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.
Sile, the problem with your analysis is that the same pressure is there in other religions and cultures. Although it's not common (which may even prove the point more), I have known the odd Thai Buddhist that converts...and the family pressure is extreme. I've known Sikhs that come to the States and convert...and the family pressure is extreme. And I've known fairly strong Christian families who have accepted someone converting to Buddhism to say that it is the individual's choice.
Definitely agree that many religions urge conversion. I find the Christian case particularly sad because I've experienced it all my life. There is zero reconcilability; to accept that a Buddhist is destined for a happy afterlife would be to renounce Christianity oneself, because the only way to a happy afterlife is through acceptance of Jesus Christ as the one and only Saviour.
However, if the day comes when most of Christianity says, "One way to a happy afterlife is through acceptance of Jesus Christ," that will be a good day.
Personally, I've never experienced a religion more tolerant than Buddhism.
The answer is profoundly different in different religions, and even the questions asked are different. To the Christian, the goal is to be forgiven for sins and gain entrance to Heaven when corpses are restored to life after Armageddon. To the Muslim it is to live by the word of Allah to gain enough on the cosmic scoreboard to enter Heaven. The question in those religions are: How do I live blissfully forever?
Buddhism is about not living again and again (forever), by reaching a state of mind where no karma is created - nirvana. It is not a journey of the soul, but of the mind. The question is: How do I avoid dhukka?
The two types of goal are exact opposites: Not existing, and existing forever. The ideas of self are exact opposites: Eternal self, not-self. The ideas of reaching the goal are opposites: Hope for salvation from someone else, attain salvation for and by yourself The list can go on and on.
What makes religions different are the thousands of points where they contradict each other or have different conclusions or solutions. The few, general (basic human) ideas do not make them alike, do not make them work towards the same end and do not make one practitioner essentially practice the same as the other. The Buddha Dhamma may not be expressed the same way by the next Buddha, but it sure will be the Dhamma, and not a teaching about Heaven for believers or Valhal for warriors or eternal souls or cosmic awarenesses - in that I am confident
But this is the human interpretation - the unenlightened human interpretation - post 'master'. What is it that Jesus experienced? Let's forget Mohammed because he never claimed any 'divinity' - he wasn't One with the ultimate, he wasn't enlightened. But Jesus most likely was, and obviously we consider Buddha to be. So, if Jesus was enlightened and Buddha was enlightened, were they experiencing the same enlightenment? Can there be different enlightenments?
Now, let's say for argument sake that Jesus and Buddha both experienced the same enlightenment (argue against that if you wish, but for now...), how would Jesus relate his enlightenment? What are the factors that would determine how he articulated and expressed it? Considering that he obviously wished for others to experience this enlightenment too, how would he achieve it? Would he speak in foreign terms with alien concepts, or would he (skillfully) express his enlightenment to meet the individual and cultural needs of the people around him, i.e. speak in a language and through concepts that the people (Jews) around him could understand?
Now consider that what he spoke, to then be related to others, requires other (unenlightened) humans to convey his message, and consider how this form of, essentially, Chinese whispers could then be distorted, misunderstood, mistranslated etc. through the ages (2000 years) to reach this point now whereby comparison with another religion would seem to make more distinctions than similarities. Also consider the historical editing and processing of what Jesus taught and what we may be missing (references to re-incarnation, for example), and how this too lends to stronger distinctions.
What we are considering is not what humans have made of what Jesus and Buddha taught, but what Jesus and Buddha actually experienced and how and why they conveyed it as they did. There are infinite variables and factors that create distinctions, but what we are considering is the very core. Obviously we can't know if they experienced the same enlightenment, but if we look with eyes of wisdom and discernment then we can reveal very similar truths out of the scraps of historical references that we have.
I totally get this, and I would tend to agree if there were better support in Christian scriptures for it or even in Christian sects' understanding of Christianity - if it was what the Pope preached or what Luther wrote etc. You can interpret as you like, no one has the "right answer" or patent on "right Christianity", but I must say I find other Christian interpretations better supported.
@Ficus_Religiosa I say this statement of faith without expectation of convincing you otherwise, and without animosity.
