Who is my neighbour? (in different religions)

[Montalban]

U get to escape the cycle of birth and death, and reach nirvana. U develop compassion for all. U serve society and mankind. U serve your neighbour. All these are good, just like what the buddhist monks are doing in Burma - doing the greatest good by their faith.

Why are these things good?

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know if it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.
Lewis, C. S., (2002), “The Complete C S Lewis”, (Harper; San Francisco), p30.

Buddhists ascribe to something the attribute of ‘good’ - but for what reason(s)?

 

[notself]

Our actions are skillful, unskillful, or neutral. These actions generate results that are good, bad, or neutral.

If you rob a bank (unskillful action) you will be on the run from the cops (bad result). If you refrain from taking what is not freely given (skillful) you will be respected and trusted by your friends and neighbors (good result). Anger (unskillful emotional action) can cause heart disease ( a bad result).

This interplay between skillful action and good result and unskillful action and bad result strikes me as very just. Of course my explanaition is very simple. The interplay between action and result also depends upon opportunity for the result to play out. Someone practicing throwing a baseball could develop the skill to throw a no hitter, However, if this person becomes crippled in his pitching arm, the no hitter (the result of practice) cannot come to fruition until the arm is healed and the opportunity to play ball exists.

 

[thedavidwilson]

As practiced in today’s world, I would say that neither Christians, Jews or Muslims attach Jesus definition to the term “brother”.

That being said, I don’t necessarily see that the verse cited above has to be interpreted as only Muslims.
The term Allah, is the Arabic term for God. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah
Mohammed worshiped the God of Abraham. The single, omnipotent Creator of all things. The same God of the Jews and Christians.
We know that Mohammed had great respect for Jesus and saw him as a great prophet and favored of God. He also held Christians in general in high regard even though he felt that their were problems with the NT writings and and with the Christian Church Dogma.

Therefore it is reasonable to deduce that “Servants of Allah”, as stated in the above verse would include all Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

James

Non-muslims are not servants of Allah. If they were servant of Allah then they would be muslim. Many verses in the koran and hadith as well as hundreds of years of practice (i.e. dhimmitude) shows that muslims and Christians do not have the same status in islam. the muslim rule is (sometimes) turn the other cheek if your opponent is a muslim, otherwise kill him.

 

[Montalban]

Our actions are skillful, unskillful, or neutral. These actions generate results that are good, bad, or neutral.

Why are these good or bad?

This interplay between skillful action and good result and unskillful action and bad result strikes me as very just. Of course my explanaition is very simple. The interplay between action and result also depends upon opportunity for the result to play out. Someone practicing throwing a baseball could develop the skill to throw a no hitter, However, if this person becomes crippled in his pitching arm, the no hitter (the result of practice) cannot come to fruition until the arm is healed and the opportunity to play ball exists.

How is that just? Someone who practices might be a good pitcher, or he might not be. It just looks chacey. In fact it’s so much like a truism to be saying…
“If you practice, you might be good, or you might not be”

 

[notself]

Why are these good or bad?

How is that just? Someone who practices might be a good pitcher, or he might not be. It just looks chacey. In fact it’s so much like a truism to be saying…
“If you practice, you might be good, or you might not be”

I was using practice and baseball as an example where action needs opportunity to have a result. That is all I meant.

Is English your first language?

 

[De_Maria]

The Buddha was a man who through his own efforts became awake or enlightened to things as they really are. He taught that there is suffering, a reason for suffering, a way to end suffering and that it was within our power to end it.

Through his own efforts? So how did he explain his own existence?

Also, if it is within our power to end suffering, why haven’t we?

And did he see any value in suffering?

Metta and the other sublime states are stated of mind that have influence over one’s actions and therefore influence how one responds to the actions of others.

Ok.

There is no creation story in Buddhism. It is unimportant when it comes to ending suffering.

