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

[Ahimsa]

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.

I don’t know of any Mahayana Buddhist who would argue that, on the level of everyday reality, no one has any faults. The “lack of faults” (if such a phrase could be used) would apply to one’s “true nature”, which is usually obscured by “faults” such as greed, hatred, and delusion. The legal system isn’t perfect, but that wouldn’t prevent a Mahayana Buddhist from protecting society by taking violent criminals (or Wall Street criminals, who perhaps wage even more violence) off the streets. The vow to “never harm or abandon” a living being is something that only a monk or nun would practice, because a monk or a nun has accepted that responsibility. A lay-person, someone who has a family, friends, someone who works in the world, should practice compassion and love as much as possible, and that sometimes involves “harming” those who would want to harm other people.

In short, Buddhism recognizes that even though at the deepest level, all of us are potentially Buddhas, on the everyday level, most of us still suffer from greed, hatred, and delusion, thus, legal systems of justice are very appropriate means of limiting social disruption and disorder. In a sense, once could say that the Buddha did not come to destroy the “law”, but to show it’s ultimate purpose – which is to create a society where everyone can manifest his or her potential for Buddhahood.

 

[Contarini]

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

Certainly not. He can use whatever words he likes to describe himself, and I have nothing invested in arguing over who is or is not a Christian. I will argue over who is or is not an orthodox Christian in terms of adhering to the central tenets of the historic faith, and unless I radically misunderstand him or he’s changed his mind, Knitter does not adhere to what I take to be those central tenets.

Therefore, I for one do not find his example helpful in arguing the question of whether one can be an orthodox Christian and a Buddhist at once. I assume that this is the only relevant question. That someone can identify himself/herself as a Christian and a Buddhist at the same time is patently obvious.

But in Knitter’s case and that of some others (such as Rev. Thew Forrester in my own denomination), what seems to be happening is that the commitment to Buddhism relativizes and waters down the historic meaning of Christianity. This is what the conservative Christians on this forum are rightly concerned about.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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

I’m not sure why you are so confused. Zen is a form of Buddhism. There are many forms of Christianity, so the idea shouldn’t be strange to you.

A Baptist, for instance, is a Christian, but not all Christians are Baptists, and those of us who aren’t are not disposed to agree with the Baptist claim that they have best grasped what being a Christian is all about

Edwin

 

[Michael19682]

I don’t know of any Mahayana Buddhist who would argue that, on the level of everyday reality, no one has any faults. The “lack of faults” (if such a phrase could be used) would apply to one’s “true nature”, which is usually obscured by “faults” such as greed, hatred, and delusion. The legal system isn’t perfect, but that wouldn’t prevent a Mahayana Buddhist from protecting society by taking violent criminals (or Wall Street criminals, who perhaps wage even more violence) off the streets. The vow to “never harm or abandon” a living being is something that only a monk or nun would practice, because a monk or a nun has accepted that responsibility. A lay-person, someone who has a family, friends, someone who works in the world, should practice compassion and love as much as possible, and that sometimes involves “harming” those who would want to harm other people.

In short, Buddhism recognizes that even though at the deepest level, all of us are potentially Buddhas, on the everyday level, most of us still suffer from greed, hatred, and delusion, thus, legal systems of justice are very appropriate means of limiting social disruption and disorder. In a sense, once could say that the Buddha did not come to destroy the “law”, but to show it’s ultimate purpose – which is to create a society where everyone can manifest his or her potential for Buddhahood.

The ultimate aim of Buddhism is to help its practitioners, called Buddhists, to achieve cessation of suffering, or Nirvana. According to their system this goal is impossible unless one has purified all karmic debts or impurities. Therefore the monk or nun vows must be faced de facto by all Buddhist practitioners at some point in the ‘transmigration’ of their existences [their understanding]. These, by the way, are called the vows of a Bodhisattva–and, as you pointed out, can include fighting to protect others from threats to their practice.

Therefore the legal freedoms of a Buddhist you refer to are part of an artfully crafted self concealing waiting game. Really, Buddhism demands, like Christianity, a radical turning of the other cheek. Christianity holds its superiority in political terms because we do understand a Hell that is permanent and that is filled with all sorts of habitual, unrepentant offenders. Our system is designed to put Jesus into these people for their salvation–which is instantaneous on their conversion.

I therefore see the term Jesus Buddhist as a kind of lax Christianity. Mixed, the two doctrines can cause a tug of war in the soul that simply leads to pick and choose morality and hence a system that is compassionate to the point of saying “let him go to hell.” A true Christian would sacrifice/die nobly if it would save even one soul.

 

[Tomcmaj]

I therefore see the term Jesus Buddhist as a kind of lax Christianity. Mixed, the two doctrines can cause a tug of war in the soul that simply leads to pick and choose morality and hence a system that is compassionate to the point of saying “let him go to hell.” A true Christian would sacrifice/die nobly if it would save even one soul.

