Remember, the ultimate aim of original (and “pure”) buddhism
Wait wait wait. Nevermind the fact that i was referencing the religion as practiced by a whole swath of humanity as opposed to localized elitist variation found in the West… lets just put the original intent on hold for a second. But your actually going to use that argument?
As an atheist, i’m astonished.
Where did this conception of original/pure buddhism come from? The West - because its us who started to the search for the “Historical Buddha” in the same manner someone like Bart D. Ehrman or Elaine Pagels is searching for the “Historical Jesus.”
Except that this was a non-neutral process - they dealt with a Buddhism built around translated texts instead of engaging with it as a real religion and cherry picked philosophical elements could be “rationalized” to the emerging predominate scientific consensus.
“But the texts are all that’s needed!”…which would be a very strange thing for a Catholic to admit to given the Protestant issue of
Sola Scriptura.
Even the Theravada, the oldest school of Buddhism, can’t reliably be correlated to one of the original 18 Nikaya schools (and the fact that there were 18 Nikaya schools After the Death of the Buddha shows the varying difference of opinion on his teaching).
If i treat this with the same strict empricism i treat scientific questions then, i think i can rightly say we don’t have anything this Siddartha Gautama actually taught…we just have what people
say he taught. How much of its distorted? that’s an impossible question to resolve.
Ultimately, those who believe in such things take it on faith… just like you folks do. After all, it could be argued that your Church Fathers preserved the faith of the Church against pernicious heresy. From another perspective - they are simply the guys who won.
But
getting back the the point…
Your taking a specific variation on Buddhism (whether its right or wrong is irrelevant - as a Catholic i’m assuming you consider yourself correct vis-a-vis Protestants…but i highly doubt you deny they are Christians in the larger categorical sense) and to essentially disenfranchise +300 million folks in East Asia alone (rounded down since who can ever really trust Chinese government statistics?) because… “Most Buddhists I know and know of consider themselves atheistic.”
…wow… I don’t even know how to answer to that.
Does that mean if i grew up amongst Judaized Christians i can say “most Christians i know and know of follow the Law of Moses?” You know because the Judaized Christians are the “original/pure” Christianity that was later corrupted by Greek Philosophy?
Of course not. Its only a variation. It doesn’t even have to be the correct variation.
Mormons are Christians. Southern Baptists are Christians. Lutherans are Christians.
You may argue about original intent, and that’s fine and all, but it would be wrong of me to take say the Mormon belief in “Intelligences” and declare “that’s the true defining characteristic of Christianity” right there.
If that is not the case…then i’ve been wrong. I’ve been wrong every single time i’ve argued against the New Atheists when they decide to cherry pick a negative example and go “HERE! This is the heart of Christianity applicable to all groups throughout all time.”
“Pure Land” Buddhism may be popular in many areas of Asia but I doubt that is what Buddha originally intended for his philosophy/religion. I would venture to ask “pure landers” and others like them what the ultimate aim for a soul like theris is at the end of desire and craving.
Again, putting aside the fact i find it rather odd that the Christian gets to determine what the Buddha originally intended ( i mean if I ring up my Jewish friends and ask about original intent behind the Old testament…well, we’re gonna have a problem here right?)…
Oh…geez… where is Rossum. He can probably do this better than I can.
The short answer is: Unity with the Dharmakaya Buddha, the Cosmic Buddha who is beginningless and endless.
Per
all Mahayana schools (with some reservations on the Zen schools since they are weird) - Siddartha Gautama was just an emanation of this Cosmic Buddha who sits beyond time/space in eternal concentration (i think Mary mentioned this as Samadhi). In order to benefit all beings “he” emanates the lesser buddhas to go and teach the various worlds the truth of Buddhism, ergo free sentient beings from their suffering.
I don’t know about you… but “Cosmo-Buddha” pretty much sounds like a God to me, minus the fact that it didn’t create the universe.
You know Mel, i’m sure your itching to respond, but before doing that… let’s just boil this all down.
I’m talking about people Mel. Not abstractions -
people and what they believe.
I take it that you and many other Catholics on this board would want your own religion to be respected and to be correctly understood - even if the person understanding it doesn’t necessarily believe it. And i’m sure the last thing you’d want is to be described in an incorrect manner, to have doctrines or ideas that belong to other sects stapled onto yours.
Well if that’s what you want, you might want to consider giving that same courtesy to what other people believe instead of lumping them into an undifferentiated category.
As the Nazarene said, “Do Unto Others…”
: