|
L e t t e r s
Credit Where Credit Is Due
|
|
|
|
In the article "Are Jesus and Buddha Brothers?" I noticed some good analysis coupled with some unfair and inaccurate generalizations. I am an orthodox Catholic, but in my youth I spent several years following Buddhism. The article discusses Buddhism being "ambiguous" in its theology and characterizes it as "vague" and "open-minded." The article goes on to use words such as compatibility and implies that Buddhism is open-ended and a do-it-yourself religion.
I’ll be the first to agree that Buddhism does not have Christ. That in itself makes it defective in its ability to save one’s soul. I also disagree with Buddhism’s assertion that we are not comprised of a soul but rather ever-changing aggregates (pancakkhandha) that give us the illusion of having a self (atman). Buddha, as the article states, was not a savior or a God as Christ clearly is. But to have good dialogue with other religions and to have a true debate about them, we must be intellectually honest. Buddhism can be very dogmatic: Just visit the wats (Buddhist monasteries) of Thailand as I have. They have a rigid theology and dogma as well as daily routine. The Buddha, when speaking in his numerous sutras, is very dogmatic and stubborn.
Also, the article neglected to discuss the two different kinds of Buddhism: Therevada (which believes in works and self discipline, much like Catholicism) and Mahayana (which believes strictly in faith without works, as in Protestantism).
Theravadists are very rigid and theological whereas Mahayanists are more "open-minded." Mahayanists believe in praying to Bodhisattvas (saints who have earned merit through their good works) who, if one prays to them devoutly, will obtain Buddhahood. Doesn’t that show a belief in a higher form of life and having strong faith? In countries such as Thailand and Burma, Buddhists in their teens must become monks for three months, living an austere life that people of most other religions don’t experience at that age. Lifetime monks must be celibate, eat only once a day, and meditate, pray, and chant for long periods of their daily life while doing acts of mercy and kindness.
Let’s give Buddhism the credit it deserves and also criticize its deficiencies in a proper way. Buddhism is peaceful, charitable, intellectual, and kind, but it lacks Christ, a recognition of the need for grace, and an appreciation of selfhood. That is why I could never follow it—and that’s why Christ is my shepherd.
Scott Alsobrooke
Via e-mail
Anthony Clark replies:
I am delighted that you have engaged the very important task of distinguishing Buddhism from Catholicism. But you have fallen into some interpretive errors in your understanding of Buddhism. You assert that in dialogue with other religions one must be "intellectually honest." You are quite right, and our article is.
Let’s begin with your statement that Buddhism has "a rigid theology." While several scholars suggest that Buddhism contains a theology of sorts, Buddhism cannot have a true theology as it has no theo- (god) to -logy (study). It neither believes in nor rejects the possibility of a god. Buddha is certainly not a god, for in the sutras he states, "I am a man, not a god." And if we are to discuss soteriology, Buddha, in the Parinirvana Sutra, asserts that his disciples are to work out their salvation "on their own." To refer to any Buddhist beliefs as theological is, I believe, a mistake. Is Buddhism dogmatic? Certainly. But you must keep in mind that Buddhist dogmas are, in the end, intended to function only as an expedient means (upaya). Let me include here a rather lengthy quote from the Heart Sutra:
Thus, Shariputra, all dharmas are emptiness. There are no characteristics. There is no birth and no cessation. There is no impurity and no purity. There is no decrease and no increase. Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness, there is no form, no feeling, no perception, no formation, no consciousness; no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no appearance, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no dharmas.
You are right; we should have distinguished Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, but our manuscript was necessarily short, and we were obliged to keep its content terse—always problematic for more informed and nuanced readers. Generalization is indeed problematic, but to satisfy all readers would require a much larger monograph. But I remain confident that our portrayal of Buddhism was accurate and fair. We have, for example, illustrated quite clearly the Buddhist definition of "salvation," i.e., the extinction of self (nirvana). It has been said that for Buddhism there are many lives but a temporary soul, while for Christianity there is one life but an eternal soul. There is much more in your letter that I disagree with, but I will close here. I appreciate your comments and hope that your reactions to our article inspires you to continue your inquiry into the differences between Catholicism and Buddhism. Might I recommend that you read the Lankavatara Sutra, popular in the Chan sect, followed by a prayerful reading of the Gospel of St. Matthew.
