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

[Contarini]

And yet I do know that Catholicism does allow for asceticism, look at the desert fathers. Does Buddhism have ascetics within in too? If so, can you name some examples?

Did Buddha reject asceticism generally, or did he see some good in it? I know that Catholics see some good in asceticism.

God bless.

Depends what you mean by asceticism. What he rejected was an approach that punished the body in order to liberate the mind. He didn’t reject forms of self-discipline that keep the body in control, which I would say corresponds best to mainstream Christian asceticism (though you can certainly find self-punishment in Christianity).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I think the key question here is: what determines if someone is a “Buddhist”? In Paul Knitter’s case, his Buddhist teacher knows about Knitter’s primary commitment to Christ. (And, I agree that any “Buddhist Christian” or “Christian Buddhist” usually has a greater commitment, in a formal sense, to either Christ or Buddha.) And yet his Buddhist teacher allowed Knitter to take Refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, which is the primary activity of becoming “officially” Buddhist. In Knitter’s case, it seems that Knitter sees Christ as a “Buddha”, as “buddha” is originally defined: someone who is Awake. (Knitter doesn’t actually say that he sees Christ as a “B/buddha”, but I think that’s a useful way of understanding why Knitter took Refuge in the Buddha.) In any event, Knitter’s primary commitment is to Christ, and, at the very least, Knitter’s taking Refuge in the Buddha does not undermine that prior commitment to Christ, but, in fact, re-inforces it. Thus, Knitter could write a book entitled Without Buddha, I Could Not be A Christian.

Ahimsa, the problem is that when I look at Knitter’s theology of world religions in *No Other Name? *(which is an excellent summary of the debate, taking Knitter’s bias into account–his description of Barth as representing the “conservative evangelical view” is rather weird, but I see what he’s getting at and why he’d say that as a liberal Catholic), I find him enthusiastically endorsing the “theocentric revolution” promoted by folks like John Hick. This isn’t orthodox christology at all. What he means by the primacy of Christ isn’t what Christians have historically meant by it. This is completely distinct from the abstract question of whether you can be an orthodox Catholic and a Buddhist. Maybe you can, but Knitter isn’t a good example, because he explicitly calls for a radical shift in Christology.

Edwin

 

[Ahimsa]

Can you please tell me few names of persons who conquered suffering through your prinicples?..

Well, the Buddha, for one. As well as His disciples called “arhats”.

 

[Ahimsa]

Zen is a way of reaching deep down into yourself to find the truth… Buddhism is all about self.

You seemed to have contradicted yourself. Is Buddhism about finding Truth, or is it about “self”?

 

[Ahimsa]

You cannot put ANYONE before Christ.

A Buddhist can do so. That’s why they’re called “Buddhists”.

So you cannot say in my mind that you are Jesus Buddhist. You choose one or the other. Who is your GOD Jesus Christ or Jesus Buddhist… See what I am saying?

A Jesus Buddhist (under my definition) is primarily a Buddhist who is also deeply inspired by Jesus.

 

[Ahimsa]

Ahimsa, the problem is that when I look at Knitter’s theology of world religions in *No Other Name? *(which is an excellent summary of the debate, taking Knitter’s bias into account–his description of Barth as representing the “conservative evangelical view” is rather weird, but I see what he’s getting at and why he’d say that as a liberal Catholic), I find him enthusiastically endorsing the “theocentric revolution” promoted by folks like John Hick. This isn’t orthodox christology at all. What he means by the primacy of Christ isn’t what Christians have historically meant by it.

Perhaps, but would his interpretation of the primacy of Christ exclude Knitter from using the word ‘Christian’ to describe himself?

 

[rinnie]

No, Zen is one particular form of Buddhism which originated relatively late. It’s the form that is particularly interesting to many Westerners, whether secular, Christian, and Jewish, because on the whole it’s the least “religious” and thus the easiest to transplant (and also just because it’s intrinsically interesting, with great philosophical depth, considerable accessibility, and a longstanding, profound influence on Asian art and culture).

Sort of, yes. But in Zen, as in all forms of Buddhism, the truth you find is that there is no ultimate “you” there at all–everything is interconnected.

The best comparison of Zen and Christianity I know is by the Zen master Masao Abe, found in Paul Griffiths’ Christianity through Non-Christian Eyes. He sees the fundamental disagreement being over the Christian understanding that God is independent of us. Buddhists think that there cannot possibly be any ultimate reality that is independent of the rest of reality. He also argues that Buddhists have a more profound understanding of the metaphysical underpinnings of good and evil, by denying that good is any more ontologically basic than evil. That one I have a huge problem with–and in fact he admits that in practical terms Christians have an advantage there.

One could make the case that just as Christians often wind up slightly misstating Buddhist principles, even when they are well-intentioned and fairly well-informed, so Abe doesn’t quite get Christian metaphysics. (It probably doesn’t help that he seems to have been primarily drawing on 20th-century “mainline” protestant theologians such as Paul Tillich.) So I wouldn’t conclude necessarily that there’s even as much opposition as Abe says there is. But his talk is a pretty good place to start, I think.

