Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Buddhism & Christianity: Not Reconciliable

edited July 2010 in Faith & Religion
I've seen that there are people who call themselves Buddhist Christians or those who try to show how they are compatible. Or some people were brought up Christian and want to keep parts of Christianity with them in their Buddhist practices.

I agree that both religions teach compassion and good deeds. But I simply have to say that Buddhism is not, has not, and never will be compatible with Christianity. The philosophies are entirely different and that's actually something I can appreciate. I don't feel that there should be one single philosophy that everyone agrees on. As Dalai Lama said, everyone has different mental dispositions and different philosophies satisfy different people.

There is no need to strip down Christianity or Buddhism just to blend them into one agreeable philosophy. It's not even possible to do so. Just like there is no need to reconcile the philosophy of Spinoza with the philosophy of Kant. Accept that they are different and appreciate them for what they are. (I am a formal debater and I may debate til my death over which is better, but i would be disappointed if I were to actually succeed to convince you.)

Contrast:

- Buddha says God is irrelevant and Enlightenment and Nirvana is the purpose. Christianity says eternal life with God is the ultimate goal.

- Buddha says believe nothing, even if he has said it, unless it agrees with your own reasoning. Jesus says believe and have faith, only in him, and he will grant you salvation.

- Buddha said all beliefs are barriers to knowing the truth; be silent and know. Christianity says belief is a virtue and required to get to heaven.

- Buddhism transcends the fight between good and evil and accepts that both are necessary because one can't exist without the other. Christianity wants good to triumph over evil.

There are many other differences, but these are some major reasons why they're incompatible.

(This is something I felt that needs to be said, because if I see something that doesn't seem right to me, I will not hesitate to point it out and express my views.)

Edit: I would like to clarify that I am referring to Orthodox Christianity (fundamentalist as opposed to mystical or Gnostic).


.
«1345

Comments

  • edited April 2010
    I used to believe fervently in ecumenism, "perennial philosophy", etc.

    Not anymore.

    Conventional Christianity is completely irreconcilable with Buddhism. If fact, Buddhism is completely irreconcilable with any other religion, since no other religion has dependent arising.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    Buddha says believe nothing, even if he has said it, unless it agrees with your own reasoning. Jesus says believe and have faith, only in him, and he will grant you salvation.
    Buddha did not say what you said. The Buddha did not say to follow one's own reasoning.

    The Buddha said to use reasoning to discern if what one believes falls within the framework of suffering & non-suffering, harming & non-harming.

    The Buddha said faith (saddha) is the first spiritual power.
    Buddhism transcends the fight between good and evil and accepts that both are necessary because one can't exist without the other. Christianity wants good to triumph over evil.
    Sounds like Taoism rather than Buddhism. The Buddha himself triumphed over all evil (within himself). One of the titles of the Buddha is The Victorious One.
    (This is something I felt that needs to be said, because if I see something that doesn't seem right to me, I will not hesitate to point it out and express my views.)
    Of we all express our views. Merely our views.

    :)
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    ...no other religion has dependent arising.
    No other religion has anatta & sunnata & dhamma dhatu also.

    :)
  • edited April 2010
    Buddha did not say what you said. The Buddha did not say to follow one's own reasoning.

    The Buddha said to use reasoning to discern if what one believes falls within the framework of suffering & non-suffering, harming & non-harming.

    I didn't say to follow your own reasoning either. It is, as you said, a tool of discernment.

    The actual quote is this: "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
    The Buddha said faith (saddha) is the first spiritual power.

    I think his use of the word faith is a bit different just like the word "suffering" doesn't correctly describe "dukkha."

    Sounds like Taoism rather than Buddhism. The Buddha himself triumphed over all evil (within himself). One of the titles of the Buddha is The Victorious One.

