Permanently Deleted
I usually find countering with abstract and esoteric Catholic mysticism scares them off. The concept of the Divine Logos is especially disconcerting to them.
Technically, Catholic Mysticism, even the shitty Trad kind, is anti-fundamentalist (for the same reason Sufis are)
You know how some Catholics do all that weird shit with the saints and the ecstatic or hermetic monastic traditions, and pilgrimages and the bathing in holy waters near shrines to the Virgin Mary? That has a theological meaning at least as abstacted as a Thai monk tying a red string on you has to the Pali Canon.
That is only the surface level of the deep and bafflingly complex Catholic mystical tradition, one which bares certain similarities to Hindu or Buddhist traditions in its attempt at a direct experience of God/reality (which is in some sense the same thing in Catholicism) through contemplation and ritualistic affect.
Look up the works of Simone Weil, a based leftist, Catholic Mystic, and pretty knowledgeable about eastern traditions as well.
It's more that the parts you're uncomfortable with are kind of reliable techniques that will achieve certain insights or mindstates if you keep it connected to the theological base. The issue is when those techniques are mistaken for the actual substance of the religion by the practitioner (much like someone in the Golden Dawn who interprets "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law" as "do whatever you want".)
That's not what Buddha says though (Or Catholicism.) Friends are great, Buddha and his followers had friends. Buddha says "Noble friends and companions are the whole of the holy life." Jesus exhorts people to peace, communion, and love at an individual as well as a collective level.
No, attachment isn't liking a thing, removing attachment is recognising the ultimate impermanence of the thing as an indivisible part of a changing, shifting, interconnected reality and accepting joyfully that inevitable change.
Yeah, Western Buddhists get a taste of that, especially when applied to the Self, and it turns them utterly insufferable (it also turns a lot of Tradcaths insufferable too if they get the Catholic version, but they're already awful so it's hard to notice)
Catholics focus more on "Union with the Divine" rather than "Annhilation of the Self" so it tends to manifest more as an experience of the grace and presence of God and his plan in all things rather than a holistic experience of the oneness of the universe. Functionally it's pretty close to the same thing.
you're really good at oversimplifying things you don't understand :) good skill :)
It's more they gain this marginally mystical insight into the nature of how we perceive reality, and it's not nothing, it does have some benefits in terms of focus and overall wellbeing, and then treat it as if they've been given secret divine knowledge that is utterly obvious but that us ordinary humans Just. Can't. Understand unless they do exactly the same things (even though mystical disciplines are almost functionally the same up to the point you get to the realisation of The Witness.)
Buddha himself basically says "just try my shit out, see if it works." So you've got a good start there. Also most Schools recommend a modest approach to non monastic buddhists, focusing on "Stream Entry".
Where do you find all these highly opinionated Buddhists shouting at you lol I genuinely wonder what weird parts of Internet you end up in...
Am I being called out? Jeeze. Hey Ma, the internet's mad at me again.
No I don't know what I did!
It might be helpful to make a distinction between “pain” and “suffering” in this context. Pain is inevitable; suffering is in part determined by how we react to the pain.
There are probably a few ways you can reduce your reaction to pain, but I think changing or reframing your reaction is more the goal (again, at least in this context) than eliminating a reaction entirely. Buddhism is one framework out of many where people work skillfully with the desire that surrounds pleasure and pain - every breath I take is fulfilling an inevitable need, but I don’t need to be controlled by a resistance born of the idea that I won’t always be breathing, or an attachment to the idea of breathing for the rest of all eternity.
There are definitely people, particularly some western buddhists, who are similarly controlled by a desire to become completely free of the emotions and needs that encompass the human experience - within their own framework, this desire feeds their suffering.
Well I think maybe the first issue is, what do you mean when you say "buddhist?" Because there's a whole lot of different strains and traiditions of buddhist thought, and not all of them agree with each other. Is there any specific tendency whose ideas don't sit well with you?
Well, the way I've learned, it's not so much about avoiding desire as about learning to let go of attachment to the things we desire.
Imagine someone tells you that they're going to give you a chocolate cake. Chocolate cake is good! It's good to enjoy it. But if you spend all day fixating on the cake before you eat it, if you wish for more cake after it's gone, if you compare all subsequent chocolate cakes in your life to that one, then how much suffering have you endured because of your attachment to the cake?
There are ascetics in buddhist-majority regions that beg as a form of meditation, with the goal of letting go of ego and attachment to desire. If they are given food or money, great. If they aren't?
Also great.
Nah, no worries. I'm just doing a bit because I saw OP do another Buddhism thread a few days back and didn't chime in. I hope they're not actuallly calling anyone specific out, because this seems like a pretty esoteric fight to want to pick.
