The New Buddha?

[littlebreakdowns]

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051123/ap_on_re_as/nepal_buddha"]Teen in Nepal new Buddha?[/url]

I thought this article was interesting. I'm not Buddhist (I consider myself Catholic but I'm in RCIA), but I studied Buddhism for many years and it will always have a special place in my heart. Gotta love the non-violence aspect of it all.

So I guess I'm just putting this out there. Do you think that those who see him as "the new Buddha" are nuts? Are they willingly worshiping a false idol or do they really believe they're worshiping the *right* path? Does it make them wrong if it's not the same path you follow?

I've often wondered if everyone really follows the same God, those who follow a religion anyway, but that some only get *part* of it. Even the Catholics admit the idea of "magic" but say we don't know what forces that messes with. That being said, maybe Pagans "get" part of God, but don't see the whole picture. Perhaps the same could be said of Buddhists, Hindus, and other religions.

What are your thoughts?

Teresa

[sweetpea316]

Heh, I just read that article a few minutes ago... I have noo idea what to think of it.

[Aloysius]

the guy looks crazy cool. we used to have a ton of mystics who had long fasts like this, who would go on consuming nothing but the Eucharist for whole years sometimes.

anyway, the guy is exhibiting a tremendous amount of self control (something that is good in any fallen human being) and even apparently showing humility.

such things happen outside of the Christian world, they speak more to the tremendous power of a disciplined soul to overcome his inadequacies than to the idea of a spiritual force producing miracles apart from Christ (which can happen and be demonic, certainly).

I think this is a really cool event if he really has been fasting for so long. Such dedication is indeed virtuous. it really isn't the path to enlightenment though, and if done in order to escape the bodily prison, it has a flawed aim (it ought to be done to perfect, refine, chastize that one body that is to be his for all eternity).

also, I don't like the non-violence part of the buddhist philosophy. if the Christian world had such a non-violence philosophy... well... let's just hope the Muslim world would've been able to rise up against Hitler cause we would've let him walk all over us huh? it's admirable to many degrees, but I think it's ultimately weak-- thank goodness our Christ called upon us to own swords for our own defence and to use force when necessary to protect the innocent.

[PadreSantiago]

[quote name='littlebreakdowns' date='Nov 23 2005, 03:20 PM']
I've often wondered if everyone really follows the same God, those who follow a religion anyway, but that some only get *part* of it.  Even the Catholics admit the idea of "magic" but say we don't know what forces that messes with.  That being said, maybe Pagans "get" part of God, but don't see the whole picture.  Perhaps the same could be said of Buddhists, Hindus, and other religions. 

What are your thoughts?

Teresa
[right][snapback]798944[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

=) You get the first annual phatmass.com Free thinkers award!!!!! Congradulations you've decided to think outside of the box!!!!!

[PhillyMatt]

[quote name='PadreSantiago' date='Nov 23 2005, 05:32 PM']=)  You get the first annual phatmass.com Free thinkers award!!!!! Congradulations you've decided to think outside of the box!!!!!
[right][snapback]799151[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I think that this needs to be proved, just like the Catholic Church needs to proove a Miracle, or have several occurances for one to be deemed a saint.

There's been occurances of bleeding or crying statues that turned out to be plain hoaxes.

First off, people can't see this kid at night, also you can't get any closer than 80 feet. There's plenty of room to cheat with this.

Needs proof...

[Socrates]

[quote name='littlebreakdowns' date='Nov 23 2005, 02:20 PM'][url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051123/ap_on_re_as/nepal_buddha"]Teen in Nepal new Buddha?[/url]

I thought this article was interesting.  I'm not Buddhist (I consider myself Catholic but I'm in RCIA), but I studied Buddhism for many years and it will always have a special place in my heart.  Gotta love the non-violence aspect of it all. 

So I guess I'm just putting this out there.  Do you think that those who see him as "the new Buddha" are nuts?  Are they willingly worshiping a false idol or do they really believe they're worshiping the *right* path?  Does it make them wrong if it's not the same path you follow?

I've often wondered if everyone really follows the same God, those who follow a religion anyway, but that some only get *part* of it.  Even the Catholics admit the idea of "magic" but say we don't know what forces that messes with.  That being said, maybe Pagans "get" part of God, but don't see the whole picture.  Perhaps the same could be said of Buddhists, Hindus, and other religions. 

What are your thoughts?

Teresa
[right][snapback]798944[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm sure most Buddhists and other people of non-Christian religions sincerely believe they are following the "right path." This does not make what they beleive true. Only God can truly judge whether one has willfully rejected the truth or remains in invincible ignorance of the truth.

But all are called to Christ's Church, and all religions are not equal. The Church teaches that other religions may contain "parts" of the truth, but only the Catholic Faith contains the fullness of Truth.

[quote]Even the Catholics admit the idea of "magic" but say we don't know what forces that messes with. [/quote]
The Church has always soundly condemned "magic" (in the sense of sorcery and divination, not illusions and parlor tricks). This kind of magic involves the aid of demons (fallen angels), whether the magician realizes this or not, and is gravely sinful.

