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.
The mystic has a different understanding of the words mystery or unknowable in relation to God despite the misapplication of others outside of the faith who merely understand it as an idiot's throwing up of arms when pressed to explain the essence of the source of being beyond being.
To quote Fr Stephen Freeman - “In popular usage, the word mystery has become synonymous with puzzle. Thus a mystery is something we do not know, but something that, with careful investigation is likely to be revealed. In the Church, mystery is something which by its very nature is unknown, and can only be known in a manner unlike anything else...
The core understanding of words such as mystery and fullness is the belief that our world has a relationship beyond itself, or beyond what seems obvious. The world is symbol, icon and sacrament. Mystery and fullness reference the reality carried as symbol, icon and sacrament.”
Dear Friends of the Easter Bunny, Yesterday I heard they have a Holy Hour at my local Catholic Church . . .
It was great. I sat on the quiet side away from the main congregation, only about fifteen people for the hour . . . left before the vicar managed to hand out books for what might have been an orgy of singing and prayer - it is Easter . . .
For some of us it is not yet time to be 'empty of form' and therefore our Churches are full of sacrificial egos, lost lambs and general purpose guilt and ignorance. I see that in many Buddhist locales too . . . Yesterday I saw high devotion and intense contemplation. It was great . . .
You can not follow two paths at once, especially ones with two different destinations, they are completely irreconcilable, how can you believe in heavn and hell and samsara/rebirth at the same time? According to Christianity the Buddha, and all other Dharma teachers are burning in Hell right now simply because they had different beliefs.
Christianity is not a monoculture. You are quoting the view of the Evangelical branch of Protestant Christianity and assuming that they speak for all of Christianity. They dont. Try reading some Thomas Merton..who was a Christian monk. Start with his " Zen And The Birds Of Appetite ".
You can not follow two paths at once, especially ones with two different destinations, they are completely irreconcilable, how can you believe in heavn and hell and samsara/rebirth at the same time? According to Christianity the Buddha, and all other Dharma teachers are burning in Hell right now simply because they had different beliefs.
According to some Christians this is true. But it would be insanity to imagine that Jesus taught this, and you will never find any evidence. What you are saying is that your interpretation of Jesus and Buddha are irreconcilable. I would suggest that this implies an incorrect interpretation of one or both.
You can not follow two paths at once, especially ones with two different destinations, they are completely irreconcilable, how can you believe in heavn and hell and samsara/rebirth at the same time? According to Christianity the Buddha, and all other Dharma teachers are burning in Hell right now simply because they had different beliefs.
One thing you need to do is set aside your "old time religion" of the Old Testament, and realize that in many Christian today they read only from the New Testament. And I'm not talking about fringe churches. I'm talking about a middle-of-the-road Methodist Church that I occasionally attend.
But, I realize that you are fundamentalist Buddhist. So that's all you can see. Okay. No problem.
@Vinlyn I see @The Eccentric as stating the basic position of "mainstream Christianity" including every televangelist out there and especially the Evangelical crowd. I hope there are many Christian churches now that are more inclusive, but that certainly wasn't the belief in the many I attended being raised by a minister. Look at the struggle they're having because they can't bring themselves to include gays who believe in Christ into their fold, and that's entirely Olde Testament bigotry. Neither Jesus nor Paul ever said one word about gays.
But on the other hand, my niece is married to a minister and heavily involved in their church, and she totally disagrees with my mother (a prison minister) about gays being on the devil's side, so I guess maybe there are Christians out there fighting to take away the authority to tell people what the true Gospel is from the right wing haters in the US. It's about time.
You can not follow two paths at once, especially ones with two different destinations, they are completely irreconcilable, how can you believe in heavn and hell and samsara/rebirth at the same time? According to Christianity the Buddha, and all other Dharma teachers are burning in Hell right now simply because they had different beliefs.
One thing you need to do is set aside your "old time religion" of the Old Testament, and realize that in many Christian today they read only from the New Testament. And I'm not talking about fringe churches. I'm talking about a middle-of-the-road Methodist Church that I occasionally attend.
But, I realize that you are fundamentalist Buddhist. So that's all you can see. Okay. No problem.
@Vinlyn I see @The Eccentric as stating the basic position of "mainstream Christianity" including every televangelist out there and especially the Evangelical crowd. I hope there are many Christian churches now that are more inclusive, but that certainly wasn't the belief in the many I attended being raised by a minister. Look at the struggle they're having because they can't bring themselves to include gays who believe in Christ into their fold, and that's entirely Olde Testament bigotry. Neither Jesus nor Paul ever said one word about gays.
But on the other hand, my niece is married to a minister and heavily involved in their church, and she totally disagrees with my mother (a prison minister) about gays being on the devil's side, so I guess maybe there are Christians out there fighting to take away the authority to tell people what the true Gospel is from the right wing haters in the US. It's about time.
Sorry Cinojer protestant Christinity is not mainstream..although I can see that if you live on the US it must seem so. In world wide terms Roman Catholicism is the biggest group, and when you add in Orthodoxy and Anglicanism ( Episcopalians ). protestants form a minority. Many Catholics and Episcopalians have great respect for Buddhadharma, And Orthodox have their own inner tradition that closely parallels Jnana Yoga.
@Citta always willing to admit I lack experience on a world level. But I'd also want to point out, there is a huge difference between the people who identify with a particular church and that church's teachings and beliefs. I'm not talking about all people who call themselves Christians or all Catholics, for instance. A lot of people who go to a church don't agree with the official stand of the church. Even the new Pope issued a statement that he want to reach out in "dialog" with other religions. But at the same time, their creed is definite that Buddhists like all heathens are going to Hell and the only way to not go to Hell is to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior. Hard to get past that in a "dialog" isn't it?
If I may, I'd like to add some observations of my own to the discussion. The essence of Christianity is much different, alas, than what we see on the surface. And as others have pointed out, it's hard these days to tell what all of these Christianities even have in common with one another. I think one can loosely call oneself a Christian and practice Buddhism, or loosely the other way around. But as for fundamental beliefs, they are quite at odds. St. Paul says clearly that if one lacks faith in the actual, physical resurrection, one's entire faith is in vain. So from the get-go, one has to take (and somehow sustain) that leap of faith. One who would be a Christian must also believe that God knows the number of hairs on one's head, and cares about every individual human personally. He, in fact, allows everything that happens to every creature for His own mysterious purposes. For any deep-thinking individual, this should be problematic. That would make God complicit in famines, plagues, birth defects, all number of diseases, and all kinds of random and pointless human and animal suffering.
St. Paul did in fact have things to say about homosexuals. For those interested, here are some quotes right out of the Bible:
"Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity." --Romans 1:24-27. (See also 1 Corinthians 6:9,10, and 1 Timothy 1:10.)
According to Christianity, then, homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals will not "inherit the Kingdom". According to the same religion, women must be silent in church, subservient to their husbands, have their heads shaved if they fail to wear a head covering to church services, and slaves, no matter how poorly or even abusively treated, are to remain loyal servants to their owners. This is all New Testament stuff. Nowadays there exists a kind of "liberal" Christianity, but what is it usually but watered down sentimentality? "I love Jesus!" A lot of people dismiss Christ's harder statements, like, "If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." - St. Matthew 5:29. Surely this is not to be taken literally, but its harshness cannot be disputed. Verses like these scared the crap out of me as a kid!
Many Christians model their family values on the Gospel. But then they must overlook verses like this: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'"- St. Matthew 10:34-36
Anyway, I guess what I am pointing out here is that people who are loosely Christian often have a fuzzy kind of attachment to the idea of Jesus that they have developed for themselves, but actually, consciously or not, dismiss a lot of what is fairly fundamental to Christianity as a faith tradition (or traditions).