Have you read ANY of the posts in this thread?

:ehh:

 

[Michael19682]

Have you read ANY of the posts in this thread?

:ehh:

Yes and what is your point?

 

[Tomcmaj]

Yes and what is your point?

My point is that it is clearly evident that practicing Buddhism requires effort, as does Christianity.

Buddhism does not promote pick-and-choose morality, but has a strict code of conduct: the Eightfold Path.

Finally, The Buddha is revered PRECISELY because he chose to leave “heaven” in order to come back to our world and show us the way.

I suggest that if you reread this thread from the beginning, you will retract the statements that I have highlighted.

 

[Michael19682]

My point is that it is clearly evident that practicing Buddhism requires effort, as does Christianity.

Buddhism does not promote pick-and-choose morality, but has a strict code of conduct: the Eightfold Path.

Finally, The Buddha is revered PRECISELY because he chose to leave “heaven” in order to come back to our world and show us the way.

I suggest that if you reread this thread from the beginning, you will retract the statements that I have highlighted.

The qualification “mixed” was what I said. And I remain standing because of it. Mt 12:30. “Whoever is not with me is against me, and who ever does not gather with me scatters.” Therefore, neither does Jesus promote pick and choose.

Catholic Buddhists are the ones liable to answer for the pick and choose mentality; the choice is theirs. A house divided cannot stand.

Buddha may have “left” his concept of heaven, but that obviously wasn’t the heaven we commonly think of as the destination of Christians who have faith in Jesus.

God has spoken: we have a permanent soul. There is a permanent God. There is a permanent universe taken as a whole, unified quantum field.

I understand Emptiness of phenomena; but it is highly disputed scientifically.

Why do you use the term Catholic Buddhist? It is offensive to both traditions, and likely an impossible doctrinal mix?

(incidentally, I’m more studied in Buddhism than you might think)

 

[Tomcmaj]

Catholic Buddhists are the ones liable to answer for the pick and choose mentality; the choice is theirs. A house divided cannot stand.

I’m standing!

There is no pick and choose in my morality. Nor in Christ’s. Nor in Buddha’s.

As I suggested, please read the posts in this thread. Slowly.

Buddha may have “left” his concept of heaven, but that obviously wasn’t the heaven we commonly think of as the destination of Christians who have faith in Jesus.

So what is the heaven you commonly think of? And how is it different from that which Buddhist think of?

Why do you use the term Catholic Buddhist? It is offensive to both traditions, and likely an impossible doctrinal mix?

It is the best way I can describe my current spiritual state. If it is offensive, it is not as offensive as your post that I originally replied to.

(incidentally, I’m more studied in Buddhism than you might think)

I don’t doubt you’ve studied Buddhism. The real question is, did you learn anything?

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t doubt you’ve studied Buddhism. The real question is, did you learn anything?

I don’t doubt you probalby know about Catholicism, the question is how do you reconcile the entirety of Buddhist teaching (including re-incarnation) with Christian theology?

The term Catholic Buddhist is a misnomer. A Catholic cannot be a Buddhist because the beliefs are in opposition at the most crucial points. All this is is a pick and choose mentality which means you are neither Catholic nor Buddhist.

 

[Michael19682]

I’m standing!

There is no pick and choose in my morality. Nor in Christ’s. Nor in Buddha’s.

As I suggested, please read the posts in this thread. Slowly.

So what is the heaven you commonly think of? And how is it different from that which Buddhist think of?

It is the best way I can describe my current spiritual state. If it is offensive, it is not as offensive as your post that I originally replied to.

I don’t doubt you’ve studied Buddhism. The real question is, did you learn anything?

Did I learn anything? I believe I struggled to find the meaning of this affirmation: “I am the Buddha, I am the Guru, I am the Yidam.” Never quite could; though I know the bliss of guru generation, as it is called. That experience is difficult to reconcile with a critique of Buddhism, since admittedly there seems little harm from a Christian standpoint in feeling OK at your core. Yet again, I’m sure babies feel bliss at their mother’s breast, and, as Augustine tells us in his Confessions, they are not incapable of sin either.

As for reading “any of the posts in this thread”:

For now, I would like to sum up some things that I have initially gotten an impression of. And if I am wrong please by all means do correct me.

1. Both Catholicism and Buddhism believe in the good of suffering.
2. Both in a ways believe in personal redemption [though different methods]
3. Both place an importance on charity.
4. Both extol the virtues.
5. Both seek to eradicate things that are afflictive to us.

Little One posted this quote, as you must know, my friend, having read so slowly all the posts in this thread [sub-forum]
.

