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

[Little_One0307]

To All are participating,

I am still watching this thread and am learning a lot. Thank you for keeping this thread a non debate thread. I appreciate all the posters who are sharing and helping me grow in my faith as well as to understand the beauty in Buddhism.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Sorry, but I think I do know. You can of course claim that I don’t know, and I can claim that I do know, until we both go off to Purgatory and the Lord straightens us both out. So let’s drop this fruitless line of argument.

You are the one who “brought up this fruitless [thank you for admitting that your intiative was and is fruitless] line of argument.” Here is what YOU said, ascribing motives to others when you have no idea of what is inside their heads:

Unfortunately, because the CE is available for free online, and because it sounds magisterial and affirms triumphalist Catholicism, many folks on this forum treat it as if it were infallible in all it affirms.

You have ZERO basis for making such a presumptuous statement, unless each of those forum users said,

I cite CE because it’s available for free online, and because it sounds magisterial and affirms triumphalist Catholicism

And such an assumption of people’s motivations is VERY offensive. You are further offensive here:

your facile claims about Buddhist and Christian views of suffering, which show little understanding of what Buddhist writers and non-Buddhist scholars of Buddhism claim “dukkha” means.

Facile claims? I wonder how you decide what others do and do not know? (Which “facile” form of study you use?) The Christian view of suffering is entirely different from the Buddhist view of suffering, and some of those differences have been identified right here on this thread, by admitted Buddhist practitioners. I stated my reason for my claims, further punctuated by similar statements by others, and my comments about their statements, demonstrating how much I do understand the clear distinctions. Hardly “facile.”

Hasty syncretism and hasty declarations of incompatibility are both intellectual vices, though the former is more amiable.

What an unsubstantiated statement. The declaration of incompatibility is swift; the study of the differences over a long period of time was anything but “hasty.” This is just another example of the hasty conclusions you reach about what posters have and have not studied. Just because – hmmm – my brains works quickly and I’m able to draw obvious conclusions after careful study – does not mean that those conclusions were arrived at “hastily.”

I freely admit that I don’t understand Buddhism.

I have yet to see any evidence that you understand it any better than I do.

Clearly I do, since I understand what the patent differences are, whereas you are unsure and confused about those differences.

There may well be no such thing as an authentic “Catholic Buddhist”

Not may be. Is.

I think that a few more centuries at least will go by before your blanket claim will be justified.

It was justified already centuries ago.

 

[Ahimsa]

The Christian view of suffering is entirely different from the Buddhist view of suffering, and some of those differences have been identified right here on this thread, by admitted Buddhist practitioners.

You’re confusing the different definitions of “suffering”.

When Buddhists speak of transcending suffering, or eliminating suffering, or transforming suffering, what is meant by “suffering” is more accurately described (as Contrarini pointed out) as “dissatisfaction”, or “a sense of not-quite-right-ness”. This “dissatisfaction” is caused by “thirstful, selfish craving”. So, in short, the Buddhist goal is to transcend/eliminate/transform “selfish craving”. The transcendence/elimination/transformation of “selfish craving” leads to the “highest happiness” (or “nirvana”).

Christianity has a similar goal. (There is no need to say that the goal is “identical”, but at the very least, it is similar.) In Christianity, the goal is theosis, divinization, which is the partaking of the divine nature, commonly described as “heaven”. Heaven is a state/place in which no pain or death exists, no “suffering”, and no “dissatisfaction”. In addition, there is no “selfish craving” in heaven.

So, we see that Christianity and Buddhism have very similar goals: the end of suffering.

Now, the question becomes: how does one reach that goal/destination/culmination point?

In Christianity, one is to “take up one’s cross” and accept “suffering” for the sake of Christ. What this means is that one is to renounce one’s selfish lusts, hatreds, pride, envy, and other sinful tendencies. The renunciation of such sinful tendencies produces a type of “suffering”: giving up the sinful acts that you want to do, can produce a lot of discomfort and suffering!