    Perhaps, but nonetheless, Buddhism transcends dualism.
  • edited April 2010
    The two simply don't mix well. Christianity is a faith-based religion where salvation is granted; Buddhism is a representation of the truth and the methods whereby you may know the truth for yourself (self-salvation through effort). It's like trying to add apples and oranges. :) Some Buddhists believe in God, and we're pretty sure Jesus (Yeshua) really did exist, but other than that...
  • edited April 2010
    It would be so simple if we could come to closure on the subject of which "religion" or "faith" or "practice" was the correct one. We can always point out the difference in any 2 or more "things". We can also find similarities. Remember the story about the famous butcher that always kept his knife extremely sharp without sharpening it. When asked how he kept it so very sharp without sharpening it he said "because I cut between the bones". It seems the same skillful means applies in these type of discussions. There is no correct answer or view. but one might try skillful means and compassion.
  • edited April 2010
    Yet dharma is dharma and adharma is adharma.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited April 2010
    I think his use of the word faith is a bit different just like the word "suffering" doesn't correctly describe "dukkha."
    Faith as in confidence, not Faith as in hope.
    This is established in Buddhist understanding.....
  • edited April 2010
    federica wrote: »
    Faith as in confidence, not Faith as in hope.
    This is established in Buddhist understanding.....

    Thanks for clarifying that. That's what I was thinking as well, but I couldn't assert it with certainty.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    The actual quote is this: "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
    Where is the quote from? You are required to cite it from a source. This is internet ettiquette.

    As I said, the Buddha did not say this.

    :buck:
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    federica wrote: »
    Faith as in confidence, not Faith as in hope.
    This is established in Buddhist understanding.....
    Faith is faith. It is belief. It is trust. It is confidence. It is convinction.

    It is a faculty of mind.

    Faith in Jesus, engaged as a mental faculty, is the same mental faculty when faith in the Eightfold Path.

    Christians have confidence in Jesus.

    Buddhists have faith in the Buddha, Sangha, EightfoldPath and viraga (dispassion).

    The Buddha said the highest saddha (faith, trust) is that in dispassion (the cessation of craving).

    This is established in Buddhist understanding.

    :)
    "Now what is the faculty of conviction (saddha)? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, has conviction, is convinced of the Tathagata's Awakening: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.' This is called the faculty of conviction.

    Indriya-vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of the Mental Faculties
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    Thanks for clarifying that. That's what I was thinking as well, but I couldn't assert it with certainty.
    There is no clarification here. Confusion is growing.

    :crazy:
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    Buddhism transcends the fight between good and evil and accepts that both are necessary because one can't exist without the other. Christianity wants good to triumph over evil.
    The reality is opposite to the above.

    Buddhism teaches the eradication of evil is possible because all beings have Buddha-Nature.

    Christianity teaches all beings are inherently sinful (evil) and require the forgiveness & grace of Christ.

    The Buddha said:
    "Abandon what is unskillful [evil], monks. It is possible to abandon what is unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.'

    But because it is possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.'

    If this abandoning of what is unskillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.'

    "Develop what is skillful, monks. It is possible to develop what is skillful. If it were not possible to develop what is skillful, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'

    But because it is possible to develop what is skillful, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'

    If this development of what is skillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because this development of what is skillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'"

    Kusala Sutta: Skillful

    The Bible states:
    <SUP id=en-NIV-27998 class=versenum>21</SUP>But now a righteousness from God, apart from law [moral conduct], has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. <SUP id=en-NIV-28002 class=versenum>25</SUP>God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,<SUP class=footnote value='URL="http://newbuddhist.com/forum/#fen-NIV-28002i"]i[/URL'>/SIZE][URL="http://newbuddhist.com/forum/#fen-NIV-28002i"][SIZE=2]i[/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=2</SUP> through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— <SUP id=en-NIV-28003 class=versenum>26</SUP>he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

    Romans 3
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    Buddha said all beliefs are barriers to knowing the truth; be silent and know.
    Buddha did not say this. Again, you are required to quote a source.

    Again, you are confusing Taoism with Buddhism.

    The Buddha said Right View or Right Belief is the forerunner of all skilful dhammas.