As many have very astutely pointed out here, there is, of course, mystical Christianity, and as Silouan has noted, apophatic (negative, or non-conceptual) theology. In a practical, traditional sense, this is very hard to approach nowadays, unless one lives close to a monastery with experienced practitioners of inner prayer. And, alas, in order to "plug in" to this kind of mystical lineage, one must still give assent to the basic dogmas and doctrines of the tradition itself: The Trinity, the virgin birth, the one true apostolic and catholic Church, the "true" saving sacraments, traditional marriage, homosexuality is a sin, the resurrection, the efficacy of intercessory prayer, "magic" (the Eucharist, miracles, etc.), and so on. Otherwise, one is skirting tradition and not really committing in trust to the entire tradition on its own terms. As an "Orthodox" Christian convert, I am coming to terms with these problems (problems for me, at least), and have reached the point where continuing to practice in the context of this tradition is impossible.
That said, there are wonderful Christian mystics. I was just reading St. Simeon the New Theologian the other night, and came across this gem (among others): "Our mind is pure and simple, so that when it is stripped of every alien thought, it enters the pure, simple, Divine light and becomes quite encompassed and hidden therein, and can no more meet there anything but the light in which it is." Pretty Zen, right? It seems to me that the essence of true religion is not so easily compartmentalized, and transcends the boundaries of culture, narrative, language, and so on. However, the "base of the mountain", so to speak, looks terribly varied from different religious perspectives. Much of what Christianity is based upon has become untenable for me. Yet, of course, the virtues of one path are more often than not the virtues of the other also (e.g. compassion, mindfulness/wakefulness, humility, steadfastness, etc).
Now I know there are others on this board who have managed to amalgamate a kind of Christianity with a kind Buddhism, and I do not wish to judge or deter you from your path! If you feel it works for you, who am I to argue? But for me, at least, these two paths have fundamental differences that cannot be brushed aside or reconciled without some difficulty. And the attempt to fit things and beliefs together that do not easily fit, or that even outright conflict with one another, can be a powerful source of suffering.
^ Thank you SO much for that, @stavros388 You explained yourself and your position beautifully, and while I agree with you, completely, I could have never stated it as cohesively as you did.
For those who are are mix of Buddhist and Christian, how do you get them to work out within yourself? If you don't believe in all the things @stavros388 mentioned, which would be hard to do and still maintain as a Buddhist, how do you label yourself Christian as well? I can understand totally one saying they follow both the teachings of Buddha and Christ, but I'm not sure doing that necessary makes you Buddhist or Christian. I'm not saying it doesn't of course, I'm just trying to reconcile it in my own mind and it just doesn't work for me. But of course, I "rejected" Christianity at a young age because those things didn't make sense to me then, either. I do believe in what Jesus himself actually taught, but as has been stated so many times, just that does not a Christian make. I'm just curious how those who combine the 2, do it. Do you just not identify as one or the other?
I try to ask my sister the same questions, as she identifies as a Christian/Buddhist/Pagan, lol. But I think in her case it is more simply taking pieces of various religions and making her own mish mash rather than identifying as any one of those 3 things. She has the Buddhist wheel as a tattoo on her elbow and I'm not sure she could even say what the noble truths or eightfold path are.
Actually there are Christians who observe the outer form of Christianity but have jettisoned or never held a literalist view of the Bible. Some of these are highly influential within the church, although clearly they hold a minority view. Thomas Merton ( arguably the most influential Contemplative of the age ) in his correspondence with the feminist theologian Rosemary Reuther makes it clear that for him the Bible represents an unfolding existential narrative rather than a history. The Benedictine monk HA Williams wrote movingly about having to lose the historical Jesus of his youth in order to find the Love at the heart of things. Likewise the British Contemplative and Benedictine Aelred Graham who authored " Conversations Christian And Buddhist " described the Bible as " the most overrated book ever written.".. From the Buddhist side a similar reappraisal is taking place. It is now widely acknowledged that The Pali Canon was first written more than 500 years after the historical Shakyamuni, thousand of miles from his supposed locality and in a language he would not have known. So, there is the outer form in both cases with its birth stories and folk narratives, and there is in both traditions an inner process in which they both meet ...in silence. So it was when the Dalai Lama met Thomas Merton he immediately recognised one who had penetrated to the heart of things beyond ' Christianity ' or ' Buddhism '. You may object that Merton was untypical..and so he was. But Buddhists who go beyond the outer trappings of Buddhism are not thick on the ground either. For example the Four Noble Truths are found nowhere in the early records. They first appear hundreds of years after the time of the Buddha. Buddhadharma and Christianity are both equally viable jumping off points. The crux of the matter lies in the jumping.
@Vinlyn I see @The Eccentric as stating the basic position of "mainstream Christianity" including every televangelist out there and especially the Evangelical crowd. I hope there are many Christian churches now that are more inclusive, but that certainly wasn't the belief in the many I attended being raised by a minister. Look at the struggle they're having because they can't bring themselves to include gays who believe in Christ into their fold, and that's entirely Olde Testament bigotry. Neither Jesus nor Paul ever said one word about gays.
But on the other hand, my niece is married to a minister and heavily involved in their church, and she totally disagrees with my mother (a prison minister) about gays being on the devil's side, so I guess maybe there are Christians out there fighting to take away the authority to tell people what the true Gospel is from the right wing haters in the US. It's about time.
My complaint about The Eccentric's views is that he is telling other people what they can and cannot do ("You can not follow two paths at once..."), despite the fact that there are a number of us who are.
He is telling us that, "they are completely irreconcilable", even though many of us find them to be fairly reconcilable.
And he is stating that according to all of Christianity, "the Buddha, and all other Dharma teachers are burning in Hell right now...", which is not an accurate statement about all of Christianity.
Those are simply inaccurate statements based on his personal opinions. Opinions he has a right to, but which ought to be stated as his opinions, rather than stark fact. He is being just as fundamentalist on his side, as many fundamentalist Christians are being on what he sees as the opposite side. He is simply taking the stance that my religion is better than your religion and using that stance to tell us what we can and "can not" do.
Over the years, except for when I lived in Thailand, the vast majority of my friends have been Christians. Not a one -- even two fundamentalist evangelicals -- thought that non-Christians are going to hell. They all stated that it simply depends on whether or not you are following moral rules. And in fact, most of them didn't believe that hell actually existed. It's very much like virtually every one of my Catholic friends who separate themselves from everything that the Church mandates. They don't go to Holy Days Of Obligation, many don't go to Confession before taking Communion, they don't believe that the Pope infallible (and they point to the scandals in the Church as evidence of that), they use birth control if they want to, etc. They see a difference in "the Church" and the "people of the Church", and they wait for "the Church" to catch up with where the "people of the Church" are.
If TheEccentric ever said "in my view" or "in my opinion" or "I think", that would be different. But he doesn't. He simply tells us what we can and "can not" do...which is exactly what he is railing against. And I will be happy to take the word of Buddhist monks I have personally talked with and Thich Nhat Hanh, who say that it is relatively possibly to reconcile the two religions. I'm not going to take the word of someone who simply hates Christianity, as TheEccentric has pretty clearly stated over numerous threads.
And by the way, Cinorjer, although your views generally seem open and middle of the road, and you are a poster here that I respect, if you think that all Buddhists are accepting of homosexuality, then you need to get around more.
It might be helpful to remember that TheEccentric is very young, and I'm sure you recall in your experience as a principal that teens see the world in a very black and white manner. Being able to see the greys and get past things you rejected and don't like takes time, life experience, and maturity that only comes with age. I don't recall his exact age, but I seem to recall he is in the 13-14 age group. So, while it certainly is helpful to point out things like "Your opinion would be much better received if you use terms like "my opinion, my view, I think" I think we need to cut him a little slack due to his age. Yes, he decided to come here on his own free will, but as more experienced adults (for the most part) it's up to us to be a bit understanding of his limitations due to his age.