Thanks for mentioning that difference. We believe it is invaluable for understanding man’s condition and for understanding the value of suffering and the reason for Jesus sacrifice on the Cross.

Just as Christians consider that God always existed, Buddhist consider that existence always was. There is no first cause.

Then there is no reason. If there is no reason for being, there is no reason. Do you follow? And if there is no reason, where did Buddha’s ability to reason come from?

Plants are not considered sentient although all other living beings whether seen or unseen are.

You believe in the spirit world? What is the relationship between the spirit world and the material world?

I don’t believe that St. Francis killed animals or fish. He may have eaten animals or fish killed by others and given to him.

I believe you are correct, although we have to speak of him after his transformation and not before.

The Buddha instructed the monks and nuns that they could eat meat and fish as long as the animal was not killed for them. In other words if someone was having meat for dinner and gave some to a monk or nun, they could eat it.

OK.

As a Buddhist I have developed skill in capture and transport of flies, mosquitoes, spiders and other creepy crawlies that I find in the house. I do my best to avoid intentionally killing any creature. You should try it. It is a wonderful feeling to release a moth that is fluttering in fear in your hand. It opens your heart and fills it with compassion.

I’ve released moths and butterflies. I kill mosquitoes and flies.

Kicking someone’s butt is different from killing someone. The martial arts were developed by Buddhist monks in China that were regularly being killed by bandits. It was developed as non lethal self defense. Self defense is Ok if there is no other way and killing is not involved. Running way is better. Christians should feel free to kill in those same situations where Jesus Christ killed.

I should say not. Jesus Christ is God and therefore gives and takes away on a regular basis.

Also, Jesus did not forbid killing where His Father authorized it. That is for the punishment of murderers.

In addition, we don’t believe that God has ever forbidden self defense or the defense of the innocent. If the ony way to thwart a person bent on murder is to kill him, so be it.

I wish more ministers and priests would come out against war and demonstrate against it as the monks and nuns of Burma are doing at great risk to their own lives.

All our ministers and priests, especially our Pope have come out against war.

I am a Theravadan Buddhist, the same tradition as those in Burma.

Good. I like it better when I’m talking to a practitioner of the faith rather than someone who is not a practitioner but is simply instructing me on something which they probably know little about.

I hope we can continue comparing and contrasting the Buddhism and Catholicism. I think that type of comparison is valuable for all.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

I don’t think something is less valuable because it is human wisdom and not wisdom attributed to some deity. As an atheist, I think all wisdom is man-made, except that some people want to insert more authority to their sayings by claiming they come from God, rather than man.

As a former atheist, I also used to think that all wisdom was man-made. But then my eyes opened to the suffering of the world and how man’s wisdom was not making it better but worse. And I realized that we needed God.

I also began to realize that if wisdom was man-made, who made man? Did man spring from the mud all on his own as conventional science tries to say. Being a habitual skeptic, I realized how foolish that theory really is. I began to notice silly things in nature shows, “many centuries ago, bats DECIDED it was more profitable to sprout wings”. Excuse me, did they convene a meeting of all bat forebears and discuss the value of arboreal life verses the value of cave dwelling and flying? Who kept the minutes?

I prefer the honesty of an author who states ‘I, ordinary joe bloggs, wrote this’, than ’ you must obey all of this because God, not i, wrote this’.

I prefer the reason behind the authority. It is dishonesty for a n atheist to say, “You should be honest and just” when obviously, it is more profitable, in the short run, to be dishonest and unjust. If all we have is today, then party and have a good time. Don’t have any children and if anyone gets pregnant kill them in the womb, because there is no reason to believe in tomorrow.

However, if you believe in God and the last day, then there is reason to believe in a reunion of your family in the afterlife and a reason to sacrifice for your children. A reason to love.

Atheism makes all those things illogical. At least, that is the conclusion I came to when I first started to see God’s hand in my life.

