| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1019.1 | The noble silence | SEFI04::GRILLETTA | | Tue Dec 20 1994 03:22 | 1 |
| Shhhh! No comment!
|
| 1019.2 | Be silent and appear a fool, than speak and remove all doubt | APACHE::MYERS | | Tue Dec 20 1994 09:17 | 2 |
| Psst! No idea what the monk's specific problem is with the Pope's
remarks!
|
| 1019.3 | Truth | SEFI04::GRILLETTA | | Tue Dec 20 1994 11:13 | 7 |
| The problem is that these remarks are ... not true. To know Buddhism,
read Buddhist texts, as to know Christian thought read Christian texts.
If you are not sure about what are you writing, don't write it (at
least remark that you are not sure).
IMHO the Pope is a wise man. I wander why he writes that ;-)
Silence is better! ;-)
|
| 1019.4 | More than just head knowledge | RDGENG::YERKESS | bring me sunshine in your smile | Tue Dec 20 1994 11:31 | 7 |
| re .3
I would say for one trully to "know Christian thought" involves more
than just head knowledge but comes about through making application
of such knowledge. No doubt the same applies to other religions.
Phil.
|
| 1019.5 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Dec 20 1994 13:17 | 7 |
|
> IMHO the Pope is a wise man. I wander why he writes that ;-)
Exactly what has the Pope written that is wrong? Take it from his book,
and in context, not from a newspaper article which quotes selectively.
/john
|
| 1019.6 | My point of view | SEFI04::GRILLETTA | | Wed Dec 21 1994 06:09 | 35 |
| .re -1
Have you read the book? If yes, you can verify the context. I have read
it. My first impression was the same of the monk's one. What's your
impression?
And now what is wrong (IMHO).
> Another passage reads: "Buddhism is in large measure an `atheistic'
> system.
If atheistic means to believe that God doesn't exist, Buddhism is not
atheistic. Buddhism doesn't say anything about a personal God's
existence. Some Buddhist can identify God with the Dharmakaya (the body
of the Law, the eternal Law), but I cannot find anything that denies
God's existence.
> ... we liberate ourselves only through detachment from the
> world, which is bad.
Buddhism doesn't affirm detachment from the world. And it doesn't
affirm that the world is bad. What is bad (causing our suffering) is
our view of the world, our attachment to opinions, our attachment.
So detachment, but from our desires and adversions.
.re -2
You are right! But the very first step is head knowledge. If it is
wrong, it is not possible to know it deeper.
Peace
Agostino
|
| 1019.7 | | RDGENG::YERKESS | bring me sunshine in your smile | Wed Dec 21 1994 07:03 | 14 |
| re .6
Agostino,
;But the very first step is head knowledge.
Good point, this highlights the importance of directing persons
attention to the Bible and not primarily to ones own thoughts
or that of another person. Hebrews 4:12 RSV comes to mind "For
the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged
sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and
marrow, and discerning thoughts and intentions of the heart."
Phil.
|
| 1019.8 | Ways to the Truth | SEFI04::GRILLETTA | | Wed Dec 21 1994 08:45 | 24 |
| re .7
Hi Phil,
> ... this highlights the importance of directing persons
> attention to the Bible and not primarily to ones own thoughts
> or that of another person ...
I should write: "this highlights the importance of directing persons
attention to the EXISTENCE and not primarily to ones own thoughts or that
of another person or a book"
IMHO, existence is the word of God. Look at it to know the Truth.
Wise persons, holy books can indicate us some way to the Truth, but not
the Truth. Millions of people follow these persons and books words. And
millions of people follow Pope's words.
But those words close some ways to the Truth. Perhaps one of these ways
is your way.
