To Zen or not ?

[notself]

If by “philosophical”, you mean “paradoxical and cryptic”, then I would agree – at least in terms of Zen as practiced by the Rinzai school, which uses koans like “What is the sound of one hand clapping” (or, as the Zen Rabbi asked, What is the sound of one God clapping?)

But the Soto school is known for its real earthiness and nonpretentiousness: enlightenment is chopping wood, carrying water.

I think the one hand clapping Koan has seen better days. The answers are too easy to come up with.

I like the one that says “If you meet the Buddha, kill him.”

 

[Bennie_P]

Getting back to the subject matter “to Zen or not ?”

Here are couple more article links concerning Buddhism and Catholicism:

Catholicism and Buddhism: Compatible Beliefs?

… Pope John Paul II threw water on that fire in 1994’s Crossing the Threshold of Hope with comments regarding Buddhism that received a good amount of press at the time (and also a lot of debate). In his comments, our late pontiff really didn’t pull any punches, calling Buddhism “in large measure an ‘atheistic’ system’.” He pulled the carpet out from under comparisons to Catholicism by pointing out that the ultimate end of man for Christians is union with God, while for Buddhists it is Nirvana (complete detachment, or a state of nothingness).

And what is this about Catholics not loving non-Catholics? Do Buddhist know love?
Catholicism and Buddhism: Incompatibilities in Love

Before he was Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in What It Means To Be A Christian, “Being Christian means having love.” In Crossing the Threshold of Hope we see that Pope John Paul II made note of the distinguishing role love plays in any comparison between Christianity and Buddhism. Do Buddhists not love? For those committed to Enlightenment, the answer must be an emphatic “no, they do not – not in the Christian sense of agape.” The Buddhist Publication Society’s 1975 translation of the great 5th century explication of the Tipitaka, Visuddhimagga: The Path of Purification, has a Pali-English glossary of some 1000 epistemological and technical terms appended to it. Faith (saddha), truth (sacca), greed (lobha), cruelty (vihimsa), hate (dosa) and grief (domanassa) are there; the Pali word for “love” is not. Similarly, a word search for “love” in the Buddhist Dictionary: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines (also by the BPS) will also fail to yield a specific term. The concept of agape is not only alien to Buddhist doctrine; its very existence in a Buddhist adept is anathema.

Tranquility Or The Cross?

Cardinal Henri de Lubac has shown convincingly that for this reason Buddhistic love and Christian love are antipodes. For the Christian, charity is a partaking in Christ’s love for another person. Unaided, man cannot love his neighbor. But with the help of grace man can burn for the welfare of all his brothers and truly partake in Christ’s infinite love for them.
The phrase “Love your neighbor as yourself,” which is found in both Buddhistic and Christian teaching, is within each context radically different. The question rests upon an understanding of the word self. How is one to love others as one loves oneself when we have no self? In fact, neither authentic self-love nor love of neighbor are objectively possible without God’s help. The pragmatic character of maitri as a sort of purgation to liberate oneself becomes evident. It is love depersonalized. It aims at liberation, and to “love” others is a means leading to this freedom.

“Love your neighbor as yourself,” Is that possible as a peace loving Buddhist?

 

[Ahimsa]

“Love your neighbor as yourself,” Is that possible as a peace loving Buddhist?

With all due respect to Pope John Paul II, he is certainly non infallible when speaking about Buddhism. To wit:

                         .... Pope John Paul II threw water on that fire in 1994’s *Crossing the Threshold of Hope* with comments regarding Buddhism that received a good amount of press at the time (and also a lot of debate). In his comments, our late pontiff really didn’t pull any punches, calling Buddhism “in large measure an ‘atheistic’ system’.”

Whether Buddhism is “atheistic” very much depends upon how one defines “theos”, or “god”.

In addition, “atheism” in the West implies rejection of the supernatural entirely, which is not the case in Buddhism.

“Atheism”, moreover, has so many negative connotations, to label something “atheist” often has a smearing effect, and might best be substituted by some other term that is more meaningfully informative.

He pulled the carpet out from under comparisons to Catholicism by pointing out that the ultimate end of man for Christians is union with God, while for Buddhists it is Nirvana (complete detachment, or a state of nothingness).

“Complete detachment” is a basic monastic principle (just read the Eastern Desert Fathers), and must be understood in that context. “State of nothingness” as a descriptive phrase for Nirvana is, of course, incorrect.

                          Before he was Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in *What It Means To Be A Christian*, “Being Christian means having love.”....The concept of *agape* is not only alien to Buddhist doctrine; its very existence in a Buddhist adept is anathema.

There’s no definition given of what constitutes “agape”, and how “agape” differs from other types of love. A definition of “agape” would be helpful before claiming that Buddhists lack “agape”.