This is interesting. I happen to have the opposite view. I think that ‘do unto others as u would have them do unto u’ is limited in that if someone is a Christian, he would not object to imposing Christianity on someone else on the basis that the Christian wouldn’t mind being made to be what he already is: a christian. This leads to all sorts of people feeling it is ok to force people to accept their views, politics, etc (ie. because they like it, the other person should like it, too).

Unfortunately, that is the Protestant view. How many times I have been accosted by Protestants because they believe that Catholics aren’t saved. I was also accosted by them as an atheist.

But as Catholics, we believe in evangelizing by our works. I believe it was the very same St. Francis whom we mentioned on this thread who said, “By all means, evangelize, use words if necessary.”
CONT’D

 

[De_Maria]

CONT’D

‘That which is repugnant to u, impose not on others’ is better because it makes u think a bit more on what someone else might consider to be repugnant, rather than limit it from the 1st person opinion of what is good and bad. To use the example u’'ve given - it would actually be repugnant to walk by without helping the other person, because if u fell over, would it not be repugnant to u if others walked by without helping u?

Yes it would be repugnant, but it would not be imposed on the person. The imposition would be upon the person who did not want to help. You see?

The taoist version emphasises not just what we personally feel to be good and bad, but also what is takes into account the other person’s views on good and bad. This the in the word ‘impose’. Using the example of the Christian, the NT ‘do unto others’ would allow him to impose his religion on others on the grounds he would be happy to have his religion imposed on him. The taoist version says no, on the grounds that since u would not like someone to force you to convert to their faith, ergo u cannot force them to convert to yours.

You keep repeating the imposition of religious values. Again, that is not the Catholic model.

However, atheists also impose their values upon Christians. I know, I work and have worked with several who have tried to persuade me that I should be atheist, again. So that’s a two way street.

As for the saying, Jesus did not mean any imposition at all. He was speaking about “who is your neighbor”, meaning “whom should you love.” You are simply twisting the meaning of those words to reflect one aspect of your life which you don’t like, the imposition of other’s values upon you. Yet, I guarantee you that atheists do the same thing. I remember, I, may God forgive me, turned my own brother into an atheist.

To me, the Christian version is closer to the Muslim belief that what their adherants inflict on non-believers is good,

Actually, if we go back and study atheist regimes, they have been even more systematic and ruthless in removing the freedom of religion than Muslims.

but when non-believers inflict the same thing on them, it is wrong

When it is done at gunpoint and with the threat of death, yes, it is wrong.

is defined only from the point of view of the 1st person, the person on the receiving end is never considered. The taost version says needs of the person on the receiving end of your action needs to be considered.

In fact, Jesus’ version very much considers the person on the receiving end. Jesus taught love of neighbor and love means caring for the other person’s welfare.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Montalban]

I was using practice and baseball as an example where action needs opportunity to have a result. That is all I meant.

But all you mean to say then is by doing something you get a result. So what?

Doing anything might lead to *some *result! Big deal, if you pardon me for saying so, but all that is is a truism

Is English your first language?

Yes it is, what’s yours? All you keep doing is saying soemthing is good/positive or bad/negative, I keep asking why it’s good etc.

Did you read the C S Lewis tract?

 

[rossum]

All you keep doing is saying soemthing is good/positive or bad/negative, I keep asking why it’s good etc.

[The Buddha said:]"Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: ‘This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction… it would be a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do.

"While you are doing a bodily action, you should reflect on it: ‘This bodily action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both… you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not… you may continue with it.

“Having done a bodily action, you should reflect on it: ‘This bodily action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it… you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction… it was a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities.”

Source: Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta MN 61
The same advice is repeated word-for-word to cover verbal and mental actions. Actions, physical, verbal and mental, are judged by their results - “By their fruits shall you know them”.

It is also worth noting that the Buddha says you need to think about your actions before you undertake them. Mindfulness of what you are doing is very important in helping avoid unskilful actions.

rossum

 

[notself]

De Maria;Through his own efforts? So how did he explain his own existence?

