Amos

No objection except that Catholicism at one time was a way of life and not a religion for religion's sake.

Much worse. In protestant America it is the playground where souls are raped instead of saved. Thanks but it is not Eastern although it may seem Eastern to Western perversion. Mystery is mystery and realization is realization in the East or in the West and it just is not good enought to say that we are omni-being without existing as non-being. Hence "to be is not to be."

Radorth

There is much truth in Jung's statement. But then, ask any of my Christian friends if they consider me "religious." They will burst into laughter for the most part. I've never been religious material, which may explain some of my extraordinary mystical excursions.

My "apologetics" consists mostly in mocking various belief systems, especially what I would call atheist religions. For if religion is defined as achieving utopia through human effort, I am far less religious than the majority of atheists.

Rad

Mageth

No objection except that Catholicism at one time was a way of life and not a religion for religion's sake.

And that claim is also made by many Protestants, who claim something along the lines that their belief is a "relationship" and not a "religion". Any belief system, Catholic or Protestant, that is externally realized, that proclaims a subject/object relationship between Man and God, that is based on a "revelation" such as the Bible, that promotes certain actions that are necessary or recommended, and that holds that their way is the way to spiritual enlightenment and to God, is a Religion for religion's sake.

Thanks but it is not Eastern although it may seem Eastern to Western perversion.

Well, I didn't say it was Eastern, I said it sounds Eastern. It for sure sounds more Eastern than Western, in regards to the Western separation of Man from God in a subject/object relationship.

Mystery is mystery and realization is realization in the East or in the West

True, but "Eastern" in my usage doesn't describe a geographical separation but a way of thinking about Mystery and a way of approaching Realization.

and it just is not good enought to say that we are omni-being without existing as non-being.

Which I didn't say.

Hence "to be is not to be."

Very Eastern, that...

iccarus

Can you expalin please, without using self-contratictions, or just throwing the word "Eastern" around, you actually mean by the phrase "To be is not to be" This sounds like it is deep, whether it is philospohy or horse dung is yet to be seen.
Iccarus

emotional

"To be is not to be" is a contradiction in terms. It's like saying "X equals Not-X", or "good is bad" or "square circle".

To be is to be. A rose is a rose is a rose. There are absolutes, and this world is real, not an illusion.

Amos

No, Catholicism ends when an intimate relationship with the divine begins and this is about where protestantism begins . . . which in turn is why they think that Catholics are not saved.

In Catholicism rebirth that was incipient from God lands us in purgatory and from there we leave religion behind to work out our own salvation. We enter heaven in 40 months or less and do not spend 40 years in the paradox sinfull yet saved (the desert)such as protestants must because for them it is not over until you die nonetheless(see Jn.6:58 on this). Catholics are sinners and never/should never profess to be saved as Catholic. In fact, the word salvation should never be part of their vocabulary because if salvation comes as a thief in the night we cannot even have one eye asquint towards it or it will not be like a thief in the night.

Of course not and I am in full agreement with you. Yes and the question "to be or not to be" was posed by a Western Catholic.

Aradia

Silly man. There are no absolutes.

The only Truth is that there is no Truth.

Mageth

Can you expalin please, without using self-contratictions, or just throwing the word "Eastern" around, you actually mean by the phrase "To be is not to be" This sounds like it is deep, whether it is philospohy or horse dung is yet to be seen.
Iccarus

I don't know exactly what Amos meant by it.

And I'm sorry if I'm throwing the word "Eastern" around; Amos, my subject, apparently understood what I was referring to; I didn't consider the others here that might not.

The essence of Eastern religious thought, the way I understand it, is that there is something ineffable that underlies all existence and consciousness. In Japanese Zen Buddhism, this ineffable is referred to as the Tao; in Hinduism, dharma. In Eastern religions, "gods", if they are thought to exist, are not universe-creating gods like Yahweh or Allah; the gods themselves, like humans and other creatures and things, are but manifestations of the underlying mystery. Thus, each of us are, in a sense, "god". Various practices and meditations are available for one to come to awareness, to consciousness, of the mystery that's within you. One of these practices is meditating on such seeming contradictions as "being and not-being".

Approaching the statement "Being and not-being" as either philosophy or horse dung will get you nowhere, for it is neither. It is not meant to describe the mystery, for the mystery is indescribable. It's meant to help free you from dualistic thinking, to lead you to an awareness of the unity of existence (and, paradoxically, non-existence). Thus, Eastern thought on these matters is typically difficult for "Westerners" to grasp, because they are born and raised in a culture that teaches Dualistic thinking from birth, unlike Eastern cultures.

Note that that's my limited understanding of Eastern mystical thought. I'm still learning, and tomorrow I might give a different answer. But the truth is, neither I nor anyone else here can probably answer such a question thoroughly - that is something one can only do for oneself, if you're interested, by reading and contemplating Eastern religious texts (e.g. the Tao te Ching) and reading various authors who try to explain Eastern thought to "Westerners", e.g. Joseph Campbell.

emotional

Eastern thinking causes softening of the brain all round. I much prefer the certainty of the West:

"God is the Creator of the universe. He is both immanent and transcendent. Between the Creator and the creation a great gulf is fixed, but He pervades all of the creation. He is the All-Wise, All-Holy Father. He is Love. He saves sinners, cleanses the sins of men. He is the Lord of Life and Death. He is the Light of Love that all who die meet. He is the Reviewer of Life. He is the Lord of Heaven and Hell. He is the All-Merciful. May His blessing shower us all."

Aradia

Not quite. Zen and Taoism aren't equal, though the former takes from the latter (though is descended from Ch'an).

Ehhh....

Not entirely. There are various creation myths in eastern religions; see hinduism.

This is a very zen koan kinda thang. Don't generalise it too much.

But you got most of the rest correct.


-- Your friendly neighbourhood buddhist