But lets assume that “agape” means this: unconditional, voluntary, and self-sacrificial love". Do Buddhists do “agape”? Is the writer saying that Buddhists don’t love unconditionally? That they don’t love “voluntarily”? That they don’t love by sacrificing greed, lust, hatred (or the “self”?)? If the writer seriously thinks that, then all I can do is advise the writer to learn more about Buddhism, especially the (1) Jataka tales; (2) the Bodhisattva Vows; and (3) the BrahmaViharas (Metta; Karuna; Mudita, and Upekkha).

Cardinal Henri de Lubac has shown convincingly that for this reason Buddhistic love and Christian love are antipodes… It is love depersonalized. It aims at liberation, and to “love” others is a means leading to this freedom.

There is no doubt that love leads to liberation. But does that mean that once liberation is realized, that one thus dispenses with love? Such a notion directly goes against basic Buddhist teachings, including the reason the Buddha became the Buddha to begin with. The only reason the Buddha taught the path to liberation, after his own liberation, was because of Great Compassion for all beings. He didn’t have to spend forty years evangelizing northern India, exposing himself to frustration, death, and physical suffering, but he did it anyway.

And the notion that Buddhists deny a “self” is an easy-to-understand misunderstanding. The idea of “anatta” is directed, in a very pragmatic way, towards the five skandhas (matter, feeling, conceptions, volitions, and consciousness) – all of which are “observable”. “Anatta” itself doesn’t deny a “self”, a sense of individuality. What it denies is that anything we can attach to and call our “self” (whether matter, feeling, conception, volition, or consciousness) is constantly changing and not totally under our control. (If there were something totally under our control, we would prevent it from changing, and thus live forever in our present, physical bodies.) If you want to call your “body” your “self”, then you are free to do so, as long as you remember that your “self” is changing and not totally under your control (which certainly becomes more obvious as you get older).

Part of the problem Christians have with understanding Buddhism, especially Christians of a Western theological tradition, is that the West has largely forgotten the monastic intensity found not only in India, but in the early Church and in Eastern Orthodox – thus leading to accusations of lack of love and so forth. There is a reason why the story of the Buddha was adopted – in altered form, yes, but the basic monastic thrust remained – by the early Church, and the Buddha-figure in the story made into a saint. Lay-people, and non-monastics in general, find it hard to understand the love that exists among, and that flows out of, monastics.

 

[reh12345]

regarding " peace loving bhuddists " ’

i don’t know, bernie, but there is nothing more christian than killing in the name of the prince of peace. so what does that prove. nothing! let’s not degenerate into “ad hominum argument”.

 

[notself]

Here is an essay on the Four Sublime States or Abodes. This essay explains the Buddha’s teaching on the importance of Loving Kindness (metta), Compassion, Sympathetic Joy and equanimity. All quotes will come from this essay. accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel006.html
Quotes in green will be directly from the teachings of the Buddha.

In Pali, the language of the Buddhist scriptures, these four are known under the name of Brahma-vihara. This term may be rendered by: excellent, lofty or sublime states of mind…

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict, and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence. They level social barriers, build harmonious communities, awaken slumbering magnanimity long forgotten, revive joy and hope long abandoned, and promote human brotherhood against the forces of egotism.

They are called abodes (vihara) because they should become the mind’s constant dwelling-places where we feel “at home”; they should not remain merely places of rare and short visits, soon forgotten. In other words, our minds should become thoroughly saturated by them. They should become our inseparable companions, and we should be mindful of them in all our common activities. As the Metta Sutta, the Song of Loving-kindness, says:

When standing, walking, sitting, lying down,
Whenever he feels free of tiredness
Let him establish well this mindfulness —
This, it is said, is the Divine Abode.

These four — love, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity — are also known as the boundless states (appamañña), because, in their perfection and their true nature, they should not be narrowed by any limitation as to the range of beings towards whom they are extended. They should be non-exclusive and impartial, not bound by selective preferences or prejudices. A mind that has attained to that boundlessness of the Brahma-viharas will not harbor any national, racial, religious or class hatred…

Generally speaking, persistent meditative practice will have two crowning effects: first, it will make these four qualities sink deep into the heart so that they become spontaneous attitudes not easily overthrown; second, it will bring out and secure their boundless extension, the unfolding of their all-embracing range.

Here is the Metta Sutta, one of the most beautiful suttas in the Tipitaka.

*This is what should be done
By one who is skilled in goodness,
And who knows the path of peace:
Let them be able and upright,
Straightforward and gentle in speech,
Humble and not conceited,
Contented and easily satisfied,
Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways.
Peaceful and calm and wise and skillful,
Not proud or demanding in nature.
Let them not do the slightest thing
That the wise would later reprove.
Wishing: In gladness and in safety,
May all beings be at ease.
Whatever living beings there may be;
Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,
The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,
The seen and the unseen,
Those living near and far away,
Those born and to-be-born —
May all beings be at ease!