It would take pages to explain the Buddhist POV regarding existence. A short explanation is - It is inconceivable to find the first cause for anything. The more one looks the more one sees that the cause is actually a result of another earlier cause. Even the Big Bang is not a first cause since before the Big Bang there was a singularity. At the level of the singularity the laws of physics break down so at present we cannot see to the time before the singularity. Just as there is no first cause, there is no end of the life stream which flows on and on fed by ignorance and craving. It is only by the ending of ignorance and craving that one can be released.

Also, if it is within our power to end suffering, why haven’t we?

And did he see any value in suffering?

It is in our power to end suffering. We still feel sorrow at the loss of a loved one. We feel hunger and cold and pain. All of these things that we perceive through the senses we continue to feel. But we do not suffer. I have greatly improved my life and reduced my suffering since practicing Buddhism. Last Thursday I had a modified mastectomy for cancer of my right breast. I am waiting for the test results to determine what type of follow up treatment I will receive. I felt sorrow, disappointment, discomfort and pain, but I am not suffering. The cancer just is. My recovery will either be complete or it will not be. In the mean time I live in the present moment which is where we all should live.

This does not mean that I am fatalistic. I am actively researching the types of treatments available and their side effects. I am making notes about how those side effects could impact my long term health. I am following my doctor’s instructions and I hope to have a long and happy life.

What I am not doing is suffering. Suffering is useless.

Thanks for mentioning that difference. We believe it is invaluable for understanding man’s condition and for understanding the value of suffering and the reason for Jesus sacrifice on the Cross.

This is a big difference between Buddhism and Christianity.

Then there is no reason. If there is no reason for being, there is no reason. Do you follow? And if there is no reason, where did Buddha’s ability to reason come from?

All life can reason to some extent. Even water bears make decisions. There is a hypothesis in mathematics that is called self organizing chaos. This mathematics is used in some of the theories of the Big Bang and the organization of the Universe and is used in computing on the very small level to produce faster computing power. I don’t pretend to understand this concept and I hope those who do will forgive me if I misstate it. It is this self organization that is a cause of reason. But whether it is or not is not important. The ending of suffering, ignorance and craving is important.

Check out the water bears.
microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artjun00/mmbearp.html

You believe in the spirit world? What is the relationship between the spirit world and the material world?

All life can reason to some extent. Even water bears make decisions. There is a hypothesis in mathematics that is called self organizing chaos. This mathematics is used in some of the theories of the Big Bang and the organization of the Universe and is used in computing on the very small level to produce faster computing power. I don’t pretend to understand this concept and I hope those who do will forgive me if I misstate it. It is this self organization that is a cause of reason. But whether it is or not is not important. The ending of suffering, ignorance and craving is important.

In the Buddhist cosmology there are thirty one planes of existence. Although some think of these planes as being metaphorical, others relate them to the jhana states (states of intense concentration) and others consider them to be real. Probably all three interpretations are correct. Some Buddhists believe that these worlds interact, with one plane of existence attempting to influence the others. Buddhist monastics who are well respected throughout the tradition of Theravada **do not **believe there is interaction. Other traditions believe there is interaction.

I’ve released moths and butterflies. I kill mosquitoes and flies.

Examine your motives and your feelings when you release and when you kill.

to be continued

 

[notself]

(De Maria) I should say not. Jesus Christ is God and therefore gives and takes away on a regular basis.

I was speaking of Jesus Christ in his human incarnation on earth. I didn’t make myself clear.

Also, Jesus did not forbid killing where His Father authorized it. That is for the punishment of murderers.

In addition, we don’t believe that God has ever forbidden self defense or the defense of the innocent. If the ony way to thwart a person bent on murder is to kill him, so be it.

All our ministers and priests, especially our Pope have come out against war.

John Paul II came out against Capitol Punishment except where there was no other way to protect society. At the time of Christ it was quite easy to break out of prison (they were made of mud bricks) but today according to the Pope there is no true excuse for capital punishment. I can provide a link if you wish.

