nirvana is not non-existence.

In nirvana there is no awareness of your soul, because you do not have a soul. What you think of as your soul isn’t; you are mistaken. When you are enlightened you will not make that mistake.

Nirvana is not a heaven, you don’t have to die to get there. You can attain nirvana here and now in the ordinary world of samsara. Enlightenment allows you to see things as they really are, rather than how you would like them to be or what you mistake them for (as with a soul).

rossum

Rossum,

What is samsara?

So about the soul? What do we have if no soul? This is very unfamiliar ground for me. Thanks for answering my questions.

 

[Little_One0307]

In Buddhism, the term “soul” (or, more precisely, “self”) has a very specific meaning(s). It generally means “something that is completely under your control”, “something that is totally yours and, thus, unchanging”. Thus, you should be able to make the “self” do whatever you want it to do, at any time, at any place – it’s completely under your control. It’s who you “really” are.

Instead of saying “There is no self”, Buddhism asks the question, “Can you find the ‘self’, can you find something that is totally under your control, totally and completely ‘yours’ and unchanging?” Is your body totally under your control? Your thoughts? Your feelings? Your memory? And so forth?

If you find that there is nothing that you can point to and say, “That is totally ‘mine’, that is totally under my control, I can make that do whatever I want, at any time I want,” then that is good news, because that means that you don’t need to obsess about any of that stuff, be addicted to any of that stuff, thinking it will bring your happiness; you can enjoy whatever happens, and live in a very intelligent and wholesome manner, changing what can be changed, and accepting what can’t be changed (and, of course, knowing the difference between the two).

AHhh okay this helps.

So when one has everything under control, they aren’t ruled by passions anymore, and I guess they are closer to nirvana right?

Now how does suffering work in all of this, or am I mixing different belief systems up with Buddhism?

God bless.

 

[Little_One0307]

Buddhists would say that identity changes all the time, not just between death and rebirth. The example I use with my students is a baby picture–are you the same person that you were in that picture? Buddhist philosophy would question the idea that there’s an underlying “real you” that remains unchanged underneath all the superficial changes.There’s continuity, so in practice they do speak of “you” being reborn, just as I am speaking as if the “you” who reads this post is the same “you” that wrote the post to which I’m replying, even though, to some degree, you will be a different person by then (and just as I am a different person than I was when I started this long sentence, or even when I typed the last keystroke).

Ahh okay this does make sense and the example you gave made sense as well. I don’t think even as Catholics we are called to remain the same, we are called to come into a closer Union with God, and that means to constantly change.

But your example made this come clear in my mind.

As you pointed out in your response to my post on the Eucharist, there’s an obvious appeal to Christians in “emptiness” language in the sense that we believe that we should empty ourselves in order to be filled with God’s grace. That’s one of the major ethical/spiritual points of contact between Christianity and Buddhism. But the trickier philosophical/theological question that I’m pushing is how far the concept of “emptiness” applies to God Himself.

This presents a great deal of possibilities. And one that requires much thinking and praying over.

I have found out in my own life, that I seem to limit God when I think of Him in human terms or in terms that have been used to define. Even the CCC says that our human langauge is poor when we attempt to talk of things of God.

But yet, I am not sure I can reconcile yet that God is truly emptiness, He exists.

But thanks for posting your informative post.

God bless you Edwin.

 

[Little_One0307]

An unchanging self negates the possibility of salvation/enlightenment for the unsaved/unenlightened. If the self cannot change from one state to the other then there is no possibility of salvation/enlightenment. Without such a possibility both Christianity and Buddhism are pointless. Change is fundamental to the purpose of both religions. You cannot be saved/enlightened without changing yourself.

rossum

Rossum,

I agree with this, but does grace fit in with the Buddhist belief system or is that particularly a Christain term?

What I mean in Christainity one changes by choosing to conform to will ones will with God by His grace.

What helps a Buddhinst change himself, is it his own will or deterimination?