Let none deceive another,
Or despise any being in any state.
Let none through anger or ill-will
Wish harm upon another.
Even as a mother protects with her life
Her child, her only child,
So with a boundless heart
Should one cherish all living beings;
Radiating kindness over the entire world:
Spreading upwards to the skies,
And downwards to the depths;
Outwards and unbounded,
Freed from hatred and ill-will.
Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down
Free from drowsiness,
One should sustain this recollection.
This is said to be the sublime abiding.
By not holding to fixed views,
The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision,
Being freed from all sense desires,
Is not born again into this world.*

 

[Contarini]

Getting back to the subject matter “to Zen or not ?”

Here are couple more article links concerning Buddhism and Catholicism:

Catholicism and Buddhism: Compatible Beliefs?

And what is this about Catholics not loving non-Catholics? Do Buddhist know love?
Catholicism and Buddhism: Incompatibilities in Love

Tranquility Or The Cross?

“Love your neighbor as yourself,” Is that possible as a peace loving Buddhist?

I’m sorry, but neither JPII nor BXVI, great as they are, seem to know/have known much about non-Christian religions.

The idea of doing a word search for the Pali word for love (is there only one? what are its connotations?) and judging Buddhism based on that is frankly laughable.

It may be true that Buddhism doesn’t have agape. But we should be slow to use the plain English word “love” as if agape were the only way to translate it. The Buddhist concept of compassion certainly fulfills some definitions of love.

However, it’s probably true that the charity we Christians ascribe to God–the desire to create sentient beings out of nothingness and enable them to share in the eternal life and love that pulsates between the Persons of the Trinity–is inconceivable for Buddhists. But I’d like to hear this from someone who is either a Buddhist or an expert on the subject.

Edwin

Edwin

 

[notself]

I’m sorry, but neither JPII nor BXVI, great as they are, seem to know/have known much about non-Christian religions.

The idea of doing a word search for the Pali word for love (is there only one? what are its connotations?) and judging Buddhism based on that is frankly laughable.

It may be true that Buddhism doesn’t have agape. But we should be slow to use the plain English word “love” as if agape were the only way to translate it. The Buddhist concept of compassion certainly fulfills some definitions of love.

However, it’s probably true that the charity we Christians ascribe to God–the desire to create sentient beings out of nothingness and enable them to share in the eternal life and love that pulsates between the Persons of the Trinity–is inconceivable for Buddhists. But I’d like to hear this from someone who is either a Buddhist or an expert on the subject.

Edwin

Edwin

I am a practicing Buddhist of the Theravada tradition. Who ever did the word search in the Pali dictionary must have missed the word Metta. Metta is the Pali word for love in the sense of Agape.

In order to understand the Buddhist concept of Love, one must understand all four of the “Sublime Abodes” of Loving Kindness, Compassion, Sympathetic Joy, and Equanimity. Each state interacts and strengthens the other three. Loving Kindness meditation called Metta Bhavana is the core from which the other three arise. The love that arises from this meditation develops until it is part of every activity and thought of the meditator.

You begin by wishing Metta for yourself, then for your family, friends, and acquaintances. You move on to your enemies wishing sincerely that the will be happy and at peace. Finally the meditator wishes Metta to the entire universe. You begin with yourself because you must love and have compassion for yourself or you cannot love and have compassion for others.

Here are the words that I use. The word “I” is substituted by the name of the family member, friend, my acquaintances, the name of my enemies (people who have hurt or angered me).

May I be well and happy
May I be safe and free from harm
May I be free from anger and ill will
May I be at peace
May my heart be filled with loving kindness.

The teaching and practice of Metta over time permeates every fiber of one’s being. Imagine yourself free from anger and ill will.

I can attest to the truth in this meditation as my anger and impatience has been dramatically reduced by this practice. My compassion for my fellows and patience with irritations has also increased. I am more at peace and worry less about trifles.

If Catholics want to change this meditation into a prayer and recite:

God, grant that I am well and happy
God, grant that I am safe and free from harm
God, grant that I am free from anger and ill will
God, grant that I am at peace
God, grant that my heart is filled with loving kindness

I don’t see a problem. Don’t forget the others in your life, especially those who cause you harm or irritate you.

If you want to find out more, just Google Metta Bhavana and you will get 46,000 hits. I hope this and my previous post answer the question on whether Buddhists love.

*"'There, o monks, the monk with a mind full of loving-kindness pervading first one direction, then a second one, then a third one, then the fourth one, just so above, below and all around; and everywhere identifying himself with all, he is pervading the whole world with mind full of loving-kindness, with mind wide, developed, unbounded, free from hate and ill-will." *

 

[Ahimsa]

However, it’s probably true that the charity we Christians ascribe to God–the desire to create sentient beings out of nothingness and enable them to share in the eternal life and love that pulsates between the Persons of the Trinity–is inconceivable for Buddhists. But I’d like to hear this from someone who is either a Buddhist or an expert on the subject.