But with time and experience all the notions of Buddhism and Christianity will dismantle.
Whether we try to create a new religion or negate/affirm buddhadharma or Christianity it will all fall apart if we are sincere in our explorations.
Don't you think that someone can carry on with their tradition all the way to awakening?
"In other words, the secret of a warrior is that he believes without believing. But obviously a warrior cannot just say he believes and let it go at that. That would be too easy. To just believe would exonerate him from examining his situation. A warrior, whenever he has to involve himself with believing, does it as a choice as an expression of his innermost predilection. A warrior does not believe. A warrior has to believe."
For those who are are mix of Buddhist and Christian, how do you get them to work out within yourself? If you don't believe in all the things @stavros388 mentioned, which would be hard to do and still maintain as a Buddhist, how do you label yourself Christian as well? I can understand totally one saying they follow both the teachings of Buddha and Christ, but I'm not sure doing that necessary makes you Buddhist or Christian. I'm not saying it doesn't of course, I'm just trying to reconcile it in my own mind and it just doesn't work for me. But of course, I "rejected" Christianity at a young age because those things didn't make sense to me then, either. I do believe in what Jesus himself actually taught, but as has been stated so many times, just that does not a Christian make. I'm just curious how those who combine the 2, do it. Do you just not identify as one or the other?
...
I think you've actually answered your own question.
I don't let Christian orthodoxy or Buddhist orthodoxy put me in a box. And I certainly don't allow TheEccentric put me in a box. I don't respect someone who says, "I believe in every word of the Christian scriptures." And I don't respect someone who says, "I believe in every word of the Buddhist scriptures." (And I'm using the word "respect" here as I want to use it, and anyone who doesn't like how I'm using it, tough titties). A Dhammapada-thumper is no better than a Bible-thumper. I don't like thumpers. They want to take away other people's right to think.
I am reminded of a lab we used to do in my earth science classes when we got to studying rocks and minerals (some biology teachers did it, too, when they started teaching taxonomy). Each student would through one piece of their footwear into the middle of the room. "What do we have here?" "A bunch of shoes." "Is that the only way to look at them? The only way to classify them? Can anyone classify them differently?" Sooner or later someone would go into the middle of the room and divide them up differently, and then the other students would try to figure out how that person was classifying them. Laces and no laces. Right and left. By color. By what they're made of. By purpose (e.g., dress, casual, sport). Footwear by smell (good or bad). Footwear by clean versus dirty. Etc. The max we ever got to was 13 different classifications of the footwear thrown into the center of the room.
TheEccentric is like the kid who said, "They're just shoes". He wants to say you have to be either Buddhist or Christian. Period.
Really? Said who? I thought I had freedom of thought. But he doesn't like freedom of thought, because then someone might think differently than he does. And that's not allowed.
If someone said to you, "Well, what is newbuddhist.com?" You might answer, "It's a website and forum of Buddhists". I would say, "It's a website and forum of people who -- in varying degrees -- see wisdom in the principles that the Buddha taught". But I can classify it a different way, as well -- "It's a website and forum made up mostly of people who at some point in their life said that they were going to believe in something different than what they were taught while they were growing up".
Now, in your second paragraph, which I didn't quote, you are getting dangerously close to doing something I thought we kind of agreed over time on this forum not to do -- to say that someone is or isn't a "real Buddhist". I know you didn't say that, and I don't think you believe that, but it's kinda creeping in there just a tad.
Why does anyone have to actually have a label that tells what their beliefs are? Why can't we be as generous as the federal government has become in the census, where people are allowed to self-identify in most cases?
I find a lot of things taught in Buddhism to be wise. I find a lot of things taught in New Testament Christianity to be wise.
I do not accept some things in both. Which is true of virtually every monk out there who has placed himself in one particular school of Buddhism.
So, I call myself a Buddhist/Christian because that's were the bulk of my beliefs are. But if I find some wisdom in the Koran or in Hinduism, then I'll incorporate that wisdom into my psyche. If I find something Dean Martin or Mohammad Ali or D.L. Hughley said to be wise, then I'll incorporate those things into my life. And anyone who doesn't like that, well, that's their problem. Not mine.
IMO it comes down to two different viewpoints; (and this has been said before by others in these discussions, so I'm not claiming any sort of original concept here)
1. from the view of By the Book Christianity, and from the view of by the book Buddhism, one could not really meld the two paths. If one follows ALL the basic, unchanging, across the board rules of "Christianity", there is little-to-no room for practicing another spiritual (religious) path in conjunction with it.
If one follows ALL the basic, unchanging across the board beliefs/guidelines of the 4NTs and 8FP (I'm leaving the precepts out of this because they are not exactly "spiritual" in their tone or foundation); there is a LITTLE room for melding another spiritual path into Buddhism... so it could be done with some (quite a bit?) tweaking and adjustment. Is it possible for Christianity to be that melded religion? Well, here's where many of us seem to be repeating ourselves in one way or another:
2. If one is a "cafeteria style" Catholic or Christian, of any other stripe... one can most likely adapt a personal path melding your Christian a la carte choices and Buddhism. However, I think some people are missing this distinction; that is an individually crafted path.... and as soon as one starts to meld one religion with another, (honestly, IMO it doesn't matter which two), one is straying from the (by the) Book requirements of that religion.
What an individual does is fine for the individual; But The Church, (whichever denomination of Christianity it is), does not encourage, nor approve of mix and matching religions, even Buddhism, unless one is merely incorporating meditation, or other mostly 'secular' aspects.
So in a way, @TheEccentric's black and white commentary is not entirely out of bounds, because if one were to follow Christianity 100% - no tweaking involved, at all - it truly is a very black and white situation. The rules for "good Christians" are very clear-cut and yes- very black and white.
It might be helpful to remember that TheEccentric is very young, and I'm sure you recall in your experience as a principal that teens see the world in a very black and white manner. Being able to see the greys and get past things you rejected and don't like takes time, life experience, and maturity that only comes with age. I don't recall his exact age, but I seem to recall he is in the 13-14 age group. So, while it certainly is helpful to point out things like "Your opinion would be much better received if you use terms like "my opinion, my view, I think" I think we need to cut him a little slack due to his age. Yes, he decided to come here on his own free will, but as more experienced adults (for the most part) it's up to us to be a bit understanding of his limitations due to his age.
Telling him that I disagree with him is giving him a little slack. I haven't condemned him. I've disagreed with him. And, I never underestimate the intelligence or commitment of teens. I have known many teens who are more intelligent and more wise than many adults. But I'm not going to treat him as a child.
Can a Christian become ordained as a Buddhist monk, would there be any conflict. Buddha and Jesus Christ shared a lot of common ground in their teachings. If one believes in a supreme over soul or God and still follows all of Buddha's teachings, the 4 NTs and the 8 FP and all of that would there be any conflict arrising at any point in a monastic life?
Also, if there already has been a thread dedicated to this topic I would appreciate if i could be linked!
Technically speaking, I'd hazard to say yes, a Christian can be ordained as a Buddhist monk. As far as I'm aware, there's nowhere in the Theravadin ordination ceremony, for example, where one has to explicitly deny or renounce a belief in God. One takes refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha, of course; but if one is comfortable as a Christian doing that, then one can be both a Christian and a Buddhist monk. That said, one may find personal conflicts at some point in their monastic life, whether due to insights gained from their practice that conflict with their Christian beliefs (or vice versa) or due to conflicts with their community (which will likely try to disabuse one of such beliefs), and may have to adjust their views or vocation accordingly.
However, people continually find harmony between these spiritual disciplines, and I personally don't see any reason why one can't identify with both while being predominately engaged with one or the other.
I didn't mean that at all, in the paragraph about my sister. She is a person who claims to be a lot of things she isn't, it's just how she is. I think she knows some about Buddhism, she has read books and the things she reads strikes a chord with her. But I don't think that makes her a Buddhist. She won't care what I think though, and that is fine, lol, it's just my opinion. I don't judge people on whether they are good Buddhist or Christians or whatever. But I do think it's pretty hard to walk around saying you are a Buddhist (which is what she says when people ask about her tattoo) and not even be able to say what the 8 spokes on the wheel stand for, lol. But it's her life, and doesn't affect me in any way. It's not like I'm offended as someone who does know what they stand for, because she doesn't. In a similar way, just because you wear a cross necklace doesn't mean you are Christian. It doesn't mean you aren't, and I"m not going to judge you either way just because I see you walking down the street. But if I stop and ask you "hey, what is that necklace?"and you can't tell me anything about it, I'm going to wonder how serious you are about Christianity.
I don't underestimate kids, or teens, either. But overall they tend to see the world in very black and white terms, that's all I was saying. My 16 year old is quite intelligent, but ask him what he thinks about certain topics and it's "this is wrong, and this is right. Period. End of story." Because that is just how he thinks on certain topics in which his only experience with them is from his text books. As he goes through life and meets people who experience these things, his views will likely evolve. He might keep that exact view, but his reasons for keeping them will likely be much different than they are now.
@Karasti, I have no problem with what you are saying.
But, oops, the Buddhist Wheel Of Law doesn't always have 8 spokes!
Young people bring something to situations that are often different than what adults bring to the same situations. For example, at our school we always had a student -versus- faculty basketball game each year. Two-thirds of the time the faculty team won, but one-third of the time the students won. The students had energy and agility and enthusiasm on their side, while the teachers had wisdom and more of a team-concept on their side. But despite different attributes, they all played on the same court with the same rules.
All the contradictions and struggles between the faith of our cradles and the Buddhas Dharma were tackled head on by Merton..Read Zen and The Birds Of Appetite, or Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander, or Seeds Of Contemplation, or his Asian Journal. ( His meeting with the young Chogyam Trungpa is interesting.) He went in and hit the motherlode. See also Dom John Main and Father Thomas Keating.
^ Thank you SO much for that, @stavros388 You explained yourself and your position beautifully, and while I agree with you, completely, I could have never stated it as cohesively as you did.
I don't combine paths. I was born and raised a United Methodist (yes there is a difference from other Methodist traditions). But as an adult I found Christianity unable to address some of my personal theological questions. But, I still attend a church with my wife. My questions remain and will always remain unanswered. Buddhism not so much addresses my questions, but, Buddhism does not approach the questions at all. There is no need to. I find that as acceptable.
I dont see why not. Some parts may conflict with each other, but overall i feel jesus and shakyamuni were on a similiar path and wanted to make a better place of this world.
Can a Christian become ordained as a Buddhist monk, would there be any conflict. Buddha and Jesus Christ shared a lot of common ground in their teachings. If one believes in a supreme over soul or God and still follows all of Buddha's teachings, the 4 NTs and the 8 FP and all of that would there be any conflict arrising at any point in a monastic life?
Also, if there already has been a thread dedicated to this topic I would appreciate if i could be linked!
Buddhanature, and the "True Self" has been interpreted this way. I think you're good to go!
You can not follow two paths at once, especially ones with two different destinations, they are completely irreconcilable, how can you believe in heavn and hell and samsara/rebirth at the same time? According to Christianity the Buddha, and all other Dharma teachers are burning in Hell right now simply because they had different beliefs.
According to whose Christianity? Not the Christianity I was raised around. Not all Christian denominations are Holy Rollers. Some are mellow.
You can not follow two paths at once, especially ones with two different destinations, they are completely irreconcilable, how can you believe in heavn and hell and samsara/rebirth at the same time? According to Christianity the Buddha, and all other Dharma teachers are burning in Hell right now simply because they had different beliefs.
According to whose Christianity? Not the Christianity I was raised around. Not all Christian denominations are Holy Rollers. Some are mellow.
I was a christian, not anymore. As a christian, i went to church on sundays, read the bible, pray to god n jesus, and tried to convert others. I have outgrown all that.
The belief that people deserve an eternity in hell simply for having different beliefs is no truth.
Just curious, and not saying that it's true, but how do you KNOW?
Not that I want to put words in anybody's mouth, but if you don't mind, I'd like to interject.
An individual "knowing" there is no eternal Hell would be similar to knowing that the Sun will come up tomorrow. Hypothetically, we don't really know if the Sun will come up tomorrow. The earth could be destroyed by some cosmic blast that resulted from a collapsing star, but we don't know that. For all intents and purposes we say we "know" something because of past experience, from model-making in the mind, through logic, etc.
Even recognizing that we know things is an entirely baseless assumption, but one of the few we must assume. Everything we know *could* be a lie. But simply because something has a chance of being true or not true doesn't mean we should recognize it as a truly valid idea. Because we'd say we "know" something is or isn't true doesn't mean we are actually asserting that it does for sure without a shadow of a doubt. Considering the idea of an eternal Hell has no evidence to support it (whether direct or indirect), has no natural indication showing that it would exist, has no evidence that past life experiences of individuals who went to Hell were a reality, etc - then it'd be safe to assume that Hell *doesn't* exist. Yes, it could, but why even humor the idea if there'd be no rational reason to? Unless we are to say that we shouldn't base our outlook on reality on reason/evidence - but I'd argue that is kind of silly.
First of all, I remain as unconvinced of hell as I do of rebirth.
That aside, I think you have a seriously false premise above. I've lived something like 23,177 days, and in 23,177 of those days the sun has risen, while in 0 of those days the sun has not risen.
On the other hand, I have not died within my scope of memory (or for that matter been reborn), so I have no history on which to base the likelihood of hell existing.
Really? You haven't died lately? I would never have guessed...
"Any western Buddhist who fails to resolve in a positive way his or her feelings about Christianity is condemned to constantly behave in a way dictated by their ambiivalence ".
Chirstmas Humphries.
1
DaftChrisSpiritually conflicted. Not of this world.Veteran
"Any western Buddhist who fails to resolve in a positive way his or her feelings about Christianity is condemned to constantly behave in a way dictated by their ambiivalence ".
Chirstmas Humphries.
That's a rather condescending quote. Besides, I don't think Christmas Humphries is the best example to use.
You can not follow two paths at once, especially ones with two different destinations, they are completely irreconcilable, how can you believe in heavn and hell and samsara/rebirth at the same time?
Who said they're two different paths and destinations? That's your interpretation. Others don't share your view. The Dalai Lama believes all religions lead to the same end: teaching humility, compassion, and virtue.
WHy can't you believe in heaven and hell and samsara and nirvana at the same time? Aren't they the same thing? Is samsara not hell of our own creation (as I recall one or two Popes ago this was given as one interpretation), and is Nirvana not heaven, the end of suffering?
Just to jump in here - I agree that it's very possible to make both Christianity and Buddhism work together as an individual path, as @MaryAnne said.
I also agree that it's not too hard to see where the two faith traditions meet, and that they are not completely mutually exclusive, as some may suggest.
However, I think it's a bit problematic to use Thomas Merton, HHDL, Thich Nhat Hanh, and others as examples of individuals who were able to successfully integrate both traditions. They were ordained in their own faith tradition, while exploring the value of the other. This is different from being a Christian and ordaining as a Buddhist monk or vice versa, which is what the original post was about.
