Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA on Buddhism, Why write this ?
zidangus
Veteran
I was reading this article
http://kwelos.tripod.com/christian.htm
and it cited the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA as saying something, well silly about Buddhism, anyway I looked at the webpage, and what a load of rubbish ! You have to read it to believe the stuff they are saying about Buddhism. Why do people such as these feel the need to attack others for not agreeing with them ?
I just noticed it was written in 1910, you would think they would update it to sound a bit more respectful anyway !
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03028b.htm
http://kwelos.tripod.com/christian.htm
and it cited the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA as saying something, well silly about Buddhism, anyway I looked at the webpage, and what a load of rubbish ! You have to read it to believe the stuff they are saying about Buddhism. Why do people such as these feel the need to attack others for not agreeing with them ?
I just noticed it was written in 1910, you would think they would update it to sound a bit more respectful anyway !
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03028b.htm
0
Comments
The fundamental tenets of Buddhism are marked by grave defects that not only betray its inadequacy to become a religion of enlightened humanity, but also bring into bold relief its inferiority to the religion of Jesus Christ. In the first place, the very foundation on which Buddhism rests—the doctrine of karma with its implied transmigrations—is gratuitous and false. This pretended law of nature, by which the myriads of gods, demons, men, and animals are but the transient forms of rational beings essentially the same, but forced to this diversity in consequence of varying degrees of merit and demerit in former lives, is a huge superstition in flat contradiction to the recognized laws of nature, and hence ignored by men of science. Another basic defect in primitive Buddhism is its failure to recognize man's dependence on a supreme God. By ignoring God and by making salvation rest solely on personal effort, Buddha substituted for the Brahmin religion a cold and colourless system of philosophy. It is entirely lacking in those powerful motives to right conduct, particularly the motive of love, that spring from the consecration of religious men and women to the dependence on a personal all-loving God. Hence it is that Buddhist morality is in the last analysis a selfish utilitarianism. There is no sense of duty, as in the religion of Christ, prompted by reverence for a supreme Lawgiver, by love for a merciful Father, by personal allegiance to a Redeemer. Karma, the basis of Buddhist morality, is like any other law of nature, the observance of which is prompted by prudential considerations. Not infrequently one meets the assertion that Buddha surpassed Jesus in holding out to struggling humanity an end utterly unselfish. This is a mistake. Not to speak of the popular Swarga, or heaven, with its positive, even sensual delights the fact that Nirvana is a negative ideal of bliss does not make it the less an object of interested desire. Far from being an unselfish end, Nirvana is based wholly on the motive of self-love. It thus stands on a much lower level than the Christian ideal, which, being primarily and essentially a union of friendship with God in heaven, appeals to motives of disinterested as well as interested love.
Another fatal defect of Buddhism is its false pessimism. A strong and healthy mind revolts against the morbid view that life is not worth living, that every form of conscious existence is an evil. Buddhism stands condemned by the voice of nature the dominant tone of which is hope and joy. It is a protest against nature for possessing the perfection of rational life. The highest ambition of Buddhism is to destroy that perfection by bringing all living beings to the unconscious repose of Nirvana. Buddhism is thus guilty of a capital crime against nature, and in consequence does injustice to the individual. All legitimate desires must be repressed. Innocent recreations are condemned. The cultivation of music is forbidden. Researches in natural science are discountenanced. The development of the mind is limited to the memorizing of Buddhist texts and the study of Buddhist metaphysics, only a minimum of which is of any value. The Buddhist ideal on earth is a state of passive indifference to everything. How different is the teaching of Him who came that men might have life and have it more abundantly. Again Buddhist pessimism is unjust to the family. Marriage is held in contempt and even abhorrence as leading to the procreation of life. In thus branding marriage as a state unworthy of man, Buddhism betrays its inferiority to Christianity, which recommends virginity but at the same time teaches that marriage is a sacred union and a source of sanctification. Buddhist pessimism likewise does injustice to society. It has set the seal of approval on the Brahmin prejudice against manual labor. Since life is not worth living, to labour for the comforts and refinements of civilized life is a delusion. The perfect man is to subsist not by the labour of his hands but on the alms of inferior men. In the religion of Christ, "the carpenter's son", a healthier view prevails. The dignity of labour is upheld, and every form of industry is encouraged that tends to promote man's welfare.
