Buddha claimed that he witnessed the cessation of all things, including God. How could this be explained by a Christian?


Okay, got it! Nothing exists outside of our minds. No ultimate reality.

Okay, got it! Things do exist. Period. But just in their appearance, nothing more.

Okay, got it! Things do exist simply in the way they appear, but not in the way they appear to “most” people.

Things exist in some other way that is not essential or substantial, just in some “other” but apparent way where “what you see is what you get” but not in the way that “most people” see or get, but in some other way entirely that isn’t essential or substantial.

Sounds utterly incoherent.

It also appears that what Buddha found or discovered was the thin edge of the razor between rationality and irrationality, between coherence and incoherence, and he set his metaphysical claim to that “place” which is not a place because it merely demarcates the vanishingly thin line between meaning and non-meaning, existence and non-existence, being and nothingness, but which, according to Buddhism is all there is.

The problem with assigning complete meaning or significance to a boundary line ought to be clear, no?


I’m confused by the logic of this. How is there a difference between ‘I’ and ‘AM’? and how does this lead to there being two Gods?


All conceptual views like these are distortions and fleeting illusions just as Buddha says :smiley:


Buddhism focuses quite a bit on the self and escaping suffering where as Catholicism is focused a lot on helping others.

Viewing Christians as being charitable only for “pie in the sky when you die” reasons is perhaps just as distorted as thinking Buddhists only think of self and help others to escape their own suffering I suggest.


You are making a straw-man of how i define potential. I clearly did not define it as something that actually exists. And yet there is no denying that if anything begins to exist then it had the potential to exist because of a cause that already existed.

In any case you have to deny the very concept of potential otherwise the ideas that Buddhism employs in regards to existing things irrecoverably falls apart as it should because clearly some of the ideas of the Buddha are absurd…

No. A potential event Is a possible outcome in relation to existing things. And it can only become real if something causes it to be real because obviously that which is not real cannot give reality to itself…

There is nothing unusual about my use of the word potential. After all, we see potentialities realized everyday, so the idea hardly needs defending.

However the ideas of the Buddha are very unusual indeed when it comes to metaphysics. Perhaps i misunderstand, but from what i can see the Buddha had absurd ideas because he ignores the principle of non-contradiction and just went by how things appeared, in his altered state of mind, to him without much critical thought which has lead him to be a victim of a delusion. You seem content following him down that road.


There is the possibility that when it comes to Buddha you look too low rather than too high.
I believe you will find his thinking is not only above Physics (hence Metaphysics) but is also beyond Metaphysics (hence a Meta-metaphysics).

Hence what you see as a denial of the principle of non-contradiction is in fact an unusual stretching and apophatic use of language to point to truths of Reality that binary logic cannot contain.

Sages have always done so by making apparently self-contradictory utterances.
Jesus did so too.

To bluntly describe such aphorisms as denying the PONC is akin to a western bull wandering through a china shop. The problem is not with the Asian shop.

The Buddha denies the PONC no more than do impossible figures such as Penrose stairs.
A truth is conveyed very effectively all the same. In this case that the mind cannot grasp eternity.
The below “lie” teaches this truth of reality very well.


He witnessed (was cognitively aware of) the cessation of cognition, according to the OP. Now he might mean something different, but based on these words, it doesn’t make rational sense…

It’s akin to me saying that i witnessed non-existence, and then excusing myself from the absurdity of that statement by asserting the existence of a logic beyond our comprehension.

I’m sorry, but i will gladly bull my way through that china shop for nothing more than preserving my sanity.


Exactly so.
Men prefer illusion so as to protect their sanity.

Is this observation denying the PONC too?


As a reference to my self, absolutely yes!.


Not being able to grasp something like eternity is one thing. To say i was aware of not being aware is another thing entirely.


Then as both Buddha and Jesus would well observe, you are still well caught in Samsara.

The statement I made is not self contradictory if one searches for the one narrow meaning that resolves the contradiction.
That is the purpose of such aphorisms as communicated by sages.

Those not caught up in illusion will make the effort to free themselves.
By not wanting to try the disciple not only reveals his blindness but demonstrates the root cause of that blindness.

Not wanting to escape anyways.


Being cognitively aware of having no cognition is a contradiction… If you wish to say that this statement is a cover story for something that is actually reasonable, then by all means enlighten me.

Asserting that i am somehow blind without presenting a rational argument in your defense really is just an ad-hominem attack with no substance.


We associate and identify with our mental activity. The Buddha does not. The Buddha saw himself as reality itself, existence itself and then went further abstract into neither existing nor non existing nor neither nor both. Beyond rational thinking because rational thinking is a product of the brain and incapable of grasping the truth. At least that is how I have understood Buddhism.


You still don’t get it.
Blindness comes from not wanting to search for truth in communion with others (especially one’s teacher).

I gave you the opportunity to resolve the contradiction with me and you summarily rejected both the need to search and my assistance with:

i will gladly bull my way through that china shop for nothing more than preserving my sanity.

When I observe such a response is exactly the attitude that dooms one to wander in eternal illusion according to Buddhism then you charge me with ad hominem.

This, again, in Buddhist teaching is another indicator of being caught in illusion (being driven by attachment to fleeting desires or aversions). In this case you seem to want to prove me “wrong”, yourself “right” or merely to save face on this thread.

I am not ad hominem-ing you.
I generously gave you a tailor-made gift of a koan constructed from your own responses and thought patterns.

I am simply observing calmly the ripples of your responses, as a Buddhist teacher might observe the responses of his disciple to his own questions (eg what is the sound of one hand clapping?).

I suggest that if you were a disciple you would be failing badly. For your responses indicate only a late “willingness” to seek truth. It appears motivated for the motives indicated above.
In that case the principles of seeking truth for its own sake and in harmony with others … is not what drives your “willingness” to return to the contradiction I generously presented to you.

At this stage a Buddhist teacher would likely send his young disciple off with a fatherly scolding to chop wood and carry water for another month or so before sitting with him again.

Which is probably the best policy with your good self at this juncture.

None of this is ad hominem.
It is how to truly start understanding the religion of other major cultures.
One cannot learn or understood it from Wikipedia or a limited English translation of very foreign texts. Only from actual practitioners.

I am but a novice in my own understanding of Buddhism.
God (the Christian one) bless.


If you think my argument is wrong, refute it. If you think that there is no contradiction, demonstrate. You have done none of these things. You have merely asserted that there is a higher truth that i am blind of.

That is not a teacher, that is a someone weaving illusions in the pretense of having something useful to say…Am i wrong? Then correct me, as a real teacher would.

Otherwise it is just an ad-hominem.attack.


Analysing the koan for its literal meaning won’t lead to insight,


That’s fine if the Buddha thinks that consistently logical statements are irrelevant when defining his experiences. I don’t doubt that he had an experience but what he is saying clearly doesn’t make any sense metaphysically speaking. If there is a hidden truth, i am not going to get there from what he is saying.



Why is it now acceptable to use Wikipedia and ‘European’ sources? Whenever I do this, you admonish me for it.


So you are saying that he didn’t really mean that he had cognition of having no cognition? Then what did he really mean?

Please tell me you are not defending a position you don’t understand.


He is not trying to make metaphysical sense because in his mind true reality or ultimate being does not lend it self to rational limits…


What if people don’t believe Buddha?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.