www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Buddhism & Christianity

If Latin America is ever to return to Monarchy (God forbid) then to the very least it should be on the basis of their own Empire traditions (like the Inca) and not with Spain.

Dear Aklie,

King Juan Carlos is a great example of a true Constitutional Monarch dedicated to democracy and reform - do you not agree?

And Puerto Rico itself is resisting full state status with the U.S. for fear of losing its Spanish identity.

But I am not against the Incan traditions.

I think we can live without the cannibal rituals, though

Alex

Well Mexicans had monarchies thrice:

When we got independence from spain, Agust�n de Yturbide proclaimed himself Emperor and Caesar (well, Mexico ruled from the Oregon mountains and the Red River, to Panama)but he was fired after two years of absurd autocratic rule.
Then some years later, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna became the ruler of the country and proclaimed himself Prince and adopted titles like "His Most excelent Highness", "Perpetual Dictator", "The Highest Eagle", he ruled for years and caused a disaster: wars with Spain, France, and the USA (and they took half of our territory).
Finally in 1862 Maximilian came to "save us" as Emperor. It's sad to say that his rule had been the only decent government we've ever had (he helped the poor a lot, and in only 5 years he created a lot of schools and education, and forgave the debts of all the peasants).

About the fascination for Budhism, I've always been amazed about how the Western people get so easily impressed with tese Oriental religions, such asBudhist sects, the Hare Krishnas, the Hindus and all those things.
They get seduced because they're looking for a spirituality that was denied by their common life, and that the traditional Churches don't offer anymore, but also because it has become a matter of "fashion": yoga, Budhism, tantrism, reflexology, and ocultism.
I'm sure that there are a lot of beauteful things in those spiritualities, but it's better to restore the true spiritual heritage of the West (this is the Bishops's work)

And he completely fooled horrible Old Franco, so my hat is off to him!

"Don't you have rats in Spain or did Franco have them all shot??"

- John Cleese as Basil Fawlty

The “Spanish” culture of American Latinos is their own and not the property of Spain. Puerto Ricans refer to their language and cultural identity and not to Spain. The Spanish part in Latino identity is very important but it is only a part. Don't forget about the Indio and the Africano, quit putting too much emphasis on the Gringo. Our California Chicanos celebrate their Latino heritage and are very proud of their Spanish as well as their Aztec, they do not for one second think of themselves as Spanish. They are quick to point out to those curious that their Spanish is way different than the blancos in Spain.

First of all, before you get too comfortable you need to check out an old article: 1961 “Cannibalism in Early Britain” Antiquity 35: 304-7. As late as the 19th Century in parts of both Denmark and Sweden the blood of beheaded criminals was drunk as a "cure' for a variety of disorders.

The Incas (in the Andes) did not have any cannibal rituals (but they did eat lizard soup and guinea pig). You refer to the Aztecs (in Mexico) practices as indicated in their painting and recorded by conquistador butchers. Well they recorded that it was the Aztec Nobles and warriors that ate the limbs from sacrificial victims and it was not everyone as it was considered something elites had access to. Not a few anthropologists have suggested that this was a means of alleviating their protein starved diet (remember the cow and the pig had not arrived yet) but I think they over state their case. No evidence of cannibalism is forthcoming from other Mexican civilizations (such as they Maya) as far as I know.

Anyways all Christians are takers of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord.

Amen to that a thousand times, but not all Oriental religions are non-Christian

A. Semaet

Dear Aklie,

Of course, Spanish culture underwent change etc. just as French culture and English did in North America.

No one is suggesting otherwise.

But what is wrong with a Commonwealth or the Francophonie?

They both exist and I see them work well for all people concerned.

That is up to the Latinos, of course. But the Spanish Empire included the Phillippines too, as they are named after "King Philip." There is no reason why a Spanish Commonwealth with the King of Spain as figurehead could not work well for Latinos too. The Spanish-American Catholic Church in the U.S. has its own traditions, very much resembling that of a Particular Church etc.

I might as well admit it - I also think an Ethiopian constitutional monarchy would be best for, well, you know . . .

As for cannibalism, scholarly views swing like a pendulum.