Buddhism has accomplished but little for the uplifting of humanity in comparison with Christianity. One of its most attractive features, which, unfortunately, has become wellnigh obsolete, was its practice of benevolence towards the sick and needy. Between Buddhists and Brahmins there was a commendable rivalry in maintaining dispensaries of food and medicine. But this charity did not, like the Christian form, extend to the prolonged nursing of unfortunates stricken with contagious and incurable diseases, to the protection of foundlings, to the bringing up of orphans, to the rescue of fallen women, to the care of the aged and insane. Asylums and hospitals in this sense are unknown to Buddhism. The consecration of religious men and women to the lifelong service of afflicted humanity is foreign to dreamy Buddhist monasticism. Again, the wonderful efficacy displayed by the religion of Christ in purifying the morals of pagan Europe has no parallel in Buddhist annals. Wherever the religion of Buddha has prevailed, it has proved singularly inefficient to lift society to a high standard of morality. It has not weaned the people of Tibet and Mongolia from the custom of abandoning the aged, nor the Chinese from the practice of infanticide. Outside the establishment of the order of nuns, it has done next to nothing to raise woman from her state of degradation in Oriental lands. It has shown itself utterly helpless to cope with the moral plagues of humanity. The consentient testimony of witnesses above the suspicion of prejudice establishes the fact that at the present day Buddhist monks are everywhere strikingly deficient in that moral earnestness and exemplary conduct which distinguished the early followers of Buddha. In short, Buddhism is all but dead. In its huge organism the faint pulsations of life are still discernible, but its power of activity is gone. The spread of European civilization over the East will inevitably bring about its extinction.
Ohhhhh...So THAT is what rapture is about. I thought it was some sort of annual religious gathering. X-)
Anyway, I'm wondering if this topic might just be getting us agitated. Who cares what the Catholics think? They have their own problems, don't they?
Yesterday, we visited the Archbishop of Singapore at the Cathedral of the Good Shepherd. A man asked me, "What is the difference between soul in Catholicism and Dharma-nature in Buddhism?" I told him that those with souls still have discriminatory thoughts and attachments. Those who have uncovered their Dharma-nature no longer have discriminatory thoughts and attachments. He understood immediately. Are they the same? Yes, souls and Dharma-nature are one and the same. But one has discriminatory thoughts and attachments and the other has severed these. With discriminatory thoughts and attachments, there will be obstacles in everything. Severing discriminatory thoughts and attachments, all teachings are interwoven perfectly.
Yesterday, we visited a home for the elderly. We saw around twenty people who are at the final stage of terminal cancer. I talked with the Catholic nuns about the need to give the elderly hope not sadness and about religious education. There is no death for humans. Birth and death are very common and is simply a changing of environment. By helping the elderly change their thinking, they will view and accept death more easily and thus, more calmly. This is a turning point. We can improve our surrounding and live a happier life. Therefore, religious education is very important.
In religion, we would do well to put more emphasis on education. How can we educate followers to bring forth non-discriminatory compassion for all. For example, Christians and Catholics speak of how god loves all people. To say that God loves all people does not mean that He loves only his followers. God also loves those who do not believe in Him. He loves all human beings, worldly beings. There is no differentiation. In Buddhism, the emphasis is on sincere and non-discriminatory compassion for all sentient beings.
http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/The_Accounts_of_Request_and_Response_By_Master_Chin_Kung
http://www.amtb.org.tw/pdf/25-15.pdf
1) the writer's knowledge and opinion
2) the writer's disclaimer and God-praise
One of the least religious philosophers of medieval Europe Thomas Hobbes used a third-something of his book on society "Leviathan" to explain how his ideas weren't contradicting the Bible - even though religion and God was utterly ignored in the core of his philosophy, which is kind of stand-alone. He was accused of atheism both then and now
There's no need to get upset about it. It's kind of just the way things are with the ruling religion
http://kwelos.tripod.com/christian.htm
makes these points
"However, there are two powerful Christian denominations where this is not the case. Their attitude to Buddhism is one of evangelism and missiology, which appears to be based on cultural imperialism and a degree of disparagement verging on contempt"
"The divisive denominations are Evangelical Fundamentalism and of course Roman Catholicism. Both churches are actively attempting to convert Buddhists, particularly in former Marxist countries where the indigenous traditions have been weakened by persecution (for example Mongolia, Cambodia and Siberia).
Both churches are extremely well-funded and have powerful political influences. Both are attempting to evangelize the 10/40 Window which includes all the traditionally Buddhist cultures of the Far East."
"In order to defuse the potentially divisive influence of these exclusivist dogmas, it is necessary to examine their beliefs, especially where they are in conflict with Buddhist philosophy, modern science and in some cases where they are internally contradictory."
It then goes on to examine beliefs of Christian Fundamentalism.
So the question is, when Buddhism is slandered by another belief, which is actively trying to convert Buddhists, then as Buddhists do we just sit back and allow it or do we start to defend our beliefs by being openly critical of their beliefs where it is justified, i.e creation theory etc etc ?
I think the Buddhist thing to do is to just let it go.
Has the writer got anything right? It is only courteous to acknowledge it and move. from there, to areas of disagreement.
One of the pieces of advice given to me before a police interview was to avoid criticising the opposite side or their 'witnesses'. This is pretty good advice in religious debate too. Correct what is wrong, with references if possible; admit what is right; adjust inaccurate perceptions and, finally, go out for a cup of tea together.
This is why I think it is quite important to actually point out what is open to interpretation such as rebirth, something which cannot be proved or disproved; and something which is known to be categorically wrong such as creation theory, which has been disproved beyond doubt in my opinion.
Also the Buddha criticized beliefs that he did not agree with and knew to be wrong, beliefs such as those the Vedas held
But I think such books are instructive. To what extent have things changed as the years went by? What underwent an actual change and what was simply couched in new and improved language? If, for example, converting others is part of the bedrock of Christianity, how could this not take on an exclusionary voice, one that hardly qualifies as honestly tolerant?
I'm not trying to start a fight or to disparage what others find useful. But since I live in a Christian country (U.S), I think it behooves me to know a little (past and present) about what I do not generally credit.
Why is it brainwashing if the Christian preaches, but not if you, the Buddhist preaches?
And while I disagree with the idea that the world was created in 4004 B.C., as originally deduced by Archbishop Usher, I don't know many Christians who believe that anymore. And there is a lot taken on "faith" in Buddhism that is no more provable than some Christian beliefs.
Instead of arguing, why not simply present a Buddhist view?
-------------------------
OK ... here's a Buddhist view: Buddhism is not coercive or imperious in either its promises or threats. You won't go to heaven if you do it and you won't go to hell if you don't.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx
The concept of God is open to interpretation just as the concept of rebirth and I respect both of them, however, creation theory is not in my opinion as there is so much evidence against it, and arguing against it does not in my book constitute brain washing, it constitutes correcting untruths about creation theory.
I also fail to see how creation theory can be compared to faith in a God or rebirth, as it has so much evidence against it, so much so that unlike the concepts of God or rebirth creation theory can and has been disproved in my opinion.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx
The concept of God is open to interpretation just as the concept of rebirth and I respect both of them, however, creation theory is not in my opinion as there is so much evidence against it, and arguing against it does not in my book constitute brain washing, it constitutes correcting untruths about creation theory.
I also fail to see how creation theory can be compared to faith in a God or rebirth, as it has so much evidence against it, so much so that unlike the concepts of God or rebirth creation theory can and has been disproved in my opinion.
It's funny how people can see different things in the same data.
You see "a huge number of people" who believe in Creation theory.
I see that 60% do not believe in Creation theory.
That is usually based on a strict interpretation of the Bible, as first interpreted by Archbishop Ussher. He took the Genesis version of the Bible, then used different passages of the Bible to interpret how long various Bibilical figures lived and came up with an exact date on which he felt the earth was created (as I recall from my studies, it was October 4, 4004, B.C., although I may have the wrong date in October.
I'll be honest with you, in my entire lifetime, I've never met a single person who believes in that literal interpretation of Creation.
Most Americans I know do believe that God created the earth and the universe. But, most Americans I know also believe that the truth is somewhere between the religious view and the scientific view. We tend to have as much trouble believing coincidence, as we have in believing every word literally in the Bible.