As for self defense, there should never be an intention to kill. If one kills in the process of defending one’s self or others but there is no intent to do so then it is not a violation of the First Precept. This is the reason Buddhist monastics developed the martial arts. The wanted to defend themselves and others without killing.

Good. I like it better when I’m talking to a practitioner of the faith rather than someone who is not a practitioner but is simply instructing me on something which they probably know little about.

I agree.

I hope we can continue comparing and contrasting the Buddhism and Catholicism. I think that type of comparison is valuable for all.

Sincerely,

De Maria

You ask excellent questions. I hope I have answered them in a coherent manner.

 

[notself]

But all you mean to say then is by doing something you get a result. So what?

Doing anything might lead to *some *result! Big deal, if you pardon me for saying so, but all that is is a truism

Yes it is, what’s yours? All you keep doing is saying soemthing is good/positive or bad/negative, I keep asking why it’s good etc.

Did you read the C S Lewis tract?

I believe that Rossum answered you question about what is good.

Let me expand on my answer about action and result.

First of all, I asked you if your first language was English because I am used to posting on an international Buddhist board where many members do not have English as their first or even second language. We seem to be having some difficulty in communication. By the way I did read the CS Lewis tract and think he dances all around cause and effect, action and result. He looks for justice and comes to the conclusion that God is needed for justice to exist. (Let me know if I misinterpreted his meaning).

I don’t understand what you mean when you ask, “Why is it good?” I can answer the question, “Why is an action considered good?” Is that what you mean?

If so, then the quote by Rossum would answer that question. A good action is one that does not lead to “self affliction, to the affliction of others or to both.”

Killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, harsh or untrue speech, intoxication all lead to affliction to oneself or to others or to both.

Refraining from those acts listed above and the practice of loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity lead to good results for oneself, or others or both.

 

[JRKH]

Non-muslims are not servants of Allah. If they were servant of Allah then they would be muslim.

As I explained, Allah is simply arabic for God and Mohammed recognized and worshipped the God of Abraham, which is the same historical God as we worship.
So by your statement above you are declaring that Jews and Christians do not worship God; Are not servants of God.
If you are distinguishing between the term God and the term Allah you are splitting the hair in very thin strips indeed.

Many verses in the koran and hadith as well as hundreds of years of practice (i.e. dhimmitude) shows that muslims and Christians do not have the same status in islam. the muslim rule is (sometimes) turn the other cheek if your opponent is a muslim, otherwise kill him.

I would suppose that Islam has the same issues with teaching/interpretation and practice that Judaism and Chritianity have always had.

I am not a scholar on either Islam or Christianity so I cannot debate the intricasies of the various faiths and teachings. But based on the verse that was origionally posted, I still don’t see that the interpretation has to be limited to Muslims only. It’s up to the one doing the interpreting.

May God Bless

James

 

[Montalban]

[The Buddha said:]"Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: ‘This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction… it would be a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do.

"While you are doing a bodily action, you should reflect on it: ‘This bodily action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both… you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not… you may continue with it.

“Having done a bodily action, you should reflect on it: ‘This bodily action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it… you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction… it was a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities.”

Source: Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta MN 61
The same advice is repeated word-for-word to cover verbal and mental actions. Actions, physical, verbal and mental, are judged by their results - “By their fruits shall you know them”.

It is also worth noting that the Buddha says you need to think about your actions before you undertake them. Mindfulness of what you are doing is very important in helping avoid unskilful actions.

rossum

All that’s saying is “Will the action lead to a good result?”

SO in judging what is ‘good’ you ask yourself “will the result be good?”

 

[Montalban]

I believe that Rossum answered you question about what is good.

Yes, he expanded your point of ‘what is good is good’ to ‘what is good is good’ very enlightening.

Let me expand on my answer about action and result.

