Wishing Buddhism was true

[anon99031074]

This new thing is God Himself, in person, becoming human, not just a teacher, not a buddha, but our God touchable; even today he gives us his flesh and blood to unite within our own, and animates his body and blood in us with his Soul and Spirit within us as it is in Heaven.

It is easy to make such claims. It is harder to back them up with actual evidence. There have been many claims to divinity in the history of mankind, and even more followers who have elevated their teachers to godhood after they passed. It happens to this day. There are aspects of Jesus being God that I find difficult to reconcile with the world in which we live, and the history of Christianity. However, I am not here to attack other people’s beliefs. I think Catholicism can be a good and useful religion:

One of the aspects of it I like, is that it actually teaches a path of sanctification. That is, it recognizes that our problem as humans isn’t merely that we need to be forgiven for our sins by an offended God, but that we need to actually improve as human beings. This is good, because I think mental states such as anger/hatred and greed/lust are afflictions, comparable to being burned with fire. Merely being told that God is no longer offended at humans being filled with hate, because Jesus died to pay for the sin of hatred, is of no help if nothing can be done to remedy the spiritual sickness of hatred itself. Catholicism gets a big plus in my book because it doesn’t merely teach that God “covers” the suffering-inducing spiritual sickness, but actually heals it through human co-operation with grace.

 

[John_Martin]

Buddhism ultimately isn’t based on revelation, but on observing the nature of experience and the phenomenal world.

And thus, as claimed above, in observing nature of experience and the phenomenal world your religion has come to worship materials like the sun, moon, and wind as your gods, and have observed some ethereal place where buddhas are waiting to be incarnated. ???
So you are using observable reality as your measure of knowing? Really?

 

[anon99031074]

And thus, as claimed above, in observing nature of experience and the phenomenal world your religion has come to worship materials like the sun, moon, and wind as your gods, and have observed some ethereal place where buddhas are waiting to be incarnated. ???
So you are using observable reality as your measure of knowing? Really?

I do not worship the sun, moon or wind as gods, and as should be quite clear by now, Buddhism isn’t a path of spiritual development based on the worship of any divine being. This is why both believers in gods and nonbelievers in gods can practice the path.

When it comes to ethereal places, Buddhists have a name for the bright, white light people sometimes see when they are close to death. We call it a nimitta, and it isn’t just observed by dying people, but also by skilled meditators.

Some people, the Buddha included, have reported seeing angelic beings and heavenly realms in such meditative experiences, just like near death experiencers have. However, no Buddhist is required to believe in any specific account of this, much like Catholics are not required to believe in Our Lady of Medjugorje or Fatima. As always, it is best to develop one’s own meditative skill, and see for oneself, and then judge what to make of it.

 

[Dante221]

Thomas Merton found much in the Eastern faiths that was good and
applicable to Catholicism.

 

[John_Martin]

If you were to say, “Gautama speculated that there is such a thing as Nirvana and enlightenment, and claimed to have reached it,” I would say nothing to you but let you state the speculations.
But since it is here claimed that Jesus is a buddha wannabe, equal to Krishna, and by your approved supporter, “rossum”, all that he claimed as truth, rather than speculation, then I will deny all you say as speculation that is conjecture.
Gautama had no revelation but is only speculating to you and you follow it without having verified Nirvana or Enlightenment or the nimitta, or angelic beings, etc. You claim it is known via observable and verifiable phenomena, but you have no verification, not even sound logic, yet you claim it is equivalent in validity to revealed truth.
And then you try to lure people to “make their own decisions” (“best to… see for oneself, and then judge”) which is identical to the lure that the Serpent used on Eve in the Garden - “check out the fruit yourself, to become like God…” which she did; she ignored revelation of what the fruit would do to her and started judging for herself.
We have teachers who are bound to teach us only revealed truth rather than speculation.

 

[rossum]

You claim it is known via observable and verifiable phenomena, but you have no verification, not even sound logic, yet you claim it is equivalent in validity to revealed truth.

You are in error. There is verification: Buddhists ‘really are happier’.

However, your “revealed truth” has some problems. Where is your observable evidence for the correctness of Matthew 18:19, where God grants all prayers? Indeed, there is contrary evidence Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer.

 

[John_Martin]

You are in error. There is verification: Buddhists ‘really are happier’.

However, your “revealed truth” has some problems. Where is your observable evidence for the correctness of Matthew 18:19, where God grants all prayers? Indeed, there is contrary evidence Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer.

1. A research study at the University of California is not verification. Further, the criteria of “happiness” is not what Catholics know as “happiness”

They found that experienced Buddhists, who meditate regularly, were less likely to be shocked, flustered, surprised or as angry compared to other people.

Not being “shocked, flustered, surprised, or as angry” may be happiness for Buddhists and secular thinking, but it is not “happiness” that all seek. “Happiness” known to Catholics is the full satisfaction of full union with the ultimate desire. So, for happiness, a Catholic is united to what he “really wants for eternity”. It is about wanting fully and having fully the object of desire (which is our LORD, whose name is ‘I AM’).

1. Revealed Truth - my statement was that “We [Catholics] have teachers who are bound to teach us only revealed truth rather than speculation.” The only thing that can be correctly assumed from that statement is that “We, Catholics, believe the veracity of our teachers, and reject any teachers who contradict our teachers.”
   That “prayers are indeed answered” is an assertion of our teachers. We believe them; we do not believe you questioning the Scriptures delivered to us by our teachers. You are not an authorized interpreter or explainer of Matthew 18, and since that is the case we do not give credence to any explanation you have for that. Like the Ethiopian eunuch in the book of Acts, you cannot understand our Scriptures unless someone (authorized) explains it to you. That is what we know as our living Magisterium - real living authorized people who do explain what they were given to feed us with.

