R
Rabbi
Guest
No one close this thread yet; I’ll be posting new content tmr.
- Status
I
Isearch
Guest
I do think the concept of the middle path is something that is universal and stems from pragmatism; often, extreme actions worsen situations.
Last edited:
S
Shasta-Rose
Guest
I love reading this, Shunyata. I also practiced Zen some time ago, for a few years. I had good experience—kensho—several times, twice being so incredible and not able to be explained or described (by me, at least).
But when we sit down to meditate, we are not to have any hopes or expectations of what will be the result. I found that rule hard to follow, as I had hopes to experience that state again, and eventually it just was not happening again. And only what is happening now is relevant, so there is no point in thinking much about what happened before. But I was stuck thinking about how I yearned to be in that state again. And there was no handy Sanga that I could go to for help with this. So, I felt regretfully that I would have to stop practicing.
This is complicated and hard to describe and talk about, so basically I don’t. But I have an idea that Shunyata will understand this.
But when we sit down to meditate, we are not to have any hopes or expectations of what will be the result. I found that rule hard to follow, as I had hopes to experience that state again, and eventually it just was not happening again. And only what is happening now is relevant, so there is no point in thinking much about what happened before. But I was stuck thinking about how I yearned to be in that state again. And there was no handy Sanga that I could go to for help with this. So, I felt regretfully that I would have to stop practicing.
This is complicated and hard to describe and talk about, so basically I don’t. But I have an idea that Shunyata will understand this.
Last edited:
A
AmericanPatriot
Guest
Christianity is very different from a worldview such as Buddhism, which is at it’s core non-theistic positing that nothing exists which can be called a first or external cause as nothing is independent of the Buddhist circular chain of causality. A chain one supposedly liberates themselves from by breaking one of the two weakest links which are ignorance and craving.
But with respect to breaking this link of ignorance, Buddhism asserts that knowledge must be gained through personal experience. It rejects absolutes such as the creator God’s special revelation in the biblical canon.
The two worldviews are in conflict with each other regarding their core truth assertions and this conflict includes the existence of the God of the bible.
“Christianity at the Religious Roundtable” by Timothy C Tennent (President of Asbury Theological Seminary and Professor of World Christianity) can be one suggested starting point for those interested in learning more.
But with respect to breaking this link of ignorance, Buddhism asserts that knowledge must be gained through personal experience. It rejects absolutes such as the creator God’s special revelation in the biblical canon.
The two worldviews are in conflict with each other regarding their core truth assertions and this conflict includes the existence of the God of the bible.
“Christianity at the Religious Roundtable” by Timothy C Tennent (President of Asbury Theological Seminary and Professor of World Christianity) can be one suggested starting point for those interested in learning more.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Welcome to CAF.
How else can I pick between all these different options except through my own personal experience? I can see for myself what works and what does not. I cannot change my beliefs every time I talk to a minister of some religion or other.
An excellent summary.
As a Buddhist, the problem I have with that is which version of “God’s special revelation” I should follow. My local Rabbi tells me that the Christian New Testament is not part of God’s special revelation. My local Christian minister tells me that it is. My local Imam tells me that the Bible text is corrupted and I should look to the Qur’an for God’s special revelation. My local Mormon Bishop tells me that I must include the Book of Mormon in God’s special revelation. That is even before I talk to local Hindus and Sikhs, with their own sets of scriptures. Is Guru Granth Sahib part of God’s special revelation? What about the Bhagavad Gita?
How else can I pick between all these different options except through my own personal experience? I can see for myself what works and what does not. I cannot change my beliefs every time I talk to a minister of some religion or other.
This is an excerpt from the Brahmajala sutta; a god is talking about himself:
A large part of that self-description applies to the Abrahamic God.
A
anon99031074
Guest
It depends. There are plenty of Zen-masters who are not afraid of the G-word, and not all God-views are incompatible with Buddhism or Zen. One example of a compatible theology, in my opinion, would be Process Theology. There is no pressure to believe or disbelieve such a thing in Zen, but that is a different issue.
