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.
"Salvation or Enlightenment?"
Toraldris
-`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USA Veteran
I watched this the other day, and I have to say I learned as much about different types of Buddhism as I did about Christianity, and a lot of parallels between them. It was really eye-opening. I'll not spoil this whole thing for everyone. But I thought it was insightful and thought-provoking, even if I don't agree with a lot of Alan Wallace's personal Buddhist views (but who'd think I would!?). It felt uplifting just to listen to him.
1
Comments
A pleasant fellow. Thanks.
Muy pleasant. Enthusiastic even. I like him, even when I disagree with him. It's a "spirit, not letter" vibe. I feel like I could learn a lot from him.
'Delight in virtue' .....
..... I liked the way he put that.
Look, Aldris, I'll be watching the video in fifteen-minute slots because I'm all over the place, lately.
Why do you disagree so much with him?
I have just watched the first fifteen minutes and I find he makes a perfect synthesis of the different Buddhisms.
I finally understood what Pure Land is, even!
@DhammaDragon Disagree "so much"? I don't... and the things I do disagree with are part of his personal beliefs and/or tradition, not his knowledge about Buddhism or anything. For instance he said he personally believes in Sukhāvatī (Pure Land's "Heaven"), and I'm pretty sure literal rebirth is completely acceptable to him. These are simply differences between his personal beliefs and mine, and that's okay.
I really like Alan Wallace even when I do disagree with him, because he doesn't come off as abrasive or dogmatic in any way whatsoever.
Maybe it was the "a lot" that was too over-the-top, I should've said "a few" or "several".
Yes! That's part of what I loved about this, he explained the "spectrum" of Buddhism so that I could really understand that perspective, which has always seemed alien to me.
I have to view the whole video but it's strange what you mention about him saying he believes in Pure Land's heaven, because Alan Wallace is not Pure Land.
He studied mostly in the Tibetan tradition, under Geshe Rabten here in Switzerland and is very much involved in the Buddhism and Science project with the Dalai Lama.
@DhammaDragon Yeah I thought it was strange too, but our personal take doesn't often match our tradition exactly (assuming we have a tradition).
Pure Land reminds me of Christianity and this pseudo-Heaven enters into the realm of speculation, so no, Pure Land is not my thing.
Reminds me of Christianity too, and too much.
Tibetan traditions have Pure Land components. Mandala paintings usually represent a Pure Land. Sadhanas of Amitabha, Avalokiteshvara, Padmasambhava all incorporate a Pure Land as the subject of those practices are all thought to emanate them.
You'll also find that Tibetan Pure Land practices aren't like the Japanese schools. Japanese Pure Land sects are very Christian-like in their practice and beliefs surround Amitabha and his vow. IN the Tibetan schools Pure Lands are realms of fortunate birth where the deepest and most potent practices can be done with great merit. One such realm is Tushita where all Buddhas reside and teach the Dharma before decending to the human realm to become a Buddha and turn the Wheel of Dharma.
edited out because it's getting too off-topic
On tibetan pure land you see through the spell and then create your own magic.
Yes, I had noticed that Tibetan Buddhism has a sort of Pure Land component.
But a friend of mine, who is Chinese Singaporean, is Pure Land, not altogether Tibetan, rather with the whole Amituofo trappings (she doesn't say Amitabha), and I find it quite extreme.
I doubt it has any similarity with Alan Wallace's branch.
Watching it from the outside, and without being disrespectful, my friend's beliefs are closer to a sect.
Buddhism is a very broad church. Too often people don't explore beyond their own little bit of the big picture.
Another good reason that I haven't fully settled into a tradition. Even now my relationship with Soto Zen is more meditation-based than doctrine-based (and I haven't really started to think of Treeleaf as my Sangha, despite expectations). I want to find out what works and use that... without creating "us vs. them" situations where I'll want to defend "my" tradition or its teachings.
Divisions come about easily for humans, and even for Buddhists. Nationalism, tribalism, religions and sectarianism, and all that jazz. :-/
Of course, but I think sometimes people reject things without really understanding what it is they're actually rejecting.
True true. Likewise people accept things without really understanding what they're accepting.
More reason to love learning. At least I'll be able to better empathize with people who believe! There's always something that I could potentially gain, as long as I'm open to it.
That's why I prefer to remain non-sectarian for the most part.
From my view, the Sangha has never been split.
Salvation or enlightenment, as conversational fodder, so often seem to be compared by people pointing off onto the distance saying yippy-ya-kiya. there they are... way over there. It is amazing that those folks can even see the obsticals that daily life offers right in front of them while focusing so strenuously on what is off on the horizon.
Personally I think that to simply address where ever your next footfall is landing makes more sense than in listening to how others think that a moon or a god can be lassoed.
Enlightenment sounds like me walking the length of the path and attaining something by myself.
Salvation sounds like someone else doing the homework for me.
Salvation feels to me like the cheatsheet of the spiritual life.
Praise the lord! :clap: .
And pass the peas!
Whatever... I just hate the idea of somebody else schlepping my backpack for me.
So it'll be the sweaty path to enlightenment for me.
Agreed! If someone else could fix it, it wouldn't be your/our problem!
If my water pipe breaks, it's a problem for me because it's "my" house and "I" have to deal with the flooding. I can call a plumber to come fix it... but the plumber can't fix the root problem: that I care what happens to that pipe. Had it been someone else's water pipe, it wouldn't have bothered me at all.