Margaret Visser's work on the Rituals of Dinner, Chapter I reviews the recent anthropological studies to show that cannibalism was a reality around the world after most of this discipline discarded the view some years back.

And I was only kidding about the Incans . . .

Reading about the cannibal practices has not dampened my love for Mexican food one iota

Also, are there two Iskanders in Ethiopian tradition? Someone mentioned this and I am confused!

Alex

Dear Remie,

How is reflexology a religion?

It cured me of insomnia.

Are we getting just a little paranoid here?

Alex

What I notice about Christians; is that any time a convert or possible convert, comes seeking questions, noticing all the beauty, wisdom, and logic of the Catholic and Orthodox faith - this is definately a sign to the Catholic or Orthodox that the "trueness" of the Catholic and Orthodox faith is evident. Where as, persons noticing the same attributes in other religions are evidently fooled and silly. Even concerning some of these faiths like Buddhism and Hinduism that are far older then Christianity it's self.

Buddhism may not be a matter of "fashion" for some people. It's theology is closely related to Christianity. And some may believe it's metaphysical understanding to be far beyond that of Christianity.

Personaly from experience, I find Buddhist understanding of - let's call it - 'divinity within the indiviual person' more logical then the Christian understanding of this same reality. What do I mean by this? Well a number of things. But lets not get into all of that. But I will say this. I still hold Christ as my Lord, and except that He may be who He said He was i.e. the Son of God. I would understand the "Father" differently then Christianity would though, I do not believe the "First Person of the Trinity" to possess personality. This is significant because it relates to the way one understands prayer. Themselves. The world around them. Example: The "Father" could care less about your noble intentions. "He" would not be moved one way or the other whether you court a woman or rape a woman. Your intentions matter profoundly though when it comes to "His" eternalness (for lack of a better word). All things have consequences to them according to logic - it is this that effects one after she leaves this world. How? I'm not certain, don't know enough yet.

As for Christian spirituality and teaching tradition. I found Catholicism most revealing in community - mind you for any fault I could speak of I could also give it praise. Final analysis great people - When I was given the order to no longer speak to the Bishop until 'further notice'. It was because I asked him questions relating to life while we ate lunch (something I guess one would never had dared to do to Jesus or his Apostles). One of the outrageous questions I asked him was: could a person with a high sex drive still be called to religious life - monastic or other? Others talked to the Bishop about baseball. That's fine. I don't watch baseball though. Nor was this subject I wanted to discuss with a "teacher of the Church". I couldn't ask the Bishop in the five minute confession prior to Mass because at the time I was only in community a little more then two weeks and community forbade you to go to confession for your first month. Anyways I suppose I could have waited a few more weeks and seen what I could have gotten in five or six minutes, but as is. In all fairness though the Bishop did not have any problems with my question - infact he probably welcomed them. My fellow lay brothers however? It was quite something though to try and avoid the Bishop for awhile so as I would not incur punishment and keep to faithful to not speaking to him as ordered. Walk briskly by and give a nod, eat at another table, exist the opposite door he's standing by.

Buddhism I don't? It might allow more conversation outside of the realm of baseball with it's teachers intrusted with "spiritual guidance"? I will have to see. I've already contacted one Buddhist place.

Justin

I did not say anything about Orthodoxy being true and Buddhism being false. All I did was to suggest that you may not have looked deep enough into and appreciate what you already had before you started looking else where.

I once saw a poster hanging in one of my professors offices. It was entitled something to the effect like “10 rules of being a human being.” Number 7, if I am not mistaken (and realize that I am paraphrasing from memory), said something like: "There' is not better than "here.' When you go "there' seeking a better place it just becomes another "here' and you start to look for another "there.' You will soon find enough in Buddhism to be critical of.

To tell you the truth I can not relate to the experiences you had with Catholic confessions, because ours are not like that. We do not have those private confessions where the priest can not see us. When we confess it is less formal, usually at my Spiritual Father's house over for dinner (or he over my house). When his wife steps out of the room for something I start confessing, when she re-enters we shut up and talk about something else, on and on. He does not look at me in the face when I am actually confessing and he usually writes down my sins one by one. After I am done he tells me what I need to do in penance for each one (fast this many days, give that much money to the poor, prostrate this many times at Church) before I take the Holy Communion at the next Liturgy. I will let someone who knows the Latin tradition answer that particular issue that you raise. But on the face of it I must say that I doubt even if you were in a room of Buddhist monks, if people were having fun and talking about baseball and you all of a sudden asked “could a person with a high sex drive still be called to religious life” not a few people might take offense. There is a time and a place for everything, be mindful.