Edwin

Edwin

Buddhism doesn’t posit that the matter-energy universe we live in, was created out of “nothing” by an all-powerful Creator, out of love for sentient beings. However, believing that such is the case does provide very a powerful framework within which to live one’s life with love and energy. So the question then becomes: what framework do Buddhists possess, which likewise allows them to live their lives with love and energy?

A Mahayana Buddhist would say that all of “creation” arises out of Dharmakaya, the Truth Body, which is Emptiness, and which is also Fullness. Each atom, quark, and photon arises out of Dharmakaya. A person who has realized the truth of Dharmakaya has realized his/her Buddhahood, the Culmination of Wisdom and Compassion, and the ultimate destiny (however many diversions, detours, and distractions) of all sentient beings. Since all “creation” arises out of Dharmakaya, nothing is totally divorced from Truth, however corrupted it may appear. The Primordial Buddha, the Adi Buddha, represents the infinite Work of all the Buddhas in urging all beings to realize Buddhahood; the Buddhas have been working since time before time, and will never cease, until the Work is done.

(A Theravadan might also say the above, if he or she were in a particularly poetic mood.)

Personally, I would go a bit further and make this speculative (or “Origenistic”) connection: since the Buddhas have realized Dharmakaya, the Buddhas are one with the Dharmakaya. Since Dharmakaya is what “creates” all things, in Buddhism, the Buddha, in his/her identity with Dharmakaya, can also be seen as “Creator” – but not in a dualistic fashion, but in a non-dualistic fashion, the Creator of that which is, in reality, one with the Creator.

 

[Bennie_P]

“Complete detachment” is a basic monastic principle (just read the Eastern Desert Fathers), and must be understood in that context. “State of nothingness” as a descriptive phrase for Nirvana is, of course, incorrect…

But the Desert Fathers detached themselves from the world in order to have communion with God, is this Nirvana?

"There’s no definition given of what constitutes “agape”, and how “agape” differs from other types of love. A definition of “agape” would be helpful before claiming that Buddhists lack “agape”.

But lets assume that “agape” means this: unconditional, voluntary, and self-sacrificial love". Do Buddhists do “agape”? Is the writer saying that Buddhists don’t love unconditionally? That they don’t love “voluntarily”? That they don’t love by sacrificing greed, lust, hatred (or the “self”?)? If the writer seriously thinks that, then all I can do is advise the writer to learn more about Buddhism, especially the (1) Jataka tales; (2) the Bodhisattva Vows; and (3) the BrahmaViharas (Metta; Karuna; Mudita, and Upekkha).

The writer of the second commentary is a former Buddhist, did you take time to read the whole commentary?
Please take time out and read this from Pope Benedict XVI
Not just the quote I posted but the whole encyclical - it is not about Buddhism - but about love.
DEUS CARITAS EST
**God Is Love **

“You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (19:18; cf.* Mk* 12:29-31). Since God has first loved us (cf.* 1 Jn* 4:10), love is now no longer a mere “command”; it is the response to the gift of love with which God draws near to us.

"Part of the problem Christians have with understanding Buddhism, especially Christians of a Western theological tradition, is that the West has largely forgotten the monastic intensity found not only in India, but in the early Church and in Eastern Orthodox – thus leading to accusations of lack of love and so forth. There is a reason why the story of the Buddha was adopted – in altered form, yes, but the basic monastic thrust remained – by the early Church, and the Buddha-figure in the story made into a saint. Lay-people, and non-monastics in general, find it hard to understand the love that exists among, and that flows out of, monastics.

Yes it hard to understand when you cannot describe it yourself and I didn’t know that you are part of a monastic community? My understanding of Buddhism as westerners practice it, and you were raised in the West correct? and not by Buddhist parents? nor in a Buddhist monastary? IMHO It is distraction from whatever they are running away from. Which could be anything:shrug: As long as they spend all thier extra time studying it trying to understand it with their own western minds shaped by thier own upbringing in western culture, they come to feel they are in control, maybe even superior over other westerners, mainly thier parents, or other family members or the church community in which they where raised. And they try to distract others with a continual flow of comments, like well that isn’t the way it is, you don’t understand, this is the way it is, that person is wrong, you are wrong, you being a Christian cannot grasp this, etc and etc. Otherwise Christians don’t or cannot understand with thier western minds things about Buddhism,or other eastern thought if they cling on to Christianity, but you are westerner right? I guess Buddhism magically changes a westerner’s mind into an eastern mind set, or frame of mind? How does that work? How were you able to get this perfect understanding of Buddhism, yet “idiots” like John Paul II’s understanding of it, as it is compared to Christianity, is totally wrong? Forgive me - I am humbly confused:shrug:

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seem to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

 

[notself]

(A Theravadan might also say the above, if he or she were in a particularly poetic mood.)