Thanks.

 

[Ahimsa]

AHhh okay this helps.

So when one has everything under control, they aren’t ruled by passions anymore, and I guess they are closer to nirvana right?

Well, trying to get “everything under control” is the problem, because it is impossible to fully and totally control any thing. However, what you can do, is decide how you will react/respond to anything and everything. Your response is under your control (at least to some degree), but your response is an action, it’s not a “thing”.

Now how does suffering work in all of this, or am I mixing different belief systems up with Buddhism?

God bless.

The incorrect belief that there is something that you can totally and fully control, and that this something will give you happiness – that is the cause of suffering.

 

[Ahimsa]

But yet, I am not sure I can reconcile yet that God is truly emptiness, He exists.

In Buddhism, emptiness is existence; existence is emptiness. Without existence, there is no emptiness. Without emptiness, there is no existence.

In other words, emptiness exists. In fact, emptiness is what makes possible the existence of things.

 

[Little_One0307]

Well, trying to get “everything under control” is the problem, because it is impossible to fully and totally control any thing. However, what you can do, is decide how you will react/respond to anything and everything. Your response is under your control (at least to some degree), but your response is an action, it’s not a “thing”.

The incorrect belief that there is something that you can totally and fully control, and that this something will give you happiness – that is the cause of suffering.

Hmmm that is different from the Catholic teaching on suffering. Perhaps it is included in the Teaching of Suffering by the CC. I am not sure, I am going to have to do some research.

God bless.

 

[rossum]

What is samsara?

Samsara is the ordinary world we live in. Imperfect, deceptive and unsatisfactory.

So about the soul? What do we have if no soul?

Christianity can be likened to a single bead on a long wire. The bead is our one life and the wire is our soul, extending well beyond our one life. Hinduism can be likened to many beads on a long wire. The beads are our many lives, with the wire, our atman, extending beyond our last life. Buddhism is many beads on a chain. There is no single link of the chain that extends for the whole distance, each link of the chain is connected to the next link and to the previous link in a chain of cause and effect. There is no unchanging single piece of wire; each separate link of the chain is different from the other links. The chain shares some properties with the wire, but it is not a wire. In particular, what happens to the chain after the last bead is undefined. All descriptions of nirvana are false; they can only ever be a finger pointing at the moon – they can never be the moon.

I agree with this, but does grace fit in with the Buddhist belief system or is that particularly a Christain term?

The specifics of grace are Christian. Some forms of Buddhism allow Bodhisattvas to transfer merit to those less close to enlightenment to help them on their journey. That is probably the closest Buddhism gets to grace.

What helps a Buddhinst change himself, is it his own will or deterimination?

Initially and finally yes. In between others can help with advice and so forth. The major Bodhisattvas can help whole worlds full of people, Amitabha for instance. However, even in Amitabha’s paradise, it is up to the individual Buddhist to take the final step to enlightenment. Since it is ourselves we want to transform, in the final analysis we are the only people who can make that transformation.

rossum

 

[Tomcmaj]

I think it means that they are partially denying Jesus as Savior.

Not at all.

The difference is that for Buddhists, Jesus has no beard.

 

[Little_One0307]

Christianity can be likened to a single bead on a long wire. The bead is our one life and the wire is our soul, extending well beyond our one life. Hinduism can be likened to many beads on a long wire. The beads are our many lives, with the wire, our atman, extending beyond our last life. Buddhism is many beads on a chain. There is no single link of the chain that extends for the whole distance, each link of the chain is connected to the next link and to the previous link in a chain of cause and effect. There is no unchanging single piece of wire; each separate link of the chain is different from the other links. The chain shares some properties with the wire, but it is not a wire. In particular, what happens to the chain after the last bead is undefined. All descriptions of nirvana are false; they can only ever be a finger pointing at the moon – they can never be the moon.

This example makes sense. I like your explanations they are taking very complex things and making them quite understandable. I thank you for your patience in answering my questions.