Remie is not wrong. Western people are easily impressed by these Eastern Religions and it is usually because they are searching for a spirituality that they did not think that their traditional Church was offering. I don't know how it is in the “Middle West” but out here in California all of these pagan, shaman, goddess cults, Hare Krisnias, and other spiritualities flourish. They have T.V. programs and radio shows. On the talk radio station that I usually listen to there is an annoying show that comes on called "visionary activism' or something. The hosts (all Westerners) and all of the guests are an inconsistent bunch of people adhering to combinations of everything from Greek Astrology, Native American religions, animism, and anything else so long as it is not Christianity. That is it; the only consistent thing that they ever do is bad mouth the Christian faith (and never really know what in the world they are talking about). Every once in a while they try to justify it by having a program with some phony discourse on the Gnostic traditions and how they were better than Christianity. These people are totally taken by exoticism.

My experience with Buddhism is not extensive. When I was in middle school I was an amateur boxer and my trainer was a Mexican American convert to Buddhism. Before we started training he would insist that we sit in front of some box he would open up (I forgot what he called it) and we would have to chant some stuff in some language (I forgot what language it was): miyo, rangay, quo or something like that. I was very uncomfortable [I never told my parents because I knew they would take me out of boxing if they knew] and the way my trainer would convince me to do it is by telling me that the other boy I trained with, Hector, WHO WAS AN ALTAR BOY did the chants. I also remember when he took me to their meetings one time. As I remember it was composed mostly of westerners. I doubt that a cradle Buddhist in his land of origin refers to or thinks about Christianity twice if at all; but this group focused entirely on what was wrong with Christianity and the west and what was better about Buddhism (I see converts have their issues in every religion eh?). I am glad that my 13 year old brain could not comprehend the meaning of most of their utterances, it may have confused me.

Personally from experience, I find Buddhist understanding of - let's call it - 'divinity within the individual person' more logical than the Christian understanding of this same reality.

Why is it more logical? If the universe is infinite in its complexity (even if it is possible to investigate it empirically) and in its totality beyond our understanding, then how much more is he who created the universe beyond human logic?

Christ says that the Kingdom of God is within YOU, the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of the LOGOS was to restore you to your direct and unimpeded relationship with him. I do not know what in the Buddhist expression you think is better than that.

What's up with this focus on logic and rationalism anyway? I can already hear Mr. Spock from Star Trek, “Captain, the first person in the Trinity having a personality is not logical.” Christianity is not about logics; the unity of God is not some arithmetical abstraction but an all-inclusive perfection. Man created math, but God created man.

He died through His will, and was buried willingly; He died to give life to the dead; He was buried to raise those who were buried, to keep the living, to justify the impure, to justify the sinners, to gather together those who were scattered, and to turn the sinners to glory and honor.—Ethiopian Divine Liturgy.

So to repeat what I said earlier, come back home.

A. Semaet

P.S. and another thing Buddhism is only older than Christianity in the sense that the Buddha lived before the Incarnation. But it is not older the Judaic tradition on which Christianity is based. But if it is oldness that you seek, then why not try the belief systems of Hunter Gathering groups? They are the oldest.

Max,

For those who struggle with theism, Buddhism certainly is a better solution to"being" than materialistic atheism is; Buddhism is profound and deeply spiritual, as you have already discovered.

Though you--as you say--have lost faith in a "Father God"--as I did-- I hope you will retain a faith in the compassion of the man, Christ Jesus.

The Buddha, when harangued by a disciple about the nature of gods, essentially told the disciple that his questions were rediculous since if the gods existed, they cared nothing for him. Can you live with that? Can you live without hope--in the Christian sense--in a personal "heaven?"