So it appears there are similarities. But if all you have in the way of virtue is right there in front of you in Catholicism–why the need to practice with a Buddhist community? Can we really agree that ‘giving’ and ‘forgiveness’ are the same in both systems? a cup of water to a thirsty person remains a cup of water in either circumstance! Why not just go to a Church and meet up with a group of missionaries and practice?

As for the generation part or the breathe part, you can do that in Catholicism also.

Your question about heaven? Buddhists do not believe in a permanent heaven. Their scriptures point to a realm where bliss is achieved, but then Karmic debt creates a “lower samsaric rebirth”. Buddhists believe in multiple human reincarnations. Your geographical location seems to suggest you are a Zen Buddhist (I apologize if that was in the thread, I must have missed it). These are called the practicing Buddhists as they take zazen as their main practice. I have no doubt that satori is a nice state to be in. Catholics believe in the [hopeful] end of all suffering in Heaven at the end of this life. Buddhists believe that no one can affect ‘your’ personal destiny but ‘you’ the practitioner of Buddhism. Catholics believe that Jesus can save us effortlessly as the Redeemer. In Buddhism one is released from Samsara; in Christianity, one enters the kingdom of Heaven. There is a difference in the eschatology of these two conceptualizations.

My opinion is that anyone who leaves the CC for Buddhism must have been, like myself, ill instructed in its tenets at the beginning of his instruction. Still, you can learn correctly.

I’d be interested in knowing how you blend your two practices. You claim to see no third possibility of a lax Christianity resultant from such a blend. I can’t speak for all Christians, but the core of Christianity for me is faith in Jesus Christ–all virtue is His and is from Him. Buddha discovered virtue and gave precise definitions of his terms that may or may not hold up in practice, but Jesus gives us the ability to practice virtue in a way Buddha did not claim to be able to do.

A question: Do you regard forgiveness as good for the person being forgiven? (Buddhist seem to only believe that it is the forgiver who benefits, and they would deny that Christ could save or bring to Heaven all of humanity with his sacrifice.) That’s an irreconcilable difference between the two.

 

[benedictus2]

Did I learn anything? I believe I struggled to find the meaning of this affirmation: “I am the Buddha, I am the Guru, I am the Yidam.” Never quite could; though I know the bliss of guru generation, as it is called. That experience is difficult to reconcile with a critique of Buddhism, since admittedly there seems little harm from a Christian standpoint in feeling OK at your core. Yet again, I’m sure babies feel bliss at their mother’s breast, and, as Augustine tells us in his Confessions, they are not incapable of sin either.

As for reading “any of the posts in this thread”:

Little One posted this quote, as you must know, my friend, having read so slowly all the posts in this thread [sub-forum]
.

So it appears there are similarities. But if all you have in the way of virtue is right there in front of you in Catholicism–why the need to practice with a Buddhist community? Can we really agree that ‘giving’ and ‘forgiveness’ are the same? a cup of water to a thirsty person remains a cup of water in either circumstance! Why not just go to a Church and meet up with a group of missionaries and practice?

As for the generation part or the breathe part, you can do that in Catholicism also.

Your question about heaven? Buddhists do not believe in a permanent heaven. Their scriptures point to a realm where bliss is achieved, but then Karmic debt creates a “lower samsaric rebirth”. Buddhists believe in multiple human reincarnations. Your geographical location seems to suggest you are a Zen Buddhist (I apologize if that was in the thread, I must have missed it). These are called the practicing Buddhists as they take zazen as their main practice. I have no doubt that satori is a nice state to be in. Catholics believe in the [hopeful] end of all suffering in Heaven at the end of this life. Buddhists believe that no one can affect ‘your’ personal destiny but ‘you’ the practitioner of Buddhism. Catholics believe that Jesus can save us effortlessly as the Redeemer. In Buddhism one is released from Samsara; in Christianity, one enters the kingdom of Heaven. There is a difference in the eschatology of these two conceptualizations.

My opinion is that anyone who leaves the CC for Buddhism must have been, like myself, ill instructed in its tenets at the beginning of his instruction. Still, you can learn correctly.

I’d be interested in knowing how you blend your two practices. You claim to see no third possibility of a lax Christianity resultant from such a blend. I can’t speak for all Christians, but the core of Christianity for me is faith in Jesus Christ–all virtue is His and is from Him. Buddha discovered virtue and gave precise definitions of his terms that may or may not hold up in practice, but Jesus gives us the ability to practice virtue in a way Buddha did not claim to be able to do.

A question: Do you regard forgiveness as good for the person being forgiven? (Buddhist seem to only believe that it is the forgiver who benefits, and they would deny that Christ could save or bring to Heaven all of humanity with his sacrifice.) That’s an irreconcilable difference between the two.

Bravo! :clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

**Thanks to all who participated.

Thread closed.**