Personally, I would go a bit further and make this speculative (or “Origenistic”) connection: since the Buddhas have realized Dharmakaya, the Buddhas are one with the Dharmakaya. Since Dharmakaya is what “creates” all things, in Buddhism, the Buddha, in his/her identity with Dharmakaya, can also be seen as “Creator” – but not in a dualistic fashion, but in a non-dualistic fashion, the Creator of that which is, in reality, one with the Creator.

Dharmakaya is not a Theravada concept, although it is quite poetic. The Pali Canon or Tipitaka does not have any teaching on origin or the Mahayana concept of Buddhahood.

Theravada emphasises Dependent Origination and a Universe without a First Cause or Originating Impulse. Everything is conditioned by everything else as is explained in this short sutta and explanation:

When this is, that is
This arising, that arises
When this is not, that is not
This ceasing, that ceases.

On this principle of interdependence and relativity rests the arising, continuity and cessation of existence. This principle is known as the Law of Dependent Origination in Pali, Paticca-samuppada. This law emphasizes an important principle that all phenomena in this universe are relative, conditioned states and do not arise independently of supportive conditions.

A phenomenon arises because of a combination of conditions which are present to support its arising. And the phenomenon will cease when the conditions and components supporting its arising change and no longer sustain it. The presence of these supportive conditions, in turn, depend on other factors for their arising, sustenance and disappearance.

The Law of Dependence Origination is a realistic way of understanding the universe and is the Buddhist equivalent of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. The fact that everything is nothing more than a set of relations is consistent with the modern scientific view of the material world. Since everything is conditioned, relative, and interdependent, there is nothing in this world which could be regarded as a permanent entity, variously regarded as an ego or an eternal soul, which many people believe in. budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/106.htm

But no matter, there are 84,000 ways to approach the Path.

 

[Bennie_P]

But no matter, there are 84,000 ways to approach the Path.

But only one way to the final distination -

John 14:5 - 6 Thomas saith to him: Lord, we know not whither thou goest. And how can we know the way? Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

 

[Ahimsa]

But the Desert Fathers detached themselves from the world in order to have communion with God, is this Nirvana?

Good question. Is it rhetorical?

The writer of the second commentary is a former Buddhist, did you take time to read the whole commentary?
Please take time out and read this from Pope Benedict XVI
Not just the quote I posted but the whole encyclical - it is not about Buddhism - but about love.
DEUS CARITAS EST
**God Is Love **

I’ve read Deus Caritas Est, and the former Buddhist commentary. But again I point to the Buddha’s previous lives, which served as the foundation for his realization of Buddhahood, previous lives that were the epitome of embodied love, self-sacrifice, willing suffering, and social activism. Indeed, in many, or even most, of those past lives, the Buddha wasn’t even Buddhist. So from a Buddhist perspective, improving the world, loving completely, sacrificing for others – all this is necessary before Nibbana can be realized. And the Mahayanists go further and reveal that the Buddha, even in Nirvana, is still actively loving. I celebrate Deus Caritas Est as a profound essay in agape, as a necessary element of Nibbana.

How were you able to get this perfect understanding of Buddhism, yet “idiots” like John Paul II’s understanding of it, as it is compared to Christianity, is totally wrong? Forgive me - I am humbly confused:shrug:

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seem to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

Uh, no one said JPII, or BXVI, were “idiots”. Are you saying that the Popes are necessarily infallible when describing the faith and morals of non-Christian religions?

 

[notself]

Bennie P;2589716]
The writer of the second commentary is a former Buddhist; did you take time to read the whole commentary?

I read the second commentary, The author explainse that Buddhism and Catholicism are not compatible, but when did I say they were? They are not. You cannot be both a good Catholic and a practicing Buddhist.

The author goes on to describe Metta in some detail and afterwards jumps to the unsupported conclusion that Metta is not as good as the love of the Good Samaritan. I do not understand his reasoning.

My understanding of Buddhism as westerners practice it, and you were raised in the West correct? and not by Buddhist parents? nor in a Buddhist monastary? IMHO It is distraction from whatever they are running away from. Which could be anything:shrug: As long as they spend all thier extra time studying it trying to understand it with their own western minds shaped by thier own upbringing in western culture, they come to feel they are in control, maybe even superior over other westerners, mainly thier parents, or other family members or the church community in which they where raised. And they try to distract others with a continual flow of comments, like well that isn’t the way it is, you don’t understand, this is the way it is, that person is wrong, you are wrong, you being a Christian cannot grasp this, etc and etc.

What are you saying here? Are you saying that the human understanding is limited by race and geographic location?

Are you saying that when someone attempts to correct misconceptions about their beliefs that they are acting in a superior manner?

Are you saying that when some one posts a topic about a form of Buddhism, that Buddhists are distracting others when they comment on the topic?