Secondly you talk about worldviews being in conflict. It sounds almost like there is a war going on. Perhaps we should take a more relaxed approach to this. If Linda thinks pizza is the greatest food on planet earth, while John thinks pasta is, then they have a difference of opinion. Their views are in a sense irreconcilable if one’s goal is that everyone should agree on what the greatest food is. But why should everyone agree on that? Or even that it makes sense to talk about a greatest food for all people in the first place?
Why can’t we have a world with Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Bahai, Mormons, Secular Humanists, Buddhists etc., all living in peace, not suffering from cognitive dissonance simply because not all worldviews are identical?
Buddhism, or at the very least, early Buddhism, did not attempt to be a philosophically airtight worldview which provided answers to all the great questions. I have to agree with the Buddha of the early sutras, that these questions are not that great. Some of the questions are based on misunderstanding and are therefore wrong to ask in the first place (from a Buddhist vantage point). All of them are answered differently by different teachers who all have large groups of followers that respect their views. Answering them, or attempting to answer them, does not solve what from a Buddhist point of view is the fundamental problem. There is suffering.
Secondly you talk about worldviews being in conflict. It sounds almost like there is a war going on. Perhaps we should take a more relaxed approach to this. If Linda thinks pizza is the greatest food on planet earth, while John thinks pasta is, then they have a difference of opinion. Their views are in a sense irreconcilable if one’s goal is that everyone should agree on what the greatest food is. But why should everyone agree on that? Or even that it makes sense to talk about a greatest food for all people in the first place?
Why can’t we have a world with Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Bahai, Mormons, Secular Humanists, Buddhists etc., all living in peace, not suffering from cognitive dissonance simply because not all worldviews are identical?
Buddhism, or at the very least, early Buddhism, did not attempt to be a philosophically airtight worldview which provided answers to all the great questions. I have to agree with the Buddha of the early sutras, that these questions are not that great. Some of the questions are based on misunderstanding and are therefore wrong to ask in the first place (from a Buddhist vantage point). All of them are answered differently by different teachers who all have large groups of followers that respect their views. Answering them, or attempting to answer them, does not solve what from a Buddhist point of view is the fundamental problem. There is suffering.
Last edited:
A
AmericanPatriot
Guest
Zen denies the infinity and transcendence of a living and personal creator God by identifying Him with nature. It is a very subtle form of atheism, disguised by the language of theism, and embellished. It rejects the grace of creator God and the need of a Savior by exalting and deifying man. Zen also denies the need of external rules of morality which ultimately would plunge humanity into pure anarchic relativism.
Eschewing the creator God of this universe’s divine revelation and plan for humanity (e.g. found in the holy canon [and never to be confused with heretical false doctrines masquerading as “Christianity” produced by false teachers who arose later such as Joseph Smith {2 Peter 2}]), Zen advocates to instead look “within” for an authoritative guide which opens the door for deception and eventually what the bible calls “the second death” which is to perish eternally outside of God’s spiritual kingdom as the salvation creator God offers in Christ is rejected for a supposed other way.
No form of Buddism aligns with the core of orthodox Christianity. The Scriptures teach that man is a direct creation of God (Psalm 139:13; Genesis 1:26-27), is not incarnated successively, is not eternal in present dimensions of this universe, is not forced to physically atone for sins of a previous life. Versus such as Hebrews 9:26-27 categorically denies such ideas asserting the justice of God: “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”
Eastern worldview assertions of rebirth can easily be refuted from the bible by at least ten doctrines that include the personality of God, the atonement of Christ, the physical resurrection, and divine retribution. Christianity teaches a final resurrection after a single lifetime on earth 1 Corinthians 15. One’s sin must be atoned for; however, it is God that’s decreed the method of payment not the “inxorable law of Karma.” “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of His blood, to be received by faith” (Romans 3:25) then “after he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven” (Hebrews 1:3).