Deadly Confusions
The article on Jesus and Buddha ("Are Jesus and Buddha Brothers?" May-June 2005) is responding to a great need: to shed light on the abyss separating the Savior of the world from the great oriental sage. Misleading similarities are a classical trap into which uninformed people are likely to fall. A superficial study of both doctrines is likely to lead many to identify Buddhism and Christianity. In fact, every apparent "similarity" covers up an abysmal difference.
Both Buddhism and Christianity speak of liberation and aim at some sort of redemption. But in the first case, it is liberation from suffering, which is viewed as meaningless; in the other case, it is liberation from sin.There is no mention of sin in Buddhism; the only evil is suffering. For the Christian, sin is evil par excellence—that is, a willful offense against God, a revolt of the creature against his Creator.
Both religions teach that we should love others as we love ourselves. But for the Buddhist, there is no self to love; the self does not exist. It is one of the many illusions from which we must liberate ourselves. In fact, David Hume is unwittingly a faithful disciple of Buddha when he writes that "the self is a bundle of sensations" (with the important difference that the oriental doctrine is wrapped up in a halo of "sacredness," whereas Hume is totally secular in outlook, and this explains his appeal in our contemporary world). It was, I believe, Soren Kierkegaard who wrote that modern philosophy is pure paganism. It would be interesting to write a book proving that much of "modern philosophy," starting in the eighteenth century, is, in fact, oriental thought in disguise.
Both religions acknowledge the fragility of human existence. This insight leads the Buddhist to conclude that our perceptions are mere illusions—that the world is basically unreal. What the Buddhist overlooks is that in order to have illusions there must be someone having those illusions. This someone cannot himself be an illusion. For the Christian, the world is real but contingent—that is, totally dependent upon its Creator who keeps it in existence. Upon completing creation, God saw that "it was good." Nothing of the sort in Buddhism: It is only by escaping from the illusion of existence that we can "save" ourselves, for existence is suffering.
Both religions are "spiritual," but these two spiritualities are at loggerheads. In one case, the aim is "self redemption"—something we can achieve by a technique that can be learned by practice. It combines asceticism with a systematic negation of invalid experiences. In Christianity, redemption can be achieved only by the graces obtained by Christ’s death on the cross. The abyss between the two is easy to formulate; in the first case, we have spirituality (an attractive term) without humility. In the other case, this spirituality is the fruit of humility: "Help me, O Lord; without you I perish."
Buddha identified existence with suffering: His pragmatism aims at liberating man from suffering by eliminating desires. "He who has one hundred loves has one hundred sorrows; he who has only one love has only one sorrow." For the Christian, suffering is a consequence of original sin: "If you eat of the fruit of that tree, you shall die." But it is through the agony and death of Christ on the cross that we have been redeemed. Suffering is therefore meaningful: It has a redemptive value. The Christian—while carefully eliminating self-made suffering—will accept and welcome those God has chosen to send him, knowing that suffering does not have the last word. Calvary is followed by the Resurrection, and the last word is joy.
The Buddhist aims to eliminate all desire. The Christian aims to eliminate selfish desires with God’s help and ascetic practices. But we should pray for an ardent longing to be united to Christ. This is beautifully expressed by St. Paul, who ardently wishes to be with the Beloved.
For Buddha (I purposely leave aside further developments of Buddhism into various sects), both the question of God’s existence and the immortality of the soul were irrelevant, for they could not eliminate suffering. For the Christian, these questions are crucial, for their answer gives meaning to man’s existence. God—a Person—exists, and he gave man an immortal soul that will, one day, be reunited to his perishable body. Nirvana is, in fact, self-annihilation: The illusory self will dissolve and disappear into the metaphysical melting pot called Nirvana.
For the Christian, beatitude is the contemplation of God’s infinite perfection—an I-Thou eternal act of adoration. There is no room in Buddhism for adoration because there is no one to adore.
How right Plato was when he claimed that to confuse a mule and a horse is regrettable but basically unimportant. But when it comes to what matters most—spirituality and religion—these confusions are deadly.
Alice von Hildebrand
New Rochelle, New York
Sing for Your Supper
I have just finished the article "Are Jesus and Buddha brothers?" and I am so grateful for the information about the Buddhist faith. I am the formation minister for a community of Secular Franciscans who, a month or two ago, had dinner with several Buddhist monks, one of whom was very zealous in communicating his faith. My brothers and sisters were interested in simply sharing a meal with them and therefore were not prepared for the encounter. In fact, several of them were extremely disappointed that they did not know how to respond. We have a meeting tomorrow, and with your permission I am taking copies of the article for those who are interested in learning more about our faith and how it differs from the Buddhist tradition. Thank you so very much.