Peace
Agostino
|
| 1019.9 | | USAT05::BENSON | | Tue Jan 03 1995 16:40 | 5 |
| the Pope's comments are correct concerning buddhism's beliefs. Read a
few books of religious philosphy and you'll see that his statements are
correct, regardless of how individuals interpret the system.
jeff
|
| 1019.10 | | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Wed Jan 04 1995 06:09 | 18 |
| i have read a few texts on buddhism (incl. taoism and zen buddhism) and
whatever i've read of and on buddhism, there is usually a disclaimer by
the authors, stating that it is difficult to explain buddhist concepts to
westerners.
in my understanding, a most fundamental difference between christianity
and buddhism has got to be the concept of salvation and of sin.
as a complete lay person i do all the same understand from christians that
"i am a sinner", that i must repent for my sins and that my only hope for
salvation is to live in the christian faith. i have yet to find this (christian)
concept of "sin" and "salvation" prevail in buddhist thinking - in fact i can
well imagine that for people not familiar with the christian concept of
"sin" and "salvation", such as mr. bengamuwe nalaka, the mere assertion
"you are a sinner!", can be quite insulting.
andreas.
|
| 1019.11 | just a nit | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Wed Jan 04 1995 06:59 | 3 |
| >i have read a few texts on buddhism (incl. taoism and zen buddhism)
replace "incl." with "and". not that taoism has anything to do with buddhism...!
|
| 1019.12 | | USAT05::BENSON | | Wed Jan 04 1995 09:33 | 5 |
|
Guatama Buddha is appropriately called an antitheist or atheist. that
is why there is no concept of sin and salvation in the system.
jeff
|
| 1019.13 | definitions follow | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Mon Jan 09 1995 03:30 | 10 |
| as there appears to be no "dictionary" topic in this file, i enter the
definitions of "atheism" and "buddhism" in the following two replies
(moderators, feel free to move the definitions if there is a more appropriate
place for them - thanks).
the question whether all of buddhism is atheistic is best addressed in the
buddhism conference.
andreas.
|
| 1019.16 | re:.9 | SEFI04::GRILLETTA | | Mon Jan 09 1995 05:25 | 30 |
| <<< Note 1019.9 by USAT05::BENSON >>>
> the Pope's comments are correct concerning buddhism's beliefs. Read a
> few books of religious philosphy and you'll see that his statements are
> correct, regardless of how individuals interpret the system.
May I change your sentence?
*****
the Pope's comments are NOT correct concerning buddhism's beliefs.
Read a few books FROM BUDDHIST TEACHERS and you'll see that his
statements are INcorrect, regardless of how individuals PREFER TO
interpret the system.
*****
Regarding the topic "Buddhism is Atheist" someone wrote:
Theism YES
Atheism NO
Agnosticism DON'T KNOW
Buddhism DON'T CARE
"DON'T CARE" is not "NO"!
Peace and happy new year
Agostino
|
| 1019.17 | Sin and salvation | SEFI04::GRILLETTA | | Mon Jan 09 1995 05:32 | 8 |
| re: .12
If you like you can see sin as "what generates suffering" and salvation
as "liberation from suffering".
In this terms sin and salvation are Buddhist terms, too.
Agostino
|
| 1019.18 | Words from talk.religion.buddhism | SEFI04::GRILLETTA | | Mon Jan 09 1995 05:37 | 89 |
| Note: This message is from talk.religion.buddhism. These are not my words.
******************************************************************
The Pope's view of Buddhism is so typical of someone new to Buddhism.
But, we buddhists must accept that this is a valid argument.
And this is a good chance for all of us to investigate our understanding
of Buddhism. If I were to debate the Pope on these points, I would say
something like this:
Buddhistic salvation is beyond positive and negative, beyond good
and bad. This can be achieved only through non-attachment. Non-attachment
is not the same as non-involvment; in fact, it is the most effective
way to get involved in any activity, worldly or spiritual.
A state of perfect indifference that the Pope mentioned implies
attachment to datachment or attachment to laziness. These are not
detachment but attachment in disguise. Detachment of Buddhism is
detachment borned out of supreme wisdom gained through the
practice of the Noble Eight-Fold Path (the Middle Path) as taught
by the Buddha.
All religions teach people to do good deeds, so does Buddhism. But
Buddhism also teaches us to go beyond good deeds, to perform good
deeds for its own sake, without expecting for any kind of reward,
materially or spiritually. This lofty ideal can be achieved only
when one truely understand the Buddha's doctrine of Emptiness
,for the psychological aspect of Emptiness is the emptiness of attachment
to any dualistic concepts like good/bad, God/Satan,
Atman/Niratman, Soul/Nothingness, etc. The person attaining such
Emptiness can performs hir activities with a highest efficiency because
s-he is now driven by Wisdom, rather than by crave for reward or fear
of punnishment which is a form of duality borned out of insecurity.