Few of us on NB disagree that there is value to be found in all spiritual traditions. But I would say that seeing value in something is completely different from having the kind of deep relationship and faith that is required in monasticism.
@Citta - I'll admit that I've only started to read Merton's writings. So far, I can see that he had a very deep respect for Eastern traditions. That's clear. I suppose that I haven't yet had the opportunity to reflect long enough on his words to see where he "hit the spring" as you say.
In time, perhaps!
For what it's worth, I don't mean that it's impossible to be able to be a deeply faithful Buddhist and Christian at the same time... but I do think that it can be challenging and provide a unique set of obstacles that - given the individuality of the practice - may be difficult to surmount. With "Just Buddhism" you can seek the advice of Buddhist teachers, likewise with "Just Christianity." But it would be more difficult to find teachers who can offer advice on facing challenges that one may face walking both paths at once.
You can not follow two paths at once, especially ones with two different destinations, they are completely irreconcilable, how can you believe in heavn and hell and samsara/rebirth at the same time? According to Christianity the Buddha, and all other Dharma teachers are burning in Hell right now simply because they had different beliefs.
According to whose Christianity? Not the Christianity I was raised around. Not all Christian denominations are Holy Rollers. Some are mellow.
Excuse me? Again, we're not talking about the people sitting in the pews, whose personal beliefs and tolerance vary widely. Christianity is defined as belief in Jesus as Christ, that the only way to Heaven is to accept Christ as your personal savior, and that those who reject Christ are going to Hell. Now you may quietly and privately disagree, but ask your minister or pastor to define Christianity and this is what it says. What Christian denominations that you are aware of does not believe this?
You can not follow two paths at once, especially ones with two different destinations, they are completely irreconcilable, how can you believe in heavn and hell and samsara/rebirth at the same time? According to Christianity the Buddha, and all other Dharma teachers are burning in Hell right now simply because they had different beliefs.
According to whose Christianity? Not the Christianity I was raised around. Not all Christian denominations are Holy Rollers. Some are mellow.
Excuse me? Again, we're not talking about the people sitting in the pews, whose personal beliefs and tolerance vary widely. Christianity is defined as belief in Jesus as Christ, that the only way to Heaven is to accept Christ as your personal savior, and that those who reject Christ are going to Hell. Now you may quietly and privately disagree, but ask your minister or pastor to define Christianity and this is what it says. What Christian denominations that you are aware of does not believe this?
I believe that Dakini's comment was in response to Eccentric saying that, according to Christianity, the Buddha and all Buddhists are burning in hell. Dakini says this is not true. And it isn't. In Eastern Christianity, for instance, hell is often seen more as the condition of one's soul being mired in sin and therefore out of communion with God... or the condition of a soul in the presence of God, who is a "consuming fire", when one is still blinded by selfish desire and egotism. Also, it teaches that there are "saints" outside of the Church itself. Some people in the Orthodox Church in fact consider the Buddha to have been a "saint before Christ" (along with many pagan teachers).
Excuse me? Again, we're not talking about the people sitting in the pews, whose personal beliefs and tolerance vary widely. Christianity is defined as belief in Jesus as Christ, that the only way to Heaven is to accept Christ as your personal savior, and that those who reject Christ are going to Hell. Now you may quietly and privately disagree, but ask your minister or pastor to define Christianity and this is what it says. What Christian denominations that you are aware of does not believe this?
Who said we're not talking about that?
It depends what you think an organization (for wont of a better term) is.
For example, is America Barack Obama, 100 Senators, 435 members of the House Of Representatives, and 9 Supremes -- or -- is America 314 million + people?
Is Catholicism the Pope and the cardinals? Or is Catholicism the almost 1.2 billion people who self-identify as Catholic?
And if you're going to say that an organization is only the leaders who dictate power, then I guess Buddhism is the Dalai Lama, the head abbot of the Supreme Sangha in Thailand, and a handful of other elite monks throughout the world. I thought it was Siddhartha and you and me and all the people who practice Buddhism in one form or another.
Excuse me? Again, we're not talking about the people sitting in the pews, whose personal beliefs and tolerance vary widely. Christianity is defined as belief in Jesus as Christ, that the only way to Heaven is to accept Christ as your personal savior, and that those who reject Christ are going to Hell. Now you may quietly and privately disagree, but ask your minister or pastor to define Christianity and this is what it says. What Christian denominations that you are aware of does not believe this?
Sorry, I never heard that in church. Interesting how the religion evolved; Jesus never said that those who don't believe he's the Son of God would go to hell, did he? Oh well. There are a lot of churches these days that are very ecumenical, and include other religions and spiritual traditions. Not all Christian ministers toe this line. So...whatever. :-/
I went to St. George Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church this morning with an Orthodox friend of mine, which was an interesting experience. Although Orthodox Easter (based on the Julian calendar vs. the Gregorian calendar) isn't until May 5th this year, it was a nice to way to spend the day, especially since today's the feast day of Gregory Palamas, whose approach to prayer was more contemplative and reminds me, at least superficially, of Buddhist meditation, and whose story first led me years ago to become interested in aspects of Orthodox Christianity, seeing in it an extension of the ancient Greek mystery religions mixed with a bit of Eastern mysticism.
The church itself is beautiful, in many ways simpler and more intimate than others I've visited, emitting a friendly and welcoming atmosphere, yet still fully capable of giving rise to feelings of reverence and solemnity. I really like Eastern Orthodox churches, not only because of their beautiful iconography, but because of some of the symbolism underlying them as well. Some of them (like the one depicting Jesus' descent into Hades, for example) are quite philosophically complex, and I find them intriguing to contemplate, not unlike Christian koans in a way. The concept of theosis is also appealing to me, i.e., the idea of trying to emulate the life of Jesus, and genuinely putting into practice his teachings on forgiveness, generosity, renunciation, and unconditional love in order to become more god-like, to become one with the best aspects of our humanity and share a deep sense of communion with one another.
Of course, there are certainly many Christian ideals and theological aspects that I don't like and will probably never agree with; but I respect Christianity and the Christian community for what it is or potentially could be to people. It's a guiding light in times of darkness, and a source of comfort and a place of refuge in difficult ones. It's a journey towards wholeness for those who feel incomplete. It's a celebration of life and happiness in a world filled with sadness and death. It's a philosophy, a riddle, a vehicle for gnosis. And deep down, it can be characterized by one simple commandment, which Jesus gave to his Apostles at the Last Supper: love one another.
It's hard not to appreciate this commandment and the spirit it was given, or the people who sincerely endeavor to follow it. It speaks to the salvific power of love, and reflects the idea that there's something special, something divine, in our interactions with other people—an idea that's mirrored in Bible passages such as, "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love," and echoed by Church Fathers like Augustine of Hippo: "Once for all, then, a short precept is given you: Love, and do what you will: whether you hold your peace, through love hold your peace; whether you cry out, through love cry out; whether you correct, through love correct; whether you spare, through love do you spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good."
@stavros388 I understand your struggles, as I have many of the same. What you say is true with regards to accepting certain dogmas of the Church, but I'm not yet convinced that all must accept or relate to them in the exact same way, because the ascent to Illumination or union with God is very much a personal movement toward the infinite with no limit to our spiritual development.
I have a sense that our mystics have moved beyond conventional aspects of accepting the things you have mentioned as being miracles, and have crucified their worldly minds and see and experience things quite differently than you or I. Is the resurrection or rainbow body phenomenon for that matter a real possibility? If we are speaking essentially about the potential of the “Illumined” or “Enlightened” mind and its relation to matter then very much so I think. Once that is a possibility what of everything else anyway?