The bible asserts that one cannot atone for their own sins but rather there is no salvation or way to heaven other than through Jesus Christ (John 14), that he is not one of many ways but the way without no one may come to God the Father and enter heaven.
Eschewing the creator God of this universe’s divine revelation and plan for humanity (e.g. found in the holy canon [and never to be confused with heretical false doctrines masquerading as “Christianity” produced by false teachers who arose later such as Joseph Smith {2 Peter 2}]), Zen advocates to instead look “within” for an authoritative guide which opens the door for deception and eventually what the bible calls “the second death” which is to perish eternally outside of God’s spiritual kingdom as the salvation creator God offers in Christ is rejected for a supposed other way.
No form of Buddism aligns with the core of orthodox Christianity. The Scriptures teach that man is a direct creation of God (Psalm 139:13; Genesis 1:26-27), is not incarnated successively, is not eternal in present dimensions of this universe, is not forced to physically atone for sins of a previous life. Versus such as Hebrews 9:26-27 categorically denies such ideas asserting the justice of God: “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”
Eastern worldview assertions of rebirth can easily be refuted from the bible by at least ten doctrines that include the personality of God, the atonement of Christ, the physical resurrection, and divine retribution. Christianity teaches a final resurrection after a single lifetime on earth 1 Corinthians 15. One’s sin must be atoned for; however, it is God that’s decreed the method of payment not the “inxorable law of Karma.” “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of His blood, to be received by faith” (Romans 3:25) then “after he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven” (Hebrews 1:3).
The bible asserts that one cannot atone for their own sins but rather there is no salvation or way to heaven other than through Jesus Christ (John 14), that he is not one of many ways but the way without no one may come to God the Father and enter heaven.
Last edited:
A
anon99031074
Guest
An auto-mechanic isn’t atheistic simply because they don’t pray over your car when repairing it. Fixing cars and worshipping God are two different things. The mechanic may or may not be an atheist, but looking at the repair manual for a car, and not finding God in it, doesn’t say much.
There is very little here to comment on. You are tossing out claims about Zen Buddhism without feeling any need to represent it in a way that even remotely resembles what Buddhists actually believe, or could even recognize as our faith, and then you cite your holy book as proof that you are right, something every believer in a holy book is capable of doing.
Last edited:
A
AmericanPatriot
Guest
Rather than pull a piece of a sentence out of context and use it as a basis for making unsupported false assertions about what I shared (an act which is both ignorant and disingenuous), you could have at least tried to use Buddhist doctrine (or even natural revelation) in an attempt to refute the objective truth claims of the holy canon I shared.
… of a living and personal creator God by identifying Him with nature. It is a very subtle form of atheism, disguised by the language of theism, and embellished. It rejects the grace of creator God and the need of a Savior by exalting and deifying man. Zen also denies the need of external rules of morality which ultimately would plunge humanity into pure anarchic relativism.
Eschewing the creator God of this universe’s divine revelation and plan for humanity (e.g. found in the holy canon [and never to be confused with heretical false doctrines masquerading as “Christianity” produced by false teachers who arose later such as Joseph Smith {2 Peter 2}]), Zen advocates to instead look “within” for an authoritative guide which opens the door for deception and eventually what the bible calls “the second death” which is to perish eternally outside of God’s spiritual kingdom as the salvation creator God offers in Christ is rejected for a supposed other way.
No form of Buddism aligns with the core of orthodox Christianity. The Scriptures teach that man is a direct creation of God (Psalm 139:13; Genesis 1:26-27), is not incarnated successively, is not eternal in present dimensions of this universe, is not forced to physically atone for sins of a previous life. Versus such as Hebrews 9:26-27 categorically denies such ideas asserting the justice of God: “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”
Eastern worldview assertions of rebirth can easily be refuted from the bible by at least ten doctrines that include the personality of God, the atonement of Christ, the physical resurrection, and divine retribution. Christianity teaches a final resurrection after a single lifetime on earth 1 Corinthians 15. One’s sin must be atoned for; however, it is God that’s decreed the method of payment not the “inxorable law of Karma.” “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of His blood, to be received by faith” (Romans 3:25) then “after he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven” (Hebrews 1:3).