 

[anon99031074]

Gautama had no revelation but is only speculating to you and you follow it without having verified Nirvana or Enlightenment or the nimitta, or angelic beings, etc. You claim it is known via observable and verifiable phenomena, but you have no verification, not even sound logic, yet you claim it is equivalent in validity to revealed truth.

The fundamentals of Buddism are neither angels nor nimittas, but suffering, its cause, its cessation and the path leading to its cessation. Simple facts of life available for everyone to verify for themselves. However, since you had problems understanding how “ethereal places” could be observable reality, I simply responded to that. So first you scoff at “ethereal places” being verifiable, and when I explain what the source of such claims are, I am compared to the devil in the guise of a serpent, trying to lure people away from the commandments of God.

As for what I have or have not verified for myself when it comes to angelic beings, nimittas and enlightenment, you have no way of knowing, and even if I had made a claim, all you would have is the word of some person commenting on a forum, and not actual evidence. This is why I recommend that people experience things for themselves.

then I will deny all you say as speculation that is conjecture.

I have no problem with that. My spiritual path does not require your approval to work.

 

[rossum]

A research study at the University of California is not verification.

And your verification for this statement is?

You were the one who asked for verification above. Why ask for it is you cannot recognise it when it is presented.

I note that you have no reply to the study of the effects of intercessory prayer. Your revelation was wrong on that particular point.

Verification cuts both ways.

 

[John_Martin]

And your verification for this statement is?

You were the one who asked for verification above. Why ask for it is you cannot recognise it when it is presented.

I note that you have no reply to the study of the effects of intercessory prayer. Your revelation was wrong on that particular point.

Verification cuts both ways.

You do not appear to understand Authority.
One who is subject to Authority does not verify the Aurhority but rather obeys the Aurhority.
I am subject to those with authority over me, needing neither to verify they are correct nor that your contrary assertions are in error. I am their servant and student; I am not not above my master nor teacher, so as to evaluate them in their work or words.
They say, “Pray!” I pray.
They say, “Your prayer will be heard and answered.” I say, “Thank you,” and move on to my next task.
Your interpretations of intercessory prayer simply mean you serve a different master, of this world.
Someone else made a similar complaint about the Catholic understanding of things, desiring to dissuade from being subjected to Authority; he said to the subject, “you are hungry. Verify who you are and what you say is true by commanding these stones to be bread.” He did not; he did like I am doing and said the Word of the one in Authority over him (His Father) was the definition of the reality he knew. He is my king.

 

[rossum]

You do not appear to understand Authority.
One who is subject to Authority does not verify the Aurhority but rather obeys the Aurhority.

And if you are born in Saudi Arabia and the “Authority” is the Qur’an and the Prophet Mohammed you would follow that Authority unthinkingly? If you were born in Russia would you follow President Putin unthinkingly?

That is not the Buddhist way, all those claiming authority should be tested to see if their claims are correct. Yes, that includes the Buddha’s claims.

 

[John_Martin]

If you were born in Russia would you follow President Putin unthinkingly?

Whose image is on the ruble? Render to Caesar (Putin or Trump) that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which bears his image - oooh, I am created in his image and likeness.
It is no problem seeing what belongs to each.

 

[stavros388]

I have come across the concept of Anatta (no self) in many writings and contemporary explanations. The idea of No Self is not a dogmatic statement of truth but more of a tool, or instrumental way of thinking, when approaching the dhamma, a component of Right Understanding. In my understanding, it is not the goal of Buddhism and is not synonymous with Nibbana.

 

[anon99031074]

That is not the Buddhist way, all those claiming authority should be tested to see if their claims are correct. Yes, that includes the Buddha’s claims.

Almost anything can be reified, even authority it seems. There is no such thing as inherent authority. Authority is socially constructed and empty from its own side. If hundreds of millions of people submit to the teachings of the pope, then the pope has great authority because they give it to him by virtue of trying to follow his teachings, and listening to what he has to say. If nobody listens to him or cares what he says, then he has zero authority. The same is true of anyone, including God. If nobody listens to God, then God has zero authority. Now, God may have the power to punish people for not listening to God, and make them regard God as an authority, under threat of hellfire, and so people may be persuaded to give God authority by virtue of his power. This is why power and authority are connected. But people still need to actually regard someone as their authority in order for that someone to have it over them.

 

[John_Martin]

But people still need to actually regard someone as their authority in order for that someone to have it over them.

A little naive, however, be that as it may,… when a person is given birth to into Citizenship in the Kingdom established from Heaven, in Baptism, that person embraces the Authority of Jesus, the Church, the Pope, the Magisterium, his Bishop, his Priest, his Catechists. This new Creature, this Catholic, admits to Jesus being his Lord, including the people Jesus has appointed over him to teach him correctly and feed him only living food from heaven. Saying, "Jesus is my Lord, " means I am his Servant, and he has unquestioned Authority over me; he says, “Go,” and I go; he says, “Come,” and I come.
So there is regard by me and Catholics of Jesus as our Authority, and his Pope, et al.
But his Authority is more than “regulatory authority” over me; he also has authority to give eternal life to me, to dwell in me as containing me, so that the full power of all being dwells in me and contains me, and this full power and being of all being dwells in each Catholic and contains them, and we work with him here while it is day, and will feast with him when it is time.
I have not said you must call him “Lord.” But I will argue any time you think you equate him to a moral encourager.