    :smilec:
  • SimonthepilgrimSimonthepilgrim Veteran
    edited April 2010
    A large number of Jews currently practice Buddhism. Rodger Kamenetz, the author of The Jew in the Lotus, says, “A third of all Western Buddhist leaders come from Jewish roots.” Half of the participants in the Vipassana meditation retreat near Dharamsala, India, are Israelis. According to one estimate, three out of four Western visitors to the spiritual center of Tibetan Buddhism and the seat of the Dalai Lama are Jewish. Most of the street signs in Dharamsala sport Hebrew letters.
    A recent cover story of the Jerusalem Report profiles three Jews who have been living in Dharamsala for years:
    • Venerable Tenzin Josh, formerly Steven Gluck of London;
    • Ruth Sonam, formerly Ruth Berliner of Northern Ireland; and
    • Itamar Sofer, an Israeli who fled the pressure of army service in Gaza to find peace in the Himalayas.
    In describing his 253 monastic vows, such as dressing modestly and not sharing private space with women, Tenzin Josh remarks, “It’s not much different from being an Orthodox Jew.”


    from http://www.aish.com/sp/so/48893617.html



    Indeed, I met many "BuJus" during my own stay in Dharamshala.
  • edited April 2010
    Buddha did not say this. Again, you are required to quote a source.

    Here's the source:

    http://spectrumofbeliefs.blogspot.com/2009/04/buddha-explaining-existence-of-god.html
    Again, you are confusing Taoism with Buddhism.

    I think that transcending Dualism is a concept in both Buddhism and Taoism.
    The Buddha said Right View or Right Belief is the forerunner of all skilful dhammas.

    :smilec:
    There is no "Right Belief" in the Eightfold Path. Lol. "Right belief" sounds like Christianity.

    Right View means right vision and right understanding.
  • edited April 2010
    The reality is opposite to the above.

    Buddhism teaches the eradication of evil is possible because all beings have Buddha-Nature.

    Christianity teaches all beings are inherently sinful (evil) and require the forgiveness & grace of Christ.

    The Buddha said:


    The Bible states:

    And you just helped me demonstrate how much different their concepts of evil are. Evil is a broad term and is used differently between different religions. In Christianity, anything that is a rejection of or "separation from God" is evil (Satan rejected God, Hell is "separation from God").

    In Buddhism, evil is not dependent on or have anything to do with God.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    Here's the source:
    Source: Osho Books

    35aj0xl.jpg28r33k.jpg
    I think that transcending Dualism is a concept in both Buddhism and Taoism.
    The Buddha did not teach non-duality. It fact, he censured those who tried to assert non-duality. The Buddha taught there is right view and wrong view.
    "Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In one of right view, wrong view is abolished. The many evil, unskillful qualities that come into play with wrong view as their condition are also abolished, while the many skillful qualities that have right view as their condition go to the culmination of their development.

    In one of right resolve, wrong resolve is abolished... In one of right speech, wrong speech is abolished... In one of right action, wrong action is abolished... In one of right livelihood, wrong livelihood is abolished... In one of right effort, wrong effort is abolished... In one of right mindfulness, wrong mindfulness is abolished... In one of right concentration, wrong concentration is abolished... In one of right knowledge, wrong knowledge is abolished...

    In one of right release, wrong release is abolished. The many evil, unskillful qualities that come into play with wrong release as their condition are also abolished, while the many skillful qualities that have right release as their condition go to the culmination of their development.

    "Thus, monks, there are twenty factors siding with skillfulness and twenty with unskillfulness.

    "This Dhamma discourse on the Great Forty has been set rolling and cannot be stopped by any contemplative or priest or deva or Mara and Brahma or anyone at all in the world.

    "If any priest or contemplative might think that this Great Forty Dhamma discourse should be censured & rejected, there are ten legitimate implications of his statement that would form grounds for censuring him here & now.

    Maha-cattarisaka Sutta: The Great Forty
    Right View means right vision and right understanding.
    It means right understanding or right knowledge.

    It is not the spaced out vision of clear awareness but the vision that sees the true nature of phenomena, such as the conditionality, their impermanence, their unsatisfactoriness & their not-self nature. Right view sees good and evil clearly.
    3. "When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome [evil], the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome and the root of the wholesome, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence [faith] in the Dhamma and has arrived at this true Dhamma.

    Sammaditthi Sutta: The Discourse on Right View
    318. Those who imagine evil where there is none, and do not see evil where it is — upholding false views, they go to states of woe.

