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

[1voice]

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.

rossum

 

[1voice]

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.

rossum

Who is judge?

 

[1voice]

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.

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?

 

[CopticChristian]

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

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.).

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.

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.

Buddha never claimed to be God. Jesus is the God/man. If Jesus is the God man to follow what God wants is to follow his teachings and not to meld notions of truth as if they are compatible with other truths for there can only be one truth. Truth to be true cannot change. Either there is a God or there is not.

 

[CopticChristian]

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

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

Meditation in and of itself is meditation. To participate in Buddhism is to participate in the entirety of its beliefs. To raise a cross…and proclaim the cross in a Klu Klux Klan meeting would require accetpance of the entire belief system. To use words like dulia as they apply to Buddha and flags requires some mental gymnastics to meld two beliefs.

Buddhism is a system of thought that addresses suffering and looking for the Buddha nature in all and as I understand it is athiestic in nature and therefore would be incompatible with a Christian understanding of what you are talking about.

 

[CopticChristian]

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…

In your opinion, since you do not believe that the Bible is as we believe it to be nor do you accept Baptism and other beliefs. Your perspective is from other than a Christian perspective.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

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?

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.

Concerning truth, you are quite right, as the study of General Semantics, NLP and Neurosemantics have shown us. You don’t trip over truth. We use words to say this “is” true or that “is” not true. We can have ethereal nonsense to explain truth or accept that somethings are true and others are not. Gravity does not exist in a vacuum. This is true.

Christianity is based on the belief that we are created with a purpose. This is true for those that believe and to define a truth in this context it requires an ascent to belief, absent that assent we are stuck with the philisophic nonsense that you propose and is proposed by the Hindu writers I have read as it regard self realization and their polytheism. Transcendental meditation is innocent enough until you realize that you are being inculcated into polythiesm.

Our American history has words like " we believe these truths to be self evident"…

Christianity has what we believe to be revealed truths. In this sense we can discuss what we believe to be true. The jargon you use requires a nonsensical approach to reason that leads to athiesm or polythiesm and that is true.

I find this sort of jabber equivalent to “the Bible Says” by Protestants. This is your belief, your opinion, based on what I do not know.

 

[CopticChristian]

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?

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.)

Since you cannot trip over dharma it remains something in your mind that is a manifestation of what you choose it to be based on how you describe it. Your engagment in entering into a relationship with Dharma suggests you should cast aside the notion that there is such a thing as a Catholic Buddhist in my opinion.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

The notion of Resurrection and Reincarnation are not foremost on my mind. This appears to be an appeal to what might be shared commonly. I have a hard time with dead, rasied from the dead, alive with Christ. That is all I need to comprehend. To engage in discussion of the mystery and all this long dialogue you propose does not aid my beliefs.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

I am never in favor of asking why. The brain does not work that way. I am in favor of asking how and what. In this context I would ask how they are different and what that means to me and how it will make a difference.

 

[CEM5]

You just reminded me of something from sometime around my Confirmation classes. I guess that someone had told me about the Eastern Catholic churches but am uncertain. Either they did a horrible job describing (whatever it was) or I did a horrible job listening but I momentarily got the image of a “church” being simultaneously Catholic and Buddhist. I couldn’t purge the image fast enough (no offense intended to devout Buddhists, but the image seemed most inappropriate).

Yah, it seems to be an oxymoron!

 

[Elizabeth502]

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.

True Christianity conflicts with Buddhism Further, Christianity is not a religion of syncretism.

 

[CopticChristian]

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

How does this help me understand the Trinity?

 

[CopticChristian]

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

This is in direct conflict with Cathlic Teaching as I understand it we are Body/Soul and to not have a soul makes no sense.

 

[CopticChristian]

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).

What I see is your proselytizing the acceptance of Buddhist thought and not addressing the notion of Catholic Buddhist. I see this as a a dialgoue in accepting Buddhist thought.

 

[CopticChristian]

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

So what I see here is that you are now correlating salvation through Christ with enlightenment so that I/we can accept Buddhism as just another form of Christianity as you proseltyze.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

So if my gas tank is empty it exists and if my car exists it is empty and without it existing it can’t be empty. If my gas tank is not empty then my car cannot exist.

In other words an empty gas tank exists and in fact an empty gas tank makes it possible for other things to exist.

I think I am going to go get me an orange robe tommorrow morning.

 

[CopticChristian]

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

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.

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.

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

Now you are getting into the Hindu teaching " I am that". I get it I get to be god.

 

[CopticChristian]

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

So Buddhists deny the Trinity.

 

[SteveGC]

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.