Orthodox Christians will disagree with you regarding your statement about claiming "right Christianity", and they will not change their position of Orthodoxy or "Right Glory". It is a matter of life and death for us and many have been and continue to be martyred in holding fast to it. 20th century Russia would be an example of a large scale occurrence, and now we see it happeing in the Middle East. I belong to the Antiochian Patriarchate which is located on Straight Street in Damascus Syria. The Orthodox Church collectively is a suffering Church, and we boast in Christ Crucified, and are called to take up our cross and follow Him.
We believe that the fullness of the Christian faith is to be found in the Orthodox Church alone, and the Church came into existence before the compilation of the New Testament with the advent of Christ 2000 years ago. The New Testament came from the tradition of the Church.
Saint Paul in says 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore Brethren, Stand fast to the traditions which ye have been taught either by word of mouth, or our epistle." He said this before the New Testament canon was established.
Scripture also says the in Ephesians 4:5 "One Lord, one faith, one baptism", and in Jude 1:3 "ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
We also believe that scripture cannot be fully understood outside of the tradition that gave birth to it as there are other aspects of the faith and not just scripture alone.
The East and West were officially unified until the great schism in 1054 where the Patriarchate of Rome stood apart from the other patriarchates that remained unified.
The Orthodox Church does not accept Papal infallibility, and it does not believe that somehow the apostles got it wrong and we in modern times are here to correct them with our own ideas and innovations, or have need of the doctrines of the 1500 new churches registered with the U.S. government on average weekly.
In the west as society we are very much sensitized to Christianity in the West and readily accept its influence as being Orthodox.
As convert from Buddhism to Orthodox Christianity I did carry with me some negative baggage stemmed from past interactions with Christians and directed at them outside the Church, but no longer see them in such a negative light, and I have my faith and practice to thank for that. I continue to struggle with it, but I am making progress torwards a more compassionate understanding.
Enlightenment is a personal experience, and we can say it was different for Christ and the Buddha. One claims to be God incarnate and the other not, and one was crucified and the other not. How we experience enlightenment or illumination is dependent upon our respective traditions so those traditions are crucial.
Do I want to live forever? The answer is yes, but what does that mean? It means Theosis, or union with God Through the grace of the Holy Spirit. What is the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is enlightenment or illumination of God, and it is a personal experience.
In Buddhism there are many different commentaries and beliefs on Anatman or No Self. Does it mean that you truly no longer exist, or just the mistaken idea that we live an independent existence is eliminated? Is Nirvana a personal experience? Who or what experiences Nirvana?
Orthodoxy understands that there are elements of truth present in all faiths including Wicca for example, but that would be an obvious aberration on the part of the Adventists.
Prior to my involvement with Tibetan Buddhism I belonged to a Buddhist sect that believed the very same thing that only their adherents could be saved and the rest thrown into the hell of incessant suffering. That included other Buddhist sects and traditions of course.
Anyway, I'm far more comfortable speaking with Buddhists about metaphysics than Western Christians. What are your thoughts on Tathagatagarbha, and Pure Land aspects of Buddhism?
Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings -- that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.
Orthodoxy understands that there are elements of truth present in all faiths including Wicca for example, but that would be an obvious aberration on the part of the Adventists.
Prior to my involvement with Tibetan Buddhism I belonged to a Buddhist sect that believed the very same thing that only their adherents could be saved and the rest thrown into the hell of incessant suffering. That included other Buddhist sects and traditions of course.
@Silouan, what sect was that? That sounds like a very un-Buddhist concept to me. Don't all Buddhist schools hold that there is always a positive karmic seed, i.e., even hell-beings can purify their karma over time? I haven't heard of a permanent (incessant) hell in Buddhism. Only a couple eons-worth, lol.
But seriously, how could a difference in practice produce negative karma, i.e. land other sects in hell? The only thing that would happen is that their practice wouldn't be as effective, and it would take them longer to become enlightened. But pursuing a less-effective practice isn't the same as committing a non-virtuous act.