    319. Those who discern the wrong as wrong and the right as right — upholding right views, they go to realms of bliss.

    Nirayavagga: Hell

    :)
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    There is no "Right Belief" in the Eightfold Path. Lol. "Right belief" sounds like Christianity.
    Your problem is you do not understand your own mind.

    In the quote above from MN 9, right view and right confidence (faith) are included in the same sentence.

    If I told you that by pressing the "A" key on your computer, it would explode, you would not use it.

    Why? Due to a lack of faith.

    Do you sit on a chair with one leg missing? No. Why? No faith in the chair.

    Everything you do in life has it first foundation in faith. This is something very basic.

    The Buddha advised faith is the first spiritual faculty (indriya) and power (bala).

    But because you do not understand your own mind, you try to turn faith into some superstition.

    Faith is a basic mental faculty. It is not something inherently religious.

    I recommend some self-examination.

    :smilec:
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    And you just helped me demonstrate how much different their concepts of evil are. Evil is a broad term and is used differently between different religions. In Christianity, anything that is a rejection of or "separation from God" is evil (Satan rejected God, Hell is "separation from God").

    In Buddhism, evil is not dependent on or have anything to do with God.
    Often, becoming engrossed in non-duality & the nothingness of the Heart Sutra diminishes wisdom & intelligence.

    Relative truth becomes very confusing.

    For example, Jesus said about evil:
    Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "

    Matthew 15
    Your view appear to be mixed between mundane religion and supramundane religion. Mundane religion is the fairytales taught to children. Both Buddhism and Christianity are replete with fairytales. To the spiritually immature and cynical, Paul said:
    [ Wisdom From the Spirit ] We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.

    1 Corinthians 2:6

    I am not sure where one could develop the view that evil in Christianity does not refer to harmful actions that inflict pain & problems onto human beings.

    Also, the Bible teaches non-duality:
    but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

    Genesis 2:17

    "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

    Luke 6:37
    be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

    Matthew 5
    :)
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    I think that transcending Dualism is a concept in Taoism.
    What about this? Is this non-duality?
    Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

    The Gospel of Thomas

    :)
  • edited April 2010
    Often, becoming engrossed in non-duality & the nothingness of the Heart Sutra diminishes wisdom & intelligence.

    Relative truth becomes very confusing.

    For example, Jesus said about evil:

    Well, I think Jesus' teachings on evil are much more sound than Yahweh's. They seem to have opposing views on what evil is (despite the claim that they are the same person. I was actually told that Jesus attempted to dispense of Yahwism, which sounds reasonable to me.)
    I am not sure where one could develop the view that evil in Christianity does not refer to harmful actions that inflict pain & problems onto human beings.
    Because Christianity teaches that war is ok and that homosexual love is not. So Christianity doesn't care too much about harmful action, but rather if it's commanded by God or not.

    "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:2-3)
    Also, the Bible teaches non-duality:

    "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Genesis 2:17
    I don't see how that is teaching non-duality. If it truely taught non-duality then it wouldn't require for good to triumph over evil. That verse you refer to was a commandment by God to test Adam and Eve's obedience and had nothing to do with teaching non-duality.
    "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." Luke 6:37
    Yes, wise words. I agree that Jesus had some good things to say, and probably close to what Buddha taught. However, Christianity as a whole doesn't seem to fit with that.

    I personally feel that the Gnostic Gospels are more accurate of Christ than the Bible. There are many things in the Bible that just don't seem right and don't seem to fit with the essence of Jesus.

    .
  • edited April 2010
    Update: I have just come across an interesting video where someone asked Sangharakshita about Christian Buddhism and he gave a great answer that kind of dispensed of my preconceived notion about compatibility.

    He said that Christian Buddhists reach their decision because they are dissatisfied with the Yahwistic aspect and the whole God idea altogether. However, they don't want to get rid of Jesus. They still have the belief in Jesus Christ as the perfect human being, and this is actually sort of like Buddhism. So I can see how taken from that perspective, perhaps a radical (Godless) form of Christianity is in fact, compatible with Buddhism.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27YBzew_8Cs

    Take a look. I like what this guy has to say. :]

    .
  • edited April 2010
    Christianity teaches that war is ok and that homosexual love is not. So Christianity doesn't care too much about harmful action, but rather if it's commanded by God or not.