Judy Puetz
Austin, Texas
Catharsis, Anyone?
Thank you for Ronald Rychlak’s article on Fr. Richard McBrien ("Dealing with Dissent," July-August 2005). Unfortunately, The Tidings, my diocesan paper, carries McBrien’s column. To vent my ire, I simply take a pair of scissors and neatly cut out what to me is a sort of theological tumor, ball it up, and toss it. I recommend this little ritual to all who are offended by the ravings of this cleric. Very cathartic!
Thomas Hogan
Long Beach, California
Pope Richard the Suggestive
"Pope" Richard McBrien is proof that original sin is suggestibility. His identity is to be "better than thou" by echoing every idea that gives him separate individuality. It is amazing how someone so smart can be so dumb. He reminds me of what my father would always tell me: "Don’t worry about the Church. If it depended upon its leaders, it would not have lasted fifty years."
Samuel A. Nigro
Cleveland, Ohio
Too Clever by Half
The article by Ronald J. Rychlak "Dealing with Dissent" created an emotional stir within me. Maybe at age fifty-two with a doctorate in clinical psychology, I’m still a very naive human being. I found myself asking how this guy can be a priest. Without a doubt, Fr. McBrien is a well-read scholar. How is it possible for him to maintain such deviant views of Catholicism with such of wealth of history, tradition, spiritual formation, and service to God under his belt? Maybe it just goes to show that it is not how much education we have; it’s what we do with it.
John M. Chavez
Arcadia, California
Wardrobe Malfunction?
Just read the July-August issue and I have one pressing question: Why hasn’t Fr. Richard McBrien been defrocked?
Kathleen Brennan
Via e-mail
Can’t Someone Do Something?
The article "Dealing with Dissent" is just the type of tough articles I expect from This Rock. Having watched Fr. Richard McBrien trash the Pope and the Church on numerous TV shows, coming off as the voice of all Catholics, I am glad the hard truth of this renegade has been finally addressed. Thank you, Ronald Rychlak.
But I pose a general question for the staff: Why doesn’t Rome identify, isolate, and deal swiftly with those who intentionally and with great malice undermine the Church and lead many astray in the process? Educating ourselves individually is certainly necessary, but the effect of Rome or a cardinal taking direct visible action against rogue religious or politicians is the example that every Catholic needs to see. The actions of our leaders must match the tough rhetoric. Centuries ago, dissenters were declared heretics, and for good reason.
Robert Boehman
Frederick, Maryland
Disturb the Neighbors
I read Joseph Previtali’s article " Habemus Papam! " in the July-August issue with a big grin on my face. The pandemonium he says occurred at the announcement that our new Pope was " Dominum Josephum, Sanctae Romanae Ecclesia Cardinalem Ratzinger" was reflected in my own house perched on a West Virginia mountainside thousands of miles away. I’m not much for Latin, being a post-Vatican II convert, but I was quite able to pick out "Joseph Ratzinger," and as my windows were open to a spring day, I’m sure my neighbors could hear me shouting in joy and thanksgiving: "Thank you, Lord! It’s Ratzinger!" Habemus Papam, indeed!
Cindy Craig
Via e-mail
Everyday Paganism
I just finished reading "Did the Catholic Church Have Its Origin in Paganism?" (May-June 2005) by Ralph Woodrow. We refer to the days of the week as Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. All are named after pagan gods. We see these pagan names on every page of our calendars, at the top of the daily newspapers, and in our personal record books. The date is the first thing we put on letters. It goes right at the top in a very conspicuous place. From this, the symbolism conspiracy buffs might conclude that even fundamentalists and Jehovah’s Witnesses—who in the past have been devoted to publishing literature that connects Catholicism with paganism—are perpetuating the worship of pagan gods.
Margaret Finley
Banning, California
Muddy Waters
Regarding Marcellino D’Ambrosio’s "Nothing New under the Sun" (May-June 2005): What are Jesuits doing holding Zen retreats? I thought their job was to teach the Catholic faith. It seems to me that the thinking in this country is getting muddier than the Missouri River. Two years ago we had a mission at our parish, and when it was over I asked myself, "Where did those weirdos come from?"