@Ficus_Religiosa I say this statement of faith without expectation of convincing you otherwise, and without animosity.
Orthodox Christians will disagree with you regarding your statement about claiming "right Christianity", and they will not change their position of Orthodoxy or "Right Glory". It is a matter of life and death for us and many have been and continue to be martyred in holding fast to it. 20th century Russia would be an example of a large scale occurrence, and now we see it happeing in the Middle East. I belong to the Antiochian Patriarchate which is located on Straight Street in Damascus Syria. The Orthodox Church collectively is a suffering Church, and we boast in Christ Crucified, and are called to take up our cross and follow Him.
We believe that the fullness of the Christian faith is to be found in the Orthodox Church alone, and the Church came into existence before the compilation of the New Testament with the advent of Christ 2000 years ago. The New Testament came from the tradition of the Church.
Saint Paul in says 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore Brethren, Stand fast to the traditions which ye have been taught either by word of mouth, or our epistle." He said this before the New Testament canon was established.
Scripture also says the in Ephesians 4:5 "One Lord, one faith, one baptism", and in Jude 1:3 "ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
We also believe that scripture cannot be fully understood outside of the tradition that gave birth to it as there are other aspects of the faith and not just scripture alone.
The East and West were officially unified until the great schism in 1054 where the Patriarchate of Rome stood apart from the other patriarchates that remained unified.
The Orthodox Church does not accept Papal infallibility, and it does not believe that somehow the apostles got it wrong and we in modern times are here to correct them with our own ideas and innovations, or have need of the doctrines of the 1500 new churches registered with the U.S. government on average weekly.
In the west as society we are very much sensitized to Christianity in the West and readily accept its influence as being Orthodox.
As convert from Buddhism to Orthodox Christianity I did carry with me some negative baggage stemmed from past interactions with Christians and directed at them outside the Church, but no longer see them in such a negative light, and I have my faith and practice to thank for that. I continue to struggle with it, but I am making progress torwards a more compassionate understanding.
Enlightenment is a personal experience, and we can say it was different for Christ and the Buddha. One claims to be God incarnate and the other not, and one was crucified and the other not. How we experience enlightenment or illumination is dependent upon our respective traditions so those traditions are crucial.
Do I want to live forever? The answer is yes, but what does that mean? It means Theosis, or union with God Through the grace of the Holy Spirit. What is the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is enlightenment or illumination of God, and it is a personal experience.
In Buddhism there are many different commentaries and beliefs on Anatman or No Self. Does it mean that you truly no longer exist, or just the mistaken idea that we live an independent existence is eliminated? Is Nirvana a personal experience? Who or what experiences Nirvana?
Forgive me
I know that the different sects find themselves to be the only right ones. It's only natural in a religion based on exclusivity. To the outsider, claims must be judged by their merit. I like to listen to a serious Christian, who's eloquent but you are right - conversion is a land far away
About enlightenment.. Well you'd almost guess my answer
It was a Nichiren sect, and in particular Nichiren Shoshu.
“Don't all Buddhist schools hold that there is always a positive karmic seed, i.e., even hell-beings can purify their karma over time?” That would be the normative standard.
They do use the term “incessant suffering “verbatim, but they also believe that even though one may have a negative relationship with Nam Myoho Renge Kyo it still would be a cause that that would eventually lead them to an enlightened state, but it would take a very long time. Not sure if only relevant for the present life though. Perhaps they are using the term in that manner like a kalpa. An extremely long time such as an eon. I suppose it might as well be an eternity.
However, It does seem less Buddhist when compared to other traditions, but it is still a form of Buddhism. There are many forms of Buddhism with differing doctrines on the same topics, and as a Buddhist in the U.S. I found it very difficult to know for certain if the Dharma that I was receiving was complete and authentic, or was it fragmented and certain aspects highlighted to fit the American psyche. In some cases like putting the cart before the horse. Foregoing the fundamentals and going straight to Dzogchen.
What compounded this issue for me was my very first step in Buddhism was reading “The Three Pillars of Zen” several years ago. There was a warning of caution about the real occurrences of the degradation of the transmission of Dharma, and most importantly during confirmation of Satori.