First of all, I asked you if your first language was English because I am used to posting on an international Buddhist board where many members do not have English as their first or even second language. We seem to be having some difficulty in communication.

Indeed, because you’ve not explained anything.

By the way I did read the CS Lewis tract and think he dances all around cause and effect, action and result. He looks for justice and comes to the conclusion that God is needed for justice to exist. (Let me know if I misinterpreted his meaning).

Based on the fact that nothing can be ‘good’ of itself or that we can’t just say something is good, without knowing how to measure it as being good. Which is why you’re having problems in explaining it - as saying “what’s good is good” in effect.

I don’t understand what you mean when you ask, “Why is it good?” I can answer the question, “Why is an action considered good?” Is that what you mean?

I would assume that it’s considered ‘good’ because it is ‘good’.

If so, then the quote by Rossum would answer that question. A good action is one that does not lead to “self affliction, to the affliction of others or to both.”

But your own example blows this apart. You talked about the baseball player - a player might undergo tremendous hardship in order to train himself up to be the best player in his field. The ‘self-affliction’ he undertakes is therefore not ‘good’ or ‘bad’ but dependent on the ultimate outcome.

If you just said “Self-affliction” is bad then no one would exercise ever. No one would strive to improve themselves through barriers of endurance and pain.

Killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, harsh or untrue speech, intoxication all lead to affliction to oneself or to others or to both.

You mean that they lead to something bad, because they’re bad.

Refraining from those acts listed above and the practice of loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity lead to good results for oneself, or others or both.

Which is to say you do good because its good… without saying why you think its good in the first place.

You just arbitrarily say “doing X action is good, because it leads to Y outcome which is good” Why’s it good? It just is.

 

[De_Maria]

It would take pages to explain the Buddhist POV regarding existence. A short explanation is - It is inconceivable to find the first cause for anything. The more one looks the more one sees that the cause is actually a result of another earlier cause. Even the Big Bang is not a first cause since before the Big Bang there was a singularity. At the level of the singularity the laws of physics break down so at present we cannot see to the time before the singularity. Just as there is no first cause, there is no end of the life stream which flows on and on fed by ignorance and craving. It is only by the ending of ignorance and craving that one can be released.

Can I summarize it this way? Buddha does not explain the origin of intelligence or the origin of the beauty and design in the universe. According to Buddha, everything just happened.

In contrast, the Church recognizes that it is totally illogical to expect something to come from nothing. God created all from nothing that existed. But God, the first Cause and Intelligent Designer did that.

It is in our power to end suffering.

Then why haven’t we? Or should I say, why haven’t the Buddhists ended suffering?

We still feel sorrow at the loss of a loved one. We feel hunger and cold and pain. All of these things that we perceive through the senses we continue to feel. But we do not suffer.

Says who?

I have greatly improved my life and reduced my suffering since practicing Buddhism.

You just contradicted yourself. A reduction of suffering is not an end of suffering.

Last Thursday I had a modified mastectomy for cancer of my right breast. I am waiting for the test results to determine what type of follow up treatment I will receive. I felt sorrow, disappointment, discomfort and pain, but I am not suffering.

God bless you for what you are enduring. May He give you the strength to persevere in your goodness and peace of mind.

The cancer just is. My recovery will either be complete or it will not be. In the mean time I live in the present moment which is where we all should live.

Well, without preaching, I’d like to say that I prefer the Catholic doctrine of accepting our suffering and uniting it with the suffering of Jesus Christ, to expiate our sins and the sins of the world.

But, please remain at peace. Whether you recognize it or not, God has granted you that peace.

This does not mean that I am fatalistic. I am actively researching the types of treatments available and their side effects. I am making notes about how those side effects could impact my long term health. I am following my doctor’s instructions and I hope to have a long and happy life.

Amen!

What I am not doing is suffering. Suffering is useless.

By no means, I know it isn’t your belief, but we believe that without suffering we shall not be heirs to Christ’s Kingdom.