The bible asserts that one cannot atone for their own sins but rather there is no salvation or way to heaven other than through Jesus Christ (John 14), that he is not one of many ways but the way without no one may come to God the Father and enter heaven.
… of a living and personal creator God by identifying Him with nature. It is a very subtle form of atheism, disguised by the language of theism, and embellished. It rejects the grace of creator God and the need of a Savior by exalting and deifying man. Zen also denies the need of external rules of morality which ultimately would plunge humanity into pure anarchic relativism.
Eschewing the creator God of this universe’s divine revelation and plan for humanity (e.g. found in the holy canon [and never to be confused with heretical false doctrines masquerading as “Christianity” produced by false teachers who arose later such as Joseph Smith {2 Peter 2}]), Zen advocates to instead look “within” for an authoritative guide which opens the door for deception and eventually what the bible calls “the second death” which is to perish eternally outside of God’s spiritual kingdom as the salvation creator God offers in Christ is rejected for a supposed other way.
No form of Buddism aligns with the core of orthodox Christianity. The Scriptures teach that man is a direct creation of God (Psalm 139:13; Genesis 1:26-27), is not incarnated successively, is not eternal in present dimensions of this universe, is not forced to physically atone for sins of a previous life. Versus such as Hebrews 9:26-27 categorically denies such ideas asserting the justice of God: “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”
Eastern worldview assertions of rebirth can easily be refuted from the bible by at least ten doctrines that include the personality of God, the atonement of Christ, the physical resurrection, and divine retribution. Christianity teaches a final resurrection after a single lifetime on earth 1 Corinthians 15. One’s sin must be atoned for; however, it is God that’s decreed the method of payment not the “inxorable law of Karma.” “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of His blood, to be received by faith” (Romans 3:25) then “after he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven” (Hebrews 1:3).
The bible asserts that one cannot atone for their own sins but rather there is no salvation or way to heaven other than through Jesus Christ (John 14), that he is not one of many ways but the way without no one may come to God the Father and enter heaven.
Last edited:
A
anon99031074
Guest
The whole point with the three little dots, is to indicate that there was more to what you wrote than a single sentence, and all of it was readily available right over my post. Perhaps you feel repetition makes for a stronger argument. I do not.
EDIT: Since you have added to your copy/paste of your old post, I will add to mine. Yes, I could have tried to use Buddhist doctrine to refute your claims, but experience has taught me that it would be a waste of time and effort. While you certainly are entitled to define what you believe, you are not entitled to define what I believe, and you have taken upon yourself to do just that, and then refute what hardly even qualifies as a caricature with verses from the Bible. If you want do discuss the Buddhism or Zen Buddhism that people actually believe in, then you can start by interacting with what they have to say.
Last edited:
A
AmericanPatriot
Guest
Truth is found in correspondence. If you lie, you are a liar. See how this works? You pulled part of a sentence I wrote out of context with itself, three dots aside, when you forgot to include the part where “Zen denies the infinity and transcendence OF a living and personal creator God BY identifying Him with nature.” Neat little word game, but disingenuous all the same and certainly not a refutation of my assertion.
I do not accept the authority of Shunyata over creator God’s special revelation contained in the holy canon. Prove your refutation following the formal principles of reasoning or return to your meditations, lest you continue making unsubstantiated false assertions using faulty reasoning.
I have interacted with Buddhist doctrine on a Catholic forum (that encourages editing to enrich the discussion but that’s beside the point). Whether or not someone identifying as Buddhist correctly understands Buddhist doctrine is another matter. So is whether or not they can mount a reasonable defense of the worldview they claim to identify with or prefer to simply call someone who does understand it wrong and hide behind their false assertion.