Interestingly, the founder of the Zen Center in Los Angeles, who was confirmed to having obtained Satori by his master, and conferred it on a number of his disciples was an alcoholic and sadly would eventually pass away due to the disease. I'm not dragging the man down because this is tragic event, and it obviously has affected and continues to affect a number of other beings not only in this lifetime, but also those that have passed on to the next. Being gripped with an attachment such as this ending in ones death does not appear to be the enlightenment referred to in Buddhist scripture.
When we have awareness of our impending death it serves as a motivating factor in taking these matters very seriously. We can't put things off until another day, because we don't know when this precious lifetime of opportunity will be gone. This goes the same for both Buddhist and Orthodox Christian.
There is a difference in saying fullness or complete alone, and only. I recall a passage from a book by the Dalai Lama where he mentioned that Tibetan Buddhism comprised the most complete form of Buddhism.
Comments
However, if the day comes when most of Christianity says, "One way to a happy afterlife is through acceptance of Jesus Christ," that will be a good day.
Personally, I've never experienced a religion more tolerant than Buddhism.
Now, let's say for argument sake that Jesus and Buddha both experienced the same enlightenment (argue against that if you wish, but for now...), how would Jesus relate his enlightenment? What are the factors that would determine how he articulated and expressed it? Considering that he obviously wished for others to experience this enlightenment too, how would he achieve it? Would he speak in foreign terms with alien concepts, or would he (skillfully) express his enlightenment to meet the individual and cultural needs of the people around him, i.e. speak in a language and through concepts that the people (Jews) around him could understand?
Now consider that what he spoke, to then be related to others, requires other (unenlightened) humans to convey his message, and consider how this form of, essentially, Chinese whispers could then be distorted, misunderstood, mistranslated etc. through the ages (2000 years) to reach this point now whereby comparison with another religion would seem to make more distinctions than similarities. Also consider the historical editing and processing of what Jesus taught and what we may be missing (references to re-incarnation, for example), and how this too lends to stronger distinctions.
What we are considering is not what humans have made of what Jesus and Buddha taught, but what Jesus and Buddha actually experienced and how and why they conveyed it as they did. There are infinite variables and factors that create distinctions, but what we are considering is the very core. Obviously we can't know if they experienced the same enlightenment, but if we look with eyes of wisdom and discernment then we can reveal very similar truths out of the scraps of historical references that we have.
I totally get this, and I would tend to agree if there were better support in Christian scriptures for it or even in Christian sects' understanding of Christianity - if it was what the Pope preached or what Luther wrote etc.
You can interpret as you like, no one has the "right answer" or patent on "right Christianity", but I must say I find other Christian interpretations better supported.
I say this statement of faith without expectation of convincing you otherwise, and without animosity.
Orthodox Christians will disagree with you regarding your statement about claiming "right Christianity", and they will not change their position of Orthodoxy or "Right Glory". It is a matter of life and death for us and many have been and continue to be martyred in holding fast to it. 20th century Russia would be an example of a large scale occurrence, and now we see it happeing in the Middle East. I belong to the Antiochian Patriarchate which is located on Straight Street in Damascus Syria. The Orthodox Church collectively is a suffering Church, and we boast in Christ Crucified, and are called to take up our cross and follow Him.
We believe that the fullness of the Christian faith is to be found in the Orthodox Church alone, and the Church came into existence before the compilation of the New Testament with the advent of Christ 2000 years ago. The New Testament came from the tradition of the Church.
Saint Paul in says 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore Brethren, Stand fast to the traditions which ye have been taught either by word of mouth, or our epistle." He said this before the New Testament canon was established.
Scripture also says the in Ephesians 4:5 "One Lord, one faith, one baptism", and in Jude 1:3 "ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
We also believe that scripture cannot be fully understood outside of the tradition that gave birth to it as there are other aspects of the faith and not just scripture alone.
The East and West were officially unified until the great schism in 1054 where the Patriarchate of Rome stood apart from the other patriarchates that remained unified.