Romans 8
17 And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.

All life can reason to some extent.

That is true. But my question is, where did reason come from? If water bears can reason in a very basic way, where did they get this capacity? Did they convene and say, “we should be able to reason in a very basic way.”
CONT’D

 

[De_Maria]

CONT’D

Even water bears make decisions. There is a hypothesis in mathematics that is called self organizing chaos. This mathematics is used in some of the theories of the Big Bang and the organization of the Universe and is used in computing on the very small level to produce faster computing power. I don’t pretend to understand this concept and I hope those who do will forgive me if I misstate it. It is this self organization that is a cause of reason. But whether it is or not is not important

I beg to differ. Not all math is correct. Self organizing from a random source is absolutely false. Lets consider this. First, mathematical rule. Nothing from nothing is nothing. So the universe could not be created by accident. No possibility.

Now, lets grant the impossible that the universe existed forever as you claim without a creator. Randomness means predictability. Complete randomness means complete unpredictability. If everything is random, than the universe would degenerate. There are no rules, no laws. If a happens b probably doesn’t follow since there are an infinite number of consequences.

So, if randomness in this universe is not complete, who reduced the odds? Someone HAD to.

The ending of suffering, ignorance and craving is important.

But neither Buddhists nor any other human beings have put an end to it.

Check out the water bears.
microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artjun00/mmbearp.html

Very interesting.

In the Buddhist cosmology there are thirty one planes of existence. Although some think of these planes as being metaphorical, others relate them to the jhana states (states of intense concentration) and others consider them to be real. Probably all three interpretations are correct. Some Buddhists believe that these worlds interact, with one plane of existence attempting to influence the others. Buddhist monastics who are well respected throughout the tradition of Theravada **do not **believe there is interaction. Other traditions believe there is interaction.

So essentially there is no relationship between the material and spiritual world in Buddhist thought, is that correct?

In Catholic Theology, of course, God is Spirit and from His Spirit everything proceeds. He is the Creator of the Spiritual and material worlds. Animal life, including human beings, get their life from the spiritual soul which inhabits their bodies. In fact, the combination of the spirit and the flesh is one nature, either plant, animal or human. Humans are said to have souls which are endowed with much more complex reasoning powers than animals which mainly reason only enough to procure their next meal.

And the Spirit world is from where all mental abilities proceed. Thought is a spiritual action.

Examine your motives and your feelings when you release and when you kill.

I kill a mosquito because it bites and causes an itchy bump. I could endure the suffering and unite it with Christ’s suffering on the Cross, but I’m not that perfect yet.

I release a butterfly or moth because I find them beautiful.

to be continued

OK

 

[swariffin]

Dear Ms. notself (I don’t know your name, but I think you are a female).

I thank you for your explanation regarding Budhism. My brother in law is also Budhist. I would like to exchange ideas with you, as you did very well with De Maria.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Budhism teaches that things so-called “life” goes circular, and that is why people who die will reincarnate to this world. In what level of living, or in what form the spirit reincarnate, depends on the “Karma (good deed)” that such person had during his/her lifetime. A person’s spirit could reincarnate into “richer” person, or “poorer”, or even reincarnate in a form of animal or even insect. So, a mosquito I killed, could be the reincarnation of a spirit of somebody I know.

The reason of suffering, according to Budhism I think, comes from human will. May be the willingness to possess, if I could be more specific. The more human is willing to have/gain something, the more suffering resulted.

My private view toward Budhism is the same as me toward Christianity (my belief). Budhism came long before the era of Jesus, and far away from the land of Judea, which geographically and culturally different. It is perfectly make sense to me, that people perceived the revelation of God, in a form of Budhism or Hinduism, or Confucianism, or even Islam.

The differences of the meaning of neighbourhood in this OP with respect to different religions shown by the members joining this thread, seems to me comes from the level of the inclusion. Please also correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Montalban]

Swariffin, if only they explain what is good