Otherwise Christians don’t or cannot understand with thier western minds things about Buddhism,or other eastern thought if they cling on to Christianity, but you are westerner right?

When did anyone say that a Christian or a Westerner could not understand Buddhism? Of course Christians can. But they need to get their information from Buddhist teachings. You would not go to a Muslim to find out what the Catholic Church teaches and expect to get a completely accurate view.

I guess Buddhism magically changes a westerner’s mind into an eastern mind set, or frame of mind? How does that work? How were you able to get this perfect understanding of Buddhism, yet “idiots” like John Paul II’s understanding of it, as it is compared to Christianity, is totally wrong? Forgive me - I am humbly confused:shrug:

I was unaware that the Pope published his book as an infallible statement. I have not read his book so I cannot speak to the accuracies or inaccuracies of any of his statements about Buddhism.

Bennie,

It seems to upset you to think that any Catholic would leave the Church. You speak of it as a betrayal or rejection of their family and culture. This is not what has happened in my case. I am very close to my Catholic family and am an active member of my culture.

May you be as well and happy in your faith as I am in mine.
notself

 

[Bennie_P]

I read the second commentary, The author explainse that Buddhism and Catholicism are not compatible, but when did I say they were? They are not. You cannot be both a good Catholic and a practicing Buddhist.

The author goes on to describe Metta in some detail and afterwards jumps to the unsupported conclusion that Metta is not as good as the love of the Good Samaritan. I do not understand his reasoning.
Are you saying that when someone attempts to correct misconceptions about their beliefs that they are acting in a superior manner?
Are you saying that when some one posts a topic about a form of Buddhism, that Buddhists are distracting others when they comment on the topic?
When did anyone say that a Christian or a Westerner could not understand Buddhism? Of course Christians can. But they need to get their information from Buddhist teachings. You would not go to a Muslim to find out what the Catholic Church teaches and expect to get a completely accurate view.
I was unaware that the Pope published his book as an infallible statement. I have not read his book so I cannot speak to the accuracies or inaccuracies of any of his statements about Buddhism.
Bennie,
It seems to upset you to think that any Catholic would leave the Church. You speak of it as a betrayal or rejection of their family and culture. This is not what has happened in my case. I am very close to my Catholic family and am an active member of my culture.

May you be as well and happy in your faith as I am in mine.
notself

Why are you answering my questions to Ahisma? You and I already had this discussion. Now I’m really confused? Did you two switch Idenities? My questions were directed at Ahisma or have you two melded together and become one in the same?

What are you saying here? Are you saying that the human understanding is limited by race and geographic location?

No, "Part of the problem Christians have with understanding Buddhism, especially Christians of a Western theological tradition" but it appears another has:shrug:

As to this … deja vu - I think I’ve had this discussion before also, but on a different religion With a different person.

When did anyone say that a Christian or a Westerner could not understand Buddhism? Of course Christians can. But they need to get their information from Buddhist teachings. You would not go to a Muslim to find out what the Catholic Church teaches and expect to get a completely accurate view.

When I meet a Buddhist, then maybe I will be able to do that. Is it from Buddhist Teachngs? or only your interpretation of it. By whose authority are you presenting your interpretation. Personally in the 30 years I have read about Buddhism and Buddhist I am found very few that have the same conclusions to the meanings of what they practice and yes it is a distraction when one flood’s a post with too much information at once that appears to be cut and past then edited to appear it be from ones’s own thoughts and finger tips, and not sourced back to where the information was acquired. Not to say that you are doing this but since you are answering questions for another

 

[Pophead]

I am a practicing Buddhist of the Theravada tradition. Who ever did the word search in the Pali dictionary must have missed the word Metta. Metta is the Pali word for love in the sense of Agape.

In order to understand the Buddhist concept of Love, one must understand all four of the “Sublime Abodes” of Loving Kindness, Compassion, Sympathetic Joy, and Equanimity. Each state interacts and strengthens the other three. Loving Kindness meditation called Metta Bhavana is the core from which the other three arise. The love that arises from this meditation develops until it is part of every activity and thought of the meditator.

You begin by wishing Metta for yourself, then for your family, friends, and acquaintances. You move on to your enemies wishing sincerely that the will be happy and at peace. Finally the meditator wishes Metta to the entire universe. You begin with yourself because you must love and have compassion for yourself or you cannot love and have compassion for others.

Here are the words that I use. The word “I” is substituted by the name of the family member, friend, my acquaintances, the name of my enemies (people who have hurt or angered me).

May I be well and happy
May I be safe and free from harm
May I be free from anger and ill will
May I be at peace
May my heart be filled with loving kindness.

The teaching and practice of Metta over time permeates every fiber of one’s being. Imagine yourself free from anger and ill will.

I can attest to the truth in this meditation as my anger and impatience has been dramatically reduced by this practice. My compassion for my fellows and patience with irritations has also increased. I am more at peace and worry less about trifles.