In Buddhism, the realization of nirvana is done by “going upstream”, that is, going in the opposite direction of one’s selfish cravings for excessive sensuality, for domination over others, for comfortable ease. And when one goes against one’s “natural” tendencies of selfish craving, that produces a type of “suffering”: giving up selfishness produces a lot of discomfort and suffering!

In both Christianity and Buddhism, one type of suffering is needed (the suffering that results from relinquishing selfishness or sin), in order to transcend/eliminate/transform the other, more basic type of suffering, the suffering that is caused by selfishness or sin.

We can thus see that there are two types of suffering, for both Christians and Buddhists.

1. The suffering that is caused by selfishness or sin. For instance, the selfish craving that produces drunkenness can result in suffering.

2 The suffering that is the result of relinquishing selfishness or sin. An example of this would be the suffering that one feels when one decides to not eat that last, scrumptious piece of cake; or, the suffering one feels when one decides to follow a discipline for Lent.

In both Buddhism and Christianity, suffering #1 is the suffering that is not wanted. Suffering #2 is simply part of the package whenever you practice a real, spiritual discipline.

In either case, both sorts of suffering are finally ended in heaven, or nirvana.

 

[Little_One0307]

You’re confusing the different definitions of “suffering”.

When Buddhists speak of transcending suffering, or eliminating suffering, or transforming suffering, what is meant by “suffering” is more accurately described (as Contrarini pointed out) as “dissatisfaction”, or “a sense of not-quite-right-ness”. This “dissatisfaction” is caused by “thirstful, selfish craving”. So, in short, the Buddhist goal is to transcend/eliminate/transform “selfish craving”. The transcendence/elimination/transformation of “selfish craving” leads to the “highest happiness” (or “nirvana”).

Christianity has a similar goal. (There is no need to say that the goal is “identical”, but at the very least, it is similar.) In Christianity, the goal is theosis, divinization, which is the partaking of the divine nature, commonly described as “heaven”. Heaven is a state/place in which no pain or death exists, no “suffering”, and no “dissatisfaction”. In addition, there is no “selfish craving” in heaven.

So, we see that Christianity and Buddhism have very similar goals: the end of suffering.

Now, the question becomes: how does one reach that goal/destination/culmination point?

In Christianity, one is to “take up one’s cross” and accept “suffering” for the sake of Christ. What this means is that one is to renounce one’s selfish lusts, hatreds, pride, envy, and other sinful tendencies. The renunciation of such sinful tendencies produces a type of “suffering”: giving up the sinful acts that you want to do, can produce a lot of discomfort and suffering!

In Buddhism, the realization of nirvana is done by “going upstream”, that is, going in the opposite direction of one’s selfish cravings for excessive sensuality, for domination over others, for comfortable ease. And when one goes against one’s “natural” tendencies of selfish craving, that produces a type of “suffering”: giving up selfishness produces a lot of discomfort and suffering!

In both Christianity and Buddhism, one type of suffering is needed (the suffering that results from relinquishing selfishness or sin), in order to transcend/eliminate/transform the other, more basic type of suffering, the suffering that is caused by selfishness or sin.

We can thus see that there are two types of suffering, for both Christians and Buddhists.

1. The suffering that is caused by selfishness or sin. For instance, the selfish craving that produces drunkenness can result in suffering.

2 The suffering that is the result of relinquishing selfishness or sin. An example of this would be the suffering that one feels when one decides to not eat that last, scrumptious piece of cake; or, the suffering one feels when one decides to follow a discipline for Lent.

In both Buddhism and Christianity, suffering #1 is the suffering that is not wanted. Suffering #2 is simply part of the package whenever you practice a real, spiritual discipline.

In either case, both sorts of suffering are finally ended in heaven, or nirvana.

Ahisma,

This post was very informative. So can one loosley say that redemption to a Buddhist is making nirvana? [sry for the terminology, I really am not familiar with Buddhist terms and am trying to express the terms using Christain terms, probably a recipie for disaster I know.] IN this way can suffering be redemptive for Buddhists, and can suffering be redemptive to Buddhists in other ways?