Initially and finally yes. In between others can help with advice and so forth. The major Bodhisattvas can help whole worlds full of people, Amitabha for instance. However, even in Amitabha’s paradise, it is up to the individual Buddhist to take the final step to enlightenment. Since it is ourselves we want to transform, in the final analysis we are the only people who can make that transformation.

Amitabha’s paradise, is this nirvana? Do all branches of Buddhism believe in nirvana? If Amitabha’s paradise is not nirvana how does it work with nirvana.

So when one is in nirvana, they are no longer aware of anything, what exactly do they become one with? I guess what I mean is there union with something in Buddhism that might compare with Union with God in Christainity?

Thanks Rossum

 

[rossum]

Amitabha’s paradise, is this nirvana? Do all branches of Buddhism believe in nirvana? If Amitabha’s paradise is not nirvana how does it work with nirvana.

Amitabha’s paradise, a Pure Land called sukhavati, is not nirvana. It is pleasant but temporary. The point of sukhavati is that it is very easy to attain nirvana from there. The birds sing the words of the scriptures. The wind rustling in the leaves of the trees makes the sound of mantras. All Branches of Buddhism accept nirvana. Amitabha is only found in the Mahayana, specifically in the Pure Land school.

So when one is in nirvana, they are no longer aware of anything, what exactly do they become one with?

Remember the the Buddha was alive on Earth for 45 years while also in nirvana. He was well aware of what was going on around him. Questions about the state of the Buddha after his final death are unanswerable; we have no referents with which to construct an answer.

I guess what I mean is there union with something in Buddhism that might compare with Union with God in Christainity?

Never having experienced either I cannot say. There might be something about the comparison in Thomas Merton, who appears to me to have attained enlightenment at Polonnaruwa.

rossum

 

[I_Thirst]

Just a note, as this thread seems to be sprawling out a bit, though it is interesting.

Buddhism has three vehicles: Theravada (or Hinayana), Mahayana, Tantrayana. While there are common terms (such as nirvana), the teaching about them among the varying vehicles can differ (as rossum pointed out). If one isn’t aware of this, it can confuse things.

Buddhism isn’t unified like Roman Catholicism; there is no Cathecism or Magesterium, for example. Each vehicle has sutras (holy books) that it emphasizes, often apart from other vehicles and often within various branchs and sects.

For example, Zen falls within the Mahayana vehicle. Within Zen there are several sects, but two of the most prominent are Rinzai and Soto. Rinzai emphasizes Sudden Enlightenment; Soto, Gradual Enlightenment. Perhaps the goal is the same, but the methods are different. Since Zen is often more commonly known, I’ll use another example. Many Zen sects use koans (“What is the sound of one hand clapping?”), but you won’t find koan usage among Therevadans or Tibetan/Tantrayana Buddhists (at least I never did). These may not be the best examples, but I’m just offering a glimpse of the diversity within Buddhism.

I recall once when I was practicing Theravada Buddhism with a local Thai community (one could call it “old school” Buddhism) I visited a Soka Gokkai (they chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo). Soka Gokkai is a sect within the branch Nicherin Buddhism, which is part of the Mahayana vehicle (whew! I had to go back and look that one up). It was like night and day. Perhaps I could liken it to going to Mass at a Catholic Cathedral and then going to a Pentecostal service in a strip mall.

I’d think that the common teaching among all vehicles would be the refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and the Sangha; the Four Noble Truths; and the Noble Eightfold Path. I may have missed something, but I recall that those are the bedrock elements.

Imagine asking a Christian, “What is salvation?” The answer you receive would be different if the Christian were Catholic or Protestant. Or imagine asking a Protestant about Purgatory and indulgences – or Mary. You’d come away with an entirely different teaching and may never come in contact with the Catholic teaching, or even the Orthodox one. In the same manner, be aware that asking a Buddhist about his faith could result in very different answers and approaches.