Yes, but there’s also a strong Christian tradition of finding God through attention to one’s own interiority–this is found in Augustine’s *Confessions, *for instance.

Buddhism per se certainly doesn’t do that. But that doesn’t really address the question. The question is whether one can adhere to Buddhism while also centering Christ in one’s life. I’m not sure that one can. The examples of most of those who claim to have done so are not very encouraging. But I think we should deal with specifics and not rush to judgment as if we understood all the implications of attempting to be a “Buddhist Christian” or “Christian Buddhist.”

Edwin

Hi Edwin, Hope all is well with you. I have such a hard time understanding for one thing Zen is Buddhism, and then its like not really, It was on another thread and people gave up on trying to explain it to me

But my point is we are told to imitate CHRIST, and only Christ. But I have come to the same conclusion as you as to how can we follow Buddhism and Christ also.

The bible tells us I am a Jealous God. Which means its all or nothing. We are told there is only One God, One truth and ONE way.

You cannot get to the Father without the Son. That is the only truth that we have. I know in the time of Christ there were many other faiths religions, etc whatever you want to call them.

Jesus told his Apostles to go and teach the good news, if you go and people refuse to accept the truth shake the dust and move on. I believe that we must also teach the good news, accept the good news or move on. You can’t have dust on your shoes.

 

[rinnie]

A Buddhist can do so. That’s why they’re called “Buddhists”.

A Jesus Buddhist (under my definition) is primarily a Buddhist who is also deeply inspired by Jesus.

Okay, I understand, Now here is where I am confused. I got what you are saying I think!

Correct me if I am wrong. You believe that Jesus existed, died rose again, etc. but you do not believe he is the only way or salvation?

 

[Tomcmaj]

And yet I do know that Catholicism does allow for asceticism, look at the desert fathers. Does Buddhism have ascetics within in too? If so, can you name some examples?

Did Buddha reject asceticism generally, or did he see some good in it? I know that Catholics see some good in asceticism.

Yes, you’re right. One can be called to a cloistered existence in both Buddhism and Catholicism. The asceticism that the Buddha experimented with and finally rejected was incredibly extreme - it was a total rejection of the physical world. The story goes that a woman saw him meditating and starving himself to the point of passing out. The woman placed one cooked grain of rice into his mouth. That gave him his “epiphany” that extreme asceticism was not the Way.

 

[Little_One0307]

Yes, you’re right. One can be called to a cloistered existence in both Buddhism and Catholicism. The asceticism that the Buddha experimented with and finally rejected was incredibly extreme - it was a total rejection of the physical world. The story goes that a woman saw him meditating and starving himself to the point of passing out. The woman placed one cooked grain of rice into his mouth. That gave him his “epiphany” that extreme asceticism was not the Way.

So is cloistered Buddhism like cloistered Catholicism? That is an interesting story. Thanks for sharing.

God bless.

 

[rinnie]

A Buddhist can do so. That’s why they’re called “Buddhists”.

A Jesus Buddhist (under my definition) is primarily a Buddhist who is also deeply inspired by Jesus.

Ahimsa, first of all, again thankyou for being here, and please if you feel I am putting you on the carpet thats not my intention.

With that said, here is what I guess I am trying to ask so I guess its better to just be blunt!! Would it be fair to say that Jesus and Budda could be compared as equals.

That is what I am seeing here, AM I completely wrong and misunderstanding this completely?

 

[rinnie]

You seemed to have contradicted yourself. Is Buddhism about finding Truth, or is it about “self”?

Forgive the contradiction its really ignorance of Zen and Buddhism on my part. I can’t figure out Zen Buddhism from Buddhism. My bad and misunderstanding I am sure.

 

[rossum]

Yes, you’re right. One can be called to a cloistered existence in both Buddhism and Catholicism. The asceticism that the Buddha experimented with and finally rejected was incredibly extreme - it was a total rejection of the physical world. The story goes that a woman saw him meditating and starving himself to the point of passing out. The woman placed one cooked grain of rice into his mouth. That gave him his “epiphany” that extreme asceticism was not the Way.

There are images of the Buddha in his ascetic phase:

http://thegoldbricker.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/ascetic-buddha.jpg?w=344

When he was young he was raised in a rich family, and experienced the physical pleasures of the world, including marriage and fatherhood. He rejected that, because it didn’t work. He tried extreme asceticism as an alternative. That didn’t work either. He next tried following a Middle Way between physical pleasures and extreme asceticism. That worked. He knew what worked because he had tried the ways that didn’t work.

rossum

 

[Ahimsa]

Okay, I understand, Now here is where I am confused. I got what you are saying I think!

Correct me if I am wrong. You believe that Jesus existed, died rose again, etc. but you do not believe he is the only way or salvation?

Correct.

 

[Ahimsa]

With that said, here is what I guess I am trying to ask so I guess its better to just be blunt!! Would it be fair to say that Jesus and Budda could be compared as equals.

Not if you’re Catholic. And even Catholics who find deep inspiration in Buddhism (some of whom might call themselves “Catholic Buddhist”), would not see Christ and Buddhas as equals, because they would see Christ as primary.