Other question, so in Buddhism one is working to lose one sense of self right? When one is free from passions and things of that nature, does one have an awareness of self? Do Buddhist lose the sense of I when in nirvana?

Thanks for considering these questions and answering them. Hopefully I am wording these decently, if you need clarification of what I am trying to say, I will be more than happy to respond.

Thanks.

 

[Ahimsa]

Ahisma,

This post was very informative. So can one loosley say that redemption to a Buddhist is making nirvana?

Buddhists usually wouldn’t use the word “redemption”, but the short answer is yes, the realization of nirvana would be “redemption”, or “salvation”, for Buddhists.

…IN this way can suffering be redemptive for Buddhists, and can suffering be redemptive to Buddhists in other ways?

Yes, the suffering that results from giving up selfish craving, that type of suffering is certainly “redemptive” in the sense that the experience of such suffering can lead one to become more compassionate, a bit wiser, and so forth – and the increase in compassion and wisdom will lead one closer to nirvana. For instance, a Buddhist who practices non-violence might be attacked, but by not striking back, the Buddhist can demonstrate the redemptive (or “saving”) power of non-violence, both to himself and to the attackers.

Other question, so in Buddhism one is working to lose one sense of self right? When one is free from passions and things of that nature, does one have an awareness of self? Do Buddhist lose the sense of I when in nirvana?

I think in order to understand the Buddhist talk about “self” and “I” and “loss of self”, one has to clarify how a Buddhist understands “self” and “I”. The different traditions of Buddhism will have slightly different ideas, but I find the Theravada tradition to give a very straightforward and direct definition of these terms.

“Self” is defined very specifically. A “self”, essentially, is something over which you have total control – because if something is your “self”, you should be able to make it do whatever you want it to do, whenever you want, however you want. Your “self” is something that should be totally under your possession.

Some people think that their bodies are their “selves”, but you can’t totally control what your body does: eventually it gets sick, old, and even dies. Your body, then, is not your “self” (as “self” is strictly defined in Buddhism).

Likewise, your mind (your thoughts, feelings, sensations) are not “self”, because you can’t totally control what pops into your head all the time. Of course, you have some control, and you can develop your will and your intention over time, increasing your control over how you use your will and intention, but the control is not absolute or total. So, the mind is not “self” either.

So, in Buddhism, to “lose one’s sense of self” means that one loses a misconception – which is good! One no longer lives under the false idea that one’s body or one’s mind is totally under one’s absolute control. So, from a Buddhist perspective, that is a good thing to realize.

What “losing one’s sense of self” does not mean: it does not mean losing one’s ability to think clearly, to love compassionately, or to notice that one’s body-and-mind operate in ways that are different from some other person’s body-and-mind. Realizing nirvana means that one is more loving and clear-headed, not less.

“Losing” your self means losing what was never there to begin with.

 

[Little_One0307]

Ahisma,

Thanks for that last post.

I have a question, do Buddhists believe in something akin to demonic possession?

So to begin with what is exactly there? Our will? I guess I am trying to try to understand what self is. I know in Christian cirlces a person is made up of mind and soul. What does the Buddhinst think of as person, or do they use person as an interchange of self.

Oh if you can think of any really basic resources that I can access by the web, I sure would appreciate it.

Thanks for answering this questions.

 

[Tomcmaj]

“Losing” your self means losing what was never there to begin with.

As we become entangled in our desires, what we shallowly think of our Self is not our Self at all. Removing these desires allows us to experience our true selves.

Buddhist practice (which varies depending on the type of Buddhism) provides guidance that helps free us of these shackles.

You may ask,“I desire that my children grow up healthy and have every chance they need to be successful. How can that be something undesirable or bad?”

It’s actually very easy for parents to become overly obsessed with even something as apparently “good” as the desire for our children to have a good life. Buddhism believes it’s important to put things like this in proper perspective, or risk losing sight of what we really are.