If you are a Vietnam veteran, I suggest you read "The Art of Happiness" and "Ethics for the New Millenium," both by the Dalai Lama.And please discover the healing power of inhaling and exhaling. No mumbo jumbo here, for the practice REALLY produces positive results.

Abdur

Aklie,

When a convert to Christianity from Buddhism comes to Christianity should the Christian point the convert back towards Buddhism - thinking the Buddhist should not be trivial and find what he's looking for in his home of Buddhism?

The matter of the Bishop had more to do with "putting" the Bishop on the spot - that and my percieved (real or not) domineering personality. How was I putting the "teacher of the Church" on the spot? Well to some who were no more theologians then myself - it was the fact of asking the Bishop questions he my not be prepared for? And again I have a driven personality thrashed into me from the Corps not a necessarily appreciated trait amongst the "obedience" of Catholics.

Aklie it would also be worth mentioning here that it was not a matter of just being "mindful". Why? Because others where ordered not to talk to me about anything that had to do with the Church - not history, not saints, not nada. Now this may be of some good purpose. Infact I learned from it - humility. I learned from a number of things in community. One of which is I should learn to live out my Christianity more so then discuss it. And I don't imply that in any way that you or others here don't live out their faith. Truely I do believe you and many others are examples for me. Not me you. So for me, not speaking of others, I learned something.

And I am not jumping to Buddhism in search of some faith not to be critical of. This would just be wrong, when I have not been a model of Christianity myself. But what you misunderstand is that Buddhism may be what I have always been looking for, just haven't known it.

As for the "divinity within" thing. Let me put it to you this way. I prayed for a long time for the loss of sexual desire - never thought it would come. To my surprise toward my end time in community I recieved such. Not a pure loss mind you but a desire not to want sex, like a desire I had for sex. After being out of community awhile though the temptation and want for sex grows strong. Yet I still can feel that solid basic desire deep inside me. I believe I could live a celibate life. But this I know did not come from some God with a personality. It came from me. From the divinty within me that has zero personality. My prayers were not so much the Christian Gods concern as I thought, what they were was a process of drawing inwards in my self. In many ways I have been looking for myself this entire time. Granted the divinty preceeds me, I come from it not it I. But it is I and not I. At any rate I have long prayed to Jesus ever since I was small and I will continue to do so and He is still my Lord. The Virgin Mary I love. And no matter where I go a number of the saints I shall bring with me. But I do not pray to Christ any more in the expectation of Him having involvement in my life. I'm sure Christ can do. I just accept that He does not.

Abdur,

Thank you for your well wishes. No I am not old enough to be a Vietnam veteran. I'm a knuckle head gen x'er.

Justin

Aklie,

Let me just say this before I get the verbal thrashing of not being the worthy Catholic which undoubtly is to follow.

I was not the only person to have thier struggles, if you will, in community. Every human person to my knowledge had them. Some more so then others. It's just the way the community was set up. And that can be a good thing because it places pressure on you. Infact one of the people that had a problem with my discussion with the Bishop, went through quite a hard time for a moment in community. I do not dislike any of these guy. It would be the opposite I love them and admire them. But I disagree with some things that where cultural to the community, and I feel that some of the Catholic aspects of the community and of Catholicism just isn't for me. Example: the Bishop situation I spoke off. Your wrong, another persons right, I don't give a good da** to be honest. I'm looking for something then just the mantra of obedience and discipline.

The confession issue I can tell you straight out had to do with the fact that we where considered not worthy enough to confess. Community was set up with military philosophy in away - your nothing until we tell you you are somebody. The only problem is I'm not 18 years old any more - thus my hard headness. I'm somebody regardless If the Catholic Church says so or not or if President Bush says so or not. I had little problem with the wait period on confession though, I figured it was good for reflection. Infact I adapted to most things. Not my heart though.

I brung up my community experience because I thought it was reflective of Catholic spirituality. The obedience above all.

The problem a person or two had with me speaking about the Church and all that entails. Is because while I would be out working in the garden with my friend that was in charge of the garden. To all horrors, I would discuss with him prayer, and Catholicism, and Merton, contemplation, Church history, and how one could be a better husband - since he was once married. Hey this was a very disciplined prayer too. This guy gave up some hours of sleep to prayer. But any ways my "water got cut short" on that too. Others were ordered to not discuss any of these things with me. Just as I was ordered not to shun certain people at times or whatever different order I or anyone receieved.

