Why persons may become Buddhists

[CindyLynn]

MEP:

Westerners are at a complete disadvantage when trying to decipher this stuff because our cultural heritage really is of a completely different world than theirs. It’s not just a language barrier. We think differently.

I’m sorry but that is not true if you’re speaking in a physiological sense. We all think the same. If you mean their culture is different, well, yes. And the point is? If I place an apple on the floor and my culture calls the object “apple” and I know it as something to eat and make pies out of, and someone from a different culture calls it a banana and instead of eating it skins it and makes shoes out of it, does the qualities of the “apple” change? That someone sees an object one way or another because of cultural differences has no effect on the “truth” of the object or concept. Further, can they never learn how to “understand” my concept of the “apple” if I tell them? Of course they can. If they wish to try.

The “strangeness” of Catholicism to the Buddhist is no different than to a strict Southern Baptist who goes to Mass for the first time. That they don’t understand all the parts of Catholicism doesn’t mean they “can’t.”

That many religions have similar aspects to Christianity is good, but that doesn’t make them “compatible” to Christianity. On a site made by Buddhists
buddhanet.net/e-learning/5minbud.htm

you will find out that Buddhism relies on individuals to “save” themselves in a sense. There is no God, there is no Christ. I don’t know how you can say this is not in direct conflict with Christianity. This sentence from the site shows the basic problem:

“Buddhist teachings can be understood and tested by anyone. Buddhism teaches that the solutions to our problems are within ourselves not outside. The Buddha asked all his followers not to take his word as true, but rather to test the teachings for themselves. ln this way, each person decides for themselves and takes responsibility for their own actions and understanding. This makes Buddhism less of a fixed package of beliefs which is to be accepted in its entirety, and more of a teaching which each person learns and uses in their own way.”

It’s just a different form of Humanism - putting human beings in the center of Universe instead of God. One can believe that if they wish, but it isn’t Christianity and in fact directly opposes it.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

.

In my opinion, Chan/Zen/Son Buddhism is a sign of the universal truths that all human beings are capable of understanding when they truly seek to find and serve the truth of existence.

It is my opinion that Chan/Zen/Son Buddhism believe that one can achieve Enlightenment through meditation and not just through the study of the sutras as Hinayana Buddhism maintains. The Mahayana and Hinayana Buddhist viewpoints as paths to enlightenment are the two biggest splits within Buddhism. Chan/Zen/Son falls into the Mahayana camp.

Because Chan/Son/Zen are action oriented, they appealed to the warrior class of China, Korea, and Japan in that order, and their meditative practices were able to be adopted to all warrior skills, particularly swordsmanship, where a focused and clear (i.e. ‘empty’) mind was essential to the life and death moment of a battle, since the mind, body and sword were one, any mental clutter could interfere with one’s swordsmanship thereby causing defeat.

So “Why persons may become Buddhists”?

 

[Ahimsa]

Bobby A. Greene:

.

It is my opinion that Chan/Zen/Son Buddhism believe that one can achieve Enlightenment through meditation and not just through the study of the sutras as Hinayana Buddhism maintains.

I haven’t heard of any Theravadan (“Hinayanan”) teacher state that nirvana could be realized even if one engages solely in the study of the sutras, without meditating.

But maybe I should get out more.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

Ahimsa:

I haven’t heard of any Theravadan (“Hinayanan”) teacher state that nirvana could be realized even if one engages solely in the study of the sutras, without meditating.

But maybe I should get out more.

Chan/Son/Zen had maintained that a shortcut to enlightenment could be acheived through meditation only without the years of dedicated study of the sutras. The Hinayana schools disagreed with this, thus the major split between Mahayana and Hinayana Buddhism occured.

But describing Buddhism does not answer the question of why people become Buddhist?

 

[Ahimsa]

Bobby A. Greene:

But describing Buddhism does not answer the question of why people become Buddhist?

That begs the question, “What is a Buddhist”?

One possible definition:
A Buddhist is one who considers the Buddha as someone who has realized something really worth realizing, and who is willing to do his or her best to realize what the Buddha realized.

Then the question becomes, “Why would anyone want to realize what the Buddha realized?”

That begs another question: “What did the Buddha realize?”

One hypothesis:
The Buddha realized a state in which he no longer identified himself with fear, greed, and anger. He noticed when they arose, but he did not grasp at them, nor indulge in them, but he let them go and dissolve.

Hmmm…now why would anyone want to replicate that sort of realization?

 

[reen12]

Hi, Ahimsa,

quote: Ahimsa

One hypothesis:
The Buddha realized a state in which he no longer identified himself with fear, greed, and anger. He noticed when they arose, but he did not grasp at them, nor indulge in them, but he let them go and dissolve.

Hmmm…now why would anyone want to replicate that sort of realization?

I dunno. Used the same approach when dealing with
an array of pressures, this summer, and fell peacefully
asleep…by letting the emotions “…go and dissolve.”
Thank you, Siddhartha Gautama.

Hope this won’t be considered accepting another “faith positon.”

quote: Ahimsa

But maybe I should get out more.