I’ve created no straw man. I have the epistemology of Buddhism and the most renown teachers of Buddhism right here in front of me. It is ridiculous to assert that I must accept you as the authority for the worldview of Buddhism in order to “understand” it correctly. That’s nonsense.
I am a new user. I have not “created a new sock puppet account.” In fact, that is why I cannot reply directly because unfortunately the forum has limited me to nine posts for my first day. I can only edit this post until the time restriction expires. We’ll pick up later. I exhort you to stop hiding behind unsubstantiated assertions of denial but actually make substantiated truth claims with respect to the worldview you identify with which we can qualify following the formal principles of reasoning.
No form of Buddhism aligns with the core of orthodox Christianity because Buddhism is a false view of the world. Goodbye relativism, welcome to objective truth.
I do not accept the authority of Shunyata over creator God’s special revelation contained in the holy canon. Prove your refutation following the formal principles of reasoning or return to your meditations, lest you continue making unsubstantiated false assertions using faulty reasoning.
I have interacted with Buddhist doctrine on a Catholic forum (that encourages editing to enrich the discussion but that’s beside the point). Whether or not someone identifying as Buddhist correctly understands Buddhist doctrine is another matter. So is whether or not they can mount a reasonable defense of the worldview they claim to identify with or prefer to simply call someone who does understand it wrong and hide behind their false assertion.
I’ve created no straw man. I have the epistemology of Buddhism and the most renown teachers of Buddhism right here in front of me. It is ridiculous to assert that I must accept you as the authority for the worldview of Buddhism in order to “understand” it correctly. That’s nonsense.
I am a new user. I have not “created a new sock puppet account.” In fact, that is why I cannot reply directly because unfortunately the forum has limited me to nine posts for my first day. I can only edit this post until the time restriction expires. We’ll pick up later. I exhort you to stop hiding behind unsubstantiated assertions of denial but actually make substantiated truth claims with respect to the worldview you identify with which we can qualify following the formal principles of reasoning.
No form of Buddhism aligns with the core of orthodox Christianity because Buddhism is a false view of the world. Goodbye relativism, welcome to objective truth.
Last edited:
A
anon99031074
Guest
Oh, I get it. You have created a new sock puppet account 
No. If you want to have a discussion with a practicing Buddhist about what they believe, then you need to interact with what they are actually saying, instead of just making stuff up and then proceeding to “refute” your own caricature. I am in no way obliged to spend any time commenting on your posts, whether you use this or that nickname.
R
rossum
Guest
You are correct. No form of orthodox Christianity aligns with Buddhism. That is a problem for Christianity to resolve within itself.
A
anon99031074
Guest
If I am mistaken, I apologize. It is just that the way you express yourself is so very, very similar to someone I recently interacted with. As for further discussion, feel free to either quote your renowned teachers of Buddhism, Buddhist scriptures, or interact with something a Buddhist has posted on the forum. For instance, I am not going to spend time explaining why it is categorically untrue to say that Buddhism advocates any form of moral anarchy, when even a cursory glance at any kind of Buddhism reveals moral precepts common to all, such as not killing, lying, stealing, abusing sex or using intoxicants.
Last edited:
S
Shakuhachi
Guest
I see the “emptiness” of a Buddhist the same experience as the “unity” of a Christian only interpreted differently.
A
anon99031074
Guest
The meaning of emptiness can vary within Buddhism, and even within the same tradition. It is a large topic. Suffice it to say that emptiness it isn’t a metaphysical absolute or substance, nor is it a meditative experience, although meditative experiences can give rise to the wisdom that realizes emptiness. It always means being empty of something, typically what tibetans call “the object to be refuted”.
The most basic concept of emptiness in Buddhism, then, would be humans being empty of self or that which belongs to a self. However, if nobody had constructed elaborate concepts of self, and humans lacked the tendency to reify their sense of self, the emptiness teaching would be unnecessary and meaningless, at least when it comes to this.