Such a person would be most diligent and most involved being on
earth, as was attested by the Buddha himself, for he had worked 20
hours a day for 45 years for the benefit of others , even on his
last day while he was in severe pain due to illness.
The person who can maintain this RIGHT non-attachment attitude
at all time is said to have attained Buddhistic salvation (Nirvana).
The Pope doesn't have to look far for this kind of teacihng, for
it is also in the Christian Bible, in the Book of Corinthians, where
Apostle Pual said something to the effect that one should own
one's properties as if one owns none. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, a noted
Thai monk, discovered this obscured passage in the Bible and no
Christian preists could offer him an interpretation. He then said that
this is the same as non-attachment in Buddhism: One should own as
if one doesn't own (i.e. one doesn't attach to one's property as to
claiming that this is 'my' property). It can be said that all religions
teach non-attachment to one degree or another but only Buddhism makes
it its core teaching and in a consistent manner. We are taught not to
attach even to Nirvana itself! This is why some teachers use a paradoxical
teaching such as "Nirvana exists but no one attains it."
As to the Pope's notion of Buddhism as an atheistic religion, the
Buddha never said if there is a God or there is not a God. He did
say something to the effect that human's suffering (which is caused
by attachment) can be fully liberated through the practice at the
PRESENT MOMENT and that metaphysics has nothing to do with it.
Why waste our precious time with metaphysical questions?
We should instead devote our time to the practice for salvation
rigt here and now at the present moment. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, however, was
more direct in saying that Buddhism does have God. He said that our
God is not a Person but rather the Law of Nature which we buddhists
called the Law of Dependent Origination (Paticca-Samuppada) which
states that everything derives its existences from everything else in a
mutually co-dependent manner. This is the ony God that is scientific
and realizable at this very present moment. Note that Buddhadasa did not
deny the existence of God either. He just said that we Buddhist, too,
has God. Agnosticism says God cannot be proven while Buddhism says
(Personal) God (even if proveable) has no bearing on our practice
and we should not waste our time on that.
Thanks to the Pope for providing this opportunity for me to investigate
the Buddha's teaching. Any error, of course, is mine alone and I will
be happy to listen to any correction.
As a Buddhist, how would you respond to the Pope?
--------------tawit chitsomboon...Your fellow suffering sentient being
Be a fundamentalist buddhist..Attach to no fundamental!Observe and let go!
*************************************************
I hope this can help you
Agostino
|
| 1019.19 | grazie mille per la risposta! | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Mon Jan 09 1995 07:37 | 14 |
| thanks for posting this very interesting reply, agostino.
are there overlaps between christianity and buddhism?
.18> But Buddhism also teaches us to go beyond good deeds, to perform good
.18> deeds for its own sake, without expecting for any kind of reward,
.18> materially or spiritually.
i always thought that doing good for its own sake lay at the core of
christianity aswell... ;-)
andreas.
|
| 1019.20 | pointer | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | Unquenchable fire | Mon Jan 09 1995 18:38 | 9 |
|
.13 Andreas,
Yes, there's no topic entitled "Dictionary." However, there's
one entitled "Words and Expressions," Note 538.
Shalom,
Richard
|
| 1019.21 | | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | Unquenchable fire | Mon Jan 09 1995 18:42 | 14 |
| Note 1019.19
>are there overlaps between christianity and buddhism?
Very possibly.
>i always thought that doing good for its own sake lay at the core of
>christianity aswell... ;-)
At the core of Judaism, too.
Shalom,
Richard
|
| 1019.14 | 538.64,538.65 | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Tue Jan 10 1995 02:24 | 4 |
| definitions of atheism and buddhism moved to topic 538.
andreas.
|
| 1019.22 | Present or future? | SEFI04::GRILLETTA | | Tue Jan 10 1995 05:06 | 18 |
| re: .-1
>>i always thought that doing good for its own sake lay at the core of
>>christianity aswell... ;-)
>
>At the core of Judaism, too.
At the core of all the religions, too.
This may be a basis for the interreligious dialog.
But what is good? And what is bad?