I think we have to understand, as someone previously pointed out, that within the culture of the Church there are people with varying degrees of understanding and dispositions. This culture not only exhibits correct teachings of the Church, but also heterodox and alien influences. It will always be a mix of the two, and though it is confusing at times we must be careful not to take alien ideas from some zealots as the teachings of the Church, and must become responsibly aware of what the Church actually teaches on matters.
One such alien idea that I have a great issue with is that being gay is a sin. This view is not in accordance with the teachings of the Church, but there are many within the Church culture who hold this view and should be corrected. This view point has become the face of Christianity, including that of Orthodoxy, to those outside of it.
Being a particular person no matter what is never regarded as sin. It is our actions alone that would be regarded as sinful or not. Sin is not seen as a juridical sentence as it predominately is in the West. For the Orthodox it just simply means something that distances oneself from God in their movement towards illumination or deification, and is not something that is a permanent mark on our soul/psyche. The whole beauty in the mystery/sacrament of repentance/confession is through remorseful compunction it is removed along with any psychological burden it may have carried, and when we fall again we get back up again over and over.
Also, we are not to judge or concern ourselves with the ascetic struggle others have with their passions, but only on our own. This is a very significant teaching of the Church, but of course not easy to follow and is the most difficult to overcome. Something we will struggle against until our dying days, and that is why so much importance is placed on it than any other sin.
I almost took Joasaph/Ioasaph as my baptismal name and patron saint, because of the connection with the Buddha, but decided on St Silouan. He put himself below every creature, and shed tears for all sunk in the sea of suffering. That to me sums up both Orthodoxy and Buddhism.
An Orthodox Abbot from a Russian Monastery in America recently visited a Zen Center where they exchanged in dialogue. It is very short, but very to the point.
What ever tradition one follows it is the enlargement of the heart is what really matters most. Everything else is ancillary.
Thank you @Jason for sharing your post. St Gregory Palamas is the great defender of the Hesychast contemplative tradition of the Church. My parish is also Antiochian.
Comments
To quote Fr Stephen Freeman - “In popular usage, the word mystery has become synonymous with puzzle. Thus a mystery is something we do not know, but something that, with careful investigation is likely to be revealed. In the Church, mystery is something which by its very nature is unknown, and can only be known in a manner unlike anything else...
The core understanding of words such as mystery and fullness is the belief that our world has a relationship beyond itself, or beyond what seems obvious. The world is symbol, icon and sacrament. Mystery and fullness reference the reality carried as symbol, icon and sacrament.”
Yesterday I heard they have a Holy Hour at my local Catholic Church . . .
It was great. I sat on the quiet side away from the main congregation, only about fifteen people for the hour . . . left before the vicar managed to hand out books for what might have been an orgy of singing and prayer - it is Easter . . .
For some of us it is not yet time to be 'empty of form' and therefore our Churches are full of sacrificial egos, lost lambs and general purpose guilt and ignorance.
I see that in many Buddhist locales too . . .
Yesterday I saw high devotion and intense contemplation.
It was great . . .
:clap:
You are quoting the view of the Evangelical branch of Protestant Christianity and assuming that they speak for all of Christianity. They dont.
Try reading some Thomas Merton..who was a Christian monk.
Start with his " Zen And The Birds Of Appetite ".
But on the other hand, my niece is married to a minister and heavily involved in their church, and she totally disagrees with my mother (a prison minister) about gays being on the devil's side, so I guess maybe there are Christians out there fighting to take away the authority to tell people what the true Gospel is from the right wing haters in the US. It's about time.
In world wide terms Roman Catholicism is the biggest group, and when you add in Orthodoxy and Anglicanism ( Episcopalians ).
protestants form a minority.
Many Catholics and Episcopalians have great respect for Buddhadharma,
And Orthodox have their own inner tradition that closely parallels Jnana Yoga.
St. Paul did in fact have things to say about homosexuals. For those interested, here are some quotes right out of the Bible:
"Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity." --Romans 1:24-27. (See also 1 Corinthians 6:9,10, and 1 Timothy 1:10.)
According to Christianity, then, homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals will not "inherit the Kingdom". According to the same religion, women must be silent in church, subservient to their husbands, have their heads shaved if they fail to wear a head covering to church services, and slaves, no matter how poorly or even abusively treated, are to remain loyal servants to their owners. This is all New Testament stuff. Nowadays there exists a kind of "liberal" Christianity, but what is it usually but watered down sentimentality? "I love Jesus!" A lot of people dismiss Christ's harder statements, like, "If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." - St. Matthew 5:29. Surely this is not to be taken literally, but its harshness cannot be disputed. Verses like these scared the crap out of me as a kid!
Many Christians model their family values on the Gospel. But then they must overlook verses like this: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'"- St. Matthew 10:34-36
Anyway, I guess what I am pointing out here is that people who are loosely Christian often have a fuzzy kind of attachment to the idea of Jesus that they have developed for themselves, but actually, consciously or not, dismiss a lot of what is fairly fundamental to Christianity as a faith tradition (or traditions).
As many have very astutely pointed out here, there is, of course, mystical Christianity, and as Silouan has noted, apophatic (negative, or non-conceptual) theology. In a practical, traditional sense, this is very hard to approach nowadays, unless one lives close to a monastery with experienced practitioners of inner prayer. And, alas, in order to "plug in" to this kind of mystical lineage, one must still give assent to the basic dogmas and doctrines of the tradition itself: The Trinity, the virgin birth, the one true apostolic and catholic Church, the "true" saving sacraments, traditional marriage, homosexuality is a sin, the resurrection, the efficacy of intercessory prayer, "magic" (the Eucharist, miracles, etc.), and so on. Otherwise, one is skirting tradition and not really committing in trust to the entire tradition on its own terms. As an "Orthodox" Christian convert, I am coming to terms with these problems (problems for me, at least), and have reached the point where continuing to practice in the context of this tradition is impossible.
That said, there are wonderful Christian mystics. I was just reading St. Simeon the New Theologian the other night, and came across this gem (among others): "Our mind is pure and simple, so that when it is stripped of every alien thought, it enters the pure, simple, Divine light and becomes quite encompassed and hidden therein, and can no more meet there anything but the light in which it is." Pretty Zen, right? It seems to me that the essence of true religion is not so easily compartmentalized, and transcends the boundaries of culture, narrative, language, and so on. However, the "base of the mountain", so to speak, looks terribly varied from different religious perspectives. Much of what Christianity is based upon has become untenable for me. Yet, of course, the virtues of one path are more often than not the virtues of the other also (e.g. compassion, mindfulness/wakefulness, humility, steadfastness, etc).
Now I know there are others on this board who have managed to amalgamate a kind of Christianity with a kind Buddhism, and I do not wish to judge or deter you from your path! If you feel it works for you, who am I to argue? But for me, at least, these two paths have fundamental differences that cannot be brushed aside or reconciled without some difficulty. And the attempt to fit things and beliefs together that do not easily fit, or that even outright conflict with one another, can be a powerful source of suffering.
I try to ask my sister the same questions, as she identifies as a Christian/Buddhist/Pagan, lol. But I think in her case it is more simply taking pieces of various religions and making her own mish mash rather than identifying as any one of those 3 things. She has the Buddhist wheel as a tattoo on her elbow and I'm not sure she could even say what the noble truths or eightfold path are.
Some of these are highly influential within the church, although clearly they hold a minority view.
Thomas Merton ( arguably the most influential Contemplative of the age ) in his correspondence with the feminist theologian Rosemary Reuther makes it clear that for him the Bible represents an unfolding existential narrative rather than a history.