For example, Stanley Miller's early work, where he took organic compounds that were present on the primordial Earth, and by subjecting them to an energy source (such as lightning?), he created amino acids -- the building blocks of life. And, after that coincidence of events, eventually oceanic blue green algae colonies coincidentally developed from those amino acids, and evolution began, and from those primordial elements and amino acids and blue green algae, eventually your retina developed, your larynx, etc. All these coincidences seem illogical to many people. And so, many will say that they weren't coincidences, but they happened because God made them happen and that led to life.
Now many Buddhists will say there's no evidence for that.
Okay. True. Fair enough.
But let's use the same standard of proof to something most Buddhists tend to believe. That during enlightenment, Buddha was given a view of all worlds and times. Go ahead. Show me the proof.
You can't. And yet, that seems to be what most Buddhists believe.
Buddhists are no more scientific than Westerners. And in fact, far more scientific discoveries throughout history have come from the Western world than the Buddhist world.
You can speak quietly with your friends about the importance of reviving or strengthening their own traditions that almost got stamped out--what a precious opportunity they now have to return to their roots and reclaim their own, reminding them that Buddhism is their unique heritage. The Dalai Lama sent a Rinpoche to them to live among them and give teachings--this proved very popular. You can publish articles in the local newspapers about Buddhism being an ancient tradition throughout Asia, that historically united the Mongols with their Tibetan brethren. (What remains unsaid is: Buddhism is an Asian tradition, why admit a foreign tradition? But the intended audience can read between the lines.) And so forth. One can give TV interviews on the subject, speaking always very diplomatically, of course. One can arrange for the Rinpoche to give an interview, or to televise weekly teachings. There is much that can be done that is perfectly peaceful and doesn't involve hostility or argument. Focussing on loving-kindness, one can get the message across gently, but persuasively.
Does the same recommendation hold true to Christians in America who see an influx of Buddhism?
There were many times when I was visiting or living in Thailand that I would see Christians trying to present their views to groups of Thais out on the street. The Thais mostly seemed to find it entertaining, but none seemed to take it very seriously.
Are Christians in America upset with the growth of Buddhism here? I hadn't heard about that--the Christians I know are accepting of diversity--but maybe I don't listen to the right radio stations. I think America already has Christian radio stations (and TV channels?), that broadcast about the religion. Is it a bad thing to suggest the Mongols should do the same? Nepal, by the way, passed a law banning proselytizers, I don't know if that's still in effect. Russia passed a law banning any religions that weren't "historical" religions on Russia's territory (this allowed for Buddhism and Islam, but not for the Krishna movement, or Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, or other Christian denominations. But the US forced them to drop the law.
Of course, I wonder how the Muslims are feeling?
In that church meeting, they aired a show about Buddhism. I noticed, even as a young high school teen, how simplistically (and probably incorrectly) they portrayed the religion. I don't remember the particulars other than showing a woman bemoaning and praying superstitiously and ignorantly over a Buddha statue.
I was not particularly religious but it had struck me how they portrayed Buddhism - simple, superstitious etc.
Today I think well it is part of what they see their job but I think it is not so good to do things dishonestly like that. And then again, I think that unless one understands, at a more than superficial level a teaching/religion etc then how could one portray it honestly? I don't know but I would not worry too much about what is said and done by those whom would have it destroyed - we do this practice by our own heart and our own best attempts at honesty by self and others.
Best wishes,
Abu
As I have said, if people believe in a creator God that is fine, I respect that, I have no problem with it what's so ever, but surely if someone is preaching about a topic such as creation theory, this can be criticized since this theory as described by fundamentalists, completely contradicts what is observed in the world and universe.
Creation theory view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
Scientific theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
there is no doubt about this in my opinion
I read an article about the child of a Sikh family who got relentlessly teased and harassed at school, because she wore her hair bound up in the Sikh way. The kids didn't know the difference between Arab headdress and Sikh, they called her "Bin Laden", taunting her. So the family moved to another school district, and on the first day of school the father went to her classes with her and gave a lesson on Sikh culture and customs, where they're from (a little geography lesson), etc. The kids asked questions, and were very nice. After that, no problem.
I think it's important to do what we can to help people feel safe and welcome. If your cab driver is muslim, talk to him about how much you appreciate cultural diversity. If I tell them I'm a Buddhist, they get curious and want to understand Buddhism. You can turn your cab ride into a bonding moment.