The Orthodox Church does not accept Papal infallibility, and it does not believe that somehow the apostles got it wrong and we in modern times are here to correct them with our own ideas and innovations, or have need of the doctrines of the 1500 new churches registered with the U.S. government on average weekly.
In the west as society we are very much sensitized to Christianity in the West and readily accept its influence as being Orthodox.
As convert from Buddhism to Orthodox Christianity I did carry with me some negative baggage stemmed from past interactions with Christians and directed at them outside the Church, but no longer see them in such a negative light, and I have my faith and practice to thank for that. I continue to struggle with it, but I am making progress torwards a more compassionate understanding.
Enlightenment is a personal experience, and we can say it was different for Christ and the Buddha. One claims to be God incarnate and the other not, and one was crucified and the other not. How we experience enlightenment or illumination is dependent upon our respective traditions so those traditions are crucial.
Do I want to live forever? The answer is yes, but what does that mean? It means Theosis, or union with God Through the grace of the Holy Spirit. What is the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is enlightenment or illumination of God, and it is a personal experience.
In Buddhism there are many different commentaries and beliefs on Anatman or No Self. Does it mean that you truly no longer exist, or just the mistaken idea that we live an independent existence is eliminated? Is Nirvana a personal experience? Who or what experiences Nirvana?
Forgive me
Prior to my involvement with Tibetan Buddhism I belonged to a Buddhist sect that believed the very same thing that only their adherents could be saved and the rest thrown into the hell of incessant suffering. That included other Buddhist sects and traditions of course.
Anyway, I'm far more comfortable speaking with Buddhists about metaphysics than Western Christians. What are your thoughts on Tathagatagarbha, and Pure Land aspects of Buddhism?
Quote by Buddha
Can anything good come out of Nazareth? Come and See.
But seriously, how could a difference in practice produce negative karma, i.e. land other sects in hell? The only thing that would happen is that their practice wouldn't be as effective, and it would take them longer to become enlightened. But pursuing a less-effective practice isn't the same as committing a non-virtuous act.
About enlightenment.. Well you'd almost guess my answer
It was a Nichiren sect, and in particular Nichiren Shoshu.
“Don't all Buddhist schools hold that there is always a positive karmic seed, i.e., even hell-beings can purify their karma over time?” That would be the normative standard.
They do use the term “incessant suffering “verbatim, but they also believe that even though one may have a negative relationship with Nam Myoho Renge Kyo it still would be a cause that that would eventually lead them to an enlightened state, but it would take a very long time. Not sure if only relevant for the present life though. Perhaps they are using the term in that manner like a kalpa. An extremely long time such as an eon. I suppose it might as well be an eternity.
However, It does seem less Buddhist when compared to other traditions, but it is still a form of Buddhism. There are many forms of Buddhism with differing doctrines on the same topics, and as a Buddhist in the U.S. I found it very difficult to know for certain if the Dharma that I was receiving was complete and authentic, or was it fragmented and certain aspects highlighted to fit the American psyche. In some cases like putting the cart before the horse. Foregoing the fundamentals and going straight to Dzogchen.
What compounded this issue for me was my very first step in Buddhism was reading “The Three Pillars of Zen” several years ago. There was a warning of caution about the real occurrences of the degradation of the transmission of Dharma, and most importantly during confirmation of Satori.
Interestingly, the founder of the Zen Center in Los Angeles, who was confirmed to having obtained Satori by his master, and conferred it on a number of his disciples was an alcoholic and sadly would eventually pass away due to the disease. I'm not dragging the man down because this is tragic event, and it obviously has affected and continues to affect a number of other beings not only in this lifetime, but also those that have passed on to the next. Being gripped with an attachment such as this ending in ones death does not appear to be the enlightenment referred to in Buddhist scripture.
When we have awareness of our impending death it serves as a motivating factor in taking these matters very seriously. We can't put things off until another day, because we don't know when this precious lifetime of opportunity will be gone. This goes the same for both Buddhist and Orthodox Christian.
There is a difference in saying fullness or complete alone, and only. I recall a passage from a book by the Dalai Lama where he mentioned that Tibetan Buddhism comprised the most complete form of Buddhism.