 

[jerry_joseph]

Would you say, then, that a Christian cannot be influenced in any way by any non-Christian system of thought? Was Aquinas wrong in being in some sense an Aristotelian, or Augustine in being in some sense a Platonist?

What makes Buddhism different?

Edwin

There are lot of similarities between buddhism and christianity. Buddhist believes in Ahimsa . We can see that principle in Christianity in the commandment “Thou shalt not Kill”. Other teachings such as mercy, love etc can be seen in Christianity. Christianity is fullness of truth…If you are well aware about christian teachings and principle you will not go behind others…But you can respect others beliefs and traditions while standing firmly in our beliefs.

There are lot of differences between buddhist and christian beliefs . Buddhist belives in cycle of birth and re birth. Christianity belives in only one birth… Buddhist does not accept the exsistence of God.

In such circumstance where you will stand …With teachings of Jesus of with teachings of buddha.?.

You will either deceive buddha or christ.

Also please notice that places where buddist are majority comming to christianity in recent years especially roman catholicsm. In Arunachal pradesh ,an eastern state in India where the parnasala of Dalai lama is situated , is now 40% Roman Catholic. When church started growing , government passed anti conversion law in 1978 . At that time catholics where less than 10% of the population. Despite of all these bannings church grew many folds to 40%

members4.boardhost.com/acnaus/msg/1300062015.html

There peoples are not concidering them as christian buddist or buddist christian. Be sincere and honest to either buddha or christ.

Also I respects Buddist culture and traditions. But it does not mean that I am a christian buddhist. I am a christian.

 

[Viola_Incognita]

I’m reading all of this stuff about “self” and wondering where sin comes in?

Who is God? Who is man? What is sin?

---

Another source of info on Christianity vs Buddhism: The Women of Grace New Age Blog.

womenofgrace.com/newage/?p=182

 

[Ahimsa]

Ahisma,

Thanks for that last post.

I have a question, do Buddhists believe in something akin to demonic possession?

Yes, because Buddhists (at least in Asia; not as much in the U.S. perhaps) do believe that there exist some spiritual beings who want to do harm to other beings (both human and non-human). However, these demonic beings are powerless in harming someone who has faith in the Buddha, or who has realized nirvana.

So to begin with what is exactly there? Our will? I guess I am trying to try to understand what self is. I know in Christian cirlces a person is made up of mind and soul. What does the Buddhinst think of as person, or do they use person as an interchange of self.

Even though the term “self” (or, in Pali, “atta”; in Sanskrit, “atman”) has a very technical definition in Buddhism, the terms “self” can also be used in the everyday-sense of “my body and my mind”. The Buddha Himself often said “myself”, or “your selves”, or “I”, when he was referring to his body-and-mind, or the body-and-mind of other people. So, in Buddhism, we do have a self (composed of mind and body), but this “self” is not something totally under our absolute control.

Oh if you can think of any really basic resources that I can access by the web, I sure would appreciate it.

Some good basic resources would be BuddhaNet, and Access To Insight.

Thanks for answering this questions.

Sure, you’re welcome.

 

[Contarini]

There are lot of differences between buddhist and christian beliefs . Buddhist belives in cycle of birth and re birth. Christianity belives in only one birth… Buddhist does not accept the exsistence of God.

Right, but it’s important to recognize that Buddhism did not develop these views in opposition to Christianity, but in a totally different cultural context. So we need to tread carefully–it’s not like Islam, which clearly rejects basic Christian tenets.

Buddhist rejection of a personal God, for instance, seems to be shaped in part by interaction with an ancient Indian theistic religion (which has since died out) which denied free will. Since Catholicism also rejects versions of theism that regard free will and divine omnipotence as contradictory, we should be careful not to assume that the theism rejected by early Buddhists is the theism of St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Maximus the Confessor.