    ...

    There are many things in the Bible that just don't seem right and don't seem to fit with the essence of Jesus.

    I think this is a very important distinction. "Christianity" often pretends to be Jesus' religion but I really don't think that it is. I think mainstream Christianity has completely missed the point of what Jesus was about.

    I was raised Catholic, rebelled against it in my youth, and now I have recovered some respect for it in the last few years...or rather respect for the more open-minded, compassionate "Christians."

    Particularly, I believe that Jesus' teachings are full of wisdom, but his message has been perverted over the years. Jesus did not write the bible. Jesus would not advocate war or prejudice.

    "Show me where Jesus said
    The righteous should be warriors
    and the wicked should be dead"

    And I don't think he wanted to be worshipped as God. He wanted people to love their neighbor and to turn the other cheek. Jesus was seeking the same truth that Buddhists seek.
  • shanyinshanyin Novice Yogin Sault Ontario Veteran
    edited April 2010
    I think they're useless labels.
    I try to follow the eightfold path and I go to a Morman church.
  • edited April 2010
    I think this is a very important distinction. "Christianity" often pretends to be Jesus' religion but I really don't think that it is. I think mainstream Christianity has completely missed the point of what Jesus was about.

    I was raised Catholic, rebelled against it in my youth, and now I have recovered some respect for it in the last few years...or rather respect for the more open-minded, compassionate "Christians."

    Particularly, I believe that Jesus' teachings are full of wisdom, but his message has been perverted over the years. Jesus did not write the bible. Jesus would not advocate war or prejudice.

    "Show me where Jesus said
    The righteous should be warriors
    and the wicked should be dead"

    And I don't think he wanted to be worshipped as God. He wanted people to love their neighbor and to turn the other cheek. Jesus was seeking the same truth that Buddhists seek.

    Thank you. You have summed up my thoughts precisely. :]
  • edited April 2010
    shanyin wrote: »
    I think they're useless labels.
    I try to follow the eightfold path and I go to a Morman church.

    In Buddhism, labels can be dispensed of and serve no important purpose. However, labels are important in Mormonism. The Book of Mormon says that it is the one true church, and all the others are wrong. So I think Mormonism is another religion that's not compatible with Buddhism.
  • aMattaMatt Veteran
    edited April 2010
    So I think Mormonism is another religion that's not compatible with Buddhism.

    :lol: I think that's funny. I would bet that even Buddhism is not compatible with Buddhism!
    lobster
  • shanyinshanyin Novice Yogin Sault Ontario Veteran
    edited April 2010
    "- Buddha says God is irrelevant and Enlightenment and Nirvana is the purpose. Christianity says eternal life with God is the ultimate goal"

    Yeah it's irrelevant to what the Buddha taught. He said he only taught an extremely small ratio of what he knew and could have taught. It doesn't mean God or Christianity is irrelevant to one's life.

    I guess I've got a conundrum. I have a faith that keeping "God's commandments" will lead to living with him. I also believe the eightfold path leads to peace, discernment, enlightenment and nirvana.

    I like the South Park episode where God is a Buddhist. That would be awsome.
  • edited April 2010
    Now having said all that I believe Christ was a subversive and the result of his death will be to destroy the imperial church. Read Rene Girard.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    That verse you refer to was a commandment by God to test Adam and Eve's obedience and had nothing to do with teaching non-duality.
    Then why was the knowledge of "good" and "evil" the subject?

    Why was it not simply an example of God said "don't go to the strip club?"

    :buck:
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    If it truely taught non-duality then it wouldn't require for good to triumph over evil.
    You seemed very obsessed with this notion.

    I advised you earlier, Buddhism has a greater emphasis upon ending evil than Christianity.

    Christianity believes evil is inherent and only the love of Jesus can provide evil people with a sense of grace.

    In fact, I noticed your posts about drugs.

    :-/
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    Because Christianity teaches that war is ok and that homosexual love is not. So Christianity doesn't care too much about harmful action, but rather if it's commanded by God or not.

    "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:2-3)
    You are mixing up the mundane and supramundane.