The Benedictine monk HA Williams wrote movingly about having to lose the historical Jesus of his youth in order to find the Love at the heart of things.
Likewise the British Contemplative and Benedictine Aelred Graham who authored " Conversations Christian And Buddhist " described the Bible as " the most overrated book ever written."..
From the Buddhist side a similar reappraisal is taking place.
It is now widely acknowledged that The Pali Canon was first written more than 500 years after the historical Shakyamuni, thousand of miles from his supposed locality and in a language he would not have known.
So, there is the outer form in both cases with its birth stories and folk narratives, and there is in both traditions an inner process in which they both meet ...in silence.
So it was when the Dalai Lama met Thomas Merton he immediately recognised one who had penetrated to the heart of things beyond ' Christianity ' or ' Buddhism '.
You may object that Merton was untypical..and so he was.
But Buddhists who go beyond the outer trappings of Buddhism are not thick on the ground either.
For example the Four Noble Truths are found nowhere in the early records. They first appear hundreds of years after the time of the Buddha.
Buddhadharma and Christianity are both equally viable jumping off points.
The crux of the matter lies in the jumping.
He is telling us that, "they are completely irreconcilable", even though many of us find them to be fairly reconcilable.
And he is stating that according to all of Christianity, "the Buddha, and all other Dharma teachers are burning in Hell right now...", which is not an accurate statement about all of Christianity.
Those are simply inaccurate statements based on his personal opinions. Opinions he has a right to, but which ought to be stated as his opinions, rather than stark fact. He is being just as fundamentalist on his side, as many fundamentalist Christians are being on what he sees as the opposite side. He is simply taking the stance that my religion is better than your religion and using that stance to tell us what we can and "can not" do.
Over the years, except for when I lived in Thailand, the vast majority of my friends have been Christians. Not a one -- even two fundamentalist evangelicals -- thought that non-Christians are going to hell. They all stated that it simply depends on whether or not you are following moral rules. And in fact, most of them didn't believe that hell actually existed. It's very much like virtually every one of my Catholic friends who separate themselves from everything that the Church mandates. They don't go to Holy Days Of Obligation, many don't go to Confession before taking Communion, they don't believe that the Pope infallible (and they point to the scandals in the Church as evidence of that), they use birth control if they want to, etc. They see a difference in "the Church" and the "people of the Church", and they wait for "the Church" to catch up with where the "people of the Church" are.
If TheEccentric ever said "in my view" or "in my opinion" or "I think", that would be different. But he doesn't. He simply tells us what we can and "can not" do...which is exactly what he is railing against. And I will be happy to take the word of Buddhist monks I have personally talked with and Thich Nhat Hanh, who say that it is relatively possibly to reconcile the two religions. I'm not going to take the word of someone who simply hates Christianity, as TheEccentric has pretty clearly stated over numerous threads.
And by the way, Cinorjer, although your views generally seem open and middle of the road, and you are a poster here that I respect, if you think that all Buddhists are accepting of homosexuality, then you need to get around more.
But with time and experience all the notions of Buddhism and Christianity will dismantle.
Whether we try to create a new religion or negate/affirm buddhadharma or Christianity it will all fall apart if we are sincere in our explorations.
and the end of all our exploring
will be to arrive where we started
and to know the place for the first time '
TS Elliott. ' Little Giddings '.
"In other words, the secret of a warrior is that he believes without believing. But obviously a warrior cannot just say he believes and let it go at that. That would be too easy. To just believe would exonerate him from examining his situation. A warrior, whenever he has to involve himself with believing, does it as a choice as an expression of his innermost predilection. A warrior does not believe. A warrior has to believe."
From Tales of Power by Carlos Casteneda
I don't let Christian orthodoxy or Buddhist orthodoxy put me in a box. And I certainly don't allow TheEccentric put me in a box. I don't respect someone who says, "I believe in every word of the Christian scriptures." And I don't respect someone who says, "I believe in every word of the Buddhist scriptures." (And I'm using the word "respect" here as I want to use it, and anyone who doesn't like how I'm using it, tough titties). A Dhammapada-thumper is no better than a Bible-thumper. I don't like thumpers. They want to take away other people's right to think.
I am reminded of a lab we used to do in my earth science classes when we got to studying rocks and minerals (some biology teachers did it, too, when they started teaching taxonomy). Each student would through one piece of their footwear into the middle of the room. "What do we have here?" "A bunch of shoes." "Is that the only way to look at them? The only way to classify them? Can anyone classify them differently?" Sooner or later someone would go into the middle of the room and divide them up differently, and then the other students would try to figure out how that person was classifying them. Laces and no laces. Right and left. By color. By what they're made of. By purpose (e.g., dress, casual, sport). Footwear by smell (good or bad). Footwear by clean versus dirty. Etc. The max we ever got to was 13 different classifications of the footwear thrown into the center of the room.
TheEccentric is like the kid who said, "They're just shoes". He wants to say you have to be either Buddhist or Christian. Period.
Really? Said who? I thought I had freedom of thought. But he doesn't like freedom of thought, because then someone might think differently than he does. And that's not allowed.
If someone said to you, "Well, what is newbuddhist.com?" You might answer, "It's a website and forum of Buddhists". I would say, "It's a website and forum of people who -- in varying degrees -- see wisdom in the principles that the Buddha taught". But I can classify it a different way, as well -- "It's a website and forum made up mostly of people who at some point in their life said that they were going to believe in something different than what they were taught while they were growing up".
Now, in your second paragraph, which I didn't quote, you are getting dangerously close to doing something I thought we kind of agreed over time on this forum not to do -- to say that someone is or isn't a "real Buddhist". I know you didn't say that, and I don't think you believe that, but it's kinda creeping in there just a tad.
Why does anyone have to actually have a label that tells what their beliefs are?
Why can't we be as generous as the federal government has become in the census, where people are allowed to self-identify in most cases?
I find a lot of things taught in Buddhism to be wise. I find a lot of things taught in New Testament Christianity to be wise.
I do not accept some things in both. Which is true of virtually every monk out there who has placed himself in one particular school of Buddhism.
So, I call myself a Buddhist/Christian because that's were the bulk of my beliefs are. But if I find some wisdom in the Koran or in Hinduism, then I'll incorporate that wisdom into my psyche. If I find something Dean Martin or Mohammad Ali or D.L. Hughley said to be wise, then I'll incorporate those things into my life. And anyone who doesn't like that, well, that's their problem. Not mine.
1. from the view of By the Book Christianity, and from the view of by the book Buddhism, one could not really meld the two paths. If one follows ALL the basic, unchanging, across the board rules of "Christianity", there is little-to-no room for practicing another spiritual (religious) path in conjunction with it.
If one follows ALL the basic, unchanging across the board beliefs/guidelines of the 4NTs and 8FP (I'm leaving the precepts out of this because they are not exactly "spiritual" in their tone or foundation); there is a LITTLE room for melding another spiritual path into Buddhism... so it could be done with some (quite a bit?) tweaking and adjustment. Is it possible for Christianity to be that melded religion?
Well, here's where many of us seem to be repeating ourselves in one way or another:
2. If one is a "cafeteria style" Catholic or Christian, of any other stripe... one can most likely adapt a personal path melding your Christian a la carte choices and Buddhism.
However, I think some people are missing this distinction;
that is an individually crafted path.... and as soon as one starts to meld one religion with another, (honestly, IMO it doesn't matter which two), one is straying from the (by the) Book requirements of that religion.
What an individual does is fine for the individual; But The Church, (whichever denomination of Christianity it is), does not encourage, nor approve of mix and matching religions, even Buddhism, unless one is merely incorporating meditation, or other mostly 'secular' aspects.