Also, as I’ve said earlier, it is extremely hard to get Buddhists to understand that our God is not the same kind of being as a powerful Hindu deity such as Brahma the Creator (I’ve made several apparently unsuccessful attempts to convince rossum of this–and rossum is from a culturally Christian background, if I’m not mistaken).

In such circumstance where you will stand …With teachings of Jesus of with teachings of buddha.?.

Where genuine contradiction exists, of course I will stand with Jesus. But I am not going to rush to assume either contradiction or compatibility. I don’t need to. I can go on being a Christian while entering into dialogue with Buddhism. If it takes a thousand years or more for the Church to figure out just how to regard Buddhism, that’s OK. If Jesus comes back first, that’s fine too.

To repeat my analogy with pagan Greek philosophy: it was commonly claimed in the 13th century that Aristotle flatly contradicted Christianity on the question of the eternity of the world and the immortality of the soul. Aquinas, while clearly siding with orthodox Christianity against Aristotle where necessary, engaged in a nuanced analysis of just what Aristotle was saying in his original context, arguing that on the question of the eternity of the world, for instance, Aristotle was arguing against pre-Socratic philosophers whose views were themselves clearly different from the Christian doctrine of creation.

Also please notice that places where buddist are majority comming to christianity in recent years especially roman catholicsm. In Arunachal pradesh ,an eastern state in India where the parnasala of Dalai lama is situated , is now 40% Roman Catholic.

But the Dalai Lama is an exile–are Buddhists actually a majority there?

There peoples are not concidering them as christian buddist or buddist christian. Be sincere and honest to either buddha or christ.

I doubt that most of these folks are converting from Buddhism–more likely from Hinduism. However, it’s certainly true that initial converts tend simply to reject their old ways of thinking. The same thing was true in early Christianity–but the intellectual endeavor of Justin Martyr, Origen, Augustine, etc., bore great fruit in the development of a Christian philosophy/theology that incorporated elements of pagan thought but baptized them.

Edwin

 

[jerry_joseph]

See ,

I will not tell that buddism is a bad religion. It is a good religion. I respect the simplicity of life of those buddist monks.

All good thoughts of buddism can find in christianity… Ahimsa (We can find it in the commandment Thou shalt not kill), Mercy, Love , Kindness (From life of Jesus and church’s teachings.

We can adopt good things from other religions which are not against our christian beliefs and values. But the term Jesus buddist , I feel some thing wrong in it…

 

[Tomcmaj]

I am not going to rush to assume either contradiction or compatibility. I don’t need to. I can go on being a Christian while entering into dialogue with Buddhism. If it takes a thousand years or more for the Church to figure out just how to regard Buddhism, that’s OK. If Jesus comes back first, that’s fine too.

QFT.

 

[jerry_joseph]

You’re confusing the different definitions of “suffering”.

When Buddhists speak of transcending suffering, or eliminating suffering, or transforming suffering, what is meant by “suffering” is more accurately described (as Contrarini pointed out) as “dissatisfaction”, or “a sense of not-quite-right-ness”. This “dissatisfaction” is caused by “thirstful, selfish craving”. So, in short, the Buddhist goal is to transcend/eliminate/transform “selfish craving”. The transcendence/elimination/transformation of “selfish craving” leads to the “highest happiness” (or “nirvana”).

Christianity has a similar goal. (There is no need to say that the goal is “identical”, but at the very least, it is similar.) In Christianity, the goal is theosis, divinization, which is the partaking of the divine nature, commonly described as “heaven”. Heaven is a state/place in which no pain or death exists, no “suffering”, and no “dissatisfaction”. In addition, there is no “selfish craving” in heaven.

So, we see that Christianity and Buddhism have very similar goals: the end of suffering.

Now, the question becomes: how does one reach that goal/destination/culmination point?

In Christianity, one is to “take up one’s cross” and accept “suffering” for the sake of Christ. What this means is that one is to renounce one’s selfish lusts, hatreds, pride, envy, and other sinful tendencies. The renunciation of such sinful tendencies produces a type of “suffering”: giving up the sinful acts that you want to do, can produce a lot of discomfort and suffering!