    One cannot compare apples & oranges.

    It is like saying Buddhism teaches the truth of emptiness and Christianity teaches the superstition of heaven & hell.

    But I can quote Jesus teachings that say to be reborn is something mental (spiritual) rather than physical and quote Buddhist teachings about all kinds of superstitions.

    Similarly, mainstream Christianity may not be the religion, just like Buddhist monks who played an active role in the recent war in Sri Lanka are not Buddhist.

    The fact is, there are no teachings in the New Testament that support war.

    Your quote from the Old Testament is irrelevent.

    Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. He said the meek would inherit the earth. He said to love thy enemy. He said if one cheek is slapped, offer the other.

    To end, one cannot compare the mainstream aspects of one religion with the transcendent aspects of other.

    Each religion has transcendent aspects and each religion has manifest in the mainstream world.

    :)
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    Thank you. You have summed up my thoughts precisely. :]
    They were not your thoughts.

    Your thoughts were Christianity teaches that war is ok.

    :)
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    [quote=shanyin;99321
    Buddha says God is irrelevant and Enlightenment and Nirvana is the purpose. Christianity says eternal life with God is the ultimate goal"
    You have misunderstood language.

    The are two kinds of language. Jesus said:

    John 3:6
    Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

    John 6:55
    For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

    Was Jesus teaching cannibalism here?

    The Buddha taught the Deathless is Nirvana. The Deathless and Nirvana is where no suffering and no death occurs. The Death is Eternal Life.

    Christianity teaches the same thing, that is "victory over death".

    In Genesis, God warned the knowledge of good and evil leads to death.

    But Adam & Eve ate the fruit but they did not die physically. Their death was a spiritual death, ie, suffering (dukkha).

    Then God placed a sword around the Tree of Life, to stop Adam and Eve from reaching it.

    But Jesus came and said "I am the way to the Tree of Life".

    Genesis 2:9
    And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

    Genesis 3:22
    And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

    Genesis 3:24
    After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

    Revelation 2:7
    He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

    Revelation 22:2
    down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

    Revelation 22:14
    "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

    Revelation 21:4
    He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
    Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead already.

    Appamadavagga
    ....a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long?

    Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    shanyin wrote: »
    I guess I've got a conundrum. I have a faith that keeping "God's commandments" will lead to living with him. I also believe the eightfold path leads to peace, discernment, enlightenment and nirvana.
    Same thing. There is no conundrum.

    :smilec:
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    So I think Mormonism is another religion that's not compatible with Buddhism.
    What about spinning prayer wheels and praying to angels (bodhisatvas)?

    Is that compatible with Buddhism?

    :crazy:
  • shanyinshanyin Novice Yogin Sault Ontario Veteran
    edited April 2010
    Same thing. There is no conundrum.

    :smilec:

    I must clear this up.. you mean the eightfold path and the living the commandments and the results there of are the same kinda thing you know what I mean? If yes then I appreciate this and pretty much agree.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    Edit: I would like to clarify that I am referring to Orthodox Christianity.

    .
    This means your arguements have no merits whatsover, as I have said.

    It is like comparing the understanding of a kindergarten student to a university professor.

    :hohum:
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    I've seen that there are people who call themselves Buddhist Christians or those who try to show how they are compatible.
    Of course they are compatible. read this about non-attachment:
    <SUP id=en-NIV-28501 class=versenum>29</SUP>What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; <SUP id=en-NIV-28502 class=versenum>30</SUP>those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; <SUP id=en-NIV-28503 class=versenum>31</SUP>those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

    1 Corinthians 7

    :)
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    I've seen that there are people who call themselves Buddhist Christians or those who try to show how they are compatible.
    They are more compatible than Buddhism and drug taking are compatible.

    Buddhism and drug taking have zero compatibility.

    :eek2:
  • edited April 2010
    They are more compatible than Buddhism and drug taking are compatible.

    Buddhism and drug taking have zero compatibility.

    :eek2:



    Well said, DD.



    .
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited April 2010
    I am referring to Orthodox Christianity.
    You are wrong again.

    My father is an Eastern Orthodox Christian.

    At funerals, the mystic priest does not say the deceased goes to heaven.