 

[Tomcmaj]

So is cloistered Buddhism like cloistered Catholicism?

Having investigated neither, I really can’t say. Years ago I explored becoming a Catholic priest, but not a monk!

Many Buddhists believe that being reincarnated as a monk is a critical stage in evolving toward nirvana. Others do not. (The idea about reincarnation, discussed earlier, I think failed to mention that you don’t get reincarnated in THIS WORLD, but in another world that is either closer to, or farther away from Nirvana.)

Buddhists monks live by begging for alms, and live in a monastery in order to concentrate on prayer and meditation, and maybe even to teach within the monastery.

I don’t know if Catholic monks do the same, but my gross assumption is that they do!

 

[Tomcmaj]

Buddhism is Zen, Zen is a way of reaching deep down into yourself to find the truth. We believe as Catholics the GOD is the way the truth and the light.

When we reach to find truth we reach to find Christ, it is the Christ that has entered into us and our hearts where truth is found.

In Buddhism you are not CENTERING CHRIST in your life. In the CHURCH its ALL about Christ, the Eucharist, Eternal life, the Cross. EVERYHING has to do with CHIRST nothing has to do with US. To us everything is Possible only BY CHRIST THRU Him, with HIM, in Him.

During the many years I studied Buddhism, I thought it started to resemble Judaism in the way that there were many, many rules and incantations, elaborate descriptions of multiple levels of "nearer-to-heaven " worlds, and it reminded me of Christ’s observation that many rabbis spout rules and regulations and believe (wrongly) that obeying them is all it takes for salvation. Then I found Zen, or Soto Zen to be specific. It blew my mind.

One of the powers of Christ is his ability to distill meaning and practice. Paul as well. Jesus declared the most important commandments were honor God and treat your neighbor as you want to be treated. Paul said, in the end it’s all about Love. Soto Zen is based on the simple action of sitting, not even words or ideas! Sit, meditate, and after some practice, you will catch a glimpse of Nirvana, and once you see that, everything else will become obvious. Just like after accepting the Holy Spirit into your heart, everything becomes obvious.

Of course, we all falter. But that CONNECTION is what helps drive our intentions, our words and our actions. It’s us, but it’s not really us, because we’ve “surrendered” to the Truth.

 

[Michael19682]

I don’t see how practicing Mahayana Buddhism prevents one from taking part in the American legal system (a system which, I presume, you’re giving as an example of a legal system from a Christian culture).

Plus, I think we’re talking on two different levels here: a more spiritual (e.g., Mahayana) level; and a more legal (American justice) level. Both are appropriate in their own realms.

I didn’t mean that a Mahayana Buddhist can’t take part in the American legal system. But since you raised the issue I do think it might be difficult for a Mahayana Buddhist who believes that living beings have no faults to participate as a prosecutor, for example, who knows what happens in prisons and to those sent to them: grave harm in many cases I’ve heard of. Never to harm or abandon a living being is the ethic, and could create considerable dissonance in the personality of a prosecutor who essentially believes that the only evil is that which hinders practice.

My comment was intended to explain that in Christianity there is a clearer demarcation of the consequences of evil as belonging to the perpetrator of the evil. Even though Catholics must not judge, we still believe in punishment as justified. A Jesus Buddhist might find difficulty in cooperating in this sphere or realm of justice, including in recognizing himself as a victim of injustice, due to his Buddhist belief that his karma is all his fault. Christ spoke of a permanent Hell and a permanent perfect Heaven; Buddha considers the Hell Realms temporary and the Heavens temporary as well–there is no unchanging God, there is automatic reincarnation, and injury to self, as said, is the fault of the victim who warranted it through unskilful actions in a present or possibly past life.

Lots of differences to reconcile before the term Jesus Buddhist becomes fully understandable to all.

Fortunately we live in a free country where this exchange of ideas is possible.

 

[jerry_joseph]

Well, the Buddha, for one. As well as His disciples called “arhats”.

My question still un answered. Do you cured all your suffering after following these principles and are you sure no more sufferings will come in your future life?..

I accept your knowledge in buddism. But you tells yourself as Jesus Buddhist and not Buddhist…Do you have these much knowledge in christianity that what you have in buddism…Do you show any interest to learn christianity that what you are showing to learn buddhist principles.

I am sure you are not. You are using Jesus as a wrapper only or giving secondary importance only (may be you are not hating him or respects him in your mind, but gives secondary importance only) and Can you tell from your conscience that you are giving more importance to christ?.

Are you interested only to teach christians about budhism or are you giving that much efforts (what you shows here) to teach buddhists about christian values…?

I am sure you are not.

If not it Justify’s my argument that " “No servant can serve two masters” (Luke 16:13

 

[benedictus2]

People who erroneously dilute the Magisterium with pagan teachings?

Heretics, perhaps?

Just a couple of possibilities.

This is totally spot on.

Basically it means I make my belief and it so happens that for the moment there are some things that Jesus said that I like but I am really buddhist.

Or perhaps that Jesus is just another guru like buddha in a long line of gurus.