Klement Simon
Via e-mail
Secret or Suppressed?
In "Nothing New under the Sun," Marcellino D’Ambrosio wrote: " The Da Vinci Code resurrects the claim that there exists a secret tradition that is earlier and more authentic than the New Testament." Apologists should be aware that proponents of the The Da Vinci Code’s theory claim that the tradition reflected in the book was not "secret" but was suppressed by the Church.
D’Ambrosio’s description of Gnosticism is good, but he should have made more obvious connections between Gnosticism and the tales of The Da Vinci Code. For example, the sources of Dan Brown’s flimsy history are accounts of Mary Magdalene found in the Gnostic Gospel of Phillip and Gospel of Mary.
The links between Gnosticism and the The Da Vinci Code are real and profound, not merely seeming or based on similarity (otherwise the argument would rank with Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons). Gnosticism by its very nature was secretive and clandestine, not wont to reveal its "secret knowledge" to the public at large. If it was destined to be buried in the sand, it had only itself to blame, and it’s spurious for Brown to claim the Church suppressed it.
Furthermore, Christianity was a persecuted religion in the first three centuries. It did not have the resources to suppress Gnosticism. The battle was fought with words, and Gnosticism revealed itself to be intellectually and rationally bankrupt. Logically speaking, it was more likely than Christianity to survive in the predominantly polytheistic culture of the time. But it simply did not make the cut.
G. Guadalupe
West Covina, California
Missed Opportunity
The May-June edition of This Rock could have given us a historical account of the pontificate of John Paul II or focused on the spirituality of this giant of a man and what he taught us during his reign. Many themes could have highlighted this most beloved Pope, yet what you gave was a weak editorial of the author’s opinions regarding John Paul. This was a missed opportunity to give Catholics what they wanted to hear, especially given that so many people are mourning his loss. One must wonder why, especially considering how This Rock chose to celebrate John Paul’s twenty-fifth anniversary as pope by expressing four critical reviews of his pontificate, offering little positive to say about such a great man.
To love John Paul is to love the Church, and to love the Church is to love God. I am disappointed. Isn’t it strange that nearly every secular news magazine in America devoted much of their editions to John Paul II from a secular point of view, yet you chose not to even have his image on your cover and limited your Catholic coverage to the editorial page? I hope Pope Benedict XVI fairs better.
Robert
Lake St. Louis, Missouri
Editor’s reply:
There is nothing sinister in the omission. We plan out issues of the magazine six to twelve months in advance and send them to the printer a full month before the publication date so as to make it to your mailboxes on time. This Rock was at the printer when John Paul II died. We literally stopped the presses to include the delightful reflection by Robert P. Lockwood and the tribute on page 2. We decided that other publications with larger budgets, bigger staffs, and faster turnaround times would give more than adequate coverage of our dear Papa. And indeed they did, much to our gratification. We at Catholic Answers mourned deeply the passing of John Paul II, and we pray for his intercession. Pope Benedict enjoys the same filial love and obedience from us.
Truly Free
This has been long overdue. I wish to extend my deepest gratitude to Catholic Answers! I was incarcerated in San Diego for nearly nine years, and Catholic Answers sent me free subscriptions to This Rock magazine from 1997 to 2004! I have been out free since April 2004 and am doing great. I can’t tell you how precious every copy of This Rock magazine meant to me and my friends while I was in prison. Please know that all of you at Catholic Answers are in my prayers and thoughts often. Please keep up the good work.
Edward Newa
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Gave Me a Reason
When I became a Catholic over a decade ago, it was not my RCIA class but This Rock that gave me a clear, succinct, eminently reasonable explanation of the difference between the Ascension and the Assumption. Although I’ve never been in a debate with anyone over the matter, it benefited my confidence tremendously to know that there are reasons for what we believe and do as Catholics. Thank you for your fine publication.
Dawn Beutner
Via e-mail
Don’t Do Denim
I was disappointed in your answer to the question "Is it okay to wear jeans to Mass?" (Quick Questions, May-June 2005). It was a good opportunity for you to encourage more respectful attire for Mass. Let’s face it: Jeans say "casual" loud and clear, and we’ve gotten too casual in our appearance for Mass. Many Protestants dress more respectfully for Sunday church services than we do. Not a very nice reflection on us Catholics, is it?
Denise Wellen
Highland, Illinois
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