I have to tell you while it's not the toughest thing I ever been through it certainly wasn't easy. I have huge respect for all the people that commit years or even life to that machine. Certainly most of us don't.

Justin

Real Buddhism is all about practice and learning to control your mind and, therefore, your body.

A funny thing about Buddhism is that you don't have to be a Buddhist to be a practioner of Buddhism. In fact, you could continue to attend Holy Mass until "the sediment settles to the bottom and the water is clear."

Many Catholics--clergy and laity--practice some Buddhist disciplines, so why not you?

Finally, if you have lost your faith in a personal god because of a personal trial, there is hope for you. To this kafir you still seem to be very Catholic.

Abdur

Aklie said:

"Our California Chicanos celebrate their Latino heritage and are very proud of their Spanish as well as their Aztec, they do not for one second think of themselves as Spanish."

mmm... "chicanos" are very confused about their identity, they invented a new one because they're ashamed of their past, the Nation of Aztlan (a chicano movement) for example, has serious flaws in its principles, they try to rescue an Aztec mythic identity because they don't identify themselves with the real Mexico (the modern post-Spanish European civilization of Mexico).

About the traditions of Latin American Catholicism, it's hard to determine if they are really authentic� or not. Many of them are, but many other were lately "inculturated" as a after Vatican II's reforms and were brought by the Western World. It's similar to what happenned in Africa, for example. There was a confussion between a proccess of organic inculturation according to the traditions of the people, by the people (I supose that this was the original purpose of the fathers of Vatican II), and a "renewed" system trying to "restore" somehing (60's antropologism).

"No evidence of cannibalism is forthcoming from other Mexican civilizations (such as they Maya) as far as I know."

You're right. The important pre-hispanic cultures and civilizations such as the Aztec, the Maya, the Toltec, etc were true civilizations, there's no evidence of cannibalism.
However, not all the inhabitants were members of these civilizations. The North was inhabited by wild, nomadic tribes (the acaxee, xixime tribes of Sinaloa and Durango did practice cannibalism). I love to read the writings of the monks about the evangelization of those places and how they described what they had seen.

I once heard that in India there is a wonderful monastery that follows the oriental ascetism, but the monks are totally christian. I think that there are a lot of things that are very good in thei methods and the Asian spirituality.

About reflexology, I meant that it was a fashion

I think it is true that some forms of Buddhism -- Zen, in particular, comes to mind here -- have a definite affinity with some kinds of Christian practice. That is, one who has a contemplative approach to Christianity, using Western parlance, might find bridges to the practice of Zen, particularly as cultivated by the Soto and Rinzai sects of Zen, which are particularly practice-focused and relatively beliefless. There are numerous Catholic priests who are also Zen Roshi, for example, and have integrated their Catholicism with Zen practice.

However, care must be taken. The *ethos* of Zen, and all other Buddhism, is very, very different from that of Christianity. Buddhism tends to be very egocentric, for starters. The idea is that by focusing your mind, by training yourself to do that, you begin to break down the false dualism of self and other, but the practice is really a lot of self-focus, ultimately.

Buddhism is also very nihilistic -- the world is a place of suffering from which one must be liberated. Buddhist compassion stems from the desire of the enlightened to assist others to escape the suffering world by becoming liberated from it. Christian emphasis on the inherent goodness of creation -- however tainted by the fall -- is notably absent in the Buddhist worldview. Buddhists have compassion for the world, for creatures, because they perceive the one-ness of all creatures in suffering, and therefore they desire to liberate all from suffering. It's, in all, a pretty negative view of creation. The compassion may appear similar to that expressed in some Christian writings, but the motivation for it is very, very different.

Finally, I think you will find that there is very little *there*, once you get to a certain point with Buddhism. It is a reaching for a vast emptiness, really. So, while I have found certain aspects of Buddhist perspectives to be interesting, ultimately I don't find Buddhism as such to be very compelling when compared with Christianity. It's not completely false, but the emphasis seems to lead one to view things rather differently from the way a Christian would.