That is *very *funny.

Best,
reen

PS: I believe that “mindfulness” is part of Dialectical
Behavior Therapy. So apparently some see a value
in what the Buddha “realized.”

 

[Ahimsa]

reen12:

Hope this won’t be considered accepting another “faith positon.”

Hi reen,

Accepting another faith position? I sure hope not. There are lots of trappings surrounding the religion of Buddhism, but the essence is simply the activity of being aware, mindfulness. How you apply that mindfulness can vary, from Jewish (thus, the “JuBu” phenomenon), to Christian, to Muslim, to Marxist, to secular humanist, ways.

Not a few Catholics (like the Jesuit Roshi Robert Kennedy) have been acknowledged as Zen teachers, while maintaining their Catholic faith position.

 

[reen12]

Hi Ahimsa,

Hope this won’t be considered accepting another “faith positon.”

…quote:reen12

I should have used a different icon, to convey my intent!

How about:

Hope this won’t be considered *accepting another “faith positon.” *

Best,
reen

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

reen12:

I should have used a different icon

Reen, such a long time… nice to see your name again

Here are two articles by people who returned to Christ after spending time with the Buddha…

**Through The Eastern Gate

• From Tibetan Buddhism to Orthodox Christianity**
  by Nilus Stryker

Himalayan Ascent to Christ
*by Ryassophore Monk Adrian *

See
strannik.com/watchful_gate/index2.html

 

[reen12]

Hi, Father Ambrose,

So good to hear from you!

And thanks for the two references.

There’s a thread underway on Salvation outside Christianity,
on the Apologetics forum, in which I’ve offered my views on
the RC doctrine of Original Sin. In one of my posts, I suggested
that the Orthodox have a different view of Original Sin, and asked if there were any Orthodox following the thread, who might clarify what Orthodoxy holds, with regard to same.

Wishing that you had been among those present, to
weigh in on the topic.

All the very best, Father Ambrose, and may He hold you
in the palm of His hand,

Maureen

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

Ahimsa:

That begs the question, “What is a Buddhist”?

One possible definition:
A Buddhist is one who considers the Buddha as someone who has realized something really worth realizing, and who is willing to do his or her best to realize what the Buddha realized.

Then the question becomes, “Why would anyone want to realize what the Buddha realized?”

That begs another question: “What did the Buddha realize?”

One hypothesis:
The Buddha realized a state in which he no longer identified himself with fear, greed, and anger. He noticed when they arose, but he did not grasp at them, nor indulge in them, but he let them go and dissolve.

Hmmm…now why would anyone want to replicate that sort of realization?

What is Catholic? What is Buddhist? - Someone who adheres to and practices the religion called Buddhism?

 

[b_justb]

When I left my parents home at 18 and walked away from the Jehovah’s Witness to boot, I felt deeply that Christianity as it was presented to me was just bogus. I was impacted by Mohandas Ghandi’s writings and life. I thought a man of this quality must know God. Ghandi was Hindu so I began looking at Hinduism. It was very odd and hard to follow for this American. But as I studied I found Tathagata who was very interesting. He was a Hindu priest that renounced Hinduism and embarked upon The Noble Path and came up with the four Noble Truths of Buddhism. From there I followed Buddhism north out of India to China with the life of Bodhidharma and his taking Buddhism to Shao Lin Mountain and his life and times with Taoist monks. From there it was a natural progression to Taoism and Zen Buddhism as a school of thought.

My path to Buddhism came as a direct result of being taught Christianity incorrectly. I sought God but only found shades of Him in the various lives of peace loving people of the Far East.

For what it’s worth in the “Why persons may become Buddhists” thread.

-B.

 

[reen12]

A most clear explication, ahimsaman72. :tiphat:

Many thanks, my friend,

Maureen

 

[ahimsaman72]

Bobby A. Greene:

Yet Buddhism is almost pure pantheism coupled with reincarnation; and these shortcomings do not become apparent to the new practitioner until later in their Buddhist development.

Buddhism is not close to pantheism neither holds reincarnation as a doctrine. The doctrine of dependent origination (which the Buddha explained) is based on the idea that all things consist of all things. For example: a stalk of wheat needs sun, soil, etc to grow. The sun and soil are part of the wheat. They depend on each other to fulfill their purpose. They become one. They are one. There is no difference.

Nothing transmigrates from one birth to another in Buddhism, because that violates a major tenet of Buddhism, that being that there is no eternal soul. There is no lasting, permanent “self”. Reincarnation posits a transmigration of soul from one body to another. Totally different.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Rhodius2004:

I have a good friend now but she is like so many people of older years who no longer can recognise the Christian Church since contemporary Christian music took it over. The noise in these gatherings is absolutely hair raisingly phenomenal and no different from rock concerts that go on in the world. Ladies are offended by writhing women who address Jesus in the manner of a boyfriend or worse still a lover and men sing songs that would be more fitting to a football match than worship. I know that tongues are no longer interpreted at such meetings because they are edited for televisual consumption and shown in a dreadful offering on Sunday nights called "Songs of Praise ".People vie to be featured in it.
Is it any wonder that in such an atmosphere people who do not like loud music seek places that are silent as an alternative.?