Do you do good for its own sake or for the heaven? Do you do good for
the present or for the future?
Agostino
|
| 1019.23 | | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Tue Jan 10 1995 08:06 | 14 |
| salve agostino,
> But what is good? And what is bad?
what this question boils down to is, who defines good/bad? we human beings or
god?
i can imagine that because god has a say in some religions on the subject of
good, that an interreligious dialog with these religions can be difficult.
ciao,
andreas.
|
| 1019.24 | ... or both? | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 10 1995 12:16 | 4 |
| Is there a difference between DOING good and BEING good?
Is this common "core" really about DOING good? Or is it
BEING good?
|
| 1019.25 | ...or none (as per buddhist detachment ;-) | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Tue Jan 10 1995 12:48 | 4 |
|
if you DO it, you may not be AWARE of it,
if you are AWARE of it, you may not be DOING it?
|
| 1019.26 | Concepts | SEFI04::GRILLETTA | | Wed Jan 11 1995 03:39 | 13 |
| re: .-2,.-1
IMHO, good and bad are not real. Good and bad exist just in your mind.
They are concepts. Just concepts. Definitions. Words.
In my mind, good is what makes happy, bad is what makes suffering. And
this is valid not only for you and me, but for all sentient beings.
From this point of view DOING good and BEING good is the same. Action
(doing) exists because subject exists, and vice versa. No subject, no
action. No action, no subject.
Agostino
|
| 1019.27 | re .26 | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Wed Jan 11 1995 06:47 | 35 |
|
salve agostino,
i fully agree with what you write on the subject of 'good' and i wonder what
a reply from a christian perspective would look like.
if good were defined as "act in the spirit of 'love thyself as you love thy
neighbour'" this would still fit your definition (as long as acting like this
"makes you happy") and it would also fit a christian definition (as for
christians, acting in this spirit is part of their salvation).
at first glance, 'good' for you looks a lot less binding than what it looks
like for christians (taking a narrow definition of christianity it would seem
that the scriptures don't give christians much choice in the matter). it
appears that there is no must or need for you. you only do good as long as it
is good for you, although you could counter with the life of buddha by saying
that doing good is obviously 'dictated' by wisdom.
yes, i can imagine that if good along the lines of the definition above were
the basis of all major religions, it could form the basis of an interreligious
dialogue.
but what if the definition of good were more elaborate? the more conservative
branch of christianity seems to define good in absolute terms. living by the
ten commandments would then be included in the definition of good. now, if
a sri lankan scholar stood in the basilica and exclaimed "good god! a caucasian
man with long white hair and a beard, what a silly notion of god!" wouldn't
this person immediately be stamped as blasphemous, excluded from dialogue and
have a place reserved in hell for the rest of eternity, for his sinfulness?
incidentally, what a charming prospect!
ciao,
andreas.
|
| 1019.28 | | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Wed Jan 11 1995 10:43 | 8 |
| .24> Is this common "core" really about DOING good?
i agree with you that at a practical level (doing good) there can't be much
difference between the religions. the problem can only ever arise at an abstract
level with the different definitions of good. so it's not REALLY a problem...
how on earth did we ever get into this rathole??
andreas.
|
| 1019.29 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Wed Jan 11 1995 12:17 | 23 |
| re .26
I simply cannot agree with that.
> In my mind, good is what makes happy, bad is what makes suffering. And
> this is valid not only for you and me, but for all sentient beings.
This is the basis of the relativism that is tearing this society
apart.
Jesus' choices caused much suffering for him directly on that
fateful Friday, as it did for his mother, and his followers as
they watched him die. In the century that followed, holding
true to Jesus' teachings meant torture and martyrdom for countless
Christians.
By your definition Jesus' choices were not good, nor was being
a Christian in general.
Similarly, I can think of lots of things that would make me
happy, but I wouldn't consider them good!
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
|
| 1019.30 | Attachment is the problem | SEFI04::GRILLETTA | | Thu Jan 12 1995 04:01 | 50 |
| re .-1
> This is the basis of the relativism that is tearing this society
> apart.