In Buddhism, the realization of nirvana is done by “going upstream”, that is, going in the opposite direction of one’s selfish cravings for excessive sensuality, for domination over others, for comfortable ease. And when one goes against one’s “natural” tendencies of selfish craving, that produces a type of “suffering”: giving up selfishness produces a lot of discomfort and suffering!

In both Christianity and Buddhism, one type of suffering is needed (the suffering that results from relinquishing selfishness or sin), in order to transcend/eliminate/transform the other, more basic type of suffering, the suffering that is caused by selfishness or sin.

We can thus see that there are two types of suffering, for both Christians and Buddhists.

1. The suffering that is caused by selfishness or sin. For instance, the selfish craving that produces drunkenness can result in suffering.

2 The suffering that is the result of relinquishing selfishness or sin. An example of this would be the suffering that one feels when one decides to not eat that last, scrumptious piece of cake; or, the suffering one feels when one decides to follow a discipline for Lent.

In both Buddhism and Christianity, suffering #1 is the suffering that is not wanted. Suffering #2 is simply part of the package whenever you practice a real, spiritual discipline.

In either case, both sorts of suffering are finally ended in heaven, or nirvana.

Suffering is common due to our human nature and it is valuable if we puts it together with the christ’s sufferings in the cross. Other wise we will suffer and our sufferings will not be valuable.

 

[jerry_joseph]

As per christian beliefs sufferings are common due to our human nature and it is valuable if we puts it together with the christ’s sufferings in the cross. Other wise we will suffer and our sufferings will not be valuable.

Buddhism teaches how to run away from sufferings. Christianity teaches how to makes our sufferings valuable (as sufferings are common due to our human nature) for attaining heaven. Buddhism teaches that for eliminating sufferings one should not have any types of wishes…Ie get rid of the entire wordly life and shrinking towards self… But christian teachings are not to run away from the reality of sufferings or shrinking towards oneself… Christianity aims at growing towards society…Leading a social life based on christian values and virtues.

As budhism does not believe in God or Immortality of Soul, It is awareness that one gets in one’s life goes to another life…Nirvana Means getting rid of cycle of birth and re birth… As per christianity a Soul going to heaven means complete union with God and soul going to hell means a state where permanent separation of soul from God…

Brother ,can you tell me what is the awareness that you got from your previous births?.. If you dont know that then what is meaning of this life?. How you will improve your awareness in this life?.Because as per buddhism one is improving life after life based on ones awareness that he aquired in previous births.

Christianity not only tells not to do sins but also tells to do virtues…There are seven deadly sins and counter virtues.

The Seven Deadly Sins:
Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride

LUST- An insatiable need for sex or things of a sexual nature. This includes thoughts, desires, and actions. If this need is unfed, it can lead to masterbation, rape, and even beastiality. Lust is fed by any of the aformentioned means or viewing pornography.

Gluttony- Over endulgences of anything to the extreme, usually food or drink. Alcoholism is considered part of Gluttony. Drug abuse, Gluttony.
Greed- Greed is the need for material posessions or material wealth. If this need is unfed, a Greedy person may even resort to hoarding their goods, theft, robbery, or obtaining any material posessions by means of trickery, violence, deception, or manipulation. Greedy people usually are easy to bribe, or will take any bet or do anything for a dollar.

Sloth- Sadness, depression, or the inability to feel joy. Sloth is often confused with Gluttony, though I don’t know why. Those who suffer from depression to an extreme usually have thoughts of or plans for suicide. Many times, Sloth can lead to another sin: Wrath. Those who have lost or lack love, usually fall into a deep state of Sloth.

Wrath- Extreme anger, rage, hatred, or a need for vengance or revenge. People who suffer with Wrath issues will often resort to taking the law in their own hands if they feel the justice system has failed them. To feed the need of Wrath, they may even turn to physical abuse of themself or others, murder, or even genocide. Wrath usually is a need to do harm to others. Dante described Wrath as “love of justice perverted to revenge and spite” according to the Wikipedia.