If Catholics want to change this meditation into a prayer and recite:

God, grant that I am well and happy
God, grant that I am safe and free from harm
God, grant that I am free from anger and ill will
God, grant that I am at peace
God, grant that my heart is filled with loving kindness

I don’t see a problem. Don’t forget the others in your life, especially those who cause you harm or irritate you.

If you want to find out more, just Google Metta Bhavana and you will get 46,000 hits. I hope this and my previous post answer the question on whether Buddhists love.

*"'There, o monks, the monk with a mind full of loving-kindness pervading first one direction, then a second one, then a third one, then the fourth one, just so above, below and all around; and everywhere identifying himself with all, he is pervading the whole world with mind full of loving-kindness, with mind wide, developed, unbounded, free from hate and ill-will." *

This is an excellent reply.

I have yet to find a religion that clearly defines agape-love in the sense that it is explained by Christ, or should I say as it was embodied in Christ. His love is that of the Creator for the created being, who then lays down His life (utterly) to save undeserving beings. Unless one views oneself as ‘a god’ or ‘the god’ or ‘the creator of the Universe’ (a delusional thought) the love defined above is only human love vs Agape love.

Pophead.

additional response to **Edwin **

I said:
In conclusion, I cannot understand why there is any need to add to what has been accomplished long before any of us where born.

You said:
By that logic, why were we born at all?

Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

 

[Ahimsa]

Otherwise Christians don’t or cannot understand with thier western minds things about Buddhism,or other eastern thought if they cling on to Christianity, but you are westerner right?**

You seem to equate “Christians” with “Westerners”, whereas I made the distinction between Christians of the West (that is, Western Europe and America) and Christians of the East (that is, Byzantine Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodox, Nestorians, Assyrians, e.g.). There has been a clear loss of monastic emphasis in “Western Christianity”, compared to Eastern Christianity, which, I suspect, adds to the misunderstanding many Westerners (Western Europeans and Americans, particularly) have in understanding the “love” that exists within a monastic context in which monastics are not being ‘socially active’ in an outward form.

This doesn’t mean that Westerners cannot understand Buddhist monasticism (or any other monasticism), but it does mean that Westerners tend to interpret such monasticism from a context of Western non-monastic ideas.

And this is not simply a “Western” problem either. It exists in India, where religious traditions criticize other religious traditions for either being *too monastic, *or not monastic enough. So it’s a world-wide phenomenon, this notion that a monastic lacks self-sacrificing love because he/she isn’t “socially” active.

But one basic question that arises out of all of this is: is “agape” love necessarily absent in the monastic who lives by him or herself out in the woods, pretty much isolated from regular human relationship? If so, did Jesus lack agape when he spent 40 days in the wilderness? Does “agape” require that everyone be social reformers and activists, or does “agape” manifest in many different forms, some of them apparently “selfish”-looking (such as meditation) to outside observers?

Or is “agape” love by definition something only found within Christianity, such that if self-sacrificial love exists in other religious practices, it would not count as real “agape” because the other religious practice is not Christian (and, thus, does not view the world in the theological language of Christianity)? Does “agape” require the presupposition of the Christian definition of Deity and Salvation; or can “agape” exist in a Buddhist framework of Dharmakaya and the eternal work of the Buddhas?

 

[Pophead]

Does “agape” require the presupposition of the Christian definition of Deity and Salvation; or can “agape” exist in a Buddhist framework of Dharmakaya and the eternal work of the Buddhas?

To properly understand agape love, you will seriously need to consider the Gospel message. The best that we humans are capable of is a faint caricature of the divine love.

I would suggest a complete read of the whole Bible, but for starters just reflect on the thoughts expressed here:

And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart, And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elijah talking with him.

Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.

While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid. And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.

And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Pophead.

 

[notself]

When I meet a Buddhist, then maybe I will be able to do that. Is it from Buddhist Teachngs? or only your interpretation of it. By whose authority are you presenting your interpretation. Personally in the 30 years I have read about Buddhism and Buddhist I am found very few that have the same conclusions to the meanings of what they practice and yes it is a distraction when one flood’s a post with too much information at once that appears to be cut and past then edited to appear it be from ones’s own thoughts and finger tips, and not sourced back to where the information was acquired. Not to say that you are doing this but since you are answering questions for another

If you read my posts #105 and #110 you will notice that I put quotes in a quote box. Where I have edited information, I use … to indicate a portion has been omitted for what I hoped was clarity for non Buddhists and to stay on topic.

You will also notice that I give links to the sites that I quote. If comments are not in quote boxes or in a different color, the comments are my own.