Buddhism has a higher pedigree than cheap raucous rock music and scientifically trains one to calm one’s mind before beginning the process of meditation. There is no place in Buddhism for ceaseless noise whether musical or otherwise .

One reason why even people who had a regular Anglican background can be interested in Buddhism without going against what Jesus said :“I am the Way , the Truth and the Life:no man cometh unto the Father except by me.” These folk have been put off by the horribly musical face of charismanic so-called Christianity.

The reason I became Buddhist is because I grew up Christian and studied Christian doctrines my whole life. I grew tired of it. I didn’t see the practical side of practicing Christianity. It didn’t work. It didn’t bring me peace. It brought despair. It didn’t solve my problems, it magnified them. It didn’t answer my questions, it made me have more questions.

Buddhism offered me everything I needed in my life. It is a practical guide to morality and the meaning of all phenomena in the universe. It answered my questions, gave me peace and tranquility and gave me a practical, methodical outline of living a meaningful life.

Christianity is a good religion that brings good things to many people. However, I am just one of them. All my family and friends are Christian and are generally very good, loving people. So, in that regards I have no hard feelings against my former religion or Christians in general.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

proud2Bpapist:

One of my favorite college professor last year, a brilliant man who has been a great source of academic encouragement, is unfortunately an ex-Catholic-now-Buddhist. He seems to be particularly devoted to the ancient writings of Buddhist teachers and their tenetof kindness and doing no harm to others. He won’t even kill the bugs that invade his house!

He also has a general liberal/Democrat/anti-war mindset, a product of his youth I am sure. There were probably many factors, both intellectual disillusion and personal experiences, that led to his abandonment of the Catholic faith. He probably ran across Buddhism and thought it sounded cool.

I wouldn’t categorize your professor in this light unless you know for sure. I avoid killing bugs in my house too. I don’t kill animals or insects intentionally.

War is a detriment to the world. Think about it - nuclear weapons (if used) could decimate the entire earth. One country uses theirs, there is retaliation and everything goes up in smoke. War kills. Buddhists cannot uphold war as a viable option to solving problems.

A good example would be Tibet. They only sought to save their lives when confronted with the Chinese. They did not start an all-out war when invaded. They had a small army anyway, but His Holiness the Dalai Lama was insistent that there be no retaliation. He still is. That’s why he wond the Nobel Peace Prize. Even though his country was essentially taken from his hands, he sought peace as a solution, not warfare.

Peace…

 

[reen12]

Hi, ahimsaman72,

quote: ahimsaman72
Nothing transmigrates from one birth to another in Buddhism, because that violates a major tenet of Buddhism, that being that there is no eternal soul. There is no lasting, permanent “self”. Reincarnation posits a transmigration of soul from one body to another. Totally different.

Will you expand on this, please? It never occurred to me
that, if there is no soul, “what” transmigrates?
Was I confusing a Hindu doctrine [of which I know little]
with Buddhism?

quote: ahimsaman72

It didn’t bring me peace. It brought despair. It didn’t solve my problems, it magnified them. It didn’t answer my questions, it made me have more questions

I hear you. I literally ended up hospitalized, when the
“conflict” engendered by Christian doctrine brought on
overwhelming despair…creating problems, rather than
bringing peace.

I’m still trying to “work it through” in the sense of
finding a viable way to give the worship due God,
without becoming so fragmented by “doctrine”, that
I would become unable to function.

Guess ya gotta be there to grasp* this* reality.

All best wishes,

Maureen

 

[ahimsaman72]

CindyLynn:

That being said, Buddhism may be a fine religion, with wonderful people practicing it, but in reference to the original post, one cannot be both Christian and Buddhist. Two contradictory positions cannot be held simultaneously. It concerns me to hear some, not necessarily anyone here, promoting the idea that one can believe in two opposite faith systems. This is not like choosing to practice piano and guitar. **Christianity says all other faiths are false. So Christianity is right, is wrong, or all faiths are false, but Christianity *and ***something else cannot both be “true.” So if you actually believe in Christianity as the “Truth” and not just as a social organization, you must realize that you cannot be a member of another faith simultaneously.

I bolded the above part because I wanted to focus on it specifically. You are right. Buddhism and Christianity are different animals. The historical Buddha didn’t care about other religions or preach against them. And, for the most part, Buddhists are very tolerant of other religions. And, Buddhists (except for a few sects) leave debate about other religions alone. There is no right religion or wrong religion in Buddhism. Those are opinions that the Buddha taught his disciples not to get entangled with. And it is a lesson we could all learn today.

Peace…

 

[Ahimsa]

I seem to have a hazy recollection of a certain Jewish carpenter-turned-rabbi who was apparently anti-war, as well. Hmmm…what was his name? Can’t seem to remember.

 

[reen12]

quote: ahimsaman72

And it is a lesson we could all learn today.

You never spoke a truer word.

reen