So in a way, @TheEccentric's black and white commentary is not entirely out of bounds, because if one were to follow Christianity 100% - no tweaking involved, at all - it truly is a very black and white situation.
The rules for "good Christians" are very clear-cut and yes- very black and white.
However, people continually find harmony between these spiritual disciplines, and I personally don't see any reason why one can't identify with both while being predominately engaged with one or the other.
I don't underestimate kids, or teens, either. But overall they tend to see the world in very black and white terms, that's all I was saying. My 16 year old is quite intelligent, but ask him what he thinks about certain topics and it's "this is wrong, and this is right. Period. End of story." Because that is just how he thinks on certain topics in which his only experience with them is from his text books. As he goes through life and meets people who experience these things, his views will likely evolve. He might keep that exact view, but his reasons for keeping them will likely be much different than they are now.
But, oops, the Buddhist Wheel Of Law doesn't always have 8 spokes!
Young people bring something to situations that are often different than what adults bring to the same situations. For example, at our school we always had a student -versus- faculty basketball game each year. Two-thirds of the time the faculty team won, but one-third of the time the students won. The students had energy and agility and enthusiasm on their side, while the teachers had wisdom and more of a team-concept on their side. But despite different attributes, they all played on the same court with the same rules.
He went in and hit the motherlode. See also Dom John Main and Father Thomas Keating.
As a christian, i went to church on sundays, read the bible,
pray to god n jesus, and tried to convert others.
I have outgrown all that.
Chirstmas Humphries.
I am not suggesting that Christmas Humphries should serve widely as a role model however.
WHy can't you believe in heaven and hell and samsara and nirvana at the same time? Aren't they the same thing? Is samsara not hell of our own creation (as I recall one or two Popes ago this was given as one interpretation), and is Nirvana not heaven, the end of suffering?
I also agree that it's not too hard to see where the two faith traditions meet, and that they are not completely mutually exclusive, as some may suggest.
However, I think it's a bit problematic to use Thomas Merton, HHDL, Thich Nhat Hanh, and others as examples of individuals who were able to successfully integrate both traditions. They were ordained in their own faith tradition, while exploring the value of the other. This is different from being a Christian and ordaining as a Buddhist monk or vice versa, which is what the original post was about.
Few of us on NB disagree that there is value to be found in all spiritual traditions. But I would say that seeing value in something is completely different from having the kind of deep relationship and faith that is required in monasticism.
And I think we can too.
In time, perhaps!
For what it's worth, I don't mean that it's impossible to be able to be a deeply faithful Buddhist and Christian at the same time... but I do think that it can be challenging and provide a unique set of obstacles that - given the individuality of the practice - may be difficult to surmount. With "Just Buddhism" you can seek the advice of Buddhist teachers, likewise with "Just Christianity." But it would be more difficult to find teachers who can offer advice on facing challenges that one may face walking both paths at once.
Who said we're not talking about that?
It depends what you think an organization (for wont of a better term) is.
For example, is America Barack Obama, 100 Senators, 435 members of the House Of Representatives, and 9 Supremes -- or -- is America 314 million + people?
Is Catholicism the Pope and the cardinals? Or is Catholicism the almost 1.2 billion people who self-identify as Catholic?
And if you're going to say that an organization is only the leaders who dictate power, then I guess Buddhism is the Dalai Lama, the head abbot of the Supreme Sangha in Thailand, and a handful of other elite monks throughout the world. I thought it was Siddhartha and you and me and all the people who practice Buddhism in one form or another.
The church itself is beautiful, in many ways simpler and more intimate than others I've visited, emitting a friendly and welcoming atmosphere, yet still fully capable of giving rise to feelings of reverence and solemnity. I really like Eastern Orthodox churches, not only because of their beautiful iconography, but because of some of the symbolism underlying them as well. Some of them (like the one depicting Jesus' descent into Hades, for example) are quite philosophically complex, and I find them intriguing to contemplate, not unlike Christian koans in a way. The concept of theosis is also appealing to me, i.e., the idea of trying to emulate the life of Jesus, and genuinely putting into practice his teachings on forgiveness, generosity, renunciation, and unconditional love in order to become more god-like, to become one with the best aspects of our humanity and share a deep sense of communion with one another.
Of course, there are certainly many Christian ideals and theological aspects that I don't like and will probably never agree with; but I respect Christianity and the Christian community for what it is or potentially could be to people. It's a guiding light in times of darkness, and a source of comfort and a place of refuge in difficult ones. It's a journey towards wholeness for those who feel incomplete. It's a celebration of life and happiness in a world filled with sadness and death. It's a philosophy, a riddle, a vehicle for gnosis. And deep down, it can be characterized by one simple commandment, which Jesus gave to his Apostles at the Last Supper: love one another.
It's hard not to appreciate this commandment and the spirit it was given, or the people who sincerely endeavor to follow it. It speaks to the salvific power of love, and reflects the idea that there's something special, something divine, in our interactions with other people—an idea that's mirrored in Bible passages such as, "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love," and echoed by Church Fathers like Augustine of Hippo: "Once for all, then, a short precept is given you: Love, and do what you will: whether you hold your peace, through love hold your peace; whether you cry out, through love cry out; whether you correct, through love correct; whether you spare, through love do you spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good."
Happy Easter/second week of Lent, everyone.
I have a sense that our mystics have moved beyond conventional aspects of accepting the things you have mentioned as being miracles, and have crucified their worldly minds and see and experience things quite differently than you or I. Is the resurrection or rainbow body phenomenon for that matter a real possibility? If we are speaking essentially about the potential of the “Illumined” or “Enlightened” mind and its relation to matter then very much so I think. Once that is a possibility what of everything else anyway?
I think we have to understand, as someone previously pointed out, that within the culture of the Church there are people with varying degrees of understanding and dispositions. This culture not only exhibits correct teachings of the Church, but also heterodox and alien influences. It will always be a mix of the two, and though it is confusing at times we must be careful not to take alien ideas from some zealots as the teachings of the Church, and must become responsibly aware of what the Church actually teaches on matters.
One such alien idea that I have a great issue with is that being gay is a sin. This view is not in accordance with the teachings of the Church, but there are many within the Church culture who hold this view and should be corrected. This view point has become the face of Christianity, including that of Orthodoxy, to those outside of it.
Being a particular person no matter what is never regarded as sin. It is our actions alone that would be regarded as sinful or not. Sin is not seen as a juridical sentence as it predominately is in the West. For the Orthodox it just simply means something that distances oneself from God in their movement towards illumination or deification, and is not something that is a permanent mark on our soul/psyche. The whole beauty in the mystery/sacrament of repentance/confession is through remorseful compunction it is removed along with any psychological burden it may have carried, and when we fall again we get back up again over and over.
Also, we are not to judge or concern ourselves with the ascetic struggle others have with their passions, but only on our own. This is a very significant teaching of the Church, but of course not easy to follow and is the most difficult to overcome. Something we will struggle against until our dying days, and that is why so much importance is placed on it than any other sin.
I almost took Joasaph/Ioasaph as my baptismal name and patron saint, because of the connection with the Buddha, but decided on St Silouan. He put himself below every creature, and shed tears for all sunk in the sea of suffering. That to me sums up both Orthodoxy and Buddhism.
An Orthodox Abbot from a Russian Monastery in America recently visited a Zen Center where they exchanged in dialogue. It is very short, but very to the point.
pszen.org/2011/10/21/russian-orthodox-abbot-tryphon-sits-with-us-and-shares-his-wisdom/
What ever tradition one follows it is the enlargement of the heart is what really matters most. Everything else is ancillary.
Thank you @Jason for sharing your post. St Gregory Palamas is the great defender of the Hesychast contemplative tradition of the Church. My parish is also Antiochian.