Envy- The need to have better or be better than others. The need to have the goods of others. Wanting what others have for yourself. Many times, someone with extreme Envous needs may turn to voyerism to feed the need to see what others have that the envious want.

Pride- Once considered a need to be the most beautiful, Pride can also mean a need for public acceptance in all acts. Pride can also be a need to be more important than others. Those who suffer with Pride issues, usually fail to give due complements to others, but instead fish for complements for them selves. They find ways to be better than those around them and usually have a “One Up” story. Pride is said to be the original and most deadly of the seven sins, leading straight to damnation.

The Seven Heavenly Virtues:
Chastity, Abstinence, Liberality, Diligence, Patience, Kindness, Humility

Chastity- Courage and boldness. Embracing of moral wholesomeness and achieving purity of thought through education and betterment.

Abstinence- Constant mindfulness of others and one’s surroundings; practicing self-control, abstention, and moderation.

Liberality- Generosity. Willingness to give. A nobility of thought or actions.

Diligence- A zealous and careful nature in one’s actions and work. Decisive work ethic. Budgeting one’s time; monitoring one’s own activities to guard against laziness.

Patience- Forbearance and endurance through moderation. Resolving conflicts peacefully, as opposed to resorting to violence. The ability to forgive; to show mercy to sinners.

Kindness- Charity, compassion, friendship, and sympathy without prejudice and for its own sake.

Humility- Modest behavior, selflessness, and the giving of respect. Giving credit where credit is due; not unfairly glorifying one’s own self.Modest behavior, selflessness, and the giving of respect. Giving credit where credit is due; not unfairly glorifying one’s own self.

If we focus on the life based on these virtues we can lead a good christian life in the midst of the society…(Not running away from the realities of life or shrinking towards one self).

You will get strength to practice these virtues when you are in full communion with church and receives the sacraments regularly…

 

[rossum]

Buddhism teaches how to run away from sufferings.

Buddhism teaches how to cure suffering. The four noble truths of Buddhism are in the form of an ancient Indian medical diagnosis:

• The Disease: suffering.
• The Cause: selfish desire.
• The Cure: nirvana.
• The Treatment: the eightfold path.

Buddhism does not run away from suffering, it provides the cure for suffering.

rossum

 

[Ahimsa]

Suffering is common due to our human nature…

If that were true, then Adam and Eve should have suffered before committing original sin. Since they did not suffer before committing that sin, one can’t say that suffering is due to our human nature.

CCC 1521 states that suffering is a consequence of original sin.

 

[rinnie]

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.

No disrespect but would that not create a big problem with the Commandments of God.

I mean how can we be Inspired by more then One God?? Because budda is considered to be a god is he not?

 

[rossum]

No disrespect but would that not create a big problem with the Commandments of God.

I mean how can we be Inspired by more then One God?? Because budda is considered to be a god is he not?

The Buddha is not a God. You can be inspired both by God and by Francis of Assisi. You can be inspired by both God and the Buddha:
Love others as you love yourself. - The Buddha
Think of the Buddha as a teacher with some ideas that you may find useful. Use the ones you like and ignore the ones you don’t. That is what most Buddhists do. There are far too many ideas in Buddhism to follow all of them.

rossum

 

[rinnie]

The Buddha is not a God. You can be inspired both by God and by Francis of Assisi. You can be inspired by both God and the Buddha:
Love others as you love yourself. - The Buddha
Think of the Buddha as a teacher with some ideas that you may find useful. Use the ones you like and ignore the ones you don’t. That is what most Buddhists do. There are far too many ideas in Buddhism to follow all of them.

rossum

But here is the thing. God is who we should follow. While we can be inspired by the follower of God who have showed us that they have lived up to what was expected of them by God it is still the word of GOD that they completely followed. Do you see my point?