[Myles Domini]

[quote]Teen in Nepal new Buddha?

I thought this article was interesting. I'm not Buddhist (I consider myself Catholic but I'm in RCIA), but I studied Buddhism for many years and it will always have a special place in my heart. Gotta love the non-violence aspect of it all. 

So I guess I'm just putting this out there. Do you think that those who see him as "the new Buddha" are nuts? Are they willingly worshiping a false idol or do they really believe they're worshiping the *right* path? Does it make them wrong if it's not the same path you follow?

I've often wondered if everyone really follows the same God, those who follow a religion anyway, but that some only get *part* of it. Even the Catholics admit the idea of "magic" but say we don't know what forces that messes with. That being said, maybe Pagans "get" part of God, but don't see the whole picture. Perhaps the same could be said of Buddhists, Hindus, and other religions.

What are your thoughts?

Teresa[/quote]

Dear Teresa let me start by saying that I am impressed by this child's endurance. He is a great master of what the Chinese call internal alchemy though whether or not he is the new Buddha is questionable. According to the legends of Shaolin Bodhidharma meditated for 9 years in the same position and nobody has accorded him that award though he is known by the Mahayana Buddhists as a Bodhisatva. Amongst the Taoists figures like Zhen Wu spring to mind who also surpassed this individual. I'm not saying I can equal the boy but I am saying perhaps to call him the new Buddha would be a little over the top. Thus answering your first question.

However, even if he is the new Buddha it wouldn't make much difference. Essentially Buddha isn't anyone special (according to the Theravada schools particularly). Buddha himself said that there had been other enlightened individuals in the past and other enlightened individuals would come forth in the future. Again, to make a hype about this child being enlightened would be contra to Prince Gautama's teachings. Teachings I add which share much in common with other Eastern schools of thought such as the aforementioned Taoism, Manicheaism and Neo Platonism. This brings me onto your second point...

Objectively, whether or not they believe this child to be Buddha these people are mistaken in their beliefs. Thats not to be rude, I dont believe that Buddhism cannot be 'true' subjectively. Yet, Catholicism presents itself not as a subjective truth but as Objectively True. It is not another presentation of a truth it is the religion of the Truth Himself and it is the only religion (bar Eastern Orthodoxy) that claims it was directly founded by the Truth enfleshed. Subjectively one can say Buddhism and the other Eastern religions[i] work[/i] because they allow the individual to silence the heart's desire. Yet, Catholicism declares that that desire is there for a purpose and that to silence it in a manner contrary to that purpose is evil--not maliciously but in a sense that a thing which acts contary to its nature is evil. The desire for the infinite in our hearts appears not because we're out of sync with the world but because as the Doctor of Grace reminds us:

[quote]for Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee.--St Augustine, Confessions I:I[/quote]

As you can see I have a decent knowledge of the Eastern religions and I still practice Zhan Zhuang (standing like a pole exercises--common in the Neijia e.g. Taijiquan). I almost ended up adopting Ch'an (Zen to the Japanese) as my credo. It was my love and practice of Martial Arts and my acquaintance with the philosophies that accompany the said disciplines that actually gradually led me back to Catholicism and for that I truly thank the Orientals yet I disagree with them on the nature of desire as previously stated.

With St Augustine I agree that the desire in man's heart is not the desire to become one with the great void but to become mystically united to God. To witness and recieve and bask and bathe in the infinite love of God through the reception of His grace in this life and its culmination in the next before the beatific vision. This puts me fundamentally on the other side of the fence to the Easterners and late Greek Philosophers.

For instance they profess two eternally dualistic principles, which leads to pantheism. That is the absolute is already inside of everything and the fact I do not realise it is because of my bad perception. This I rejection on the grounds that philosophically my justification for the Universe's existence come from [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm"]St Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologia[/url] I wont bother pasting all the arguments but if you open the URL you can see that all of these involve God being a) the first, only and ultimate mover, cause, being etc behind existence and b) ontologically distinct from that existence. The God of the Bible cannot be the same as the fabric of the Universe as the Church Fathers argued repeatedly with the Valentinians, Manicheans and Neoplatonists. Without an ontological distinction between creature and creation one would have to posit evil, change, successive degradation and many other imperfections in God which are contrary to reason as Aquinas illustrates and the testimony of His Word both in text, the Bible, and person, Christ Jesus.

For such philosophical reasons I was persuaded by the Catholic claim to move back from Oriental religion and back to the Catholicism I had abdjured. I think Hans Urs Von Balthasar's article [url="http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/hub_resumethought_mar05.asp"]A resume of my thought[/url] deals quite nicely (and more stylistically) with these themes. You might want to check that out too.

Because of what we affirm about God we cannot affirm that Oriental religion is in possession of the fullness of truth. We cannot both affirm that God is ontologically distinct from the universe and at the same time not affirm it. He either is or He isnt and Christian faith emphatically declares clearly that He is. The Greek of the prologue of gospel of John hammers this home in the prologue by using the same words used in the Seputagint version of Genesis 1 for 'in the beginning'. Because Catholicism claims that it is through the Divine Logos that all things came into existence and our philosophical justification for that seems to hold we cannot consider these people to be anything but mistaken in their beliefs.

