eternalism and annilationism


#1

DO you think that god is subject to Shakyamuni Buddha’s 12 links of dependant origination? This says that all things are somewhere subject to a ignorance about something.

Bill


#2

[quote="billcu1, post:1, topic:298119"]
DO you think that god is subject to Shakyamuni Buddha's 12 links of dependant origination? This says that all things are somewhere subject to a ignorance about something.

Bill

[/quote]

Ummm. . .no, I don't think so. I do not believe that God is 'subject' to anything, least of all ignorance.


#3

[quote="Tantum_ergo, post:2, topic:298119"]
Ummm. . .no, I don't think so. I do not believe that God is 'subject' to anything, least of all ignorance.

[/quote]

Another thing is attachments. God knows that he exists because he knows himself, could this be attachments? Maybe god is not subject to this.

Bill


#4

[quote="billcu1, post:3, topic:298119"]
Another thing is attachments. God knows that he exists because he knows himself, could this be attachments? Maybe god is not subject to this.

Bill

[/quote]

My understanding of the Buddha's teaching on attachment is that attachment occurs when we incorrectly see things as separate from ourselves and create attachments to these other things. The implication in Buddhist teaching is that we add stress and unhappiness to our lives because we really are not separate. God cannot be subject to this because he is, by definition, separate. The creator is different and wholly "other" than the created. When the creator sees his created beings as separate it is an accurate and correct view of reality. If he creates attachments they are good and proper, not stressful. In the same way, we the created have the most accurate view of reality when we understand that God is separate from ourselves.


#5

Why would you care what Shakyamuni Buddha has to say in the first place? At any rate, God is not subject to anyone or anything.


#6

[quote="BrianGular, post:4, topic:298119"]
My understanding of the Buddha's teaching on attachment is that attachment occurs when we incorrectly see things as separate from ourselves and create attachments to these other things. The implication in Buddhist teaching is that we add stress and unhappiness to our lives because we really are not separate. God cannot be subject to this because he is, by definition, separate. The creator is different and wholly "other" than the created. When the creator sees his created beings as separate it is an accurate and correct view of reality. If he creates attachments they are good and proper, not stressful. In the same way, we the created have the most accurate view of reality when we understand that God is separate from ourselves.

[/quote]

Oh ok yes that makes sense. It is the purpose Shakyamuni taught to get right view of things yes. God then already has that right view. Which means he is perfect and wants as I believe it is taught in catholicism more than anything for us to be like him.

Bill


#7

[quote="SteveVH, post:5, topic:298119"]
Why would you care what Shakyamuni Buddha has to say in the first place? At any rate, God is not subject to anyone or anything.

[/quote]

Shakyamuni came from a "pureland" or heaven as did Jesus. Jesus said I go to prepare a place for you. A "pureland". Why would I not care what perfect understanding has to say as anyone would not care what Jesus said. It's that militant "our way or the highway" attitude of christianity that got the martyrs killed by the Romans anyway. The Romans were very tolerant of religion. But the hardheaded Christians had to make a fuss. That's the only thing that gets me about the faith.

Bill


#8

[quote="billcu1, post:7, topic:298119"]
Shakyamuni came from a "pureland" or heaven as did Jesus. Jesus said I go to prepare a place for you. A "pureland".

Bill

[/quote]

Hello, Bill. Could you please help me to understand who makes this claim? Did Shakyamuni himself claim to have come from the "pureland"? Who makes the claim that Jesus came from this same "pureland"? Do all of us come from the "pureland", and, if not, how can we tell who comes from the "pureland" and who does not?

I am basically trying to understand the foundation that supports the assertions you have made.


#9

[quote="billcu1, post:7, topic:298119"]
Shakyamuni came from a "pureland" or heaven as did Jesus. Jesus said I go to prepare a place for you. A "pureland". Why would I not care what perfect understanding has to say as anyone would not care what Jesus said.

[/quote]

Hmmm. I wonder why none of the prophets, nor Jesus ever mentioned Shakyamuni.
Am I correct in understanding that you are Catholic?

[quote="billcu1, post:7, topic:298119"]
It's that militant "our way or the highway" attitude of christianity that got the martyrs killed by the Romans anyway. The Romans were very tolerant of religion. But the hardheaded Christians had to make a fuss. That's the only thing that gets me about the faith.

[/quote]

You are sadly mistaken. The martyrs were not killed for having a bad attitude. They were killed for not rejecting the one, true God in favor of a Roman god. They would not bow down to false idols. They would not give up their faith, even to save their lives. They are all saints in heaven and you might want to check your own attitude when speaking of them.

As far as the militant "our way or the highway" attitude, Jesus said that he was the way and that the road was narrow. So yes, it is "Jesus' way or the highway". If you want to take the "Shakyamuni" highway I guess you are free to do so.


#10

The Buddha never claimed to be from PureLand. He never claimed to be a god or inspired by a god.

Here is a sutta on the 12 links of dependent origination. The links are like those of a chain linked to form a circle, not a straight line. accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html To conserve space I won't post the whole sutta but it is interesting to read.

BrianGular, you said,

My understanding of the Buddha's teaching on attachment is that attachment occurs when we incorrectly see things as separate from ourselves and create attachments to these other things. The implication in Buddhist teaching is that we add stress and unhappiness to our lives because we really are not separate.

Can you tell me where you got this impression as being a teaching of the Buddha? I think, but am not sure, that you are commingling two ideas into one.

There are two threads on this board about what the Buddha actually taught. Those who might be interested should look up "Ask the Buddhist" and "Ask the Buddhist II" There are 1400 posts to go through so one may have to use the search engine to find a specific phrase or topic.


#11

I never said (or meant to say) that Jesus came from the same “pureland” as Shakyamuni. I do not know if the buddha claimed to have came from a pureland or not. All he taught was the 12 links. But those who wrote the suttas had amazing memories much like those who wrote the gospels. What I meant to say was that when Jesus said “I go to prepare a place for you.” It is like a buddha preparing a pureland. This is a forum about non-catholic religions so I don’t think I’m OT here.

Does that help any?

Bill


#12

[quote="billcu1, post:11, topic:298119"]
I never said (or meant to say) that Jesus came from the same "pureland" as Shakyamuni. I do not know if the buddha claimed to have came from a pureland or not. All he taught was the 12 links. But those who wrote the suttas had amazing memories much like those who wrote the gospels. What I meant to say was that when Jesus said "I go to prepare a place for you." It is like a buddha preparing a pureland. This is a forum about non-catholic religions so I don't think I'm OT here.

Does that help any?

Bill

[/quote]

That does clarify things a little. I now understand that you were drawing an analogy between heaven and pureland, not claiming that the Shakyamuni and Jesus the Christ were of the same origin. Thanks.

This is the non-catholic religions forum. Posts like yours are supposed to be welcome here.


#13

off topic,billcu1 why is it necessary to use that particular image of the Holy Father ?


#14

[quote="april32010, post:13, topic:298119"]
off topic,billcu1 why is it necessary to use that particular image of the Holy Father ?

[/quote]

I thought that might raise eyebrows. This picture struck me as a little or the humorus side not in a bad way though. It shows our pontiff is human too. It looks to me like he is laughing at something. I'm not quite sure. But he has a very "non-formal" look on his face too. I don't know what kind of hat our holiness has on. If I get a few complaints about this it will be taken off. I mean no disrespect. How does this pictures strike you? I hope not badly.

Bill


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.