    They say the deceased exists in "God's Eternal Memory" (that is, your memory).

    :winkc:
  • edited April 2010
    Is Buddhism compatible with attaching to an idea of what Buddhism is and is not compatible with?
  • edited April 2010
    From #1...
    I agree that both religions teach compassion and good deeds. But I simply have to say that Buddhism is not, has not, and never will be compatible with Christianity.

    I suggest you read " The Good Heart" in which the Dalai Lama explored the New Testament gospels with Christians and others including Ajahn Amaro of the Theravada Thai Forest tradition.


    .
  • edited April 2010
    All of this depends on the reason why you want Buddhism and Christianity to be reconcilable; "how" you want them to be compatible.

    I think that they are compatible in that you can hold Christian beliefs while practicing Buddhism. There are many Buddhists who believe in God. In this, the Christian/Buddhist walks the path because they understand that the Four Noble Truths of suffering and its remedy can be applied regardless of whether or not there is a God (and more importantly that there is no requirement that you give up your beliefs).

    With deeper understanding of the Buddhist teachings and meditation, these beliefs will in time be reflected upon, and if they prove to be incompatible with the wisdom gained by self-realization of reality (impermanence, dependent origination, dukkha, etc.), the mind will then decide whether to retain them, modify them, or let them go.

    Buddhism is a conceptual representation of reality, and the methods that will allow us to see/know these truths for ourselves. It's not really a religion in the usual sense, so there's no conflict.
  • edited April 2010
    What about this? Is this non-duality?

    :)

    That's a Gnostic doctrine that Christianity rejects.

    .
  • edited April 2010
    You are mixing up the mundane and supramundane.

    One cannot compare apples & oranges.

    It is like saying Buddhism teaches the truth of emptiness and Christianity teaches the superstition of heaven & hell.

    But I can quote Jesus teachings that say to be reborn is something mental (spiritual) rather than physical and quote Buddhist teachings about all kinds of superstitions.

    Similarly, mainstream Christianity may not be the religion, just like Buddhist monks who played an active role in the recent war in Sri Lanka are not Buddhist.

    The fact is, there are no teachings in the New Testament that support war.

    Your quote from the Old Testament is irrelevent.

    Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. He said the meek would inherit the earth. He said to love thy enemy. He said if one cheek is slapped, offer the other.

    To end, one cannot compare the mainstream aspects of one religion with the transcendent aspects of other.

    Each religion has transcendent aspects and each religion has manifest in the mainstream world.

    :)

    If Orthodox Christianity rejected the Old Testament, maybe you'd have a point. However, Genesis, Exodus, and other books of the OT provide some of the most central tennets of Christianity.

    All you're doing is showing me that the New Testament and Jesus contradicts the Old Testament, and youre right, it does. Remember that Christianity claims that Jesus is Yahweh and therefore, all the war and genocide that Yahweh commands is attributed to Jesus because doctrine says they're the same.

    Of course I'm sure Jesus would object to that notion and I don't blame him, but unfortunetaly thats what the Bible authors tried to paint him as.


    .
  • edited April 2010
    What about spinning prayer wheels and praying to angels (bodhisatvas)?

    Is that compatible with Buddhism?

    :crazy:

    Unfortuneatley, I have to say no. I don't think Buddha would approve of prayer wheels and angels, but he also would say that he has no business in telling people what they ought to do either.
  • edited April 2010
    You seemed very obsessed with this notion.

    I advised you earlier, Buddhism has a greater emphasis upon ending evil than Christianity.

    Last I checked, Buddhism doesn't have a book of Revelations glorifying the final judgement and the last battle between God and Satan where good triumphs evil once and for all.

    Christianity believes evil is inherent and only the love of Jesus can provide evil people with a sense of grace.

    That's another thing that contradicts Buddhism. We're not born evil and worthy of Hell and then must accept an external Savior to wash the evil away. Buddhism also would reject the notion that another man can die for your sins and take the punishment away from you and your own responsibilities.
    In fact, I noticed your posts about drugs.

    :-/

    Ad hominem red herring fallacy. You can't couter an argument by attacking the person or bringing up something off topic.
Sign In or Register to comment.