However, that doesn't mean all elements of non-Catholic religion are false and the Church does not affirm this either in its official teachings. If it did it would have to condemn itself, for we agree with other religions on many seperate points. As I've highlighted for me the study of the Eastern religions was very helpful in understanding what it is I had rejected in favour of them. Buddha's teaching on desire is apt, desire is unquencheable in this world and chase around after the trinkets of this world is foolish and will only bring you despair. However, his refusal to engage in metaphysics and indeed the solidity of Catholic metaphysics gave me an answer to desire that goes deeper than all the great Oriental religious figures from Gautama to Plotinus. Desire, personal existence and indeed existence in its totality can only truly be accounted for in a unified and intelligible manner by Catholic metaphysics.

Why I am here? Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do I desire? All of these questions are reconciled in a more reasonable way by the Catholic metaphysic than in any other faith as Von Balthasar's article illustrates.

[Ash Wednesday]

I don't know what to think of the Buddhist kid. I'm not a relativist since I believe we're all called to truth, but I'd say it's nice if he's a holy kid, and I can respect and appreciate the good that exists in other religions outside of Christianity. I certainly think people of other religions seek God just like the rest of us -- since that's part of man's inner nature -- to seek God. But what's up with the Buddhist boy, I really couldn't say. I don't think he's a reincarnation of Buddha, though.

[quote name='PadreSantiago' date='Nov 23 2005, 04:32 PM']=)  You get the first annual phatmass.com Free thinkers award!!!!! Congradulations you've decided to think outside of the box!!!!!
[right][snapback]799151[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No offense Padre, but I think that's a pretty rude way to give someone a compliment. It's not as cute and witty as you may think.

[Aloysius]

of course it's only free thinking if it's against what most people here think (oh wait, you've just put a limitation on it)

obviously when a large enough group of people gets together and agrees to the same things, they are not free thinkers ....

[Church Punk]

I have just read the update on this guy... It appears that he is rather humble and insists that he is not a Buddha.

As stated above I believe that this feat is possible, nothing is impossible. While under deep meditation it is a sceintifc fact the the human body can do many amazing feats.

[quote]The fervour increased last week when a snake is said to have bitten Ram, and a curtain was drawn around him. After five days it was opened and he spoke. "Tell the people not to call me a Buddha," he said. "I don't have the Buddha's energy. I am at the level of rinpoche [lesser divinity].

"A snake bit me but I do not need treatment. I need six years of deep meditation."[/quote]

[PhillyMatt]

Or someone tosses him some food and drink every night when nobody can see....

[PadreSantiago]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Nov 23 2005, 08:43 PM']I don't know what to think of the Buddhist kid. I'm not a relativist since I believe we're all called to truth, but I'd say it's nice if he's a holy kid, and I can respect and appreciate the good that exists in other religions outside of Christianity. I certainly think people of other religions seek God just like the rest of us -- since that's part of man's inner nature -- to seek God. But what's up with the Buddhist boy, I really couldn't say. I don't think he's a reincarnation of Buddha, though.
No offense Padre, but I think that's a pretty rude way to give someone a compliment. It's not as cute and witty as you may think.
[right][snapback]799287[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No offense but this is the internet where tone of voice cannot be adaquetly communicated. There was no ill will in my comment.

[jezic]

there is a difference though between his meditation and that which would lead to God.

Buddhism is completely internally focused. In reality one does approach God in so much as our immortal soul present in every person is a reflection of him. But Buddhism is limited by this, that is the extent. It seeks to pacify the soul to a level where it is "at rest" (essentially)

Christian meditation and other things are focused on an external being, the Source and Creator of everything. In so much as he is infinite this contemplation of him is infinite.

i am not sure why i wanted to add that, but go for it. Tear it to pieces.

[son_of_angels]

I agree, jezic. Something I'm always telling people, Christian meditation is simply not that exciting, at least in a carnal sense. There is no promise in some heightened awareness, no fantastic feats of mental prowess, no amazing, death defying fasts. At best, there is a growth in one's love for God, a heightened desire to obey him, and a greater knowledge of Christ's nature.

Yet, that is the best, for it is focused on the soul, and not on the body. Consider what St. Bernard of Clairvaux says to the body "Thou art residing here in thy native country, but the soul, which has taken lodging with thee, is a pilgrim and an exile on the earth....Expose thyself with patience, nay with gladness, to all kinds of sufferings and privations" and later, of the soul's returning, "Oh, how great shall be that glory, how unspeakable that exultation when the Creator of the universe, Who before came hidden and humble for the purpose of justifying souls, comes now visible and sublime to glorify thee, O flesh" We should not treat the carnal exaltation, which comes by this carnal form of meditation and practice, as the object, but rather the conclusion of our resurrection, which only God may accomplish, when he reforms this body.

Consider the pious words of the Psalmist, "Lord, my heart has not been exalted, nor are mine eyes lofty" and avoid such impious actions, and do not see them as holiness, but, rather, a slightly more exalted form of carnality.