There's only so much that anyone can help in this world, and most scantly when it comes to internal mind states and activity.
A bit like these people who go to the therapist for years, only to keep stumbling over the same problems repeatedly all over again.
They don't realize that the process won't work without the internal click.
And the therapist can't do the click for them.
So, Aldris, that's it. At least us two, we can't be saved!
I don't get the water pipe example because there you do need somebody else to fix it.?
@SpinyNorman It was showing that some things can be fixed by others (i.e. the pipe), and other things can not (i.e. my need for the pipe to be fixed). People can't change our minds for us, and that's where our real problem is.
I wasn't trying to be clever or anything, you're probably giving me way too much credit and over-thinking it.
I'm being simple (yes I said that).
There are several suttas about house repair by the way.
.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/search_results.html?cx=015061908441090246348:dj4lxnh4dda&cof=FORID:9;NB:1&ie=UTF-8&q=repairing+the+house&sa=Search&siteurl=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/
One lesson from Christianity that I think many Buddhists would benefit from is that there comes a point when you realise you can't be your own saviour. You need help. Where will it come from?
That's just it though. A so called saviour can only point the way. They cannot walk the path for us.
What else is there to be saved from except our delusions?
That's a good point. I am trying to understand Christian perspective though, where you rely on a saviour to make it right so to say. Putting aside all sorts of intellectual problems that this position may bring, you cannot deny the power of surrender and it's work in dismantling your own delusions of control and self importance.
My mum's pretty handy with a pitchfork.... :rolleyes: .
Well of course we can be "our own saviour"...! Why do you suppose so many of us gave up on Christianity and turned to Buddhism in the first place - ?!
It appeals to our self-help, individualistic outlook.. You know very well (I presume) that trying to be your own saviour would only take you so far.. It's akin to trying to get enlightened.
It really depends on what you want to be saved from.
Yes it does. Suffering, I suppose.
In Buddhism, suffering comes because of attachment to self.
In Christianity, it comes because of sin, which is separation from God.
Not too different, imo.
Totally different, in my book.
Sorry, but it is.
In Christianity, we're taught to appeal to a Divine Being, one outside of ourselves, 'out there' somewhere. people always look up when considering God,... out in the cosmos....
In Buddhism, it's introspection. Knowing The Mind'. In here. The buck stops within.
So the two attitudes are actually polar opposites.
I'm not sure I agree with that. "Sin" can cause suffering without God being involved at all. Don't you think total atheists feel guilt/suffering?
To make what right?
So, supposing I wanted to get enlightened, do I need a saviour to lead me by the hand instead of treading the mileage myself? How far?
And you look for the answer on a Buddhist forum?
In Buddhism, suffering comes because of attachment to self.
In Christianity, it comes because of sin, which is separation from God.
Not too different, imo.
There is no supposing needed in dharma. Nor in Christianity is Jesus going to answer our suppositions.
Separation from Christ inanity is a requirement in Dharma especially when we are half hearted on both sides of two different paths . . .
. . . however as and when we engage with the life changing requirements of Christianity or dharma as life styles, what then?
Change.
There is as @how often alludes to, a stage of being independent of labels but for now we are mostly cushion squashers here . . .
Que Orio, Metta Lobster :wave: .
In Christianity, there are strands of thought and practice where the Divine Being is not just out there, but in here as well, in fact we are in it. "For in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).
Similarly, in Buddhism you can have a relationship to the Buddha as an "external" being - see Pure Land or praying to your yidam in Vajrayana.
So, to me, it looks like there is more like an overlap here.
Well you could point to ignorance, in this case of God.
Not in Theravada there isn't. Just as there are different denominations, with differing views in Christianity, so are there different schools of Thought in Buddhism.
And if you're going to mention an external Buddha, the Buddhas you mention are not all Buddha.
There's an interesting article by Lama John Makransky which I came about yesterday, which sheds some light on the issues we're discussing here (and much more eloquent than my clumsy arguments):
Buddhist Analogues of Sin and Grace: A Dialogue with Augustine
ABSTRACT:
“By bringing Augustine into dialogue with Buddhist traditions, each highlights aspects of the other in fresh ways.Such comparison also helps uncover ways that Christians and Buddhists have drawn upon very different resources to address similar religious issues.Augustine's diagnosis of human bondage, the transcendent power that liberates humans so they may delight in the good, and the human link to that liberating power are compared and contrasted with analogous concepts in early and later Buddhist traditions. Active and receptive models of soteriology in Christianity and Buddhism are also compared.”
Yes, some Buddhist traditions are "outward facing", while others look exclusively within. Though I can't think of any Christian traditions that look exclusively within, there always seems to be a residual assumption of other, something transcending the personal.
Sounds like my sort of Mahayana Buddhism . . .
:buck: .
In the synoptic gospels Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of God as being within. Gives a bit of a different perspective.
Well, since we're on a Buddhist site, I find the Buddhist perspective more relevant.
In the "Questions of King Milinda" we find an interesting quote about brushing metaphysical ponderings aside, and concentrating on the here and now :
"Not far from here do you need to look!
Highest existence — what can it avail?
Here in this present aggregate,
In your own body overcome the world!"
That's a very generalist - and inaccurate - view of what all Christians think. The 'God within' is also a common theme in Christianity. Luke 17:21 refers.