Relativism? When I say "for ALL sentient beings" is this relativism? Is
relativism that is tearing this society? Or is attachment, adversion,
ABSOLUTISM? ;-)
> Jesus' choices caused much suffering for him directly on that
> fateful Friday, as it did for his mother, and his followers as
> they watched him die. In the century that followed, holding
> true to Jesus' teachings meant torture and martyrdom for countless
> Christians.
What is suffering? What is the origin of suffering? What is the end of
suffering? What is the way to end suffering? The suffering I'm writing
about is due to our attachments. Attachment to our opinions, our
believes, our truths. You can have your opinion, believes, truths, but
this is not important. What is important is your actions, your words,
your thoughts. Your love, your compassion, your wisdom. Many Christians
were tortured by non-Christian for their attachment to their believes,
but also many non-Christian were tortured by Christian for their
attachment to their believes!
The first step toward the end of suffering is to say "this is just my
opinion" instead of "this is the Truth".
> By your definition Jesus' choices were not good, nor was being
> a Christian in general.
IMHO, Jesus' teachings are about love, not about any sort of
attachment.
> Similarly, I can think of lots of things that would make me
> happy, but I wouldn't consider them good!
Be careful about the meaning of "happy" (excuse me if my use of words
is not correct, but english is not my mother tongue). Happiness is not
pleasure! Happiness is not to have. Happiness is peace, love without
attachment, joy, kindness, compassion, equanimity! Is to be opened to
the life as it is. Is to live here an now, not in the past, not in
the future, not there. Happiness is to smile. :-)
Peace
Agostino
P.S.: this is just my opinion :-)
|
| 1019.31 | more common ground? | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Jan 12 1995 14:08 | 10 |
| agostino, wouldn't the paradox of "letting go to gain" capture the
buddhist idea of detachment (or non-attachment) pretty well?
actually, is this idea of "The one who surrenders all, shall receive all"
(ref. 1034.34,.33) a christian idea or a buddhist idea or is it common to
both?
ciao,
andreas.
|
| 1019.32 | Shades of gray versus black and white | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | Unquenchable fire | Thu Jan 12 1995 15:23 | 14 |
| On absolutism versus relativism:
Can we all agree that rape is never a good thing? If so, then it must
be an absolute.
Can we all agree that the telling of a lie is always wrong or evil or
sinful? I doubt that this will be seen as much in absolute terms.
During the time of Hitler there was a priest who issued thousands of
false baptismal certificates to Jews in an attempt to spare their lives.
This priest later became pope.
Shalom,
Richard
|
| 1019.33 | Modern Math | FABBIT::T_PLAHM | | Fri Jan 13 1995 01:39 | 9 |
| re..30
how can one determine that Jesus died of Friday. I was taught that he
had to spend 72 hours in the grave to meet the legal requirements to be
dead according to the Law. If He a rose on Sunday I can not come up
with 72 Hours??
S.I.T.
Tom
|
| 1019.34 | | LGP30::FLEISCHER | without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO3-3/L16) | Fri Jan 13 1995 09:23 | 12 |
| re Note 1019.33 by FABBIT::T_PLAHM:
> how can one determine that Jesus died of Friday. I was taught that he
> had to spend 72 hours in the grave to meet the legal requirements to be
> dead according to the Law. If He a rose on Sunday I can not come up
> with 72 Hours??
Well, a flip and somewhat irreverent, but contemporary
response might me: "You think Jesus did not meet the legal
requirement for being dead? So sue Him!"
Bob
|
| 1019.35 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Jan 13 1995 17:44 | 2 |
| Well it seems from Biblical accounts that he didn't even spend
48 hours in the grave.
|
| 1019.36 | Suffering and happiness | SEFI04::GRILLETTA | | Mon Jan 16 1995 03:42 | 32 |
| re: .33,.34,.35
????
re: .31
Letting go to be free! To be happy! Best: letting go for letting go!
Don't be attached to anything: to your letting go, too.
re: .32
> Can we all agree that rape is never a good thing? If so, then it must
> be an absolute.
Yes. It isn't a good thing whether someone suffers for the rape :-)
> Can we all agree that the telling of a lie is always wrong or evil or
> sinful? I doubt that this will be seen as much in absolute terms.
I doubt, too.
For every thought, word, action, see the suffering and the happiness
produced and maybe you can see what is bad and what is good.
Peace
Agostino
|