Ultimately, emptiness simply means how mundane, ordinary things actually appear, before the unawakened mind distorts them. A sound is just the sound, a color is just the color. You don’t need to be in an altered state of mind during deep sitting meditation. You can realize emptiness doing the dishes or the laundry, and you will need to continue doing these things even after you realize it. The Zen tradition knows this well.
Last edited:
S
Shakuhachi
Guest
Whole other aspect of all this is “liberation” which I take to mean a liberation from self induced suffering. Like…take your greatest fear, as long as you have it, you are imprisoned by it. You are not free from it. And we have many lessor fears and desires and attachments.
I mention this because my job may be changing and I may have to move. I hate that! But I think I passed through a wall and accepted it and feel liberated. And I think it is an aspect of what the Greek stoic called apatheia, Buddhist detachment, Yoga dispassion, Christian surrender.
I mention this because my job may be changing and I may have to move. I hate that! But I think I passed through a wall and accepted it and feel liberated. And I think it is an aspect of what the Greek stoic called apatheia, Buddhist detachment, Yoga dispassion, Christian surrender.
A
anon99031074
Guest
There are similarities, to be sure, but Buddhism isn’t merely intended to end lesser, self-induced suffering. Generally, I think practicing meditation changes the mind/brain, and combined with good ethics will yield fruits like detachment or Holy Apatheia, like the Orthodox call it, and so regular meditators will usually share quite a few mental traits, regardless of the tradition they belong to.
The ultimate goal of Buddhism, however, is the end of rebirth and all the suffering that necessarily follows from being born: ageing, sickness, loss of loved ones, death etc.
One may also feel called to practice, not only for one’s own benefit, but also to benefit others. Many Buddhists cannot accept that they will enter eternal blissful Nirvana while countless sentient beings are still suffering in the samsaric realms, the worst of which would be the hell realms, which are nightmares sentient beings get locked into after death, potentially for extremely long periods, if their demerits overwhelm their minds. So these Buddhists vow to stick around as Bodhisattvas and help with the liberation of all sentient beings. EDIT: This actually isn’t exclusive to Mahayana Buddhism, but it is more rare for Theravadins to take the Bodhisattva vows because they tend to think that fewer people are suited to do so.
Last edited:
S
Shakuhachi
Guest
But that would be as much avoiding suffering as ending it. There is still attachment to the avoidance. Wouldn’t true liberation be accepting theses aspects of life with peace and thus without suffering even though these aspects of life are not avoided?
A
anon99031074
Guest
Yes, breaking all the fetters that lead to rebirth entails complete acceptance of life with all its challenges. Ironically, attachment to either existence or non-existence is what ensures continued existence in life after life, and therefore continued suffering.
From the point of view of Mahayana, the difference between samsara and nirvana is in the mind experiencing them, not unlike how certain Eastern Orthodox think hell and heaven are the same “place” being experienced differently based on whether or not the mind of the experiencer hates God.
From the point of view of Theravada, nirvana can be defined negatively by elimination of wanting, hatred and delusion. Of course, what remains after these have been eliminated is also Nirvana, but it is a lot harder to talk about with positive terms using language constructed by humans who have not attained it.
But while the perfected human still lives, the state is called nirvana with a remainder. The complete lack of attachment to any state of being is what ensures that rebirth does not take place once the life of a perfected being ends, (with the only (possible) exception being the compassionate wish to benefit other sentient beings by willingly taking rebirth for their sake.)
So while suffering is drastically reduced in the life of someone who has attained nirvana, it is not completely eliminated, and indeed cannot be until birth has ended. The Buddha recommended daily meditation for perfected humans, so they could live with ease, a pointless recommendation if someone enlightened was wholly incapable of experiencing unpleasant states. The Buddha also said that the Sangha felt empty after Mogallana and Sariputta died, and so he didn’t lack normal human grieving emotions.
Last edited:
- Status