If you would like to read the Tipitaka (the actual teachings of the Buddha which are accepted by all Traditions of Buddhism as being the words of the Buddha) here is the link to Access to Insight. The site has an excellent index by subject. You might want to look up Loving Kindness/Metta or any of the other topics that have appeared on the thread.

accesstoinsight.org/index.html

I am sorry that you feel that this thread is being flooded with information without proper sourcing. As I read the posts of others, it is clear to me that they are correctly representing the teachings of their traditions. But that may be because I have some understanding of the differences between our traditions and also am aware of what we have in common as Buddhists. I hope that the above link will clarify the Theravada perspective at least.

I will cease to post on this topic since any questions that readers may have in their minds about Theravada Buddhism can be answered by the information contained in Access to Insight. As I said before, the index is excellent.

Metta
notself

 

[Pophead]

Thank-you one and all for sharing in this discussion!

For a Christian look at ZEN, I recommend the chapter from Thomas Merton’s book; ‘Zen and The Birds of Appetite.’

Perhaps this quote from his book will provide a friendly exit. (until then )

*Now when we see that for Buddhism Prajna is described as “having the Buddha mind” we understand that there must surely be some possibility of finding an analogy somewhere between Buddhist and Christian experience, though we are now speaking more in terms of doctrine than of pure experience. Yet the doctrine is about the experience. We cannot push our investigation further here, but it is significant that Suzuki, reading the following lines from Eckhart (which are perfectly orthodox and traditional Catholic theology), said they were ‘the same as Prajna intuition’. (DT Suzuki, Mysticism; East and West, p. 40; the quotation from C. de. B. Evans’ translation of Eckhart London,1924,p.147)

“In giving us His love God has given us the Holy Ghost so that we can love Him with the love wherewith He loves Himself.” The Son of Who, in us, loves the Father, in the Spirit, is translated thus by Suzuki into Zen terms, “one mirror reflecting another with no shadow between them.” (Suzuki, Mysticism; East and West, p. 41)

Suzuki also frequently quotes a sentence of Eckhart’s: “The eye wherein I see God is the same eye wherein God sees me” (Suzuki, Mysticism: East and West, p. 50) as an exact expression of what Zen means by Prajna.

Whether or not Dr. Suzuki’s interpretation of the text in Zen terms is theologically perfect in every way remains to be seen, though at first sight there seems to be no reason why it should not be thoroughly acceptable. What is important for us there is that the interpretation is highly suggestive and interesting in itself, reflecting a king of intuitive affinity for Christian mysticism. Furthermore it is highly significant that a Japanese thinker schooled in Zen should be open to what is basically the most obscure and difficult mystery of Christian theology: the dogma of the Trinity and the mission of the Divine Persons in the Christian and the Church. This would seem to indicate that the real arena for investigation of analogies and correspondence between Christianity and Zen might after all be theology rather than psychology or ascetism. At least theology is not excluded, but it must be theology as experienced in Christian contemplation, not speculative theology of textbooks and disputations.

The few words that have been written in this introduction, and the brief, bare suggestions it contains, are by no means intended as an adequate “comparison” between Christian experience and Zen experience. Obviously, we have done little more than express a pious hope that a common ground can some day be found. But at least this should make the Western and Christian readers more ready to enter this book with an open mind, and perhaps help him to suspend judgment for a while, and not decide immediately that Zen is so esoteric and so outlandish that it has no interest or importance for us. On the contrary, Zen has much to teach the West, and recently Don Aelred Graham, in a book which became deservedly popular (Graham, Zen Catholicism, NY 1936), pointed out that there was more than a little in Zen that was pertinent to our own ascetic and religious practice. It is quite possible for Zen to be adapted and used to clear the air of ascetic irrelevancies and help us to regain a healthy natural balance in our understanding of the spiritual life.

But Zen must be grasped in its simple reality, not rationalized or imagined in terms of some fantastic and esoteric interpretation of human existence.

Though few Westerners will ever eventually come to a real understanding of Zen, it is still worth their while to be exposed to its brisk and heady atmosphere.*

A brief conclusion:-

Why expose oneself to a ‘brisk and heady atmosphere’ of Zen, when what is in Christ is far more sublime ?

These are the thoughts of the Apostle Paul. (my add) in italics.

For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, (…include your favourite mystic, or Buddha, or Yogi, or Saint etc.) or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s

 

[bpbasilphx]

The following is an excerpt from Hieromonk Seraphim Rose’s book ORTHODOXY AND THE RELIGION OF THE FUTURE.

I would urge you to take it to heart because he at one time was a Buddhist.

orthodoxphotos.com/readings/future/training.shtml

Especially telliing are from his closing words:
“Of all of today’s Eastern religious currents, Zen is probably the most sophisticated intellectually and the most sober spiritually. With its teaching of compassion and a loving “Cosmic Buddha,” it is perhaps as high a religious ideal as the human mind can attain — without Christ. Its tragedy is precisely that is has no Christ in it, and thus no salvation, and its very sophistication and sobriety effectively prevent its followers from seeking salvation in Christ.”